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

[Gouranga]

With that definition from Arkansas law, that is a tough call. I think a reasonable person would assume the husband of a woman you were sleeping around with was going to do you great physical harm. He attempted to retreat, even running to a police station. The victim boxes the cars in and charged him making further retreat impossible.
Given what I see in the video and new story (which is NOT the whole story I am sure) I would see more than enough for reasonable doubt and acquittal of a first degree murder charge as a jury member.

 

[ccjcc81]

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.

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?

I know, I know. But I would hate to risk being separated from my family. That would suck worse than spending the rest of my life in a government prison, but only barely.

I don't know what I would do. I certainly hope I never face that situation. The fact that he slept with the guy's wife is the kicker for me. I'll just remember not to ever do that.

Ever seen the movie "Felon?"

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, it does look like self defense, but as noted, not warranting use of lethal force. I think there is a lot to be said for the fact that the shooter was apparently fleeing to the police station and so he may have been in fear for his life, though at the time of the shooting, lethal force may not have been warranted.

 

[MedWheeler]

What happened to the poor girl who got into the while car, just wanting to leave.?

 

[neededausername]

Well I need to go. I'll keep this thread updated as things unfold if you guys are interested in the outcomes.

 

[Mags]

I think there is a lot to be said for the fact that the shooter was apparently fleeing to the police station and so he may have been in fear for his life,

Not the case, from the news story:

Chris Harris, Childress followed Waller to the police department in his vehicle after the two crossed paths in town. Waller allegedly went to the police department to report an unrelated theft.

 

[Mudinyeri]

... even running to a police station.

According to the story, he was at the police station to report an unrelated theft.

Who knows what the actual scenario was but it kind of sounds like this:

1. Guy A is knocking boots with Guy B's fiance'
2. Guy B finds out about said boot knocking and confronts Guy A (I can imagine what I might have said in such a confrontation.)
3. Guy A decides Guy B is serious and might potentially do him bodily harm because of said boot knocking
4. Guy A goes out and buys a pistol
5. Guy B happens to see Guy A out and about and is still pretty mad about the whole boot knocking thing
6. Guy B decides to have another little chat with Guy A and follows him to the police station

We see what happened next in the video. Now, here's a question ... Is adultery a crime in Arkansas? (Believe it or not, there are still laws on the books that make things as old-fashioned as adultery and sodomy illegal.) If so, that might change things a bit. If adultery is a crime, Guy B just killed Guy A pursuant to his commission of a crime.

Food for thought.

 

[TexasRifleman]

http://thecabin.net/news/local/2010-07-15/police-say-cortez-waller-shot-christopher-childress

Story is changing a lot, as these usually do.

Now it's girlfriend, not wife, and apparently the shooter had followed the girlfriend somewhere earlier in the day.

Probably will change several more times before the real story is known.

 

[Mags]

Thanks for the update TR!

 

[ichiban]

At the very least he is guilty of manslaughter. It was his actions that put the events in motion that resulted in a death. He had many other options that he did not pursue. Was he in fear for his life? Probably. Is he still culpable for what transpired? Definitely. Just like the drunk that climbs into a car. He made some bad decisions will be held accountable. A very serious tragedy all around - lives were ruined and lost that day.

 

[TexasRifleman]

It was his actions that put the events in motion that resulted in a death.

The thing to remember is that usually it doesn't matter whether the shooter was a nice guy or a total scumbag. Sleeping with another guys girlfriend may be sleazy, but it does not mean that one has to allow himself to be attacked without using self defense.

His options seem to be, again pure speculation off of nothing but news reports and a video, to either stay in the car or allow himself to be attacked.


The question I think will come from the speed with which he was prepared to respond with a firearm. Clearly the gun was already out and available before he pulled into the parking spot. That may come back to bite him. "If you had a gun ready and felt you might need it, why did you get out of the car?".

The jury may hang him on how he answers that.

 

[oboe]

I know this will be taken as a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway:

Couldn't the shooter have shot for the leg or something?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Couldn't the shooter have shot for the leg or something?

It's not a dumb question, it comes up a lot since the movies and TV show it often.

From a legal standpoint that doesn't matter. Shooting at someone is deadly force no matter where you aim.

And if someone DOES do that the question then becomes, if you didn't feel like your life was in danger enough to try to stop your attacker immediately why did you shoot at all?

From a strategy angle it's bad because you want to train the way you will fight. Muscle memory is important in training for defensive shooting and you can't trust to be able to make those kinds of adjustments in a life or death struggle. You shoot center of mass until the attack stops. Tactically and legally that's the only way. If it's not time to do that it's not time to pull the trigger.

Shooting for the leg only works in the movies....

 

[Cosmoline]

The husband chased him down and appears to have rammed him, then got out of his car and rushed towards him. I think it's fair in these circumstances to anticipate that imminent grave bodily harm is about to be delivered upon you. So yes the shooting appears fully justified.

At the very least he is guilty of manslaughter. It was his actions that put the events in motion that resulted in a death. He had many other options that he did not pursue. Was he in fear for his life? Probably. Is he still culpable for what transpired? Definitely.

Driving drunk is illegal. Sleeping with someone's wife is NOT illegal. More to the point, there is NO LEGAL CAUSAL CONNECTION between the act of infidelity and the husband's idiotic decision to try to attack the wife's lover. None. Zero. Zilch. So you can forget about claiming that the shooter brought it on by sleeping with the guy's wife. The husband made a series of exceptionally poor choices and paid the price for it. Probably starting with the proposal, though that's also beyond the scope of the law.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Couldn't the shooter have shot for the leg or something?

i had a 28+ year career in LE, was a competitive pistol shooter and have taught handgun shooting across the country and i wouldn't try to shoot someone attacking me in the "leg or something"

it takes a fine marksman to hit a small moving appendage while under pressure, the wounding power of handgun rounds is uncertain under the best of condition. counting on good fortune in shot placement and the your foe's reaction to being shot to stop a threat is well beyond the point of good judgement

 

[9mmepiphany]

Driving drunk is illegal. Sleeping with someone's wife is NOT illegal. More to the point, there is NO LEGAL CAUSAL CONNECTION between the act of infidelity and the husband's idiotic decision to try to attack the wife's lover. None. Zero. Zilch. So you can forget about claiming that the shooter brought it on by sleeping with the guy's wife.

well stated and very accurate. you don't get to beat people (either him or her) for having sex with a person with whom you are having a relationship. it is even arguable if it is cheating, as there is exist no legal bond to be broken until marriage or possibly engagement

 

[Frank Ettin]

All I see is a lot of speculating with minimum information. We know that --

[1] Guy 2 chased and charged guy 1, and guy 1 shot and killed guy 2.

[2] Charges were filed against guy 1, but charges are often filed against the shooter when there's been a homicide. And the charges filed initially are often at the highest degree. Charges can be revised or dismissed as the investigation continues.

[3] And no doubt the investigation of this matter is continuing. There's a whole lot of detail missing from the picture, and no doubt the police are trying to fill it all in.

 

[Rio Laxas]

It appears to me that Childress was using or attempting to use his vehicle as a weapon prior to the shooting.

 

[Red Cent]

Being charged with murder may work out for him. Don't know about the aggravated assualt. When the jury hears this case and are told the charge is 1st degree murder, they will find him not guilty. As stated the story may lead to other/different charges.

Side note: He hit him four times? The first shot was frontal, the second, third and fourth is questionable. The victim turned to his right on the first shot. I would say the fourth hit him when he was on his knees, going down.

Think I would have locked the doors and stood on the horn.

 

[9mmepiphany]

It appears to me that Childress was using or attempting to use his vehicle as a weapon prior to the shooting.

a case could certainly be made for Assault with a Deadly Weapon and i'm sure folks have been arrested for less

 

[macadore]

If I were the prosecuting attorney my first question to the shooter would be, “Since you were in front of the police station, why didn't you lock your doors, lay on the horn, and wait for the police”.

Looks like crime of passion to me (second degree?).

 

[jonmerritt]

This Bs about "They didn't have a weapon, so it wasn't self defense" is pure BS!
A man or woman can kill and maim with there bare hands, they DO NOT NEED A WEAPON TO KILL YOU OR MAIM YOU!

 

[Uncle Mike]

Uh, what exactly did the shooter say to the dead guy to warrant Agg.assault?

Does anybody know?

 

[WCSO]

On the surface the videos look to be a good case for self defense. However I do have a few questions about the way the shooting went down. According to the news release the shooter called the PD to tell them what was happening and that he was on his way to their department. It says it was unrelated to the shooting but he found it necessary to purchase a gun that very day so how do we know it is unrelated? Could it have been "because he was afraid of the husband/boyfriend?)" and wanted to know the laws pertaining to self defense. (Should have found that out before he bought the gun).

You will note that the PIO (public information officer) in the news conference used the term, "taken into custody", not arrested, there is a difference. He said the incident was being investigated and it was too soon for him to have many answers to the reporters questions. He said the information was being gathered and would be sent to the Prosecuter to determine "IF" there would be any criminal charges filed. The OP said the shooter had been charged with first degree murder but I don't see anything from the limited information that indicates any actual charges have been filed.

The definition of homicide is the taking of the life of another human being.
That definition certainly applies to this case regardless of whether the shooter is charged with a crime but it doesn't necessarly mean he committed murder. Most likely the Prosecuter/District Attorney is going to take the case to a grand jury before any charges are filed. The grand jury is just the political way for a prosecutor to relieve himself of negative public opinion. If he takes the case (and he will) to the grand jury and they hand down a "not a true bill" then he is off of the hook and if there is any negative publicity about the incident he can say, "I took it to the grand jury and they didn't see reasonable grounds to prosecute. They said it was self defense.

We don't know what kind of threats the deceased may have made against the shooter or the shooter's frame of mind may have a great deal to do with with the case in determining if there will be any charges. We don't know what the intent or the perceived intent of either the shooter or the victim were at the time the incident went down. Intent can be very difficult to prove because you can't get into the mind of another person to know what their reasoning or intentions were. There are too many varibles that we just don't know at this point.

One of the things that bothers me about the incident is the response by the police. According to the story the shooter was in route to the PD with the other car following him. He was on the phone to the dispatcher, I assume to let them know what was happening. However you will note that the shooter had time to be blocked in by the boyfriend/husband, have a short confrontation, shoot him, go into the PD, look around for someone to surrender to and then go back outside before he was jumper by the police.
It doesn't look like he spent much time to allow for the police to respond before the shooting. I sure hope the OP will keep us updated because I have a lot of questions about just what all happened here.

 

[Impureclient]

Isn't sitting in the car and honking the horn akin to being burgled, backing yourself into a bedroom and then screaming out the window for help? Apparently Arkansas doesn't have the Castle Doctrine but why back yourself into a tight spot?
At what point do you shoot out the from inside a vehicle at an attacker? After they have broken in a window and are reaching inside? I'm not being snarky. Is there a law for this?
That seems the only valid argument here for him to be convicted on. If Arkansas has a law that states you aren't allowed to leave your vehicle under certain circumstances, such as when being attacked by a nutjob, this guy is boned.
The guy shot gave the shooter no time to figure out if he was charging with a gun or knife. Self defense and maybe involuntary manslaughter?