PDA

View Full Version : Its not always clear cut when you shoot someone


kgpcr
May 14, 2008, 06:10 PM
www.wcco.com/local/firefighter.charged.murder.2.723438.html
Read this story and though i dont agree with it you can see its not always so cut and dried!

tplumeri
May 14, 2008, 06:31 PM
It's never cut and dried when you fire a gun in anger.
Unfortunately, it appears these two guys were threatening each other before the incident. which makes the shooter suspect for premeditated.
even if cleared by authorities he will face countless lawsuits and likely lose.
Its taken me almost 6 years to fend off the lawsuits on a self defense shooting!

Boris Bush
May 14, 2008, 07:04 PM
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I doubt I would have done diferently. Think about it. A man busts down your door. What next? Does he want a hug?

It does not, from the report, sound like shots fired in anger, rather it sounds like a defence situation.........

sw_florida
May 14, 2008, 07:09 PM
I don't think their history of arguing weights in here, or at least it shouldn't. Would you want to be looked upon as a premedative killer just because you may have had to deal with tiring telephone calls from a nut for weeks before he blows your door in and comes at you?

Frank Ettin
May 14, 2008, 07:21 PM
Remember, this is a newspaper article. We don't have all the information the prosecutor and the police have. And then again, he may be being railroaded for some political reason, and at the end of the day the firefighter may well be exonerated. We just don't know enough.

dirkk
May 14, 2008, 07:41 PM
I think tiring phone calls from a nut is too distant a comparison to this situation. Not walking away (figuratively) from a conflict contributes to escalation. Exacerbating the situation by adding your own insults and taunts is proactive contribution to escalation. That will be weighed in.

There is no exact way to determine state of mind. But all you can do is examine behavior leading to an incident to determine how to distribute culpability. Yeah, yeah, I know you can't read minds and newspapers never get the facts right. But assuming they did ... it would be hard to show that the shooter wasn't looking for a fight, or even a reason to shoot. Even if that weren't true.

Playboypenguin
May 14, 2008, 07:47 PM
Sounds to me like the shooter should be charged. He chose to escalate a situation and even antagonize the victim.

I do not see any threats being noted from the victim and I do see where the shooter goes from saying he is a big guy and did not consider the guy a threat and then saying he feared for his life from the same disabled man.

I also see where the shooter decided not to call police and did not see any evidence of the victim presenting a deadly threat. Guys get into fist fights and shooting every guy you have an altercation with is not an option.

NotAMonte86
May 14, 2008, 09:05 PM
No victims here.

If someone is allowed to kick down a door/break into someone's house because they were insulted, then I better get an alarm system installed (and a reinforced door).

Forcing your way into an occupied dwelling should be viewed as intent to use deadly force. The boyfriend only used deadly force in response to the ex's display of intent and ability to inflict great bodily harm or cause death.

***This is all based on the news article!

Playboypenguin
May 14, 2008, 09:10 PM
If someone is allowed to kick down a door/break into someone's house because they were insulted,
I do not see any evidence in the article of the door being "kicked down."

The only reference to the door that is an actual quote simple says the door "flew open."

If the shooting victim had previous residence there, has a child on the premises, and has until this time been allowed access to the home he did not break in.

The shooter knew the victim and stated he did not consider him a physical threat. Why did that suddenly change?

LanceOregon
May 14, 2008, 09:22 PM
Here is another newspaper report on this case, that goes more into why the DA decided to prosecute:


http://www.kare11.com/news/ts_article.aspx?storyid=510781


Apparently the DA must feel that Huggett was somewhat responsible for provoking the attack. He did insult and belittle the man pretty bad. He obviously was trying to humiliate him.

Still, it was Peach who broke into Huggett's home, so this really does not seem right. After all, how was Huggett to know whether Peach was armed or not?? Do you stop and ask the person who has just broken into your dark home at night whether they have a gun on them??

Making that comment about Peach's son was pretty low of Huggett. He should never had said anything like that. It certainly will not win him any points with a jury.

To me, though, I'm doubtful that this will pass the beyond reasonable doubt test. For I think that it would be reasonable to think that Huggett could well have felt in fear of his life under these circumstances.

Wisconsin has become a pretty liberal state. Efforts to pass a "shall issue" CCW law there have failed in recent years. Wisconsin is one of only 2 states with no CCW program of any kind at all. Heck, Wisconsin is even one of only 7 states where even Tasers are outlawed!!

In light of that, Wisconsin's laws regarding use of deadly force may well be more restrictive than in states that we live in. It is really important to know the law in your state regarding the use of firearms.


.

ssilicon
May 14, 2008, 09:40 PM
From the second article:

Authorities also say Huggett, a Minneapolis firefighter, was in much better physical condition than Peach, and that, combined with the fact that Peach was unarmed, made the use of deadly physical force unnecessary.


I guess in Wisconsin, if you might be tougher or at least as tough as someone breaking into your home unarmed, you are apparently expected to engage in physical hand to hand fighting inside your home, rather than risk killing the poor invader with a firearm. How sad is that? You never know how a fight will go, and even if you WIN, you can still be badly hurt in the process. I don't care what kind of names he was called, if he truly "forced his way in" he should be shot. And if I were on the jury there would be no worry. On the other hand, if the forcing in thing isn't quite as it sounds or seems, then perhaps charges are in order here.

kgpcr
May 14, 2008, 10:12 PM
Huggert was partly to blame with all his taunting. what the hell was he thinking. I suppose he was being a tough guy and all. Should he have shot him? i am not sure on that one but this i would say is that had he not sent all the text messages and such there would be no charges. Him telling Peach that he was gonig to be his sons father from now on was cold and uncalled for. also giving him such a hard time about being on social security disability was not good either. Should Peach have broke in to his house? No he should not have. Plenty of blame to go around!

Boris Bush
May 14, 2008, 10:25 PM
We can say and speculate all we want. The fact is no matter what he said or text messaged, the guy had no right to breakin to the shooters house. I have had worse said to me and I never was so inclined to kick a door in.

Sportdog
May 14, 2008, 10:35 PM
Message Deleted

Wildalaska
May 14, 2008, 10:52 PM
On the facts as stated I agree with PP

WilditsallaboutstateofmindAlaska TM

BloodyBucket03
May 14, 2008, 11:09 PM
Well I agree with the other posts we do not have all the information. I personally would have not traded text messages with some nut. I would have contacted the police and have a restraining order put on that wack job. As for kicking in my door if someone is willing to do that they are willing to be confronted by my Mossberg 500.

Frank Ettin
May 14, 2008, 11:17 PM
If nothing else, this thread should reinforce the notion that whether or not the use of lethal force is justified is not always clear. We seen in other threads folks making the assumption that if the use of lethal force is justified, certain things don't matter. But the point that tends to be ignored is that the justification is not always obvious and may be debatable.

Here's a case in which a number of members here think that the shooting was justified. Others are skeptical. There are arguments and factors on each side of the question. Based on what's been presented so far, if it comes to trial, a jury could go either way, A lot will depend on how good the prosecutor is and how good the defense lawyer is. A lot will depend on exactly what the evidence on each side is and how it's presented. And the character and reputation of the firefighter defendant will probably also be an important factor.

So sure, maybe somethings aren't an issue if it's a "good shoot." But as this case shows, everyone agreeing that it's a good shoot is not a foregone conclusion.

primlantah
May 15, 2008, 12:38 PM
If the 'victim' really needed social security disability why was he going to head across town to engage in a physical fight? sounds like a lowlife mooching off tax payers.

If he breaks into a home with it being clear a fight is about to happen its murder to kill him if he is smaller than you and pretending to be disabled? Glad I live in TEXAS where things make sense... The firefighter would have been no billed here.

OTOH if a person is ever desperate they should head north with crutches and plunder away with impunity. :barf: :rolleyes: :mad:

Sportdog
May 15, 2008, 01:01 PM
Beautiful to see that you cut through the political correctness and used most likely the reality of the situation. I pretty much feel the same way but tried to tiptoe around and not just say it. My bad.....Good for you!;)

Playboypenguin
May 15, 2008, 01:14 PM
This wasn't a "break in" where the shooter was taken off guard and surprised in his home by any means. This was a dispute he encouraged and incited with someone he had personal ties with and who he clearly stated he did not consider a physical threat. He was also able to see the victim pull up, get out of his car, and approach the door. There were many other things he could have done but chose to sit and wait with the intention of shooting the other man. That is the definition of premeditated.

The victim made mistake which, even though provoked, he should not have made; but none of them were worth being killed over. If you think different I would highly question you competence to make a good decision as to when to shoot someone and I understand why so many people would use example like you as a reason why people should not have guns.

Wildalaska
May 15, 2008, 01:25 PM
HEAR HEAR!!!!!

WildehwotAlaska ™

Sportdog
May 15, 2008, 01:40 PM
Message Deleted

Playboypenguin
May 15, 2008, 01:49 PM
Until you learn to differentiate between "PC" and just plain "the right thing to do" you might want to do everyone a favor and leave the guns at home.

PS: Using negative buzz words like "PC" is pretty lame and really does not incite anyone other than people who allow themselves to be told by the far right what words are offensive.

tplumeri
May 15, 2008, 02:25 PM
It's never cut and dried when you fire a gun in anger.
Unfortunately, it appears these two guys were threatening each other before the incident. which makes the shooter suspect for premeditated.


part of my post (#2)

It does not, from the report, sound like shots fired in anger

I use "in anger" as a generic term meaning that drawing or firing a gun with the intent to shoot another human being is "in anger". as opposed to pleasure or sport shooting.

Unfortunately, it appears these two guys were threatening each other before the incident. which makes the shooter suspect for premeditated.


From post #2

This was a dispute he encouraged and incited with someone he had personal ties with and who he clearly stated he did not consider a physical threat.

OK, so playboy said it better. But the point is the same.

even if cleared by authorities he will face countless lawsuits and likely lose.


Thats the bottom line!
been there, done that.
well, almost, the lawsuit was thrown out, but it cost me alot in lawyers fees and appearances.

JMHO
tom

Wildalaska
May 15, 2008, 02:40 PM
Last edited by Sportdog : Today at 02:57 PM. Reason: Shouted Down By Liberal Left Wing

Shouldnt that be...Shamed by mature, rational gun owners :)

WildHELOOOOKIMSHOUTINGAlaska ™

Sportdog
May 15, 2008, 03:18 PM
Go drink your Kool-Aid and leave me alone. Your half witted rational makes me :barf: I tried to get out of this but you seem to want to rub it in for me making a good value judgement to not engage with far left loons so let's just drop it. Now go ahead and get your last word in like a two year old. I'm finished!:rolleyes:

Playboypenguin
May 15, 2008, 03:21 PM
I must have missed the parts where you showed "good judgment"...could you provide a link to proof. :)

MLeake
May 15, 2008, 03:35 PM
If a guy who I don't consider a physical threat, and who should know he doesn't stand a chance in a fistfight with me, decides to break in my door...

... I will probably assume he's brought a weapon. Otherwise, he'd just be stupid.

I agree the firefighter shouldn't have left provoking messages, and that he should have involved the police a bit sooner. However, I think it reasonable for him to have thought the decedent likely to be armed at the time of the break-in, based on behavior.

Granted, it's possible the decedent used a key, instead of kicking in the door, but it does say that the ex-girlfriend called the police when she heard the pounding on the door. It seems illogical that somebody who had a key would pound on a door more than once, before using the key. My inference would be that he broke it in, but maybe we'll get more facts reported at a later time.

Criminally, this should be "not guilty." The civil suit could be another matter.

Just my $.02.

Cheers,

M

bds32
May 15, 2008, 04:17 PM
There are alot of variables that need to be determined, completely seperate from the inflammatory comments made by the accused.

A man has a right to protect himself no matter where he is but especially in his home. From the report, it seems to me that the deceased entered into the home of the shooter without permission. However:

1. Did the intruder make furtive movements with his hands?
2. Were the intruder's hands hidden?
3. Did the intruder verbalize a threat of deadly force before the intrusion?
3. Did the intruder verbalize a threat of harm upon entry?
4. Was it dark?
5. Did the resident verbally challenge the intruder and the intruder failed to respond to commands?
6. Did the intruder agressively advance towards the resident?

If the answer to anyone of these questions is yes, the shooter may have a pretty solid defense.

If the answer to all of these questions is no, than the shooter used excessive force to stop the threat in my opinion.

No matter what, the guy is still dead and his kid doesn't have a father because of his own stupid action of entering someone else's home looking for trouble, whether or not the shooter was right or wrong.

Wildalaska
May 15, 2008, 04:24 PM
Cool...I'm a far left loon! :D

WildwithgunstooImanarmedfarleftloonAlaska ™

Hook686
May 15, 2008, 04:37 PM
In California the Handgun 'Study Guide' put out by the Department of Justice incldes a section on the use of lethal force. As I understand it, unless a 'reasonable person' (as determined by the jury) would have acted in the same manner, one is dead meat ... a beat down is the politically correct path to take. :eek:

Permissible Use of Lethal Force in Defense of Life and Body

The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist
the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person
killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was
imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted
under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another
from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape and
robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes (PC section 197).


Limitations on the Use of Force in Self-Defense


The right of self-defense ceases when there is no further danger from an assailant.
Thus, where a person attacked under circumstances initially justifying self-defense
renders the attacker incapable of inflicting further injuries, the law of self-defense
ceases and no further force may be used. Furthermore, a person may only use the
amount of force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar
circumstances would believe necessary to prevent imminent injury. It is important
to note the use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or
criminal penalties.
The right of self-defense is not initially available to a person who assaults another.
However, if such a person attempts to stop further combat and clearly informs the
adversary of his or her desire for peace but the opponent nevertheless continues
the fight, the right of self-defense returns and is the same as the right of any
other person being assaulted.

PT111
May 15, 2008, 05:28 PM
This wasn't a "break in" where the shooter was taken off guard and surprised in his home by any means. This was a dispute he encouraged and incited with someone he had personal ties with and who he clearly stated he did not consider a physical threat. He was also able to see the victim pull up, get out of his car, and approach the door. There were many other things he could have done but chose to sit and wait with the intention of shooting the other man. That is the definition of premeditated.

Extremely good points there and is probably why I have trouble deciding. The dead man may have been a drain on society it appears that the shooter is the scum of society. At no point did it ever say that other than breaking down the door he made any hint of being armed and the shooter had already stated that he wasn't worried about fighting him.

It is all going to depend on which side of the bed the jury gets up on that day unless there are some more facts that we don't know.

pax
May 15, 2008, 06:49 PM
Closed.

Insults, snide comments, rude behavior. :(

Too bad. This could have been a beneficial discussion.

pax