coldshot03/04
member
This was ruled Justified.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/137620_jeffries02.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/137620_jeffries02.html
Last edited by a moderator:
What do you think of this?
- Thread starter coldshot03/04
- Start date
- Status
coldshot03/04
member
Well this site didnt work right. The article can be seen at ktog.org, The Counter "Whats your Opinion"" posted by Luno. Interesting read but I just cant understand this law.
(fixed the link)
Mother seems to want vengeance, not answers. The answers are clear:
1. Shooter probably acted excessively, but it's not clear he acted illegally.
2. Don't hit people over the head with bottles. (assuming they're glass)
Mother seems to want vengeance, not answers. The answers are clear:
1. Shooter probably acted excessively, but it's not clear he acted illegally.
2. Don't hit people over the head with bottles. (assuming they're glass)
Mike Irwin
Member
My take?
It's outside of self defense.
It's outside of self defense.
It says in the article the kid who got shot had several run ins with the law, had stolen a car and was involved with drugs but was getting his life back together.
He was at a party underage drinking getting his life back together and smashing bottles on peoples heads.
He was at a party underage drinking getting his life back together and smashing bottles on peoples heads.
jimpeel
Member
Quite a few years ago, I threw down on a guy one day who puffed up and advanced on me with something shiny in his hand.
I said "Stand your ground!" and displayed the revolver to which he threw up his hands, said "Oh, God!" -- and displayed the keys he was holding.
If you don't know what the guy has, and you think it is a knife or other sharp object held closely in their hand, you could lay them low for a set of keys. The fact that this guy backed off saved him -- and posssibly me as well. This happened in Anaheim, CA. Not the best place to get in that type of situation.
I said "Stand your ground!" and displayed the revolver to which he threw up his hands, said "Oh, God!" -- and displayed the keys he was holding.
If you don't know what the guy has, and you think it is a knife or other sharp object held closely in their hand, you could lay them low for a set of keys. The fact that this guy backed off saved him -- and posssibly me as well. This happened in Anaheim, CA. Not the best place to get in that type of situation.
LiquidTension
Member
After reading that article, it seems that the guy should not be charged. A few things occurred to me:
1) The guy had a legit reason to go back towards the house - to get his cousin. This coupled with...
2) The deceased had no legit reason to come out of the house if the two guys were leaving.
...makes me think that there was plenty of reason for the shooter to believe his life was in danger. The other thing...
3) Just because they didn't find a knife on the guy, didn't mean it wasn't there. Just because witnesses don't recall any knife DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T THERE. The guy was at a party with a bunch of his friends - people that would move the knife to protect him or to get his killer put in jail.
I'm not saying that these things above are what happened because I wasn't there and don't know. The point is, these things COULD have happened. That means that a prosecutor would not be able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the shooter was not acting in self defense. Any decent defense lawyer could bring up any of these things in court, and the only thing that would happen is the shooter would have to pay for a lawyer and be hassled with a trial.
I think the reason that the prosecutor isn't going to trial is that he knows he won't be able to prove murder, so there's no reason to waste time with a trial.
I'm not a lawyer, I could be entirely wrong about all this
1) The guy had a legit reason to go back towards the house - to get his cousin. This coupled with...
2) The deceased had no legit reason to come out of the house if the two guys were leaving.
...makes me think that there was plenty of reason for the shooter to believe his life was in danger. The other thing...
3) Just because they didn't find a knife on the guy, didn't mean it wasn't there. Just because witnesses don't recall any knife DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T THERE. The guy was at a party with a bunch of his friends - people that would move the knife to protect him or to get his killer put in jail.
I'm not saying that these things above are what happened because I wasn't there and don't know. The point is, these things COULD have happened. That means that a prosecutor would not be able to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the shooter was not acting in self defense. Any decent defense lawyer could bring up any of these things in court, and the only thing that would happen is the shooter would have to pay for a lawyer and be hassled with a trial.
I think the reason that the prosecutor isn't going to trial is that he knows he won't be able to prove murder, so there's no reason to waste time with a trial.
I'm not a lawyer, I could be entirely wrong about all this
Graystar
Member
Agreed.
How the hell did they determine that???
At least cops aren't the only ones that get away with this (except, of course, this guy was really defending himself.)
El Tejon
Member
coldshot, it was NOT ruled justifiable. In this case the prosecution, at this time, declined to proceed with a criminal case. HUGE difference.
Why the prosecutor did so? Screwed up invest, witnesses are all mopes, victim is a mope and shooter is not, cousin backing shooter up, etc., et al, could be dozens of reasons.
Why the prosecutor did so? Screwed up invest, witnesses are all mopes, victim is a mope and shooter is not, cousin backing shooter up, etc., et al, could be dozens of reasons.
- Status
