catbirdseat

Shootout at the Not OK Corral. It's a good story. It would make a good TV movie.

DeC's story was quite clear-cut, mainly because there was a witness other than the shooter and the fact that someone was actually being beaten. So why is it that judges sometimes allow testimony regarding the character of a victim in some cases and not in others? I think that juries should be given ALL available information with which to base their decision.

Kurt, in this case the bullet went through the hand on the way to the chest. The hand was outstretched in front of the victim.

Give us a complete description of the truck and we'll keep an eye out for it.

Okay, lets say for the moment, that the defendant deserves to be punished. He got ten years. Okay, now consider the junkie who shoots his dealer because he doesn't have enough cash for the dope he needs. He gets ten years. Why is it the scout leader defending himself gets the same sentence as the junkie?

Okay, I'll bite. You asked about whether the victim was moving towards the defendant. This is what the interview said: So maybe it is possible that the hand wound occurred because he was taking a swing at Fish? The medical examiner presumes it was because the victim was holding them in a defensive posture. I can reconcile Fish's story that the victim was charging by positing that the victim came to a halt just as the shots were fired.

Aggressor? Where was the body found? On the trail, not in his campsite. If the body was at the campsite, it would suggest that the shooter was the aggressor, but in this case the victim ran a fair distance to accost the defendant where he stood on the trail. If I remember correctly, all three wounds occurred while the victim was still standing. Forensics would have demonstrated differently, had any of the wounds been made while the victim was laying on the ground. The defendant rendered first aid and called for help immediately. What motive could he possibly had to shoot the man other than self-defense? Do you think a mild-mannered retired school teacher, father of seven and scout master just run around shooting people for no reason?

Oooo, an 8 mm half rope. Sounds like he can have his cake and eat it too! And on sale, no less.

Again we don't know. I can only presume that the gun was at least visible. From what was said of the victim, he was prone to flying into blind rages. He may have been in a state completely devoid of reason. Again, the judge ruled that none of this could be presented to the jury.

Rather than getting an 8 mm, which is a twin rope, I suggest getting a 9 mm half rope. Then you'd have the option to lead using half rope technique. Later you could get a mate to the 9 mm, which is what I did, since I didn't have the bread to buy two at the same time.

The question before the jury was, "is it Murder in the Second Degree"? Had I been a juror I would have voted to acquit. Had the question been, "is it Neglegent Homicide or Manslaughter?", I would have voted to convict. So now you know exactly what you would decide before hearing the trial? Isn't that type of condemning exactly what you have spoken out about? The fact is that those who watched the dateline show know more than the jury knew. The conviction says a lot about the judge in the case. His actions and his words are not in accord with each other.

So I have to quote you. This is a mistatement. The man WAS being attacked.

The question before the jury was, "is it Murder in the Second Degree"? Had I been a juror I would have voted to acquit. Had the question been, "is it Neglegent Homicide or Manslaughter?", I would have voted to convict.

Way to go CBS. You have started the CC.com machine. I have a feeling it will be hard at work for the entire day. Somebody needed to stir up shit.

You thought about how YOU would react and you assumed another person would do exactly as you would.

I like the fact that people are actually thinking about this now and not just coming out with kneejerk responses. This is a complicated case.

Okay, let me know what you all think about this. Suppose the gun was a .25 caliber with standard rounds and suppose you had fired a single round that, through chance, found its mark in the guy's heart. Same result, the man dies. How does this change anything?

Which is an indication of how confrontations that would normally result in, maybe, a black eye, escalate to more serious harm when a gun is handy. I would agree. The gun was the cause of everything. He probably would have gotten by with just a dog bite had he not had the gun.

Suppose you have hiked 10 miles. You are a 60 year old man and you are tired. You are wearing a pack, so you can't run. A man is running at full speed towards you screaming, "I'm going to fucking KILL YOU". His fists are raised. You have a gun in your hands. You have already shown the man that you have a gun. He's still coming, not slowing down. He says he's going to kill you. You can't believe he doesn't stop. You can't run. If he reaches you, he might kill you with your own gun. What do you do?

Firing the gun to scare the dogs was the mistake that set everything in motion. I normally carry trekking poles, and one of them held out in the direction of the dog is all that would have been required to fend it off. Much ado was made in the trial about the large caliber of the weapon and the fact that it was equipped with hollow point bullets. Had this been in a city park, I could buy that argument, but this was not a city park. It was a wilderness area where there are bears and mountain lions. I don't fear such animals but there are many people who do. If you are going to carry a weapon for that reason it needs to be effective.

Way to get down to the music!

She was way hotter when she had a browsable gallery. She, or rather her name and image, was "expropriated".

I didn't see the show. The only one who saw the show is the guy in jail. And the Dead guy. Appears the guy is trigger happy. He should be in jail. Dateline interviewed several people who had worked with the victim. One of them said that he knew something like this would happen. The man had an extremely volatile temper. He had assaulted others before. The former coworker likened the man to a ticking time bomb. None of this information was presented to the jury. Also it is pretty clear that many of you commenting on this thread did not read very much about this case. First of all the defendant did not shoot any dog. He fired a warning shot which scared the dogs away. Second, they interviewed someone in the dog pound from where the yellow lab came, and he said the dog had been there because he was a biter. I put myself in the defendant's shoes because I had been in a very similar situation myself. A few years ago, I was out for a run on my lunch break. I'd just sprinted up a big hill in Kinnear Park at Lower Queen Anne, when I came upon a man walking an unleashed dog. It was a medium sized poodle mix. The dog charged me. Like the man in the story above, I yelled at the man, "call your dog off! call your dog off". He just stood there, mute as he let the dog attack me. I kicked in it's direction to keep it from biting me. I managed to scare it (not sure if I actually struck it). At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard. I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business. By the way, the law in Arizona was subsequently changed to put the onus on the prosecutor to prove that defendant acted in self-defense, rather than on the defendant. You obviously didn't read our posts very carefully. We were speaking hypothetically that it would be acceptable to shoot a threatending dog. NO ONE said that the man did shoot the dog. You should read more closely before admonishing us to do so. It is obvious you have not gotten over your run in with someone who scared you. Here is a wake up call for you--you don't get to shoot people for scaring you. You are alive an unharmed. That makes it pretty obvious that you didn't have the right to shoot that person. And trust me, I know what it's like to be attacked. But killing another human being is the most egregarious error that one could ever make. You people make wonderfun armchair quarterbacks. You are, like the prosecutor, excellent at judging a person for something had did when he had only an instant to make a decision that might determined whether he lived or died.

I didn't see the show. The only one who saw the show is the guy in jail. And the Dead guy. Appears the guy is trigger happy. He should be in jail. Dateline interviewed several people who had worked with the victim. One of them said that he knew something like this would happen. The man had an extremely volatile temper. He had assaulted others before. The former coworker likened the man to a ticking time bomb. None of this information was presented to the jury. Also it is pretty clear that many of you commenting on this thread did not read very much about this case. First of all the defendant did not shoot any dog. He fired a warning shot which scared the dogs away. Second, they interviewed someone in the dog pound from where the yellow lab came, and he said the dog had been there because he was a biter. I put myself in the defendant's shoes because I had been in a very similar situation myself. A few years ago, I was out for a run on my lunch break. I'd just sprinted up a big hill in Kinnear Park at Lower Queen Anne, when I came upon a man walking an unleashed dog. It was a medium sized poodle mix. The dog charged me. Like the man in the story above, I yelled at the man, "call your dog off! call your dog off". He just stood there, mute as he let the dog attack me. I kicked in it's direction to keep it from biting me. I managed to scare it (not sure if I actually struck it). At that point, I would of continued at a run, but I was completely out of breath. The man charged me with his fists raised. He stood there threatening me, while all I could do was gasp. If I had had a gun I would have shot the bastard. I have a right to run through a public park without being attacked by someone's dog and then by the owner who fails to control it. All I was doing was minding my own business. By the way, the law in Arizona was subsequently changed to put the onus on the prosecutor to prove that defendant acted in self-defense, rather than on the defendant.

I moved furniture around the house all morning, so you had a better day than I did. Sunday afternoon was beautiful in Seattle. It was killing me to not be out climbing.