WV man standing his ground, except it wasn't his

[WildCat]

Well the wild west did have fairly serious laws against carrying guns in town. That is what the gun fight at the ok coral was started over. Damn gun grabbing Earps.

Overgeneralize much? Some places had laws against carrying guns, some didn't. Tombstone had no such law until a few months prior to the shootout, but to attribute the gunfight solely to enforcing this law is to ignore the circumstances and history of those involved.

 

[angrysoba]

I think first-degree murder is probably a reach, but two counts of manslaughter at the very least. This guy's facing a long stretch (decades) in the pen.

Just to add to what others have said...

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat????!?!?!?!?

No, that's why he's being charged with murder.

And why this guy is spending the rest of his life in prison.

This is actually different to what Ddrac was saying. He asked that IF it had not been a case of misoverestimating the size of his property, THEN would it have been okay?

 

[fuelair]

I feel a juror has to determine which side is lying the least.

Well and shorter said!!!!!

 

[WildCat]

I'm completely off base that a person only has to be "afraid" and they shoot with impunity.

Why yes you are. You're so far off base, in fact, that you're no longer even in the stadium.

And this explains all those SYG laws being invoked by shooters outside of homes (or in theaters) where people are shooting people for minor altercations and then claiming SYG.

People claim all kinds of excuses why they committed murder, doesn't mean they're not convicted and sent to prison.

 

[fuelair]

Even in states with a duty to retreat (and Illinois is not and never has been one of them) it only applies if you can retreat in complete safety. Therein lies the rub, how can one be certain he can retreat in complete safety? Moreover, how on earth can a prosecutor looking to put feathers in his cap know this? This is why many states never had a duty to retreat, and why many of those that did scrapped it. It added too much uncertainty and vagueness into the law, much simpler if you only had to prove that you reasonably feared for your life and were not engaged in illegal activity at the time. It's slightly more complicated than that, but you get the idea.

Another thing - just to throw this in and muddy life for those who think this is simple AND wonder why I mention prosecutors in it: In the one you are responding to : if the knife guy pulls his knife and you pull your gun and shoot him you are ok in SYG states - so, if you can't run fast ..... But, if you pull your gun and he runs and you haven't shot him, you can be arrested in a large number of places for threatening (I've forgotten the legal term - brandishing, possibly).... that's what got the woman here in Florida who fired the warning shot into the garage - if she had shot him, SYG would have covered her - since she didn't AND admitted she didn't try to shoot him she had actually committed a crime. If you have to draw, you'd better shoot - and if you do not shoot to kill, you had better lie and say you missed. Also a stupid law and a upward looking prosecutor's dream.

 

[WildCat]

This is actually different to what Ddrac was saying. He asked that IF it had not been a case of misoverestimating the size of his property, THEN would it have been okay?

I understood perfectly, no it's not OK to shoot someone for trespassing.

 

[WildCat]

Another thing - just to throw this in and muddy life for those who think this is simple AND wonder why I mention prosecutors in it: In the one you are responding to : if the knife guy pulls his knife and you pull your gun and shoot him you are ok in SYG states - so, if you can't run fast ..... But, if you pull your gun and he runs and you haven't shot him, you can be arrested in a large number of places for threatening (I've forgotten the legal term - brandishing, possibly).... that's what got the woman here in Florida who fired the warning shot into the garage - if she had shot him, SYG would have covered her - since she didn't AND admitted she didn't try to shoot him she had actually committed a crime. If you have to draw, you'd better shoot - and if you do not shoot to kill, you had better lie and say you missed. Also a stupid law and a upward looking prosecutor's dream.

No, it's not brandishing if you draw on someone who is an actual threat. The woman in Florida was charged because she had retreated, and then went back into the house and fired a warning shot through the ceiling/wall (don't remember which) into a room which contained children.

Even with SYG once you retreat to safety you can't go back to confront.

 

[LTC8K6]

But they didn't look black. You'd need a pedigree or a signed confession to put the word "black" to either of them.

I diagnose utter fury that these people (OK it was only one of them) had actually acquired the land he believed should be his, so he shot in that frame of mind.

Rolfe.

The shooter was using a scope, so he got a very good look at his victims. He certainly knew they were black.

The pics of the victims that I have seen are overexposed, washing out their skin color.

 

[fuelair]

What bizarre logic. It seems to me that if you taught people to use the advantage of escaping when it exists, rather than deliberately ignoring it and even intentionally steering the situation toward an inescapable one, they'd never have to worry about being maliciously prosecuted by "politically motivated" DAs because they would have escaped without killing anyone.

This is allowing of course that politically-motivated prosecutors going around laying malicious charges of the sort you claim they do is actually a thing, a claim of which I'm personally rather skeptical. It smacks of the "make sure you drag him inside your house" bravado I've occasionally heard from people talking to each other about ways to kill folks they're not entirely justified in killing.

check the recent case of the Florida woman who fired a warning shot instead of SYGing- I mentioned above. Just the latest I know of. The move the body inside is one I have personally heard two police officers say - and have been told by other persons I have reason to trust (and not NRA types - I'm not either) that they also have been told that by officers. Note: that would really not work all that well for several reasons..... (blood trail, splatter pattern, potentially powder burn area (if inside near door likely would be powder on door frame and wall close to it)).

You also are (not purposively I trust) missing the advice thing. The advice is if you can't safely get past them you should (in a place with the idiot duty to retreat law and criminal penalties attached) move in a way that they move to a position that cannot possibly be said to be one a prosecutor could get away with saying would still allow you an escape (corners for you are excellent) before you shoot them. Since it needs to be VERY clear you could not get out and the prosecutor's hand ARE THEN TIED. If the prosecutor has any way to say you really could have escaped and is as I expect prosecutors to mostly be, then the situation needs, if possible, to be clear that you could not escape with any kind of safety. I love SYG as long as criminals can take no advantage/make no use of it. And I suspect a certain FL someone was likely guilty - though with the evidence they had there was NO way to prove it.

 

[Cylinder]

He asked that IF it had not been a case of misoverestimating the size of his property, THEN would it have been okay?

No. The claim as reported lacks any reasonable threat of death or great injury, lacks immediacy and goes beyond what most people would consider necessary to prevent death or injury. Had the victims in this case been on the defendant's property and no other feature changed, the defendant would still lack these necessary elements. The defendant would have enjoyed a rebuttable presumption of reasonable-ness but, as reported, this claim provides an ample supply of material to rebut that claim.

Even using the facts as we know them now, the location of the property line is the least of problems for this defendant. To my mind at least, the greatest problem is the distance between the defendant and his victims.

 

[Bob001]

....
You also are (not purposively I trust) missing the advice thing. The advice is if you can't safely get past them you should (in a place with the idiot duty to retreat law and criminal penalties attached) move in a way that they move to a position that cannot possibly be said to be one a prosecutor could get away with saying would still allow you an escape (corners for you are excellent) before you shoot them. Since it needs to be VERY clear you could not get out and the prosecutor's hand ARE THEN TIED. If the prosecutor has any way to say you really could have escaped and is as I expect prosecutors to mostly be, then the situation needs, if possible, to be clear that you could not escape with any kind of safety. I love SYG as long as criminals can take no advantage/make no use of it. And I suspect a certain FL someone was likely guilty - though with the evidence they had there was NO way to prove it.

I think we get your point. Here are some concerns. 1/ If you have a chance to escape from an attacker and instead lure him into a corner, there is no guarantee that he won't overpower you. He could move faster than you expect, he could produce a weapon you didn't know about, you could hesitate, your weapon could misfire, you could fire and miss. If you try to run and the guy catches you, you're probably no worse off -- and no less able to defend yourself -- than if you had wasted time playing "Hey! I'm over here!" 2/ Whatever your plan, the cops are still likely to say, "Hey, you ran by this door to get into the corner? How come?" It's hard to make a false story line up with the known facts, especially under stress, and if you're caught in a lie it won't go well. 3/ If your plan works you're still left with killing a human being. You will probably face a civil suit, everyone in your life will think of you differently, and when you learn the name and life story of your attacker you may start to doubt whether you really had to take his life. Personally, to take the recent example, I think GZ got away with manslaughter, but I'll bet he'd give a lot to get back the life he had before he encountered TM, whatever the circumstances.

 

[fuelair]

I think we get your point. Here are some concerns. 1/ If you have a chance to escape from an attacker and instead lure him into a corner, there is no guarantee that he won't overpower you. He could move faster than you expect, he could produce a weapon you didn't know about, you could hesitate, your weapon could misfire, you could fire and miss. If you try to run and the guy catches you, you're probably no worse off -- and no less able to defend yourself -- than if you had wasted time playing "Hey! I'm over here!" 2/ Whatever your plan, the cops are still likely to say, "Hey, you ran by this door to get into the corner? How come?" It's hard to make a false story line up with the known facts, especially under stress, and if you're caught in a lie it won't go well. 3/ If your plan works you're still left with killing a human being. You will probably face a civil suit, everyone in your life will think of you differently, and when you learn the name and life story of your attacker you may start to doubt whether you really had to take his life. Personally, to take the recent example, I think GZ got away with manslaughter, but I'll bet he'd give a lot to get back the life he had before he encountered TM, whatever the circumstances.

Fortunately, my house would allow the having to bypass the door because of it's placement. And shooting the bad guy would not be necessary IF he dropped his weapon on first command anyway - not looking to kill ( the paperwork by itself and the cleanup is a real annoyance). If bad guy is rational, he's arrested and I and wife are fine. If the bad guy comes through the door breaking it open (the noise will be a subtle hint) much of the time he will have two rounds in him before he makes the only turn he can make and that is straight into a barrel (.45 or .44). under just enough paper to hide them from sight at the desk I am typing at. If I turn my head to the right I have a clear view of that area. 14+1 in the .45, top 3 Talons, 5 (it's on an empty as I am untrusting) Talons in it at the moment. Never needed to use them except for target shooting. Doubt I'll ever need to, but I also get checkups even though I don't expect any major diseases in the near future either. And, of course the first aid kit, tool kit and stored (minor, but lights and water and storable food (for a week or so).. like hurricane time.


eta: IF he does not have a weapon, the game is over as soon as he gets in, if he has one he gets shot immediately during the breaking in part. In either case, I do not need to find a corner or any such as Florida and many others now are SYG states - with SYG the problem vanishes.

 

[smartcooky]

<snip> I think GZ got away with manslaughter, but I'll bet he'd give a lot to get back the life he had before he encountered TM, whatever the circumstances.

In a heartbeat I'll bet!!

Shooting someone dead is a life-changing event even if the killer is a victim genuinely defending himself.

When you kill someone, you are highly likely to affect the lives of many, many people. In this case, you have two people gunned down for no reason. Depending on their individual personal circumstances, that will have a deleterious effect on their

wives/partners/girlfriends
children
brothers and/or sisters and their children
parents
grandparents
other relaitives
friends and colleagues

That could extend to 100+ people.

 

[The Don]

What a strange life, to spend so much time thinking and planning for the possibility of being the victim of a violent attack.

This is something I have literally never wasted a second of my thinking time contemplating.

Rolfe.

^ This

As I've mentioned in this thread and in others regarding gun control, my sister-in-law and her husband live their entire life in a state of permanent readiness for an armed attack on themselves and their family. It must be exhausting to be *that* alert all the time.

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

But, if you pull your gun and he runs and you haven't shot him, you can be arrested in a large number of places for threatening (I've forgotten the legal term - brandishing, possibly).... that's what got the woman here in Florida who fired the warning shot into the garage - if she had shot him, SYG would have covered her - since she didn't AND admitted she didn't try to shoot him she had actually committed a crime.

.
OK, let's just take a minute and eliminate this BS from the thread, shall we? The circumstances of this case were COMPLETELY different from what you've stated here.

First of all, this woman wasn't shooting at some unknown intruder, she was shooting at her husband.

Second, she wasn't "defending" anyone. She argued with the husband, went out to her car to get her gun, and then came back in and fired it at him - WITH HER KIDS IN THE ROOM - fortunately missing everybody and everything but a wall and the ceiling. The judge specifically disallowed her SYG claim because "there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant reasonably believed deadly force was needed to prevent death or great bodily harm to herself" and that her actions in leaving to get the gun and then coming back into the house were "inconsistent with a person who is in genuine fear for her life".

Third, she was convicted of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon - a somewhat more serious charge than "brandishing" - and she got a harsh sentence because she rejected a reasonable plea deal and rolled the dice in a state that thinks mandatory sentencing laws are the solution to every problem they've ever seen.

So this case is NOTHING like what you said it was and has absolutely no bearing on the SYG argument. It was absolutely clear from the very beginning of the case the SYG wasn't going to apply. You're just parroting the insane rhetoric that's twisted the circumstances of the case all out of proportion. Your analogy has no place in the argument here.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Fortunately, my house would allow the having to bypass the door because of it's placement. And shooting the bad guy would not be necessary IF he dropped his weapon on first command anyway - not looking to kill ( the paperwork by itself and the cleanup is a real annoyance). If bad guy is rational, he's arrested and I and wife are fine. If the bad guy comes through the door breaking it open (the noise will be a subtle hint) much of the time he will have two rounds in him before he makes the only turn he can make and that is straight into a barrel (.45 or .44). under just enough paper to hide them from sight at the desk I am typing at. If I turn my head to the right I have a clear view of that area. 14+1 in the .45, top 3 Talons, 5 (it's on an empty as I am untrusting) Talons in it at the moment. Never needed to use them except for target shooting. Doubt I'll ever need to, but I also get checkups even though I don't expect any major diseases in the near future either. And, of course the first aid kit, tool kit and stored (minor, but lights and water and storable food (for a week or so).. like hurricane time.


eta: IF he does not have a weapon, the game is over as soon as he gets in, if he has one he gets shot immediately during the breaking in part. In either case, I do not need to find a corner or any such as Florida and many others now are SYG states - with SYG the problem vanishes.

You genuinely sit with a loaded gun on your desk in case someone kicks your door in while you are working?

 

[Rolfe]

^ This

As I've mentioned in this thread and in others regarding gun control, my sister-in-law and her husband live their entire life in a state of permanent readiness for an armed attack on themselves and their family. It must be exhausting to be *that* alert all the time.

I honestly don't know whether the USA really is a significantly more dangerous place so that taking steps to be prepared for a violent assault is something one really has to attend to, or whether it's just the level of paranoia that's crazy and the place is really much the same as everywhere else.

I remember going for a walk in the countryside, alone, when I was staying with friends in the USA. I genuinely felt jumpy, in a way thay would never occur to me at home. At one point I strayed from the wood where I was walking into what appeared to be the large garden of a large house. There was no boundary fence and the path I was on led straight on to the lawn. I swiftly turned and went back into the woods, fearful of being taken for an intruder.

This fear came from having read various media reports of innocent foreigners (and indeed locals) being gunned down in the USA. Like this story, I suppose. However, what, 300 million people? Most of them probably don't shoot at random ramblers. But how to tell?

I suspect it's largely self-perpetuating, and that the people who are afraid, are actually afraid of other people who are themselves afraid, in a never-ending spiral. I just don't know how much of it is justified.

We don't seem to see it on US TV shows, of which we get a lot. People run around doing whatever they're doing, without apparently carrying a gun, or being constantly on the qui vive for someone deciding to take a pot shot at them. But then they also go to hospital and receive treatment without anybody mentioning how it's going to be paid for.

Who knows?

Rolfe.

 

[Nessie]

I suspect that there are plenty of pro-SYG people who similarly have no idea what it means. And they are the ones toting guns.

......

x2

 

[Nessie]

No, it doesn't. It says nothing about anyone except the crazed lunatic who murdered those 2 men.

Yes it does, this is not a one off unique unlikely to be repeated event. Americans shoot each other for spurious reasons on a monotonous regularity.

 

[Nessie]

I honestly don't know whether the USA really is a significantly more dangerous place so that taking steps to be prepared for a violent assault is something one really has to attend to, or whether it's just the level of paranoia that's crazy and the place is really much the same as everywhere else.

The stats say it is less violent than the UK. But because guns get used in more conflicts than they are in the UK, you are more likely to die in the USA when violence occurs.

I remember going for a walk in the countryside, alone, when I was staying with friends in the USA. I genuinely felt jumpy, in a way thay would never occur to me at home. At one point I strayed from the wood where I was walking into what appeared to be the large garden of a large house. There was no boundary fence and the path I was on led straight on to the lawn. I swiftly turned and went back into the woods, fearful of being taken for an intruder.

I was banned from going for a walk by relatives (semi rural Connecticut) because of the risks of being mistaken for an intruder.

This fear came from having read various media reports of innocent foreigners (and indeed locals) being gunned down in the USA. Like this story, I suppose. However, what, 300 million people? Most of them probably don't shoot at random ramblers. But how to tell?

I suspect it's largely self-perpetuating, and that the people who are afraid, are actually afraid of other people who are themselves afraid, in a never-ending spiral. I just don't know how much of it is justified.

We don't seem to see it on US TV shows, of which we get a lot. People run around doing whatever they're doing, without apparently carrying a gun, or being constantly on the qui vive for someone deciding to take a pot shot at them. But then they also go to hospital and receive treatment without anybody mentioning how it's going to be paid for.

Who knows?

Rolfe.

Americans do love their end of days programmes such as the Walking Dead. I thing Michael Moore is right in Bowling for Columbine that Americans have a very fearful media who whip up news into a frenzy.