Deltaboy1984
Member
Rage can get you killed. I hope the young man gets off. He did all he could do in this case.
Sad all the way around very very sad!
Sad all the way around very very sad!
Shooter charged with first degree murder, videos seem to show self defense
- Thread starter neededausername
- Start date
- Status
memphisjim
Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2008
- Messages
- 1,265
i have to say self defense
being in the police parking lot didnt stop the guy from some very agressive actions
what do you think happens if he gets to the camaro guy
and another agressor is right behind him
being in the police parking lot didnt stop the guy from some very agressive actions
what do you think happens if he gets to the camaro guy
and another agressor is right behind him
Again, I don't know how the Arkansas laws work, but if there is a duty to retreat then you typically have to retreat until there is no other reasonable option other than deadly force or until the duty to retreat no longer applies legally--in some states you are not required to retreat if you are in your own house or once you have retreated into your house.
IF there was a duty to retreat then the shooter would have to prove that there was no reasonable way to withdraw from the situation and that deadly force was the only option. The shooter's car was not blocked in so he could have simply driven away. So again, if there was a duty to retreat then he did not carry it out.
Impureclient
Member
IdahoLT1: Here you go. Why it isn't murder but manslaughter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
Even though its Wiki, it explains it pretty well in the first paragraph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter
Even though its Wiki, it explains it pretty well in the first paragraph.
Ridgerunner665
Member
Well said...and VERY true.
Am I understanding this right?
The husband was the one who got killed...if so, the shooter is guilty in more ways than one. He should be convicted, right along with the wife...
Actually, it's nothing yet.Impureclient said:
He's only been charged. Presumably it's still under investigation. If he goes to trial, he'll no doubt claim self defense. If he is tried for murder, the jury will no doubt be instructed on the lesser included offenses: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter.
The jury will have the opportunity to convict for murder or for voluntary manslaughter or for involuntary manslaughter. Or the jury will have the opportunity to conclude that the homicide was justified (as self defense) and acquit. The jury will make its decision after having heard all of the evidence brought out at trial by both the prosecution and the defense, as well as all the arguments of both the prosecution and the defense.
If he goes to trial it will be only after the jury has spoken that we can know if he is guilty and, if so, what he is guilty of.
Ridgerunner665
Member
Thats just it...the jury.
They'll see a guy that killed an unarmed husband who had EVERY right to be angry...the shooter is toast, and rightfully so IMO.
They'll see a guy that killed an unarmed husband who had EVERY right to be angry...the shooter is toast, and rightfully so IMO.
martialartsblackbelt
Member
ok i gotta interject. manslaughter implies he was committing a misdemeanor and some one died as a result. the best thing that could happen to this guy
(if the DA dosent decide to drop all charges) is for them to try him for murder 1.
as many of you pointed out, its going to be hard to PROVE pre-mediation.
the jury would have to find him not guilty.
(if the DA dosent decide to drop all charges) is for them to try him for murder 1.
as many of you pointed out, its going to be hard to PROVE pre-mediation.
the jury would have to find him not guilty.
Nope, that is not necessarily what manslaughter is. Basically the way the degrees of criminal homicide break down is as follows:martialartsblackbelt said:
- Murder in the first degree is intentional, premeditated homicide with malice.
- Murder in the second degree is intentional homicide with malice, but not premeditated.
- Voluntary manslaughter is intentional homicide without malice.
- Involuntary manslaughter is homicide resulting from willful, wanton or reckless conduct.
Of course, the details will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and in every jurisdiction there will be a lot of case law discussing the various types of acts or behaviors that will distinguish one from the other. But the the foregoing is a decent, general "rule of thumb."
And no again. As I mentioned earlier, the jury would most likely be instructed in lesser included offenses (i. e., murder in the second degree, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter). Therefore, if the jury decides, for example, that the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury could still find, perhaps, that the prosecution has still proved malice; and therefore the jury could convict on murder 2.martialartsblackbelt said:
Consider, for example, the recent Mehserle case in California. The jury was given the choice of murder 2, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. They found no malice or intent, but they found recklessness; and they therefore convicted on involuntary manslaughter.
I agree the shooter was in the wrong for sleeping with the man's wife, but I don't see how this can't be seen as a self defense case. The man that was shot chased the shooter down after learning that his wife had an affair with the shooter. I doubt the man chased the shooter down to thank him and give him a big hug. Self defense is applicable imho because he was in fear of loss of life and serious bodily injury. Many people have been seriously injured over less without a weapon being involved.
ccsniper
member
Not in AR, if you feel great bodily harm use of deadly force is permitted. I know in some states the attacker must be armed in some way but her in AR a physical attack in which you feel great bodily harm, you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself. My uncle was involved in a shooting in which he shot his son-in-law and it was considered justifiable. The son-in-law was unarmed.
ccsniper
member
Actually the shooter doesn't have to prove anything. He can just sit there, proving his guilt relies on the prosecution. IN this case, I can't see anyone 100% positive that this was murder or even manslaughter and therefore would have to acquit.
If the video is allowed in court, then people will see a man race into a parking lot with an SUV in quick pursuit and a man jump out and charge toward a man who has a gun and fires.
It doesn't work that way if the defendant is claiming self defense. If claiming self defense, the defendant must put on at least a prima facie case, i. e., the defendant must put on sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could infer the satisfaction of each element necessary to establish justification for the use of lethal force under the applicable legal standard.ccsniper said:
rm86
Member
Too bad they can't charge the girl for manslaughter, the whole situation is her fault anyway. It always suprises me how men who are cheated on take out their anger on the other guy, and not the woman whom they trusted and were betrayed by. If someone else is hooking up with your girl your problem is with the woman with whom you've choosen to be in a relationship with, leave the guy alone it's your girlfriend who screwed you over.
I have heard that sound a few times and it IS one of the worst ones out there.
On topic though This guy will probably go to trial but I don't see him serving any time. I am very anxious to hear more about what happened before they got to the station though, makes one wonder what REALLY happened.
macadore
Member
Stone her!!!
What you seem to be doing here is giving the husband absolute moral superiority, up to and including the right to possibly kill the shooter.
You are simultaneously depriving the right of the shooter to defend himself against a potentially deadly attack by an enraged individual, just because this individual had a good reason to be enraged, which is not the same as having the right to execute or even physically attack somebody.Now let's play the what-if game. What if the husband had killed the shooter (who would probably not be referred to as the shooter, in that case)? He most likely would have been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, given the circumstances, but in your view should he have been acquitted because he was so grievously wronged (something worse than murder, I guess
)? Now what if we learned that the shooter, who is dead for the sake of argument, didn't even know that the wife was a married woman while they were in a relationship? This would make him innocent, and in your mind would it be right to deprive him of his natural right of self-defense in that case?What we're also dealing with here is the notion that the only person who is responsible for his actions is the shooter because he had an adulterous affair with a married woman that he may or may not have had knowledge of at the time, as far as we know, while the husband is being viewed as a force of nature who bears no responsibility for what he does.
In reality, it is always dangerous to pursue and attack another person, and legally a civilian only has the right to kill in defense of their own life or the lives of others, not to punish somebody who wronged them.While I totally disagree with your take on this situation, I have to concede that in the end you may be right about the jury. Like many people in general, they may not believe in the individual right of self-defense, especially when evil firearms are involved. Maybe they'll allow the prosecution to demonize the shooter, and then convict the shooter of a crime he did not actually commit simply because they're offended that the husband was killed by a person who had wronged him in some way. I've seen worse verdicts handed down by juries.
FLAvalanche
Member
I would say this is self defense. I saw that because if I caught someone screwing my wife he'd need to defend himself against serious bodily injury or death.
I think the hardest part for the shooter to defend against is that he got out of his car when the other guy came at him. If he'd stayed in the car and laid on the horn, he'd have been far more justified if the attacker had then tried to get into the car after him (yanking the door handle, breaking a window, etc.) That would have made a solid case of self defense for him. Seeing the other guy come running and getting out of the car with pistol in hand says "fight" a lot louder than it says "self defense."
This has turned into a discussion on the legality of the actions and not on the lessons learned for strategy and tactics.
I agree...but I would hate to be the shooter waiting in the car at the police station and have the husband rush up to my vehicle and shoot me through the window. We don't know if the shooter knew the husband was unarmed. I would be willing to bet a husband who has just found out you were sleeping with his wife would have malice on their mind, if many of us were put in the position of the shooter we would have acted similarly, if not the same.
Seems as if most everyone here keeps referring to the dead man as "husband," and the young woman as "his wife."
According to the report in the link, the two were "engaged" but not married. They did have some illegitimate children between them, but they were not married. I don't know what influence that might have on a jury, but the prosecution will not be able to argue that the dead man had a right to be enraged because the shooter was porking "his wife," therefore his chasing and encountering actions were justified. "Girlfriend" is somewhat different than "wife."
It'll be interesting to see what comes of this incident.
L.W.
According to the report in the link, the two were "engaged" but not married. They did have some illegitimate children between them, but they were not married. I don't know what influence that might have on a jury, but the prosecution will not be able to argue that the dead man had a right to be enraged because the shooter was porking "his wife," therefore his chasing and encountering actions were justified. "Girlfriend" is somewhat different than "wife."
It'll be interesting to see what comes of this incident.
L.W.
Ridgerunner665
Member
Well...if they were not married that changes things.
I have some personal experience with a cheating wife, I know just how mad and humiliated it can make a person...and that the judge in my area is a good man, because my case never made it before a jury. And no...I didn't kill anybody, but he spent 3 weeks in the hospital.
If they were married it changes this considerably...its not just a case of self defense. There are some things you just don't do without accepting the consequences...and sleeping around with another mans wife is one of them.
I'd venture a guess that over time millions of men have been killed over that. I'm all for the right to self defense, but I draw the line just short of using it to get out of a scuffle over adultery. And a good many jurors (and judges) would likely agree with me.
Strategy and tactics...don't mess around with married women. If you do...you will eventually mess with the wrong mans wife.
On the flip side...from the hubby (boyfriend) point of view.
She ain't worth going to prison over, its more her fault than the guys...but beating women is usually frowned upon.
I have some personal experience with a cheating wife, I know just how mad and humiliated it can make a person...and that the judge in my area is a good man, because my case never made it before a jury. And no...I didn't kill anybody, but he spent 3 weeks in the hospital.
If they were married it changes this considerably...its not just a case of self defense. There are some things you just don't do without accepting the consequences...and sleeping around with another mans wife is one of them.
I'd venture a guess that over time millions of men have been killed over that. I'm all for the right to self defense, but I draw the line just short of using it to get out of a scuffle over adultery. And a good many jurors (and judges) would likely agree with me.
Strategy and tactics...don't mess around with married women. If you do...you will eventually mess with the wrong mans wife.
On the flip side...from the hubby (boyfriend) point of view.
She ain't worth going to prison over, its more her fault than the guys...but beating women is usually frowned upon.
Last edited:
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Since we've gotten more into morality than law, let's wait until things progress and see how the charges actually come out of the grand jury proceedings.
- Status
