Defend yourself with a gun- go to prison?

[lI1|1!]

i would defend myself by ramming a live up an assailant's asshole

[mtn_mouse]

i would defend myself by ramming a live up an assailant's asshole

 

You know, as a rodent, I find that somewhat disturbing.

[archenemy]

The point is all cops in WA are taught to shoot multiple times, and do not have to stop at one.

 

However it helps to look reasonable in the courts, and this guy definatly did not.

The point was not confusing at all. The response was that individuals are generally encouraged to shoot at others in this way. It is socially unacceptable as you can see by the response to incidents like these.

[catbirdseat]

I think you should stop asking questions until you address some of the ones posted for you to ponder first. Just an opinion...

Okay, I'll bite.

 

You asked about whether the victim was moving towards the defendant. This is what the interview said:

 

Next, the medical examiner’s testimony called into question Fish’s description of an enraged stranger charging at him.

 

The witness explained that Grant Kuenzli was shot three times in the chest, and one of those bullets went through his right hand before hitting his chest.

 

Medical examiner: This wound to forearm and the wound of the hand would necessitate the arms to be in front of the torso and those are the types of wounds we’ve described in other cases as a defensive type posture.

 

Was Kuenzli actually trying to defend himself from Fish, rather than the other way around as Fish claimed?

 

And then, a shocking statement from the medical examiner: He said the position of Kuenzli’s arm may prove he was actually standing still when he got shot—not running towards Fish as he had claimed.

 

Medical examiner: It would be an unusual position for someone walking or running to have a right hand across body like that.

 

Could Fish have shot a man standing still?

 

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.

[Weekend_Climberz]

I'd like to shoot the fucker who backed into my car over the weekend and didn't leave a note :fahq:

[high_on_rock]

I once had a client who was alleged to have beaten his brother in law near death when it was discovered that brother in law had molested clients son. People wre offended by the "he deserved it" defense that we tried to mount. Would have been easy for me as a juror to find him not guilty, but society is becoming a place where we are to allow the law to deal with everything rather than protect ourselves and others. What ever happened to the old motto that you mess with someone at your own risk?

[tvashtarkatena]

It seems like this post is advocating vigilanteism using the most charged example possible. There's a society somewhat east of ours that operates on that very principle; you can read about it every day on the front page.

 

As tough as it is for a victim to go through a criminal trial, (and state sanctions against child molestation are substantial), most citizens apparently prefer that to anarchy. If we didn't, we'd stop funding the criminal justice system altogether.

[Gary_Yngve]

He could have even shot his alleged assailant in the leg. But no, three rounds - THREE - right in the chest.

 

You don't make sense to me. Isn't the decision normally, to STOP the antagonist or not?

 

The effective way of stopping someone is multiple shots at the center of mass.

 

Maybe you can argue that he decided incorrectly or too early to STOP the antagonist, but I don't believe that we can contest the degree of his response.

[Gary_Yngve]

But killing another human being is the most egregarious error that one could ever make.

 

egregious

 

gregarious would be the opposite of these men at the time, as they were each solo

[high_on_rock]

I am not suggesting vigilantism as the only option, but what I am suggesting is perhaps decriminalizing those who do pursue their own protection and justice. If you find a thief breaking into your car, you should have the choice of calling the cops or trashing the person. If someone is attacking you, you should have the choice of defending yourself or taking the beating and letting a court try to punish him later. I personally believe that the choice should be up to the victim, and the victim should not suddenly become the criminal for protecting his life, property, …

[catbirdseat]

It seems like this post is advocating vigilanteism using the most charged example possible. There's a society somewhat east of ours that operates on that very principle; you can read about it every day on the front page.

 

As tough as it is for a victim to go through a criminal trial, (and state sanctions against child molestation are substantial), most citizens apparently prefer that to anarchy. If we didn't, we'd stop funding the criminal justice system altogether.

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?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

But killing another human being is the most egregarious error that one could ever make.

 

egregious

 

gregarious would be the opposite of these men at the time, as they were each solo

 

Thanks Mr. Webster.

[AlpineK]

I think I sat through a lecture from either a cop or an FBI guy while I was in school. Somebody ask about shooting the criminal in the hand. The cop/FBI guy told us that that was never done. If you take aim at somebody you always aim for the center of the body. If they shoot somebody in the hand it's only by luck.

[mtn_mouse]

As Trashtalkeetna once said

"An imperfect criminal justice system is infinitely better than an imperfect anarchy"

 

or so I thought I heard while shitting in his butter dish.

[high_on_rock]

Unless you happen to be that poor sap sitting in prison making unwanted friends, for a crime that you did not commit. to that person, and imperfect criminal justice system is kind of a bad thing.

[Lars Larceny]

I'd like to shoot the fucker who backed into my car over the weekend and didn't leave a note :fahq:

 

Sorry. I need new glasses.

 

 

[catbirdseat]

I think I sat through a lecture from either a cop or an FBI guy while I was in school. Somebody ask about shooting the criminal in the hand. The cop/FBI guy told us that that was never done. If you take aim at somebody you always aim for the center of the body. If they shoot somebody in the hand it's only by luck.

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.

[AlpineK]

He might have been shooting for the chest and the dudes hand got in the way.

[cj001f]

I carry about a trouser snake for self defense

[archenemy]

I think we can go on with hypotheticals ad infinitum.

[Dechristo]

There was a case here, locally, about fifteen years ago, similar in some respects to this case, in which a family member of mine sat on the jury.

 

The shooting took place on top of a mesa where three different ranchers' properties adjoined and where a kind of communal corral was maintained for all to use. This location was also, where the prairie road ended - the ranchers would herd their cattle to this corral where they'd be loaded for transport.

 

The case involved two of the ranching families; I'll call them the Dollarhides and the Barelas. Johnny Dollarhide, 28years-old, shot dead Paul Barela, 45years-old, who was unarmed.

 

One of the differences of this case is that testimony to the character of the victim was allowed in court.

 

The defense garnered the testimony of more than a few witnesses to the violence, ill-temper, and general meanness of Paul Barela. Several gave testimony of either witnessing or receiving severe beatings from Paul, over the years, and that this was a trait and habit he had possessed all his life. Paul was a big, strong man and was accustomed to having his way, by force. The prosecution’s objection was sustained when the defense tried to introduce evidence of multiple incidents of domestic abuse and of injuries sustained over the course of years by Paul’s wife and other family members.

 

One witness told of how a yearling horse of his was found eaten, mostly, after becoming entangled in a fence and, subsequently, dogs, coyotes, and/or a big cat got to it. The witness told of how, shortly after the incident, he happened to see Paul in town and told him of the sorry end of the yearling. The witness testified that Paul’s response to him was,

“Yeah, I rode up my side of that fenceline every few days for a week or so, saw that yearling caught in the fence each time, and wondered how long she’d last.”

 

The witness stated Paul smiled at him, turned and laughed as he walked away.

 

Johnny Dollarhide and his Dad, 60years-old, had been looking for some of their cattle that had become lost and found them on the third rancher’s property. The easiest way for them to get the cattle back on their property was at the corral, but this meant they’d need to herd the cattle across a short section of Barela property. This would not have presented a problem if any of the Barela clan knew of this, with the exception of Paul.

 

As it turned out, when they were herding the cattle across the Barela property, Paul, one of his brothers, and his eldest son came roaring up in their pick-up truck with Paul at the wheel. In the trial, Paul’s brother’s and son’s testimony to the contrary was broken and it came out Paul had been watching from a distance, waiting until the Dollarhides were on Barela property before making their presence known.

 

Johnny’s Dad was a horseback and Johnny was dismounted on foot, on the other side of the corral, where they’d left their truck and livestock trailer on their property. Paul exited his truck and started for the nearest Dollarhide, Johnny’s Dad, who was trying to talk to Paul from atop his horse as Paul approached. Paul strode straight to Johnny’s Dad, reached up, grabbed a fistful of rein, then jacket, and proceeded to pummel the man. Johnny’s Dad testified he continued to ask Paul to “wait” and “stop” during the beating, all the while holding on to the saddle horn with both hands and all his might while horse, man, and man went around in circles. When asked why he didn’t try to defend himself, Johnny’s Dad responded,

 

“I knew, if he got me down from that horse, I was a dead man.”

 

Johnny yelled at Paul to stop and started toward him, but seeing his father starting to weaken from the blows, and reasoning he wouldn’t be able to force Paul to stop, physically (and being unsure whether Paul’s brother would jump in, anyway), he turned and headed back toward the truck…

 

…where they kept a pistol.

 

Immediately, after pulling the gun from the truck, Johnny yelled at Paul to get his attention and showed that he had a gun. Upon seeing the gun, Paul stopped for a moment, said, “Fuck-you, asshole… I'll get to you in a minute...” and turned to resume beating Johnny’s Dad. Paul landed only one more punch before Johnny fired a warning shot into the air.

 

For some reason, this seemed to enrage Paul further, but he let go of Johnny’s Dad and started toward Johnny. As Paul approached, gaining speed, Johnny yelled at him to stop and fired another warning shot, this time into the ground in Paul’s direction; Paul kept coming, now at a run. Johnny’s last shot, the shot that struck Paul in the chest, came as they both were on their way to the ground, Paul on top of Johnny. Johnny had to push Paul off to get back to his feet. Paul never got up again.

 

After a five-day trial, Johnny was acquitted.

 

Later, my family member, who sat on the jury, said the jury members who voted “guilty” initially, were turned, eventually, due to the many testimonies to Paul’s violent nature allowing them to be convinced, in the end, that Johnny and his Dad had good reason to believe they were in mortal danger.

 

 

 

[kevbone]

I think we can go on with hypotheticals ad infinitum.

 

 

Gee ya think......

[high_on_rock]

One difference in the evidence is that here they knew of the violent past of the dead person, in CBS's facts the persone did not know of the past violent history of the dead person; which is why the evidence came in during this case, not in CBS's case.

 

In both, I say not guilty. A scared person should not become a criminal for trying to protect himself.

[archenemy]

DeC's story is a perfect illustration of when it is fully justified to shoot and kill someone. Even if the past violence was not known, it is clear that Paul was a threat to both the father and the son. When someone runs at you after you have fired a warning shot (to get them to stop pummeling your family member), you pretty much got to defend yourself by whatever means you have.

[kevbone]

 

In both, I say not guilty. A scared person should not become a criminal for trying to protect himself.

 

Will you define "scared" please.