14 yr old shot from 30 ft away;shooter claims Stand Your Ground (1 Viewer)

[Rayderr]

Let me ask in another way:

Which is more important to the defense's establishment of self-defense

Establishing that the victim could have killed shooter from where he was shot and convincing the jury of that.

Establishing that the shooter truly believed, in his own mind, that his life was in immediate danger and convincing the jury of that.

Ok, say the kid pulled out a water pistol. Now, obviously water isn't going to kill anyone this side of Oz, but seeing as what the kid pulled out looked like a gun that could be use to kill, what do you think the answer to your question is?

 

[jonessed]

There is one aspect of cases like this that rarely gets talked about. Does a 14 year old kid deserve to die for trespassing/burglary? Obviously not. It's a tragedy. However, when a person (of any age) puts another person in a position of having to make a decision based upon facts similar to this that person is likely to err on the side of caution. They shouldn't be required to put themselves in harms way to verify the severity of the threat. They have no idea what threat the other person actually poses. And, when judging them, we should give them EVERY benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, that's why I'd have stayed inside and called the police. Not sure what's to be gained by going outside and confronting someone.

It's apparently a big rush to kill someone.

Are folks really arguing the point that he went outside, in his own yard, because he heard a noise as opposed to just calling the police right away?

You have a right to defend your home but this kid was trying to run away. If a cop isn't allowed to shoot someone in this circumstance why should regular people be allowed to?

If he was shot in the back of the head that would seem to contradict the idea that he reached for his hip to begin with.

 

[jsharlan]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

You're already dead when you get 100% certainty. Perhaps we shouldn't be giving so much damn benefit of the doubt to criminals in the middle of the night. In the wild west, they hanged criminals rather quickly. Perhaps we should go back to that.

 

[jsharlan]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

:facepalm:

No, it will not be decided on one specific and semi-irrelevant factual issue.

What will happen though is that there will be a burden put on the defense to show that the shooter's actions were justified. That likely includes testimony from the defendant, where his credibility will be attacked and a jury will need to determine whether they believe him and whether he acted reasonably. It'll be up the to jury to determine if they believe his account of what happened and, if they do, to determine if they were in the shooter's shoes that they would have acted the same because that action was reasonable.

The defense will have to meet a burden and the jury will objectively analyze whether they met that burden. Just because you think it's only reasonable to shoot when you know for 100% certainty doesn't mean that the legal standards you're demanding cannot be met with a factual account less than what you myopically demand.

Actually the burden will be on the State to prove he wasn't justified. Not the other way around.

 

[cstu]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

You're already dead when you get 100% certainty. Perhaps we shouldn't be giving so much damn benefit of the doubt to criminals in the middle of the night. In the wild west, they hanged criminals rather quickly. Perhaps we should go back to that.

It appears we are.

I think the net result of this is that now there's no reason for criminals not to carry a gun if they are going to be shot either way.

 

[Henry Ford]

The objective standard here is whether he reasonably believed that there was danger. Reasonably is where the objective standard comes in. Reasonably means that the jury has to believe not only that he believed it, but that a reasonable person would.

OK, and that is what I am saying needs to be changed in all laws regarding self-defense. This is a ridiculous standard to apply.

"Your honor, the gun didn't have any bullets in it. He could not have actually killed anyone, so he shouldn't have been shot."

He's already argued the polar opposite point:

It can if the person shot is in the middle of the commission of a crime. "Well, your honor, sure the guy was robbing a bank, but the gun wasn't loaded! The defendant had no right to shoot him, he was in no danger at all!"

Why change it to a gun being loaded? I said make sure someone has a gun. Having a gun, loaded or not, and reaching for it and then raising it is obviously grounds for using self-defense.

I know, and obviously that's not what he's saying now. He's saying it should be a pure question of whether the person shot could actually have harmed the other person.

 

[Henry Ford]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

You're already dead when you get 100% certainty. Perhaps we shouldn't be giving so much damn benefit of the doubt to criminals in the middle of the night. In the wild west, they hanged criminals rather quickly. Perhaps we should go back to that.

It appears we are.

I think the net result of this is that now there's no reason for criminals not to carry a gun if they are going to be shot either way.

You're completely over the rainbow.

 

[jon_mx]

I have already ruled. This guy is toast.

/thread

 

[jsharlan]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

You're already dead when you get 100% certainty. Perhaps we shouldn't be giving so much damn benefit of the doubt to criminals in the middle of the night. In the wild west, they hanged criminals rather quickly. Perhaps we should go back to that.

It appears we are.

I think the net result of this is that now there's no reason for criminals not to carry a gun if they are going to be shot either way.

Hopefully the mentality would be that the criminal would not risk committing the crime for fear of getting shot. By hey, lets worry about the safety of a criminal instead.

 

[Doug B]

You have a right to defend your home but this kid was trying to run away. If a cop isn't allowed to shoot someone in this circumstance why should regular people be allowed to?

Where did the bolded come from?

 

[matttyl]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

People also shouldn't be allowed to break into someone else's home at 2AM after jumping a fence.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

People also shouldn't be allowed to break into someone else's home at 2AM after jumping a fence.

Good news! They aren't. It's illegal in 100% of U.S. communities.

 

[matttyl]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

People should not be allowed to shoot anyone without 100% certainty that they have a gun. Otherwise we really are in the wild west.

Well, sorry, honey, that guy and his buddies who are assaulting you don't have guns. I'll just let them do what they want with us.

Before we go full bore stupid on this, can you just be reasonable and realize I was talking about the specifics of this case, which are:

no physical confrontation

no movement made to run towards the shooter

no projectile weapons on the victim than could have harmed the shooter from a distance

so my statement concerned those conditions. not if your girlfriend is getting gangraped or someone is stabbing you or shooting you with a bow and arrow or throwing chinese shuriken or throwing knives or firing crossbows or any other stupid crap we can dream up.

Show some sort of comprehension and reason.

I believe that's exactly what the shooter in this case did. It's 2AM, guy jumped a fence onto my property where my pregnant wife and child are sleeping. At "30 feet" at that time of night you have no idea how old the person is, so the fact that he's 14 shouldn't be relevant here. If he's reaching for something and not staying perfectly still, as he was apparently asked to do by the property owner with gun in hand, I see no problem with the "comprehension and reason" he showed in pulling the trigger.

 

[Clifford]

The objective standard here is whether he reasonably believed that there was danger. Reasonably is where the objective standard comes in. Reasonably means that the jury has to believe not only that he believed it, but that a reasonable person would.

OK, and that is what I am saying needs to be changed in all laws regarding self-defense. This is a ridiculous standard to apply.

"Your honor, the gun didn't have any bullets in it. He could not have actually killed anyone, so he shouldn't have been shot."

OK, I see the point here. You can't use purely fact-based evidence because a person could be put in a situation where it was completely reasonable to believe their life was in danger when it factually was not.

So juries can believe that the shooter 100% thought his/her life was in danger, but also conclude that belief was not reasonable based on the fact that the kid was 30 feet away and had no weapons on him, therefore know that the shooter never saw a weapon, no matter what he thought he saw.

This is the classic "cop shoots kid with toy gun" defense.

Obviously there has to be some wiggle room for the unloaded gun. No one can tell if a gun is loaded, or if it is a fake, from a distance. However, firing before one even sees a projectile weapon should not be treated the same as firing after seeing a projectile weapon in the eyes of the jury. I find one action to be completely premature and aggressive, and the other to be completely within the lines of reasonable self-defense.

Will be interesting to see where the jury lands on this one.

 

[jsharlan]

The objective standard here is whether he reasonably believed that there was danger. Reasonably is where the objective standard comes in. Reasonably means that the jury has to believe not only that he believed it, but that a reasonable person would.

OK, and that is what I am saying needs to be changed in all laws regarding self-defense. This is a ridiculous standard to apply.

"Your honor, the gun didn't have any bullets in it. He could not have actually killed anyone, so he shouldn't have been shot."

OK, I see the point here. You can't use purely fact-based evidence because a person could be put in a situation where it was completely reasonable to believe their life was in danger when it factually was not.

So juries can believe that the shooter 100% thought his/her life was in danger, but also conclude that belief was not reasonable based on the fact that the kid was 30 feet away and had no weapons on him, therefore know that the shooter never saw a weapon, no matter what he thought he saw.

This is the classic "cop shoots kid with toy gun" defense.

Except this kid is breaking the law at 2am in the morning. This isn't a kid playing in the park after school.

 

[Clifford]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

:facepalm:

No, it will not be decided on one specific and semi-irrelevant factual issue.

What will happen though is that there will be a burden put on the defense to show that the shooter's actions were justified. That likely includes testimony from the defendant, where his credibility will be attacked and a jury will need to determine whether they believe him and whether he acted reasonably. It'll be up the to jury to determine if they believe his account of what happened and, if they do, to determine if they were in the shooter's shoes that they would have acted the same because that action was reasonable.

The defense will have to meet a burden and the jury will objectively analyze whether they met that burden. Just because you think it's only reasonable to shoot when you know for 100% certainty doesn't mean that the legal standards you're demanding cannot be met with a factual account less than what you myopically demand.

Actually the burden will be on the State to prove he wasn't justified. Not the other way around.

So prosecution has to convince jury they would not have acted the same in his shoes and that his belief that his life was in danger was not "reasonable."

If you are a prosecutor, how would you go about constructing your case?

 

[jsharlan]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

:facepalm:

No, it will not be decided on one specific and semi-irrelevant factual issue.

What will happen though is that there will be a burden put on the defense to show that the shooter's actions were justified. That likely includes testimony from the defendant, where his credibility will be attacked and a jury will need to determine whether they believe him and whether he acted reasonably. It'll be up the to jury to determine if they believe his account of what happened and, if they do, to determine if they were in the shooter's shoes that they would have acted the same because that action was reasonable.

The defense will have to meet a burden and the jury will objectively analyze whether they met that burden. Just because you think it's only reasonable to shoot when you know for 100% certainty doesn't mean that the legal standards you're demanding cannot be met with a factual account less than what you myopically demand.

Actually the burden will be on the State to prove he wasn't justified. Not the other way around.

So prosecution has to convince jury they would not have acted the same in his shoes and that his belief that his life was in danger was not "reasonable."

If you are a prosecutor, how would you go about constructing your case?

If I was the prosecutor I would be hoping for some eye witnesses, some forensic evidence after the experts have combed over the scene to suggest it didn't play out like the shooter said, or for major inconsistencies in the shooter's interviews. Barring those I'm not going to have a case.

 

[matttyl]

Is the kid still alive at this point?

 

[timschochet]

Clifford, here is my problem with your argument:

1. I don't want anyone who fired his gun because he was reasonably in fear of his life (or his loved ones) to go to jail.

2. I don't want anyone who fires his gun recklessly and injures or kills another person, without reasonable fear for his life, to escape jail time.

I don't know how to reconcile the two statements. But, assuming the principle that it is better to let 1,000 guilty men go free than to let one innocent man go to jail, it seems to me that the first principle should take precedence over the second. Therefore, your proposal that we should make the laws more strict in order to more clearly define what the shooter should have done troubles me, because I don't see how, ultimately, we can get into the mind of the shooter.

 

[Clifford]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

:facepalm:

No, it will not be decided on one specific and semi-irrelevant factual issue.

What will happen though is that there will be a burden put on the defense to show that the shooter's actions were justified. That likely includes testimony from the defendant, where his credibility will be attacked and a jury will need to determine whether they believe him and whether he acted reasonably. It'll be up the to jury to determine if they believe his account of what happened and, if they do, to determine if they were in the shooter's shoes that they would have acted the same because that action was reasonable.

The defense will have to meet a burden and the jury will objectively analyze whether they met that burden. Just because you think it's only reasonable to shoot when you know for 100% certainty doesn't mean that the legal standards you're demanding cannot be met with a factual account less than what you myopically demand.

Actually the burden will be on the State to prove he wasn't justified. Not the other way around.

So prosecution has to convince jury they would not have acted the same in his shoes and that his belief that his life was in danger was not "reasonable."

If you are a prosecutor, how would you go about constructing your case?

If I was the prosecutor I would be hoping for some eye witnesses, some forensic evidence after the experts have combed over the scene to suggest it didn't play out like the shooter said, or for major inconsistencies in the shooter's interviews. Barring those I'm not going to have a case.

So you have to prove that the shooter did not see the kid reach for his hip? Or would you construct your case around the fact that seeing a kid reaching for his hip thirty feet away <> reasonable belief your life was in danger?

Sounds like a loser either way IMO.

 

[Clifford]

Clifford, here is my problem with your argument:

1. I don't want anyone who fired his gun because he was reasonably in fear of his life (or his loved ones) to go to jail.

2. I don't want anyone who fires his gun recklessly and injures or kills another person, without reasonable fear for his life, to escape jail time.

I don't know how to reconcile the two statements. But, assuming the principle that it is better to let 1,000 guilty men go free than to let one innocent man go to jail, it seems to me that the first principle should take precedence over the second. Therefore, your proposal that we should make the laws more strict in order to more clearly define what the shooter should have done troubles me, because I don't see how, ultimately, we can get into the mind of the shooter.

I think you have to allow for some wiggle room to account for the unloaded gun scenario, but I think objective evidence that clearly shows that the there actually was no reason to fear for ones life should be weighted more heavily in terms of instruction to the jury than the shooter's mindset.

One clear message I got from the jury after the Zimmerman trial is that these laws confuse the hell out of average folks who are not in the legal profession.

 

[jsharlan]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

:facepalm:

No, it will not be decided on one specific and semi-irrelevant factual issue.

What will happen though is that there will be a burden put on the defense to show that the shooter's actions were justified. That likely includes testimony from the defendant, where his credibility will be attacked and a jury will need to determine whether they believe him and whether he acted reasonably. It'll be up the to jury to determine if they believe his account of what happened and, if they do, to determine if they were in the shooter's shoes that they would have acted the same because that action was reasonable.

The defense will have to meet a burden and the jury will objectively analyze whether they met that burden. Just because you think it's only reasonable to shoot when you know for 100% certainty doesn't mean that the legal standards you're demanding cannot be met with a factual account less than what you myopically demand.

Actually the burden will be on the State to prove he wasn't justified. Not the other way around.

So prosecution has to convince jury they would not have acted the same in his shoes and that his belief that his life was in danger was not "reasonable."

If you are a prosecutor, how would you go about constructing your case?

If I was the prosecutor I would be hoping for some eye witnesses, some forensic evidence after the experts have combed over the scene to suggest it didn't play out like the shooter said, or for major inconsistencies in the shooter's interviews. Barring those I'm not going to have a case.

So you have to prove that the shooter did not see the kid reach for his hip? Or would you construct your case around the fact that seeing a kid reaching for his hip thirty feet away <> reasonable belief your life was in danger?

Sounds like a loser either way IMO.

Like I said, without one of the things I mentioned happening, I don't see much of a case here. Keep in mind we only know what little the media has told us so far. I mean, they haven't even taken the racial profiling angle yet.

 

[jsharlan]

Clifford, here is my problem with your argument:

1. I don't want anyone who fired his gun because he was reasonably in fear of his life (or his loved ones) to go to jail.

2. I don't want anyone who fires his gun recklessly and injures or kills another person, without reasonable fear for his life, to escape jail time.

I don't know how to reconcile the two statements. But, assuming the principle that it is better to let 1,000 guilty men go free than to let one innocent man go to jail, it seems to me that the first principle should take precedence over the second. Therefore, your proposal that we should make the laws more strict in order to more clearly define what the shooter should have done troubles me, because I don't see how, ultimately, we can get into the mind of the shooter.

I think you have to allow for some wiggle room to account for the unloaded gun scenario, but I think objective evidence that clearly shows that the there actually was no reason to fear for ones life should be weighted more heavily in terms of instruction to the jury than the shooter's mindset.

One clear message I got from the jury after the Zimmerman trial is that these laws confuse the hell out of average folks who are not in the legal profession.

What objective evidence will there be? If you held an experiment when you stood 30 feet from me in the dark and told me you were going to reach for your waist twice, and one of the times you would have a gun and shoot me, and one you would not, ya they are going to look pretty much the same to me and I am going to feel equally threatened each time.

 

[Henry Ford]

So you have to prove that the shooter did not see the kid reach for his hip? Or would you construct your case around the fact that seeing a kid reaching for his hip thirty feet away <> reasonable belief your life was in danger?


Sounds like a loser either way IMO.

Sure does. One of the many reasons not to trespass. If you get shot in the head, it's going to be pretty hard to bring the shooter to "justice."

 

[matttyl]

Snippet from article citing another shooting only 9 blocks away, resulting in a death....

That second shooting took place around 5 p.m. Saturday in the 1600 block of Mandeville Street. It left an unidentified man perforated with bullets, bleeding out in public in the soft light of a summer's eve. His death provided yet another rimshot in New Orleans' appalling, endless drumbeat of murder and has produced no arrests.

If I live with my wife and child in that kind of a neighborhood where people are shot in the middle of the street........and I find someone on my property after hoping a locked fence, at 2 AM, I see no issue with the shooter making the choice he did.

 

[Doug B]

Is the kid still alive at this point?

Yes, he is still alive.

 

[jonessed]

Snippet from article citing another shooting only 9 blocks away, resulting in a death....

That second shooting took place around 5 p.m. Saturday in the 1600 block of Mandeville Street. It left an unidentified man perforated with bullets, bleeding out in public in the soft light of a summer's eve. His death provided yet another rimshot in New Orleans' appalling, endless drumbeat of murder and has produced no arrests.

If I live with my wife and child in that kind of a neighborhood where people are shot in the middle of the street........and I find someone on my property after hoping a locked fence, at 2 AM, I see no issue with the shooter making the choice he did.

It seemed earlier like he wasn't on the property intentionally. If he actually climbed a locked gate then I think the benefit of the doubt swings to the homeowner.

 

[timschochet]

Snippet from article citing another shooting only 9 blocks away, resulting in a death....

That second shooting took place around 5 p.m. Saturday in the 1600 block of Mandeville Street. It left an unidentified man perforated with bullets, bleeding out in public in the soft light of a summer's eve. His death provided yet another rimshot in New Orleans' appalling, endless drumbeat of murder and has produced no arrests.

If I live with my wife and child in that kind of a neighborhood where people are shot in the middle of the street........and I find someone on my property after hoping a locked fence, at 2 AM, I see no issue with the shooter making the choice he did.

It seemed earlier like he wasn't on the property intentionally. If he actually climbed a locked gate then I think the benefit of the doubt swings to the homeowner.

After considering all the facts (at least the ones we know thus far), I think that, ultimately, I have to agree with this.

It's interesting to me that earlier jon_mx wrote that this case was far more ambiguous than the Zimmerman-Martin case, which to him was "open and shut". IMO, this case is actually far less ambiguous. Yes, Zimmerman's case involved a physical confrontation- but we don't know who started it, and we still don't know how it progressed, and most importantly it happened in a public place in which both parties had the right to be. In this case, one party did not have the right to be there, and therefore, as Jonessed states, the benefit of the doubt has to go to the party that did have the right to be there. Making it less ambiguous, IMO.

 

[Henry Ford]

Snippet from article citing another shooting only 9 blocks away, resulting in a death....

That second shooting took place around 5 p.m. Saturday in the 1600 block of Mandeville Street. It left an unidentified man perforated with bullets, bleeding out in public in the soft light of a summer's eve. His death provided yet another rimshot in New Orleans' appalling, endless drumbeat of murder and has produced no arrests.

If I live with my wife and child in that kind of a neighborhood where people are shot in the middle of the street........and I find someone on my property after hoping a locked fence, at 2 AM, I see no issue with the shooter making the choice he did.

This. We're not talking about Pleasantville here, it's the Faubourg Marigny in New Orleans. A one month search on the crime map, leaving in ONLY assault, burglary, homicide, vehicle thefts, robbery, sex crimes, vehicle break-ins and weapons charges, with a one mile radius from this guy's house gives 115 crimes. And about 1/3 of that 1-mile radius is a dead zone because it's the Mississippi River.

If you make it just assault, homicide, burglary, and robbery, it's 67 crimes in a 1-mile radius in one month - with that huge empty space for the river. It's not a safe area.

 

[jon_mx]

Lots of thongs will make this case interesting:

How good the unidentified witness is

If the victims burglary arrests are admissible

If the victim lives

Forensic evidence.

 

[Politician Spock]

Lots of thongs will make this case interesting:

Yes... Yes they will.

 

[matttyl]

Lots of thongs will make this case interesting:

Yes... Yes they will.

Like if this will even be a case. Maybe resources should be used to try and solve the 67 other assaults, burglaries, homicides and robberies that have occurred within the past month within one mile of where this man defended his property from a intruder at 2 in the morning.

 

[[icon]]

Snippet from article citing another shooting only 9 blocks away, resulting in a death....

That second shooting took place around 5 p.m. Saturday in the 1600 block of Mandeville Street. It left an unidentified man perforated with bullets, bleeding out in public in the soft light of a summer's eve. His death provided yet another rimshot in New Orleans' appalling, endless drumbeat of murder and has produced no arrests.

If I live with my wife and child in that kind of a neighborhood where people are shot in the middle of the street........and I find someone on my property after hoping a locked fence, at 2 AM, I see no issue with the shooter making the choice he did.

This. We're not talking about Pleasantville here, it's the Faubourg Marigny in New Orleans. A one month search on the crime map, leaving in ONLY assault, burglary, homicide, vehicle thefts, robbery, sex crimes, vehicle break-ins and weapons charges, with a one mile radius from this guy's house gives 115 crimes. And about 1/3 of that 1-mile radius is a dead zone because it's the Mississippi River.

If you make it just assault, homicide, burglary, and robbery, it's 67 crimes in a 1-mile radius in one month - with that huge empty space for the river. It's not a safe area.

I don't think you understand. It's only fair to the criminals if you wait until they've shot at you twice before you shoot back... I mean. What if they accidentally pulled the trigger that first time. Let's just just jump to conclusions people. Jeez.

 

[jsharlan]

Lots of thongs will make this case interesting:

Yes... Yes they will.

Like if this will even be a case. Maybe resources should be used to try and solve the 67 other assaults, burglaries, homicides and robberies that have occurred within the past month within one mile of where this man defended his property from a intruder at 2 in the morning.

You're missing the funny in his quote.

 

[Politician Spock]

Lots of thongs will make this case interesting:

Yes... Yes they will.

Like if this will even be a case. Maybe resources should be used to try and solve the 67 other assaults, burglaries, homicides and robberies that have occurred within the past month within one mile of where this man defended his property from a intruder at 2 in the morning.

Do the other 67 cases have thongs too. If so, I'm interested.

 

[Henry Ford]

Snippet from article citing another shooting only 9 blocks away, resulting in a death....

That second shooting took place around 5 p.m. Saturday in the 1600 block of Mandeville Street. It left an unidentified man perforated with bullets, bleeding out in public in the soft light of a summer's eve. His death provided yet another rimshot in New Orleans' appalling, endless drumbeat of murder and has produced no arrests.

If I live with my wife and child in that kind of a neighborhood where people are shot in the middle of the street........and I find someone on my property after hoping a locked fence, at 2 AM, I see no issue with the shooter making the choice he did.

This. We're not talking about Pleasantville here, it's the Faubourg Marigny in New Orleans. A one month search on the crime map, leaving in ONLY assault, burglary, homicide, vehicle thefts, robbery, sex crimes, vehicle break-ins and weapons charges, with a one mile radius from this guy's house gives 115 crimes. And about 1/3 of that 1-mile radius is a dead zone because it's the Mississippi River.

If you make it just assault, homicide, burglary, and robbery, it's 67 crimes in a 1-mile radius in one month - with that huge empty space for the river. It's not a safe area.

I don't think you understand. It's only fair to the criminals if you wait until they've shot at you twice before you shoot back... I mean. What if they accidentally pulled the trigger that first time. Let's just just jump to conclusions people. Jeez.

I should actually clarify - it's 67 from July 1-30. If you add in June 30, there are several more. It was a weekend day.

 

[matttyl]

Lots of thongs will make this case interesting:

Yes... Yes they will.

Like if this will even be a case. Maybe resources should be used to try and solve the 67 other assaults, burglaries, homicides and robberies that have occurred within the past month within one mile of where this man defended his property from a intruder at 2 in the morning.

Do the other 67 cases have thongs too. If so, I'm interested.

Got it, my bad.

 

[Zow]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

:facepalm:

No, it will not be decided on one specific and semi-irrelevant factual issue.

What will happen though is that there will be a burden put on the defense to show that the shooter's actions were justified. That likely includes testimony from the defendant, where his credibility will be attacked and a jury will need to determine whether they believe him and whether he acted reasonably. It'll be up the to jury to determine if they believe his account of what happened and, if they do, to determine if they were in the shooter's shoes that they would have acted the same because that action was reasonable.

The defense will have to meet a burden and the jury will objectively analyze whether they met that burden. Just because you think it's only reasonable to shoot when you know for 100% certainty doesn't mean that the legal standards you're demanding cannot be met with a factual account less than what you myopically demand.

Actually the burden will be on the State to prove he wasn't justified. Not the other way around.

The defense always has to present a prima facie case (meaning showing some evidence which, if true, would meet the grounds for justification). Then the burden falls on the state to prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

ETA: In looking at LA law it looks like there is never a burden shift, but obviously in order to get the jury to "buy" self-defense the defense would have to raise it and present evidence.

 

[jon_mx]

Why would anyone who can afford a car live there?

 

[Zow]

Whatever the defense used, theoretically: if a strange teenager steps into your front yard, and you point your gun at him from 30 feet away and tell him to freeze, and then he appears to reach for a gun, do you have the right to shoot him? Is that self-defense, if you think he's reaching for a gun?

This is the ultimate problem. The way the law is written, in most states, it centers around the shooter's subjective POV of whether they believed there life to be in danger. So either way, the shooter is exonerated because no one can prove he didn't actually really believe the kid had a gun and thought his life was in danger.

The law needs to be changed, in every state, to put some burden on the shooter in these cases. The language surrounding when self-defense can be used, either castle or SYG, in cases such as these where there is no physical confrontation (unlike Zimmerman) should be changed to an objective rather than subjective standard. IOW, the jury's definition of whether the shooter's life was in danger, not the shooter's, should be the standard for determining whether self-defense can be used.

Clearly this guy killed someone who was not posing him any danger. That is the fact of the case, unless it is later revealed that the child was indeed reaching for a gun. In that case self-defense is appropriate. If not, it is not, no matter what was going through the shooter's head. Hell, Jared Loughner probably thought he was defending himself from revisionist language. The establishment of self-defense can not continue to be based on a totally subjective and unprovable standard. It's lunacy.

This is exactly how it already works.

So this case will be completely decided on whether or not the kid had a gun? Well then it's pretty much closed right?

NOPD confirmed that Coulter was unarmed and said that he posed no "imminent threat" when Landry shot him.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/355511#ixzz2aY6aYSMF

If NOPD has already confirmed there was no immediate threat, self-defense can't be used, castle law or no castle law. Is that correct?

determining if a person poses a threat after the fact <> determining if a person poses a threat at the time of the incident.

So you disagree with Zow, that self-defense in LA is determined by the shooter's subjective mindset and not by objective evidence of the reality of the event?

I never said that. You just didn't comprehend what I said.

I said jury's definition of whether his life was in danger, not jury's definition of whether the action was reasonable or whether they would do the same in their shoes. Two different things. The first would rely solely on objective evidence (IE was the victim armed, proximity to shooter at time shot was fired, was there a physical confrontation, was it physically possible for victim to kill shooter from where he was shot, etc), while the second would take into account the shooter's mindset and the jury would decide if they think the shooter actually believed their life to be in danger.

See the difference? Very important one IMO.

The objective standard here is whether he reasonably believed that there was danger. Reasonably is where the objective standard comes in. Reasonably means that the jury has to believe not only that he believed it, but that a reasonable person would.

OK, and that is what I am saying needs to be changed in all laws regarding self-defense. This is a ridiculous standard to apply.

But that's exactly the standard you asked for in your first quote post.

 

[Clifford]

True in a sense, but I believe juries are instructed to consider the shooter's mindset at the time for whether use of deadly force was reasonable, which is what is confusing.

To objectively look at the facts, it's a slam dunk that his life was not in immediate danger at the time he pulled the trigger.

However, being asked to consider whether someone's mindset was reasonable is a different and confusing proposition. What is the juror being asked to do here? Who can say whether something going on in someone's head was reasonable without actually being that person?

I think people would be less quick to shoot in a similar situation if the standard of guilt were more weighted to objective facts of the case. IOW, if the standard in this case were an automatic guilty if the shooter could not prove the victim showed something that would provide reasonable belief that the person was in fact capable of killing him from where he stood, perhaps the shooter would not have fired so quickly, knowing he has to at least see a weapon for self-defense to be considered. Maybe he would have waited a split second after seeing the guy reach for his hip to see if he produced anything. And maybe instead of getting shot the kid simply jumps and runs, and this guy isn't facing murder charges.

Laws that cause a little more pause for the shooter would likely produce better outcomes for the shooter.

 

[humpback]

Why would anyone who can afford a car live there?

Obviously

 

[Henry Ford]

Why would anyone who can afford a car live there?

It's an historic district founded 200 years ago, has an unbelievable nightlife, and is blocks from the French Quarter, and only a few more blocks from the Central Business District where a whole lot of people work.

And yes, thongs.

 

[BroadwayG]

Was there a 'Trespassers will be shot' sign on the fence anywhere?

 

[Zow]

True in a sense, but I believe juries are instructed to consider the shooter's mindset at the time for whether use of deadly force was reasonable, which is what is confusing.

To objectively look at the facts, it's a slam dunk that his life was not in immediate danger at the time he pulled the trigger.

However, being asked to consider whether someone's mindset was reasonable is a different and confusing proposition. What is the juror being asked to do here? Who can say whether something going on in someone's head was reasonable without actually being that person?

I think people would be less quick to shoot in a similar situation if the standard of guilt were more weighted to objective facts of the case. IOW, if the standard in this case were an automatic guilty if the shooter could not prove the victim showed something that would provide reasonable belief that the person was in fact capable of killing him from where he stood, perhaps the shooter would not have fired so quickly, knowing he has to at least see a weapon for self-defense to be considered. Maybe he would have waited a split second after seeing the guy reach for his hip to see if he produced anything. And maybe instead of getting shot the kid simply jumps and runs, and this guy isn't facing murder charges.

Laws that cause a little more pause for the shooter would likely produce better outcomes for the shooter.

1. A complete burden shift toward the Defendant to possibly prove a negative are not "other words" for a standard of guilt being more "weight to objective facts."

2. Your entire premise here is unconstitutional.

3. What if the shooter could only show like a wine bottle? Or some other innocent object from the victim's hip which wasn't weapon? So in that case, even if the shooter's action was understandable, the fact it's a mistake then would send the poor shooter to jail according to your standard. How are you okay with that?

 

[Clifford]

I think if the shooter sees something and shoots, in this case, then his actions are much more "reasonable" from an objective standpoint, than if he shoots before seeing anything that could possibly harm him.

Basically, to me, this case does not meet a "reasonable" standard, because the shooter never actually saw anything that would have given the victim any ability to harm him from where he stood at the time the shot was fired.

 

[BroadwayG]

How well lit was this area at 2 in the morning? It may have been impossible to see anything in detail from 30 feet.

 

[Clifford]

Whatever happened to firing a warning shot? I think the defense is going to have a hard time arguing that a belief that his life was in immediate danger is reasonable without ever seeing anything in the kids hands.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Whatever happened to firing a warning shot? I think the defense is going to have a hard time arguing that a belief that his life was in immediate danger is reasonable without ever seeing anything in the kids hands.

 

[Clifford]

Whatever happened to firing a warning shot? I think the defense is going to have a hard time arguing that a belief that his life was in immediate danger is reasonable without ever seeing anything in the kids hands.

Explain yourself