Defend yourself with a gun- go to prison?

[catbirdseat]

Did you all hear about this case? A man used a gun in self-defense, but was convicted of second degree murder.

 

Dog Walker Shot

 

Dateline Story

 

It was an interesting show. From the evidence that I was presented, I believe the shooting was justified and in self-defense.

 

This case pitted the dog lovers against that gun lovers. It was quite a fight. The NRA helped fun the defense of the shooter.

 

So now a school teacher with seven kids will spend ten years in prison for defending himself from a madman.

 

The biggest mistake the guy made was that he used a big gun (10 mm) and shot the perp three times. I'm not sure how that has any baring on the case, but the prosecution made a big deal about it in the trial.

 

Now I am not a gun owner and don't believe in carrying a weapon, but I think someone who is being attacked, even with just fists, is within their rights to defend themselves with deadly force.

Edited March 19, 2007 by catbirdseat

[Mr_Phil]

Now I am not a gun owner and don't believe in carrying a weapon, but I think someone who is being attacked, even with just fists, is within their rights to defend themselves with deadly force.

 

I'll use my right to defend myself with deadly force when being verbally attacked as well.

 

Cruel words hurt, too.

[mtn_mouse]

Did you all hear about this case? A man used a gun in self-defense, but was convicted of second degree murder.

 

Dog Walker Shot

 

Dateline Story

 

It was an interesting show. From the evidence that I was presented, I believe the shooting was justified and in self-defense.

 

This case pitted the dog lovers against that gun lovers. It was quite a fight. The NRA helped fun the defense of the shooter.

 

So now a school teacher with seven kids will spend ten years in prison for defending himself from a madman.

 

The biggest mistake the guy made was that he used a big gun (10 mm) and shot the perp three times. I'm not sure how that has any baring on the case, but the prosecution made a big deal about it in the trial.

 

Now I am not a gun owner and don't believe in carrying a weapon, but I think someone who is being attacked, even with just fists, is within their rights to defend themselves with deadly force.

 

WTF, are you an NRA Dickhead? It is a good thing that you don't carry a gun.

[kevbone]

 

It was an interesting show. From the evidence that I was presented, I believe the shooting was justified and in self-defense.

 

 

I am not entirely convinced of that.

 

Did he have to shoot the guy walking the dog? I don’t think so. But I wasn’t there. I would think he did overreact.

 

This will set a precedent now….. for all you dog owners, better watch out, if your dog barks at someone, you might get shot instead of your dog.

 

[mtn_mouse]

The shooter was a psyco. Gun defense is only valid to neutralise the threat. Shoot a dog if necessary. The odds were that only one or two dogs were aggressive. Certainly yellow labs do not have a very aggressive history. Shooting the dog owner? The shooter belongs in jail. Fuck him.

[archenemy]

I believe it is within our rights to carry a gun and to use it when lives are in danger.

 

This man should not have shot the dog walker three times in the chest. I agree that shooting the dog that was threatening him would have been justifiable. But shooting an unarmed man who has not attacked you is, indeed, homicide.

[tvashtarkatena]

Clearly homocide. Not justifiable in any sense. The self defense excuse is complete hooey; he wasn't even attacked by the dog, nevermind the owner. Put the trigger happy coo coo clock away for a long, long time where he can do no further harm.

[archenemy]

I think using the word hooey takes self confidence. I like it.

[high_on_rock]

Obviously it all should depend on whether the guy actually and reasonably felt that his life was being threatened. As the comments here indicate, most are going to hold him to a pretty hard standard based upon facts learned after the fact. In this guys mind, not knowing anything about the "attacker", he has dogs attacking, and a guy running at him screaming. Easy to see the guy was scared and reacted, and a sad thing happened. The question is whether this guy, who merely went for a walk in the woods, should suddenly find himself in prison? Again, do we punish his intent, punish his actions, or punish the result? Here, I think they punished the result.

[archenemy]

I don't think that is obvious. I don't think murder become justifiable depending on your emotional state. If you are unable to assess a situation properly and you use more force that absolutely necessary--you are guilty. I don't give a shit how you felt.

 

How do you think the other guy feels? Dead. That's how. And it was not justified. The killer was not even actually attacked by the friggen dogs.

[Dechristo]

Clearly homocide.

 

I didn't see the show.

 

Was the shooter in imminent danger of being sucked and/or fucked to death?

[ivan]

peyote has a way of making an innocent hike in the woods w/ a big gun go all wrong

[kevbone]

Clearly homocide.

 

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.

[tvashtarkatena]

Clearly homocide.

 

I didn't see the show.

 

Was the shooter in imminent danger of being sucked and/or fucked to death?

 

If the two were that close maybe it was homeycide.

[kevbone]

Clearly homocide.

 

I didn't see the show.

 

Was the shooter in imminent danger of being sucked and/or fucked to death?

 

If the two were that close maybe it was homeycide.

 

Hee hee

[tvashtarkatena]

Clearly homocide.

 

I didn't see the show.

 

Was the shooter in imminent danger of being sucked and/or fucked to death?

 

If the two were that close maybe it was homeycide.

 

 

Then again, if it happened in a Denny's, it might have been Moons Over My Hammycide.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

What if the dog walker had threatened the shooter with a gyro?

 

Hummouside.

[tvashtarkatena]

Any insult of manhood could have resulted in Heymisside.

[tvashtarkatena]

Had the dog walker prevailed it would have been Hemissedcide.

[catbirdseat]

Clearly homocide.

 

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.

[kevbone]

Clearly homocide.

 

I didn't see the show.

 

Was the shooter in imminent danger of being sucked and/or fucked to death?

 

If the two were that close maybe it was homeycide.

 

 

Then again, if it happened in a Denny's, it might have been Moons Over My Hammycide.

 

 

Tvashtarkatena…..what gives? You are extra funny this morning.

 

[archenemy]

Clearly homocide.

 

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.

[archenemy]

Oh, and why would the prosecutor prove that the defendent acted in self defense? This does not make sense to me.

[catbirdseat]

Clearly homocide.

 

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.

[tvashtarkatena]

Nope. Doesn't cut it. He successfully scared the dogs away. The dog walker 'supposedly' CHARGED (not attacked) him, unarmed. The shooter could have run away himself (his weapon obligates legally him to try that option when threatened by an unarmed assailant; ie, to avoid conflict). He could have fired another warning shot. He could have even shot his alleged assailant in the leg. But no, three rounds - THREE - right in the chest.

 

The shooter's a murderer by any definition. He doesn't have the judgement required to carry a weapon, and should be put away for society's protect.