Judged by Twelve
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
- Status
Posted by xXxplosive:
That sounds very similar to what convicted murderer Merrill Kimball said:
That did not sway the vote of a single juror.
The problem is, one who has posted such a statement on the Internet has given the state something that could later be used with great effect to indicate the state of mind of a defendant, should the situation arise.
That sounds very similar to what convicted murderer Merrill Kimball said:
That did not sway the vote of a single juror.
The problem is, one who has posted such a statement on the Internet has given the state something that could later be used with great effect to indicate the state of mind of a defendant, should the situation arise.
Posted by Thermactor:
I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say, but here's a little history lesson: that "progressive state law" came over on the Mayflower, and it existed long, long time before that voyage took place.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8962942&postcount=1
I'm not at all sure what you are trying to say, but here's a little history lesson: that "progressive state law" came over on the Mayflower, and it existed long, long time before that voyage took place.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8962942&postcount=1
Just to comment on the three shots being seen negatively against the defendant - there is another case which is similar.
A guy goes to argue with a renter. They get into an altercation. Guy fires two shots, is on the ground and fires a third after several seconds pause. The pause is use to charge him with premeditated murder as the first two were sufficient for defense and last was claimed to be a planned kill shot.
The need to shoot at all was ambiguous, but the third was seen as the clincher.
It is similar to the officer that just shot the running individual. There is a definite pause till the last shot. It was fired in what was seen in a target or competition stance. That implied to some, murderous intent.
All these kinds of aspects have impact on opinions. It washes away as many have said the opening mantra of "If it's a good shoot ..."
You don't know till you have been charged.
A guy goes to argue with a renter. They get into an altercation. Guy fires two shots, is on the ground and fires a third after several seconds pause. The pause is use to charge him with premeditated murder as the first two were sufficient for defense and last was claimed to be a planned kill shot.
The need to shoot at all was ambiguous, but the third was seen as the clincher.
It is similar to the officer that just shot the running individual. There is a definite pause till the last shot. It was fired in what was seen in a target or competition stance. That implied to some, murderous intent.
All these kinds of aspects have impact on opinions. It washes away as many have said the opening mantra of "If it's a good shoot ..."
You don't know till you have been charged.
Arkansas Paul
Member
Let us know how that works out for you in New Jersey. Oh wait, you won't be able to. You'll be in jail.
TimSr
Member
As much as I do not support a duty to retreat, this case is exactly what justifies one. The guy chooses to voluntarily go and engage in a confrontation where he thought he might need a gun, when there was no immediate danger and he could just as easily have stayed in his house and waited for the police. This was not a case that required his intervention to prevent death or injury, and it wasn't like his neighbor was going to escape with his property and never be found.
Using deadly force has nothing to do with whether the person is armed. The general standard across the country is whether a reasonable person would fear for their life or serious bodily injury. The number of shots is irrelevant as the general standard is that you must cease when the threat has subsided.
xXxplosive
Member
Spent over 20 yrs. working in the most dangerous city in NJ and I'm still here to talk about it. Once you reach a certain age in life and your health declines, beatings are out of the question.....I'm not 20 any longer......you youngsters will understand that better later on...fact.
Posted by TimSr:
We have seen first degree murder convictions in Texas, where there is no duty to retreat, after someone has chosen "to voluntarily go and engage in a confrontation where he thought he might need a gun, when there was no immediate danger and he could just as easily have stayed in his house...".
I do not agree with your first sentence, because everything you said afterward applies regardless.
We have seen first degree murder convictions in Texas, where there is no duty to retreat, after someone has chosen "to voluntarily go and engage in a confrontation where he thought he might need a gun, when there was no immediate danger and he could just as easily have stayed in his house...".
A reasonable belief that an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm exists will hinge in large part on the ability and opportunity of the assailant. The presence of a weapon clinches ability. Without it, a disparity of force might become the justification, and as we have seen in some high-profile cases, that can present a difficult argument.
...the determination of which may well hinge on the number and the timing of the shots.
RobNDenver
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2008
- Messages
- 275
Hmm. So the killer is trespassing, at the urging of his wife, who is having a civil disagreement with the victim. The victim tells the shooter to leave, and pushes him to emphasize that request. The killer, still on the victim's property unlawfully, takes out a gun and shoots the property owner.
The macho statements, like "I'm not taking a beating" . . . ignores the fact that the killer started this, escalated this and ultimately murdered the victim.
Tell you what, I am not going to start a fight with someone that could lead to murder. If I have a beef with my tenant, for not paying the rent, or leaving the trash cans outside or playing the music too loud, we are never going to get to the point where I have to defend myself.
Seems like the stubborn old screwball was justly convicted . . since a jury saw it that way.
The macho statements, like "I'm not taking a beating" . . . ignores the fact that the killer started this, escalated this and ultimately murdered the victim.
Tell you what, I am not going to start a fight with someone that could lead to murder. If I have a beef with my tenant, for not paying the rent, or leaving the trash cans outside or playing the music too loud, we are never going to get to the point where I have to defend myself.
Seems like the stubborn old screwball was justly convicted . . since a jury saw it that way.
Gunexpert007
Member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2
Sounds like Maine's duty to retreat law did him in.....he would have been better off just to let LE and the Court deal with the matter rather than engaging in a confrontation over property.....
Officers'Wife
Member
I'm not sure his actions would have been so deemed anywhere. From my take on the article his legal right to be there would be at best questionable. The lawyer types can correct me if I'm wrong but "stand your ground" operates under the philosophy you don't have to retreat from a place you have a legal right to be. When that right is somewhat cloudy...
Unfortunately the words adverse possession keeps coming to my mind. (Please forgive my use of that particular profanity. )
Posted by Officers'Wife:
A statutory or common law provision eliminating the obligation to retreat, if retreat is safely possible, before using deadly force in lawful self defense does not give a person the right to shoot somemone, whether he had gone to see the victim or the victim had come to him, unless all elements of lawful self defense apply.
Do not misunderstand the meaning of the phrase "legal right to be".
A statutory or common law provision eliminating the obligation to retreat, if retreat is safely possible, before using deadly force in lawful self defense does not give a person the right to shoot somemone, whether he had gone to see the victim or the victim had come to him, unless all elements of lawful self defense apply.
Worked for George Zimmerman.
Officers'Wife
Member
Posted by Officers'Wifeo not misunderstand the meaning of the phrase "legal right to be".
A statutory or common law provision eliminating the obligation to retreat, if retreat is safely possible, before using deadly force in lawful self defense does not give a person the right to shoot somemone, whether he had gone to see the victim or the victim had come to him, unless all elements of lawful self defense apply.
The point that was made in the second sentence with the description of "stand your ground." Since Maine is not a "stand your ground" state the point is moot.
I'd add one other thing. It's one thing just to be knocked to the ground, and something else when the attacker starts kicking you while you're down.
Officers'Wife
Member
Zimmerman argued successfully that the concrete sidewalk he was getting his head bashed into was being used as a weapon. Just because something is not normally used as a weapon doesn't mean it cannot be considered one. I vaguely recall my cousin describing a self defense case where the defendant was facing a person armed with a frozen pork chop. The jury found in favor of the defendant.
In this case, a person decided (for whatever reason) to attempt to remove another from a third person's property. Said second person was using the property "openly and famously" and in doing so ordered the first person to leave the property. At that point the only weapon that would have been appropriate would have been a highly trained and vicious attack lawyer.
Last edited:
That's rather silly as a statement as the number of shots will be evaluated for relevancy by the Jury. The prosecution, as I pointed out in one case, will claim that the number of shots, timing and placement indicate evil intent.
There is no 'general standard' that operates as a mathematical algorithm. The statement is a heuristic of questionable value.
Posted by zuman:
A defendant could certainly bring in an expert witness to so testify, should the judge so allow.
The problem is that what one kick "can" mean is likely to not prove sufficient. Rather, what will matter is whether it could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm in the circumstances at hand.
And that will be decided by others based on the totality of the evidence.
Do you some how believe that what "more people" might know would affect the outcome of a trial?
A defendant could certainly bring in an expert witness to so testify, should the judge so allow.
The problem is that what one kick "can" mean is likely to not prove sufficient. Rather, what will matter is whether it could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm in the circumstances at hand.
And that will be decided by others based on the totality of the evidence.
SSN Vet
Member
You guys need to clarify what you mean by "duty to retreat"
Some states... like MA for instance, will require you to retreat within your own home, either to leave via. a back entrance or go hide in a back room, before you can legally justify shooting a home invader.
Maine is NOT this kind of duty to retreat state, in that you can legally use deadly force in your home (or on your property) with no duty to retreat. (aka Castle Doctrine)
As I understand it, the only states that don't have a duty to retreat in public are the few that have FL style "stand your ground" laws.
You all seem to be interpreting "duty to retreat" = doesn't have "stand your ground"
Where I'm more familiar with the interpretation that "duty to retreat" = doesn't have "castle doctrine".
I know a ME State Police detective very well and he has investigated many, many self defense shootings, and to be honest, this one is the first I've ever seen that has been charged, let alone convicted. Yarmouth has become an upscale bedroom community to Portland, which is Maine's focal point of all things liberal. This may well have gone differently if tried by a "different 12" up north.
Some states... like MA for instance, will require you to retreat within your own home, either to leave via. a back entrance or go hide in a back room, before you can legally justify shooting a home invader.
Maine is NOT this kind of duty to retreat state, in that you can legally use deadly force in your home (or on your property) with no duty to retreat. (aka Castle Doctrine)
As I understand it, the only states that don't have a duty to retreat in public are the few that have FL style "stand your ground" laws.
You all seem to be interpreting "duty to retreat" = doesn't have "stand your ground"
Where I'm more familiar with the interpretation that "duty to retreat" = doesn't have "castle doctrine".
I know a ME State Police detective very well and he has investigated many, many self defense shootings, and to be honest, this one is the first I've ever seen that has been charged, let alone convicted. Yarmouth has become an upscale bedroom community to Portland, which is Maine's focal point of all things liberal. This may well have gone differently if tried by a "different 12" up north.
Last edited:
SSN Vet
Member
this excerpt from about.com
Posted by SSN Vet:
Some states do have statutes that obviate the duty to retreat; in others, the question has been decided by appellate rulings, or common law.
Where the duty does exist, it only exits in cases in which retreat is safely possible.
In most states, there is no duty to retreat from the home; but whether that applies to porches, garages, etc. varies. In some, the law applies also to places in which people work. In some, the law covers occupied automobiles.
In some places, attempts to enter unlawfully are covered by "Castle Doctrines"; in others such attempts must be forceful or tumultuous; in at least one, the invader must have gained entry.
Even the meaning of the term "occupied structure" varies among jurisdictions. In some, someone has to be inside. In at least one, the structure must simply be capable of being occupied
In some states, a person has no duty to retreat if he is attacked in a place in which he or she has a "legal right to be".
In my state (Missouri), the duty to retreat has been eliminated for persons on real property which they personally own or lease. But wait a minute on that one! Legal scholars note that that law is sloppily crafted, and that it may only have to do with what is necessary to present a defense of justification, and that the meaning may well differ depending upon whether the attacker is attempting to get onto the property unlawfully or he has already done so.
Although there are some unsupported Internet comments here and there that allege otherwise, there is a duty to retreat in Maine; that was evidenced by the jury instructions in the case we have been discussing. That duty does not apply inside the home.
Well, not exactly.
Some states do have statutes that obviate the duty to retreat; in others, the question has been decided by appellate rulings, or common law.
Where the duty does exist, it only exits in cases in which retreat is safely possible.
In most states, there is no duty to retreat from the home; but whether that applies to porches, garages, etc. varies. In some, the law applies also to places in which people work. In some, the law covers occupied automobiles.
In some places, attempts to enter unlawfully are covered by "Castle Doctrines"; in others such attempts must be forceful or tumultuous; in at least one, the invader must have gained entry.
Even the meaning of the term "occupied structure" varies among jurisdictions. In some, someone has to be inside. In at least one, the structure must simply be capable of being occupied
In some states, a person has no duty to retreat if he is attacked in a place in which he or she has a "legal right to be".
In my state (Missouri), the duty to retreat has been eliminated for persons on real property which they personally own or lease. But wait a minute on that one! Legal scholars note that that law is sloppily crafted, and that it may only have to do with what is necessary to present a defense of justification, and that the meaning may well differ depending upon whether the attacker is attempting to get onto the property unlawfully or he has already done so.
Although there are some unsupported Internet comments here and there that allege otherwise, there is a duty to retreat in Maine; that was evidenced by the jury instructions in the case we have been discussing. That duty does not apply inside the home.
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
This is an isolated statement. The guy was pushed by a 63 year old man on someone else's property and decided to kill someone after an argument because he was angry. It's not the same thing as being knocked to the ground and "taking a beating".
Perhaps if Kimbill had been knocked to the ground and was taking a beating the jury would have acquitted him or the state might not of charged him.
But the fact is, he wasn't knocked to the ground. He didn't take a beating, and apparently after reenacting the shooting, the prosecutor decided his action wasn't justified.
But the fact is, he wasn't knocked to the ground. He didn't take a beating, and apparently after reenacting the shooting, the prosecutor decided his action wasn't justified.
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
You are correct, and further my point when considering the original post and the context of the reply to it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked