The thing is that according to the story the guy never owned it all. The story says that when his father died three separate parcels passed to his mother, and when she died he was bequeathed one parcel and his sister got the other two. The sister said the her brother knew her property had been on the market since the mother died in 2008, and he knew it had been sold. This isn't a land dispute; this is pure insanity, and hope the guy gets life x2.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
WV man standing his ground, except it wasn't his
- Thread starter KatieG
- Start date
The thing is that according to the story the guy never owned it all. The story says that when his father died three separate parcels passed to his mother, and when she died he was bequeathed one parcel and his sister got the other two. The sister said the her brother knew her property had been on the market since the mother died in 2008, and he knew it had been sold. This isn't a land dispute; this is pure insanity, and hope the guy gets life x2.
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 12,454
I don't think it's insanity... I think it's a refusal to accept reality. He didn't inherit the whole property, and he couldn't control his sister's decision to sell. He would lose his right to access that large patch.
Cognitive dissonance.
The difference is important, and has direct bearing on sentencing.
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 12,454
They look black to me, but I think it's immaterial. There is too much evidence there was another motive.
That's my take at this point as well.
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 12,454
Absolutely, it's just that there isn't any specific evidence for racial motive, so I'm assigning it a very low probability until further notice. Ockham's razor.
IXP
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this post. It sounds to me like you taught people who were in a position from which they could safely retreat how to manipulate the situation into one in which they could legally kill someone in "self defense". If this is a correct interpretation you are guilty, at least in my mind, of accessory to murder.
IXP
Rolfe
Adult human female
If the property had been lying fallow, unsold, for five years, he may have come to the belief that this was a permanent state of affairs and it was de facto his. In denial of the reality that it would sell eventually.
Rolfe.
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 12,454
Yes. His sister said it wasn't even lying fallow - he was maintaining it. Mowing, minor repairs.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Right. He was treating it as his own. He was in denial that it wasn't, and that someone would almost certainly buy it sooner or later. When that time came, he snapped and blew them away.
Throw away the key.
Rolfe.
Throw away the key.
Rolfe.
IXP
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 24,133
What about the guy who shot suspected looters that weren't even on his property?
I'm completely off base that a person only has to be "afraid" and they shoot with impunity. 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.
When hazard warning lights were introduced to cars in the UK a lot of people would double-park or park in excluded areas and switch on their hazard lights. When confronted (i.e. busted) they'd claim "But I had my hazard lights flashing!".
SYG misinterpretation in a nutshell. Give people half a chance to award themselves what they think is a legal 'out' and some will take it. But if a gun is involved it can get much heavier than illegal parking.
Last edited:
RenaissanceBiker
Eats shoots and leaves.
Yes. The fact that these people are charged and tried negates the claim of impunity.
I'm okay with that, but it is miles from the wording to which I objected. You obviously see the difference, too.
Yes. You are completely off-base when you very frequently make the same or similar ridiculous assertions here.
I think the point fuelair was trying to make was that imperfect self defense is manslaughter, not murder - which is generally correct. I just don't see the facts as reported fitting defective self-defense over what seems to be the classic definition of second degree murder - an unplanned homicide resulting from depraved mind (generally spite, hatred or evil intent).
The shooter in this instance doesn't seem to exhibit any of the features of a legitimate self-defense claim - the notion that they were thieves on his property doesn't seem reasonable in light of the knowledge that he knew his property claim wasn't recognized, there is no evidence of a reasonable threat of death or great bodily injury, the distance involved agues against any perceived threat being immediate and setting up a sniper's nest in your day room may go beyond strictly what was necessary to prevent death or great injury.
What is also absent here is any evidence that the crime had any racial motive. It sounds much more reasonable that the homeowner was unwilling to accept the property settlement which led to kind of an internal dispute and the new property owners were the victims of that kind of prior disagreement.
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15,948
