Shooting in Misoula MT

[YankeeClipper]

If you see an artical about it read it and see what you think.The shooter had been robbed twice, and his car had been broken into once. When he caught the kid, the kid ran. The owner shot him in the back of the head.While the kid was alive they charged the shooter with attemped murder. When the kid died they up-graded the charges to murder one. What say you?

 

[Powderman]

Fry the dork. Period.

Clean up the gene pool.

 

[Soap]

Personal ethics for me would feel no sympathy for the deceased provided he was actually guilty of crimes committed. But Dan's personal ethics don't mean nothing in court.

 

[Pendragon]

You don't fry for shootin people in the back.

You fry for shooting people who do not pose an immediate threat to your personal safety.

He just needs a lawyer who can explain why any "reasonable man" would be terrified by a kid running away from them.

Personally, I would proffer that my client believed the kid had just placed a remote controlled bomb and was running to achieve safe distance and that he was going to detonate the bomb any second.

 

[priv8ter]

Hmmm...

Well, I went looking or the story, to find out a bit more, but I came up empty.

If it went down like you say...

Is the kid that he shot the one that committed the 3 crimes against him?

And, even if he is, while part of me says, 'Groovy, the kid will never commit another crime'...a bullet in the back of the head is murder, not self-defence. It is this kind of action that the anti's will point too..."look what happens when people have guns...they take the law into their own hands!"

So...it's murder...and since I am pro death penalty, then yeah, fry him...

Strike that: The guy needs to stansd trial...maybe something will come out at the trial, but he can't just go free. I mean, if I was on his jury, it wouldn't take too much evidence for me to dig in my heals and not budge from 'Not Guilty'

Greg

 

[Dan Morris]

Deadly Force cleary states that when the perp is running away, they are no longer a threat.Like it or not, ya can't pop em in the back!
Dan

 

[YankeeClipper]

It's a tough call eather way you look at it. I still remember Benard Getz. Where does civility and start and stop. No information if the kid had been the one who robbed im befor or not. We live in a town north of Missoula that is over staffed with police and they never leave the station except when they have to.Maby a little extra patroling the neighborhood would have helped. There again we can't go around shooting people without reason, who knows when it might be our turn. The Missoula Sentenal is the paper if you care to follow the case.

 

[Chris Rhines]

I say: This is what happens when you start thinking that just because you carry a gun, you are imubed with some kind of special power to go out and fight evil.

Morally, I have no problem with shooting a thief (in the back if that's the only target of opportunity.) But I doubt that the court will share my philosophy. The shooter should have known better, and as such I have little sympathy for him.

- Chris

 

[Kinsman]

Not good.
As stated before, the threat was diminished, and no matter how much this kid deserved it, he was leaving the scene. This guy is gonna lose.

Besides, shooting a guy for breaking into your car? I would try to arrest him, and call the PD.

 

[cratz2]

Personal opinion, you shoot to stop a person or animal from possibly causing damage to you or you family/loved ones in the present or immediately forseeable future. A kid running away from a scene, unless someone in your family is shot/beat/cut/stabbed and left for dead, is not acceptable. In my way of thinking.

On the other hand, when you chose to break the law, you should be certain of the thinking of the person against whom you are acting. So, I don't feel a lot of pity for the 'bad guy' that is dea and feel even less pity for the 'other bad guy' that will no longer be able to legally possess or carry a firearm due to his poor decision making abilities.