When Self Defense Becomes Murder

[tellner]

I think that is the interesting question. Someone willing to rape, murder, molest, rob etc... how likely are they to do it again? When we speak of "stopping a threat" as it applies to legality we mean the "immediate" threat. However, history has shown us that violent offenders repeat in statistically high numbers. Doesn't that change the notion of "threat elimination"?quote]

It doesn't matter. You can't hang a man for something he hasn't done or might do. At least not until the last few years, but that's a whole different issue. You can't hang him for something he might have done but was never proved. You can't hang him because you don't like his type.

And that's the legal system which has the benefit of judges, juries, procedures designed to ferret out the truth and weigh all the important factors. It's the body imbued to carry out our Will.

We have the right to self defense. The legal tradition going all the way back to English Common Law is clear. You have the right to stop immediate danger to yourself or an innocent third party. That's where your rights end. If bodies of our supposedly wisest and most knowledgable men and women operating under every safeguard aren't clairvoyant enough to kill for something a person hasn't done and may never do a single person in the heat of the moment sure as heck can't.

I don't shed many tears for the deceased. But the pharmacist has earned whatever penalty the Law hands down. When he bought that gun, loaded it and took it to work he knew or should have known that his responsibility for his actions was greater in proportion to the harm he could do. It's sad, because a moment's stupidity will ruin his life forever. And he makes the millions of safe responsible gun owners look bad. He abused the power of life and death and deserves to suffer the consequences.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I think that is the interesting question. Someone willing to rape, murder, molest, rob etc... how likely are they to do it again? When we speak of "stopping a threat" as it applies to legality we mean the "immediate" threat. However, history has shown us that violent offenders repeat in statistically high numbers. Doesn't that change the notion of "threat elimination"?

It doesn't matter. You can't hang a man for something he hasn't done or might do. At least not until the last few years, but that's a whole different issue. You can't hang him for something he might have done but was never proved. You can't hang him because you don't like his type.

And that's the legal system which has the benefit of judges, juries, procedures designed to ferret out the truth and weigh all the important factors. It's the body imbued to carry out our Will.

Unfortunately, the legal system does not always carry out our will. Our will is that a violent offender serves a specific prison sentence. Yet judges and defense lawyers let violent offenders out early on parole.

Is parole the will of the people? Not the will of anyone that I personally know.

Funny thing is that some of the most liberal people that I know despise parole. They hate the death penalty, but would really like that vermin to serve his or her full sentence. A position, by the way, that I am perfectly fine with.

Also, when it is the will of the people that the criminal be executed, that sentence is often blocked by lawyers who are just as self serving as the vigilante, insisting that the vermin who raped and killed a seven year old not receive his just sentence.

While I do agree with you, I also am fairly convinced that they legal system is very seriously broken. Not in the sense that i feel that vigilantes should be trolling the streets, but in the sense that as a nation, we need to put serious pressure on our law makers to stop cow towing to defense lawyers and activists and to start taking crime and punishment seriously, because honestly, the really do not.

Daniel

 

[searcher]

It doesn't matter. You can't hang a man for something he hasn't done or might do. At least not until the last few years, but that's a whole different issue. You can't hang him for something he might have done but was never proved. You can't hang him because you don't like his type.

Todd is spot on right here. Take a long hard look at the movie Minority Report. I think it described this area very well and it showed its shortcomings.

 

[BLACK LION]

I agree with your perspective Daniel. I said overkill becuase of how he went about it.
Even thought the first shot landed in the head he should have followed up with a double tap to the torso in the same assault... not ran off to do something else and then come back to finish. It just looks bad. At least come back and pop him in the head 1 more time but 5x in the torso... he was obviously untrained and under a ton of stress... very messy...
He will learn from this one though and if there is a next time he wont be so sloppy...
I could care less about the morality or legality... those guys were intent on getting what they want and they could have very well executed the pharmacist and his family or patrons... Good for him for doing what it takes to survive... he was just very sloppy about it which is understandable... someoone get that man a frontsight family membership as a reward for his decisiveness...

 

[tellner]

BL, I sincerely hope you do not have students. Your complete lack of regard for the law will put one of them in jail if they're foolish enough to take your advice. And if you are ever in a self defense situation I earnestly pray that the prosecutor has the smarts to look through martialtalk's archives. You have just sunk your future claim to self defense by bragging about how you'd go out of your way to kill someone even when you didn't need to.

 

[JKD143]

I think that is the interesting question. Someone willing to rape, murder, molest, rob etc... how likely are they to do it again? When we speak of "stopping a threat" as it applies to legality we mean the "immediate" threat. However, history has shown us that violent offenders repeat in statistically high numbers. Doesn't that change the notion of "threat elimination"?quote]

It doesn't matter. You can't hang a man for something he hasn't done or might do. At least not until the last few years, but that's a whole different issue. You can't hang him for something he might have done but was never proved. You can't hang him because you don't like his type.

I agree, the point I was trying to make is that in this case the robber already did it. I was discussing REPEAT offenders. Not people who look the part or who we suspect may do something, rather those that have already shown society they can, will and have violently assaulted another.

I take your point, just wanted to clarify what I was trying to discuss.

 

[Deaf Smith]

There is more to this than meets the eye!

Primary camera footage:

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-surveillance-angle1-video,0,5435393.worldnowvideo

camera 2 is outside:

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-surveillance-angle2-video,0,5894146.worldnowvideo

camera 3 is over Erslands shoulder during initial shooting:

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-surveillance-angle3-video,0,6352899.worldnowvideo

Now the pharmacist, Ersland, was discharged from the Army after he suffered life-threatening injuries - injuries he is still dealing with today.

I suspect his lawyer will claim the injuries he received, and the medication, had a part in this and will explain why he did what he did.

We will see how this all plays out in court.

BTW, the DA wanted Ersland to keep his CCW and carry a gun while out on bond. The judge said no. Now if the DA is of this opinion, then he knows more about this than he lets on (or others know.)

But I can say in virtualy all states, once the attacker cannot harm you, you must stop.

Deaf

 

[sgtmac_46]

One of the things good self defense and firearms instructors stress is that you can't keep using force once the threat is gone. This story illustrates the point nicely.

Yes, but did the head shot kill him?

If the initial wound were lethal, all subsequent wounds, while 'overkill'......would ALSO be....IRRELEVANT!

I guess you could charge him with desecrating a corpse........because when the prosecutor uses the euphemism 'unconscious'........he likely means 'already deceased'.......and since it was the first shot that killed this guy, THAT is the one that is in question, and if THAT was justified, the first degree murder charge is asinine and futile.

It's very simple.......

1) What killed him?
2) Was that mechanism intentionally put in to play?
3) Was the actor initiating that mechanism legally justified, based on the law and his perception at the time, in doing so?

Subsequent actions do not retroactively negate an argument of self-defense.....they can color perception about that argument......but it's obvious that this event BEGAN as a completely legitimate act of self-defense.......it's also pretty clear that the initial lethal action was legitimate.......IF that action was a lethal event, in and of itself, the prosecutor is making a pretty silly argument to argue that this guy was killed TWICE.........once LEGALLY........and then AFTER he was dead, was then MURDERED!

At any rate, this won't go anywhere with an Oklahoma jury.........that's why we have a jury system......they can completely disregard all legal arguments, and apply local moral standards......and they will! Regardless of the technical facts of the case, i.e. that he legally went too far.......the jury will, in all likelihood, decide that convicting this man would send the WRONG MESSAGE! While acquitting him will send the message they would prefer to send to the robbers and rapists.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The argument will be something along the lines of this.....

Defense Attorney: 'Ladies and Gentleman of the Jury, you've just heard the medical examiner and the coroner and several expert medical witnesses testify to the fact that the primary shot to the head was lethal. They were clear on that point.

You've also heard the Prosecutor ADMIT that my client was justified in firing that fatal shot.

Now the prosecutor wants to argue that my client was justified in fatally shooting this armed robber, who was threatening not only him but two innocent unarmed women, my client was JUSTIFIED in shooting him fatally...........but apparently the prosecutor NOW wants you to believe that after being shot fatally, the robber MAGICALLY came back to life, in some bizarre legal sense, in order to make the bizarre and illogical argument that my client then MURDERED this man AFTER he KILLED him IN LEGAL SELF-DEFENSE!'

No, the Prosecutor needs to pursue this to appease certain community interests.......but it's going NOWHERE in the sense that he's going to be convicted of anything.


Now, there is a lesson for those interested in self-defense........going through this process would be ZERO FUN, even if you're acquitted.........avoid this guy's pitfall. BUT he's not going to get convicted of anything (except corpse desecration), unless he loses his nerve and takes a BS plea deal......DEFINITELY not in Oklahoma...........ESPECIALLY when he argues that a change of venue is necessary as a result of the publicity, and gets his trial setting in rural Oklahoma.

 

[sgtmac_46]

On a side note, was I the only one who found it morbidly amusing that moron robber caught that bullet in the head because he couldn't adjust his mask right and was still messing with it? His buddy had long since perceived the threat and was rapidly retreating......apparently he didn't warn his buddy about the armed citizen, as it never seemed to register until he went down that his would-be victim was armed........SITUATIONAL AWARENESS! It's important even for robbers.

'Oh crap, my mask is sideways........hey, my mask is sideways, I can't see.......My mas<BOOM><Thump>'

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As to the question about murder versus shooting a corpse...

If the initial head shot had killed the robber, subsequent shots to the abdomen would not be murder, technically (perhaps corpse desecration). However, without a doctor on the scene to make a pronouncement of death, we do not know that the robber was in fact deceased. The shots were close enough together in time that I do not know if a forensic pathologist could determine the time of death that closely post mortem. I am not psychic, but I suspect that the DA would not have brought charges unless they had some evidence that the robber was not yet dead when the other shots were fired. It is quite possible for the body to continue to live for a period of time after a head shot, even one that would otherwise prove fatal in a short time.

Lots of talk about what the guy deserved and how rotten our judicial system is, etc. Yes, the guy got what he deserved, and yes, our judicial system has problems.

The fact still remains that when the threat ends, the right to self-defense ends, and people who dispense justice themselves may well find themselves on the wrong side of the law, as this man did.

I am still rather taken aback by the number of people who not only think the man did nothing wrong, but applaud him for his actions and swear they'd do the same. I get similar responses from people I talk to, who firmly believe they'd just tell the police and the DA what's what and where to get off, and that would be the end of it. Well, hey, whatever. Good luck in prison, sez I.

 

[sgtmac_46]

As to the question about murder versus shooting a corpse...

If the initial head shot had killed the robber, subsequent shots to the abdomen would not be murder, technically (perhaps corpse desecration). However, without a doctor on the scene to make a pronouncement of death, we do not know that the robber was in fact deceased. The shots were close enough together in time that I do not know if a forensic pathologist could determine the time of death that closely post mortem. I am not psychic, but I suspect that the DA would not have brought charges unless they had some evidence that the robber was not yet dead when the other shots were fired. It is quite possible for the body to continue to live for a period of time after a head shot, even one that would otherwise prove fatal in a short time.

Lots of talk about what the guy deserved and how rotten our judicial system is, etc. Yes, the guy got what he deserved, and yes, our judicial system has problems.

The fact still remains that when the threat ends, the right to self-defense ends, and people who dispense justice themselves may well find themselves on the wrong side of the law, as this man did.

I am still rather taken aback by the number of people who not only think the man did nothing wrong, but applaud him for his actions and swear they'd do the same. I get similar responses from people I talk to, who firmly believe they'd just tell the police and the DA what's what and where to get off, and that would be the end of it. Well, hey, whatever. Good luck in prison, sez I.

A forensic pathologist can determine cause of death and WILL testify in court to same.........otherwise he could have died of a pre-existing condition, right? Doesn't work that way. I've been to many jury trials. The BURDEN of PROOF is on the STATE!

I'll bet cash money this guy doesn't go to prison..........heck, a couple years back we had a guy shoot an UNARMED robber (before our enhanced castle doctrine law) IN THE BACK in his FRONT YARD as he was running away!

Jury decision: ACQUITTAL!

As to whether this guy did anything wrong.........quite frankly i don't care that he went overboard. In a legal sense he may have went over the line (I say MAY because we don't even have all the facts!), and I certainly WOULD NOT do what he is alleged to have done.......but I wouldn't send him to prison for it.

The message is FAR better sent to would-be robbers of the world........I don't plan on ROBBING pharmacies, so i'm not concerned about the risk that another robber might be harmed if the state fails to send the message that they need to be protected from this kind of behavior.

I can LIVE in a world where we give the benefit of the doubt to citizens using force against armed criminals......I can live with that, if that clarifies your confusion as to why folks aren't forming up a lynch mob for this guy.........but that's not the same as saying I'd do the same thing.........I hold myself to a HIGHER standard of behavior. I give others the benefit of the doubt. I know that's backwards of what most people do.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A forensic pathologist can determine cause of death and WILL testify in court to same.........otherwise he could have died of a pre-existing condition, right? Doesn't work that way. I've been to many jury trials.

Cause of death, sure. Time of death, I'm not so sure, and I suspect it matters in this case. If the man had already expired when shot again, then it can't be murder. If he had not, then it could be murder.

I'll bet cash money this guy doesn't go to prison.

I'm not sure I really see that as the point. OJ got off too. We live in a nation of laws, and some here seem to want to advocate breaking those laws for the sake of stopping those who break our laws. Lunacy.

As to whether this guy did anything wrong.........quite frankly i don't care that he went overboard. In a legal sense he may have went over the line, and I certainly WOULD NOT do what he did.......but I wouldn't send him to prison for it. The message is FAR better sent to would-be robbers of the world.

I do not think we are in the business of 'sending messages' to robbers. If we were, we might as well return to the days of putting heads on pikes outside the local castle.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Cause of death, sure. Time of death, I'm not so sure, and I suspect it matters in this case. If the man had already expired when shot again, then it can't be murder. If he had not, then it could be murder.

Time of death is irrelevant.......if the FIRST wound was lethal, you CANNOT kill the man TWICE! The argument that killing him ONCE was legitimate, but killing him AGAIN was murder doesn't pass the sniff test.

Moreover, as the BURDEN OF PROOF falls on the STATE, the state has to PROVE that the subsequent shots contributed to his death......which they have FAILED to do if it is shown that the FIRST shot was lethal.

Remember.....GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!

I'm not sure I really see that as the point. OJ got off too. We live in a nation of laws, and some here seem to want to advocate breaking those laws for the sake of stopping those who break our laws. Lunacy.

If we lived purely in a legalistic society JUDGES and LAWYERS would decide guilt........the ideal is JUSTICE, not pure legalism.....that's why we use JURIES!

And since you're arguing with ME, point out where I suggested anyone violate the law......hint: you can't! What I advocate, however, is that OFTEN the law is about SPLITTING HAIRS! And we should give the benefit of the doubt in many situations.

A jury can decide that, YES, you are 'technically' guilty........and return a verdict of NOT GUILTY because you aren't guilty to their standards.

OJ Simpson is a prime example of that........OJ's jury applied COMMUNITY STANDARDS to dealing with OJ......OJ's defense attorney's put the system on trial, and made the issue RACISM.........and OJ's jury came back with a verdict against what it perceived as a racist system......COMMUNITY STANDARDS rule the day.

I do not think we are in the business of 'sending messages' to robbers. If we were, we might as well return to the days of putting heads on pikes outside the local castle.

What do you think the point of the LAW is but to send a message to criminals? Do you think we just make laws to pass the time of day?


You're not a dumb guy, Bill, but I think you sometimes can't see the forest through the trees.........it's ALL about the big picture.

And the reason we don't put robbers heads on pikes is because our Constitution protects them from the government doing so.......but we DO enhance sentences, we DO add sentences for repeat offenders.......our system is ENTIRELY about sending messages........but that message is bogged down by the systems overall sluggish and inaccurate nature.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Time of death is irrelevant.......if the FIRST wound was lethal, you CANNOT kill the man TWICE! The argument that killing him ONCE was legitimate, but killing him AGAIN was murder doesn't pass the sniff test.

That's not correct. If a man is dying and I shoot him, I've committed murder. If he is dead and I shoot him, I've desecrated a corpse. Big difference. It does not matter that he was dying of his wounds, it matters if he was alive or dead at the time of the second shooting. Fact.

Moreover, as the BURDEN OF PROOF falls on the STATE, the state has to PROVE that the subsequent shots contributed to his death......which they have FAILED to do if it is shown that the FIRST shot was lethal.

Not entirely true, see above. Your basic premise is flawed.

Remember.....GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!

True. And I suspect there may be difficulty in gaining a conviction based on that very thing. Bear also in mind that the man was a business owner, probably has insurance, etc - he'll no doubt sued for wrongful death by the family of the dead robber, and the burden of proof for that is 'preponderance of evidence'. Our hero may soon find that even if he is found 'not guilty' in a criminal case, he can be found 'guilty' in a civil suit, and he'll lose everything he has.

If we lived purely in a legalistic society JUDGES and LAWYERS would decide guilt........the ideal is JUSTICE, not pure legalism.....that's why we use JURIES!

No, the idea is not justice. Our courts are courts of law and not courts of justice. We believe and hope that our system of laws brings about justice for all, but we do not modify the laws on the fly to make 'just' verdicts instead of lawful verdicts.

You have an unusual understanding of US jurisprudence.

And since you're arguing with ME, point out where I suggested anyone violate the law......hint: you can't! What I advocate, however, is that OFTEN the law is about SPLITTING HAIRS! And we should give the benefit of the doubt in many situations.

You did not advocate any illegal actions - you said not to do it and then cheered it on. Talk about splitting hairs!

A jury can decide that, YES, you are 'technically' guilty........and return a verdict of NOT GUILTY because you aren't guilty to their standards.

In some places, at some times. This concept is known as 'jury nullification'. It has also resulted in a judge throwing out the jury's result and declaring a mistrial. Juries are not free to do whatever they like.

OJ Simpson is a prime example of that........OJ's jury applied COMMUNITY STANDARDS to dealing with OJ......OJ's defense attorney's put the system on trial, and made the issue RACISM.........and OJ's jury came back with a verdict against what it perceived as a racist system......COMMUNITY STANDARDS rule the day.

Did you actually read the verdict?

What do you think the point of the LAW is but to send a message to criminals? Do you think we just make laws to pass the time of day?

The point of the law is to ensure a safe and equitable society. We don't have stop signs to send messages to scofflaws, we have them so that people will stop.

You're not a dumb guy, Bill, but I think you sometimes can't see the forest through the trees.........it's ALL about the big picture.

It's all about the law. If it isn't legal, it isn't legal. There is no big picture as far as that goes.

And the reason we don't put robbers heads on pikes is because our Constitution protects them from the government doing so.......but we DO enhance sentences, we DO add sentences for repeat offenders.......our system is ENTIRELY about sending messages........but that message is bogged down by the systems overall sluggish and inaccurate nature.

The prison system is designed to punish offenders and protect society. Not about sending messages, but about isolating offenders from society for the safety of that society.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That's not correct. If a man is dying and I shoot him, I've committed murder. If he is dead and I shoot him, I've desecrated a corpse. Big difference. It does not matter that he was dying of his wounds, it matters if he was alive or dead at the time of the second shooting. Fact.

IF I shoot you in the head, and you DIE! I shoot you again.....I didn't kill you twice.....FACT!

Not entirely true, see above. Your basic premise is flawed.

No, YOUR basic premise if flawed! And what's more, the Jury will see that it's flawed and ACQUIT! FACT! You cannot have it both ways......though you think you can. Won't fly in front of a jury. How many juries have you been in front of? REAL honest to god jury trials?

True. And I suspect there may be difficulty in gaining a conviction based on that very thing. Bear also in mind that the man was a business owner, probably has insurance, etc - he'll no doubt sued for wrongful death by the family of the dead robber, and the burden of proof for that is 'preponderance of evidence'. Our hero may soon find that even if he is found 'not guilty' in a criminal case, he can be found 'guilty' in a civil suit, and he'll lose everything he has.

No he won't.......Oklahoma has a Castle Doctrine that protects him from civil liability if he avoids criminal liability.....now ain't THAT a *****!

No, the idea is not justice. Our courts are courts of law and not courts of justice. We believe and hope that our system of laws brings about justice for all, but we do not modify the laws on the fly to make 'just' verdicts instead of lawful verdicts.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

You have an unusual understanding of US jurisprudence.

I have an ACCURATE understanding of US jurisprudence.......you have a conventional one that is far less accurate.

You did not advocate any illegal actions - you said not to do it and then cheered it on. Talk about splitting hairs!

I said not to do it and then CHEERED ON acquitting the guy that did it.......that's perfectly consistent......I can BOTH say a thing is a bad idea and STILL advocate that it's IDIOCY to charge someone who did do it with FIRST DEGREE MURDER! Anyone who doesn't understand that position needs to evaluate their own logic.

In some places, at some times. This concept is known as 'jury nullification'. It has also resulted in a judge throwing out the jury's result and declaring a mistrial. Juries are not free to do whatever they like.

Not only are juries FREE to do so, if you did your RESEARCH you'd find that a PATTERN of Jury Nullification has set precedent of INVALIDATING STATUTES! It would seem your understanding of the situation is limited.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." -Thomas Jefferson

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." John Jay

"Jurors in criminal trials have the right to refuse to convict if they believe that a conviction would be in some way unjust." Clay S. Conrad

"But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges....They might have refused to brand Morissette as a thief. Had they done so, that too would have been the end of the matter." - US Supreme Court (Morissette v United States)

"The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge." -US Supreme Court (U. S. v Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139)

The concept is so IMPORTANT than Maryland even included it in it's bill of rights!

"In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the judge of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction." -Maryland Bill of Rights

Oh, and your contention that Jury Nullification can result in a declaration of a MISTRIAL is a clear violation of the DOUBLE JEOPARDY clause of the US CONSTITUTION! Sorry.

"The law attaches particular significance to an acquittal. To permit a second trial after an acquittal, however mistaken the acquittal may have been, would present an unacceptably high risk that the Government, with its vastly superior resources, might wear down the defendant so that 'even though innocent he may be found guilty." US Supreme Court (United States v. Scott)

Because ACQUITTAL is, as the court said....

&#8220;the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.&#8221; - US Supreme Court (United States v. Martin Linen)

Did you actually read the verdict?

Oh I read the verdict..........do you actually believe everything you read? It's called PRETEXT! That jury made it's decision based on the fact that OJ's attorneys' made the trial about the LAPD!

The point of the law is to ensure a safe and equitable society. We don't have stop signs to send messages to scofflaws, we have them so that people will stop.

And we PROSECUTE individuals to send messages to scofflaws.......THANK YOU for MAKING MY POINT!

It's all about the law. If it isn't legal, it isn't legal. There is no big picture as far as that goes.

No it's not.....the LAW without justice is despotism. We are a nation founded on the idea of JUSTICE not just legalism. Surely you know that!

The prison system is designed to punish offenders and protect society. Not about sending messages, but about isolating offenders from society for the safety of that society.

Punishment is about sending a message......deterrence......come on, I don't have to educate you on this stuff do I?

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I'm not sure I really see that as the point. OJ got off too. We live in a nation of laws, and some here seem to want to advocate breaking those laws for the sake of stopping those who break our laws. Lunacy.

No. Lunacy is a failed court system letting a man go free who murdered a couple because he was jealous. It is not that "some here" advocate breaking laws for the sake of stopping law breakers. Some here wish to see violent threats dealt with. Big difference.

Lawyers and lawmakers really like to overcomplicate things and then pat themselves on the back for being so smart. But the results speak for themselves: a broken justice system, frivilous lawsuits, gangs of repeat offenders roaming the streets, and a prison system that cannot decide if it wants to rehabilitate or punish.

I think that we can all agree that the prison system is an abject failure in terms of rehabilitation. Not surprising, given that it was never intended to be a rehab center. Unfortunately, when those who administer the punishment (the courts) cut that punishment short via the idiotic invention of parole, unrehabilitated violent offenders are allowed to return to a society of highly restricted victims.

Meaning no disrespect to you, Bill, but it is very easy for you to say how "some people" advocate lunacy when you have the weight of the law behind you in your carrying and usage of a firearm and can call for backup. The rest of us do not have that luxury.

And before anyone gets the wrong impression, I am aware just how at risk our police are, so in no way do I begrudge them. It is more a matter of perspective. Things that seem perfectly reasonable to me as a saleman seem very unreasonable to a customer on the other side of the counter.

I do not think we are in the business of 'sending messages' to robbers. If we were, we might as well return to the days of putting heads on pikes outside the local castle.

You may want to send this memo to the various DA's and lawmakers who routinely speak of "sending a message" to criminals.

And what is wrong with sending messages? Why do you immediately equate that with heads on pikes? In essence, you are saying that if one does not agree with you on this that they are medieval barbarians of some sort.

Hate to say it, but you very much are in the business of sending messages if you are in law enforcement, the courts, or the justice system period. You may be unconscious of this fact, but it is a fact. Every time an OJ gets off on a technicality, it sends a message. Every time a violent offender gets out of jail without serving his or her full sentence, it sends a message. It may be the wrong message, but it is a message nontheless.

Conversely, every time you aprehend a criminal and safeguard the public, it sends a message: a positive message. Everytime a squad car patrols a neighborhood, it sends a message. If it did not, you would not do it.

I do not, as stated previously, advocate vigilante justice. But there is a great frustration amongst many with regards to crime and the safety of our families. When those in law enforcement and the courts brush that off with comments like this one:

No, the idea is not justice. Our courts are courts of law and not courts of justice. We believe and hope that our system of laws brings about justice for all, but we do not modify the laws on the fly to make 'just' verdicts instead of lawful verdicts.

They lose the respect and confidence of the people most affected by crime.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

And we PROSECUTE individuals to send messages to scofflaws.......THANK YOU for MAKING MY POINT!

No it's not.....the LAW without justice is despotism. We are a nation founded on the idea of JUSTICE not just legalism. Surely you know that!

Punishment is about sending a message......deterrence......come on, I don't have to educate you on this stuff do I?

Quoted for truth.

The bolded sentence especially!

Daniel

 

[zDom]

a) Not ALL head shots are lethal. He may have survived that head shot even it it did render him unconcious.

b) The shooter made some bad choices:

1) Aiming for the head. Center of the body mass is less likely to miss and demonstrates intention to stop attack vs. kill the attacker.

2) Having stopped the aggressor with the first shot, he should have saved the other five shots for the possibility that the second robber might return &#8212; he coulda been running out to the car to grab a shotgun, for example, or more badguys.

 

[sgtmac_46]

a) Not ALL head shots are lethal. He may have survived that head shot even it it did render him unconcious.

It ultimately may not make a difference......if the state is maintaining that he committed FIRST DEGREE MURDER.......it must PROVE that his lethal actions were unlawful.....IF the lethal action were legal, the state FAILS to prove that point beyond a reasonable doubt, regardless of proving subsequent actions...........when a charge of First Degree Murder comes down to a convoluted legal argument, Juries eyes glaze over and they ACQUIT!


Point 1: The robber IMMEDIATELY went down after the head shot.....and stayed down not moving any further........if that is the case, it indicates instant incapacitation. It is HIGHLY likely that instant incapacitation was the result of a lethal hit.

IF the medical examiners finds that the head shot was a lethal wound.......the case is moot.......it may go to trial, but it won't result in conviction.

Even IF the head shot wasn't lethal, however........the likelihood of a conviction is VERY SMALL! Anyone who thinks otherwise is NOT familiar with jury trials, ESPECIALLY in the mid-west.



I'm this guys attorney, here's what i'm going to do (and he IS going to get a great attorney, have no doubt about that.....an EXPERT on self-defense cases), i'm FIRST going to get a change of venue OUT of Oklahoma City, to a more rural area (because of the publicity my client can't get a fair trial in OKC).

Once I get my client to a rural area, i'm going to CAREFULLY select my jury.......i'm going to stick to only approving rural men, preferably military veterans who saw combat.....I get a couple older combat veteran farmers on the jury and this case is WON!

b) The shooter made some bad choices:

1) Aiming for the head. Center of the body mass is less likely to miss and demonstrates intention to stop attack vs. kill the attacker.

True to an extent......but you don't know what he was aiming at......you just know what he hit! REAL gunfights aren't like play practice at the range. Bullets go where they go......

2) Having stopped the aggressor with the first shot, he should have saved the other five shots for the possibility that the second robber might return &#8212; he coulda been running out to the car to grab a shotgun, for example, or more badguys.

I'll agree with you there........he should have stayed in the store. However, high-adrenaline life or death situations do funny things to people.......especially when those events develop spontaneously on some idle Tuesday. I think our judgments of this guy, being made from the safety of our computers, is a bit skewed by our current safety and detachment.





Ultimately it would have been best had this guy NOT fired the followup shots........without a doubt, no equivocation whatsoever........that having been said it's still to early to even determine if perhaps he saw or thought he saw something that justified the followup shots. I have only seen a couple of camera angles, and I see him shooting.......but I don't see the robber on the floor. It's too early to tell and there are too many variables..........but I hope nobody confuses my defense of this guy from a charge of First Degree Murder for an endorsement of his actions.......I agree he'd have been better off stopping at the first shot.