Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Self defense or murder?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Self defense or murder?

    Discuss.




  • #2
    Self defense.
    Half of history is hiding the past.

    Comment


    • #3
      Self defense, the guy was moving so he made sure he didn't try to shoot first! Now the extra shots, maybe a little bit excessive.
      Wanna see my care face???

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Blakeski View Post
        Self defense, the guy was moving so he made sure he didn't try to shoot first! Now the extra shots, maybe a little bit excessive.
        The one who was shot didn't have the gun.

        Comment


        • #5
          He would have been within his legal rights to kill him in the first place, so lets give him life in prison for doing a proper dead check?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Steve View Post
            The one who was shot didn't have the gun.
            I understand that, but when your in a situation where you facing two guys and you see a gun, you are gonna act on instinct and try to get both of them. Just close your eyes and put yourself in that guys shoes. He had all those women around him and didn't want any innocent people getting hurt.
            Wanna see my care face???

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Blakeski View Post
              I understand that, but when your in a situation where you facing two guys and you see a gun, you are gonna act on instinct and try to get both of them. Just close your eyes and put yourself in that guys shoes. He had all those women around him and didn't want any innocent people getting hurt.
              Understandable about the first shot. But going back 46 seconds later and putting 5 more into a guy with no gun is where it's gets to be a complicated matter.

              Comment


              • #8
                should have just kept shooting the first time.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I see the argument for not guilty. But legally, I understand the jury's view - the immediate threat was eliminated after the first shot (or volley of shots). At the point where the citizen chased after the second suspect, he extended himself beyond just defending himself and innocent third parties and got into chase/aprehend mode. After he gave chase, he returned and popped the kid five times. If the kid was so much of a threat, why did the guy chose to disengage, chase suspect number 2, then return? If suspect number 1 was still enough of a threat to require being shot five more times, the guy should've stayed and covered him instead of chasing number 2.

                  Also, self defense doctrine is "shoot to stop". Once the suspect has gone down, you may not be justified in shooting him additional times.

                  Why did the citizen need two guns? Was he some kind of wanna-be Dirty Harry? Juries take a hard look at intent. Is it normal for a CHL holder to carry two guns or was this guy looking for a chance to kill somebody?

                  I don't agree with a life sentence.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Steve View Post
                    Understandable about the first shot. But going back 46 seconds later and putting 5 more into a guy with no gun is where it's gets to be a complicated matter.
                    My view as well. I call that an execution, not self defense. Had he killed the kid with one shot, self defense, only wounding him and then executing him, then it's murder.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What if the kid was already dead? Is there a law against shooting dead people?
                      David

                      1986 GT

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        He shouldn't have shot him five more times.


                        However, he also looks a few bricks shy of a load in the stress department.

                        I'm betting he was acting accordingly with what he felt the situation needed. I don't believe he should be imprisoned.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          At the end of the day, he would have never been put in that situation if the punk hadn't have broken the law by participating in armed robbery. It's not like the pharmacist initiated anything or went out and shot an innocent kid.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jluv View Post
                            At the end of the day, he would have never been put in that situation if the punk hadn't have broken the law by participating in armed robbery. It's not like the pharmacist initiated anything or went out and shot an innocent kid.
                            Exactly!

                            This guy looks like he is already pained by the idea of killing a person, let alone a teenager. I feel like that is punishment enough to live with that. He really doesn't look like he handles it well.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jluv View Post
                              At the end of the day, he would have never been put in that situation if the punk hadn't have broken the law by participating in armed robbery. It's not like the pharmacist initiated anything or went out and shot an innocent kid.
                              ^^^^^^^
                              Whos your Daddy?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X