Shooter charged with first degree murder, videos seem to show self defense

[neededausername]

There was recently a shooting in my town. The shooter has been charged with 1st degree murder, however after reviewing videos made public many in the community say it looks like self defense.

The shooter was being chased in a car by another man in a car, who the shooter was having an affair with his wife. The shooter pulled up to the police station and got out of his car. The other man got out of his car and charged the shooter, who then fired 4 times and killed the man. The shooter then immediately turned himself into police.

This has sparked quite the debate where I live and wanted to get everyone's opinion on if they think the shooter was justified. I'm conflicted on this personally because I don't think he should have ever got out of the car. Reports say he had called the police and let them know he was coming, I think he should have tried to circle the police station until they were able to assist him. However since he was being charged by an angry man I can see the need to protect himself.

I'm going to post a link to the article and police station videos.
WARNING ONE OF THESE VIDEOS SHOWS THE SHOOTING AND A MAN BEING KILLED. PLEASE DON'T WATCH IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT.

http://thecabin.net/news/local/2010-07-19/waller-charged-first-degree-murder-aggravated-assault

I asked a moderator if it was okay to post this content and was told it would be okay as long as we stay on topic. Again if the content of the video bothers you please don't watch.

 

[PovRayMan]

Wouldn't 1st degree murder need to show that there was clear intent and planning to kill another person? If being charged at all wouldn't this fall under manslaughter?

 

[speaksoftly]

If convicted

are the two boldest words in the whole article.

 

[killchain]

I would say that the shooter acted in self defense. I'm not saying one way or another if he "justly acted" in self-defense. If that makes sense.

Would I have done that if some guy rolled up on me like that? Probably.

I wouldn't have been doing something like the shooter was doing in the first place (sleeping with his wife.) So I think in most cases, had that happened to me, it would have been some random guy.

He did, however, surrender to police directly after. So that says to me either a) He believed he was justified or b) he knew he was in deep trouble.

Some DA who wants that gun to take everyone down with it would say that "the assailant tried to flee" because I believe he turned around.

But maybe he was recoiling from the wound. I can't really tell.

 

[speaksoftly]

But maybe he was recoiling from the wound.

Looks like he took a shot or two before he turned. Hard to see though as you stated.

 

[neededausername]

One of the reasons that some people here are saying it was premeditated was he just bought the gun the day of the shooting. To me that says he was scared and wanted protection. Some in the community are saying he bought it with the intent of murder not defense.

 

[Gouranga]

Not sure about 1st degree the best legal definition I found was:
" In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.

To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life. "

So they must prove he premeditated it (maybe pulled the gun out and intended to ambush him at the PD is their premeditation argument), and malice, which is not tough, after all you did shoot center mass.

The videos could be taken either way. I could not see if the "victim" has a weapon or not from the video. I know in NC a few things would come into play as to whether it could be self defense or not. First, who was the original instigator? Second, would a reasonable person in the shooters place believe they were in danger of death, or serious physical injury. If the victim did not have a lethal weapon visible then in NC the shooting would not be justified. You would only be able to use "soft hands", fists, baton, pepper spray, etc but not lethal force.

I would be curious to know how they got 1st degree murder from this.

 

[Mags]

I am sorry but I think we are all to quick to go for our guns. The shooter looked to be a young man with no physical handicap the victim is of the same stature. The victim had no weapon that could be seen, so I think grave bodily harm was out of the picture. Looked like what would have ended as a fist fight has ended in murder. I CC everyday but I would rather take an ass whooping than an unarmed man's life.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Everyone knows that the worst murders are the ones where the murderer gets the victim to chase him to a police parking lot and then kills him after the victim charges the murderer.

I wish people had more common sense. This reminds me of that case where that guy used a Ruger AC556 in self defense and got charged with murder.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I would be curious to know how they got 1st degree murder from this.

It seems to me, and just guessing like the rest, that they may be considering the actual shooting as the CONTINUATION of a fight started elsewhere, not a standalone incident.

There isn't enough information in the shooting video to make any judgments.

If that video stands alone it looks like self defense, but what led up to that moment is important. Horrible thing that's for sure.

 

[neededausername]

The fact they went straight to 1st degree and not something lower could have to do with the town I live in. It's pretty quiet here and murders aren't very common. If you read the daily crime report it's usually a little bit of vandalism, maybe some stole something off someone's porch, etc. So when something serious does happen they tend to get much more worked up than in a bigger city with more crime.

 

[rbernie]

The video doesn't show a clear escalation (the 'assailant' seems to be immediately shot before any protracted face2face confrontation could occur), and I wonder if that is the key to the charge. In other words, there was not enough time for the shooter to determine the intent of the assailant or the disparity of force (two against one) if the confrontation on the video occured in a vacuum.

However, if the video is seen as a continuation of an earlier event then it would actually seem to support a claim of self-defense moreso than it hinders one.

 

[CoRoMo]

Looked like what would have ended as a fist fight has ended in murder.

I wish I could also tell the future. Of course there is no way in the world to kill a person with your bare hands and obviously since no weapons can be seen on the attacker, he has none that can't be seen.

 

[Sam1911]

The victim had no weapon that could be seen, so I think grave bodily harm was out of the picture. Looked like what would have ended as a fist fight has ended in murder. I CC everyday but I would rather take an ass whooping than an unarmed man's life.

There is no such thing as a safe fight. Any violent altercation between adult human beings can result in grave boldily harm. People who take an "ass whooping" often die, or lead lives with reduced mental or physical capacity due to their injuries.

I CC every day (that I legally can) and I will avoid a fight at every opportunity. But if it comes down to shoot or be assaulted, there is no question.

As to the subject of this video, hard to say. There are some things that he could have done differently which would have delayed the attack until he could get police assistance. (Keep driving and communicate with the dispatcher -- give patrol officers a chance to use their vehicles to intervene.) But engaging in "mutual combat" (i.e.: voluntarily entering into a fist fight) sure isn't one of them.

Of course, heading into the PD and giving himself up would seem to help his case.

 

[Fish Miner]

Not sure if you all watched the vid- I feel really bad for the lady who got in the white car prior to the shooting. Reminds me of what my wife does, gets in car, turns on AC and plays with phone till she is ready to leave. This lady was trapped and in the line of fire. Not sure what I (or my wife) would have done were we in that position.

Personally I think he should have stayed in the car. if the (dead) guy has a gun you shoot through your window or back up and escape. do not get out of your car and defend/attack. my .02

 

[ccjcc81]

Wow, tough call. I'm leaning towards maybe he should have just taken his beating?

 

[ny32182]

I am sorry but I think we are all to quick to go for our guns. The shooter looked to be a young man with no physical handicap the victim is of the same stature. The victim had no weapon that could be seen, so I think grave bodily harm was out of the picture. Looked like what would have ended as a fist fight has ended in murder. I CC everyday but I would rather take an ass whooping than an unarmed man's life.

Keep in mind that virtually everything in this thread will be speculation and highly dependent on state laws, so I'll throw mine in too...

Grave bodily harm and worse is done with fists all the time. A fight is a fight. It isn't a game. The only goal is to win. You have no way of knowing that the alternative to winning will "only" be "an ass woopin".

Also, I'm not sure that anything that happens before is really all that relevant. If they have on video, the guy retreating/attempting to break contact and being charged, then immediately prior to that point, no one's life was in danger, assuming the shooter had not just kidnapped the shootee's kid or something completely beyond the known info.

 

[Mags]

There is no such thing as a safe fight. Any violent altercation between adult human beings can result in grave boldily harm. People who take an "ass whooping" often die, or lead lives with reduced mental or physical capacity due to their injuries.

Agreed. That is one benefit us civies have in an assault: no use of force pyramid just esacalate to stop the act.

RBernie's post

The video doesn't show a clear escalation (the 'assailant' seems to be immediately shot before any protracted face2face confrontation could occur), and I wonder if that is the key to the charge. In other words, there was not enough time for the shooter to determine the intent of the assailant or the disparity of force (two against one) if the confrontation on the video occured in a vacuum.

However, if the video is seen as a continuation of an earlier event then it would actually seem to support a claim of self-defense moreso than it hinders one.

comunicated more effectively as to what I was trying to say.

But on the moral compass of things to screw a man's wife and then shoot him as he confronts you is just plain wrong. There should be a law against that.

 

[neededausername]

ny32182, there was no kidnapping. In fact the kids of the guy who was killed were in the car with his wife when he was shot. Making this tragedy even worse.

 

[acdodd]

He feared for his life.
He had been chased to the police station and attacked.
I would not have waited to see if I got shot or stabbed before I defended myself.
I hope he walks.

 

[ny32182]

Yeah, the fact that the guy was willing to attack in a police station parking lot of all places should be telling something about his mental state/thought process at the time.

 

[Phydeaux642]

Wow, tough call. I'm leaning towards maybe he should have just taken his beating?

Well, I'm not taking a beating if I can avoid it. Maybe I would have driven around the station a little longer, but I'm not going to let someone beat me. I remember when I was a kid I saw a fight between two adult males with one beating the others head against the asphalt. I still remember that sound and I am not going to willingly let that happen to me.

 

[Zoogster]

Looks like self defense to me.

A guy angry that some guy is having an affair with his fiancee chases the other individual throughout the town, and then pulls up clearly intent on a confrontation even at the police station parking lot.

There is no shots until the fiance arrives at the door of the other car.

It is absolutely clear from the way the fiance in the gray SUV parks that he has only one thing on his mind: Getting the person who was having sex with his wife.
That is the type of situation that results in serious injury or death quite often.
The individual had very real reason to believe he was facing a serious risk of imminent death or serious bodily injury.

In such fast paced situations it is also hard to tell if the other guy has a weapon, has a gun, some blunt object etc
All he knows is the guy chased him all over town, clearly angry and wanting to harm him, and then even when the individual does all he can to avoid confrontation and even goes to the police station the angry individual does not even park properly (which shows just how clouded his thinking is) and runs out to him.





So in that specific situation the shooter was certainly validly in fear.
The woman's story is all over the place, and how much is true and how much she is making up after the fact is not clear.
I would certainly say that first degree murder as the charged offense is uncalled for.
First degree murder is planning to kill someone beforehand. This was a sudden reaction to a man chasing him all over town and then running up to him after he went to the police station.
Even if he had killed him without being justified it wouldn't be first degree murder.


So it should be self defense, and the shooter was clearly not engaged in another crime at the time because he had fled all over town trying to get away from his pursuer. So he should qualify for self defense, but additional details to the story seem to be clouding the application of the law.
Even if he had been harassing the woman or trying to get back together with her before she married her new fiance (not unheard of for an old boyfriend to try and convince his old girlfriend to not marry someone else), he had fled and did all he could to avoid the confrontation by going to the police station after being chased through town.

The victim had no weapon that could be seen, so I think grave bodily harm was out of the picture. Looked like what would have ended as a fist fight has ended in murder.

I don't know about that. Homicide or serious bodily injury happens quite often at the hands of an angry husband or boyfriend. A guy angrily chases you all over town, even after several minutes of chasing you he has not calmed down enough to stop chasing, and then as soon as you stop he does not even park in a spot and gets out and runs towards you in a blur?
Does he have something in his hand, a gun in a holster or waistband, if he attacks you and knocks you down or out will he stop or stomp your head into the ground until you die, choke you to death, or run you over? Will he beat on you until you fight back or get the upper hand and then whip out a pistol and shoot you?
Will he stop if he gets the upper hand or continue to do serious damage or kill you?
The attacker has clearly demonstrated he is dangerous by chasing you all over town, and there is no reason to think he will suddenly become more reasonable and less dangerous after just beating on you.


Grave bodily injury happens very quickly in a fight, and nobody knows that was even all it would be. If someone chases another person all over town intending to hurt them I would say they are very unpredictable and dangerous. The benefit of the doubt would go to the person who has been chased all over town, and then even goes to the police department, and is still attacked.


What this really demonstrates is how lucky the guy is that there was cameras. The girlfriend of the shot individual paints a totally different scenario than the video footage.
Without the camera footage this discussion would not likely even exist, and the shooter would have likely just been tried and convicted. Another person doing life in prison or on death row. Instead he has a fighting chance to beat the charges because it was all caught on video.

 

[JoeSlomo]

Everyone knows that the worst murders are the ones where the murderer gets the victim to chase him to a police parking lot and then kills him after the victim charges the murderer.

Based on the video evidence alone, I don't see "murder", it looked more like a man defended himself from the attack of another.

 

[Gouranga]

Does anyone know the specific statute for use of lethal force in Arkansas? What is the measure of law there as far as this is concerned? I know in NC he would not be justified, however, that was not NC and likely has different standards.

IMO, yeah he was defending himself. However, it "appears" he shot an unarmed man. An man who was charging him, but as has been posted, he did not need to get out of the car, he could have employed less lethal means "pepper spray", baton, etc. Yeah lots of speculation here but does anyone have the Arkansas statute handy?

Found it http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/bureau/Publications/Arkansas Code/Title 5.pdf page 122