The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Vermont: Self Defense or Did Lady Die of an OD

**44 AMP** · January 12, 2012, 08:35 PM

First of all, the language used in the report is suspect. It makes assumptions, no doubt suggested by the prosecution, or the defense....or simply a reporter or editor with an agenda...

Lets look at a few basic facts, and assume them to be true, as reported...
Woman had a knife.
Attempted robbery.
Clerk held her down.

Ok, so far? knife is a deadly weapon. Robbery with a knife is armed robbery, so to me that puts it in the violent felony category.

Now the clerk held her down (we assume he disarmed her, otherwise he might have been stabbed/cut and there was no mention of that)

Now, the report says held her down and compressed her chest
Just what, exactly does this mean? That he did CPR chest compressions on her while waiting for the police to show up? Because she was having a heart attack ( arrhythmia )?

Or does it mean he held her down with his body weight across her chest, to restrain her from escaping? And that some lawyer, recognising that someone laying on you compresses your chest decided that was what triggered the heart attack?

Leaving out the commonly known fact that a large cocaine concentration in the body can cause a heart attack, all on its own, without the added stressors of attempting a violent physical act like armed robbery?

My wife has arrhythmia, and it can lead to a fatal heart attack. No question of that, I have numerous hours spent in hospital emergency rooms as personal testimony to that possibility. She controls hers (mostly) with medication. If have a firm conviction that if she was a cocaine user (even with prescribed meds) she would have died from a cocaine induced heart attack.

Based on what was reported, lacking in critical details as it is, there is no doubt in my mind that the woman died as a result of her own actions (knowingly or not) and that the clerk did not "kill" her.

That the clerk "killed" her is lawyer BS, in my not so humble opinion, and I don't see how a jury (who will, presumably have facts that we do not) will see it any other way.

The woman OD'd. Clearly, as far as I can see with the facts in my possession.
If there is something significant being withheld, I reserve the right to change my mind.

January 12, 2012, 08:35 PM	#23
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,811	First of all, the language used in the report is suspect. It makes assumptions, no doubt suggested by the prosecution, or the defense....or simply a reporter or editor with an agenda... Lets look at a few basic facts, and assume them to be true, as reported... Woman had a knife. Attempted robbery. Clerk held her down. Ok, so far? knife is a deadly weapon. Robbery with a knife is armed robbery, so to me that puts it in the violent felony category. Now the clerk held her down (we assume he disarmed her, otherwise he might have been stabbed/cut and there was no mention of that) Now, the report says held her down and compressed her chest Just what, exactly does this mean? That he did CPR chest compressions on her while waiting for the police to show up? Because she was having a heart attack ( arrhythmia )? Or does it mean he held her down with his body weight across her chest, to restrain her from escaping? And that some lawyer, recognising that someone laying on you compresses your chest decided that was what triggered the heart attack? Leaving out the commonly known fact that a large cocaine concentration in the body can cause a heart attack, all on its own, without the added stressors of attempting a violent physical act like armed robbery? My wife has arrhythmia, and it can lead to a fatal heart attack. No question of that, I have numerous hours spent in hospital emergency rooms as personal testimony to that possibility. She controls hers (mostly) with medication. If have a firm conviction that if she was a cocaine user (even with prescribed meds) she would have died from a cocaine induced heart attack. Based on what was reported, lacking in critical details as it is, there is no doubt in my mind that the woman died as a result of her own actions (knowingly or not) and that the clerk did not "kill" her. That the clerk "killed" her is lawyer BS, in my not so humble opinion, and I don't see how a jury (who will, presumably have facts that we do not) will see it any other way. The woman OD'd. Clearly, as far as I can see with the facts in my possession. If there is something significant being withheld, I reserve the right to change my mind. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.