Man Claims Self-Defense, Charged With Murder

[Double Naught Spy]

(2) Meanwhile, the officers and other personnel do absolutely everything BUT help the guy who is bleeding out in the parking lot. They run up and down the street, they look inside the vehicles, they console the girlfriend, they chase after the white car, etc., but NEVER attend to the guy. While there are at least SIX officers on the "bad guy," there are ZERO officers with the dying "good guy." Now that is frightening.

I am not sure what it is that you expected the officers to be doing for Childress. He got visually assessed multiple times it looks like and had his pulse checked. More than likely, not a single officer on scene had the slightest idea what they should be doing for a person that is headshot. It does not appear from the video that Childress was bleeding out (no pooling blood) and so there wasn't reason to be trying to staunch the flow of blood leaving the body.

What would you have done?

[ATW525]

I think the most important lesson to be learned here is that "avoidance" means more than just staying out of bad neighborhoods. Bad relationship choices can lead to bad situations. It's nice to say that women aren't possessions, but that doesn't change the fact that fooling with a woman who is in relationship with somebody else is likely to lead to conflict.

[baddarryl]

From the video alone it could have went either way. A hand picked jury could have been swayed for sure. Not enough info for any of us to make a judgement. There must have been a history of violence and threats as well as the moments of chase before the video brought to light in the trial. Just from that video alone and no testimony would be hard for me to justify the shoot. Shooter had a good lawyer.

[Deaf Smith]

(

1) It does not appear to me that the officers were overly aggressive in apprehending the suspect. They have absolutely NO IDEA what has transpired or what he is about other than they think he shot someone. If you are the police, do you have any other choice but to treat every shooter with equal force, hands up or not? However, it apparently takes at least SIX officers to get this guy. Four rush in after the guy is already face down, handcuffed, and does not appear to really be resisting or a threat.

Sgt, the Cops want to make sure in the reports they 'assisted' in an arrest and thus get brownie points. That is why it takes six of 'em. And I am quite serious. They have another arrest to their record.

(2) Meanwhile, the officers and other personnel do absolutely everything BUT help the guy who is bleeding out in the parking lot. They run up and down the street, they look inside the vehicles, they console the girlfriend, they chase after the white car, etc., but NEVER attend to the guy. While there are at least SIX officers on the "bad guy," there are ZERO officers with the dying "good guy." Now that is frightening.

No brownie points I suspect for helping him (but a chance of getting AIDs from the blood, so why risk it?) And I love the way they run around with their guns (literally), two handed grips, just like the TV shows.

Deaf

[Denezin]

One his personal choices were bad in ethics of a relationship. But i will say the aggressive nature of the charging the defender and him almost striking his car in the process calls for self defense. The arrest in no way was police brutality or over use of force. If a man rushed me and i cant id a weapon or not i would draw a weapon. He rushed him like an idiot and scared him. Open shut case of someone being a moron.

[Hook686]

Is a police station a no firearms zone ? I wonder if it was expected that Waller would be unarmed by Childress. The guy had to be doing some heavy thinking as he chased Waller through town. He must have known Waller carried a gun (via the woman in center stage in this scenario). I think Waller must have had his gun in his hand when he got out of his car, as the shooting took place very quickly. In California one is expected to take a beatdown before resorting to lethal force.

[Ben Towe]

If Childress was headshot (and from the video it looks like the last shot was, by the way he went down), a team of Boston surgeons probably couldn't have helped him, much less the average LEO.

Not being willing to shoot an unarmed man is a foolish thought... How do you know he's unarmed unless he is naked? You take a big risk engaging in any kind of fight besides a gunfight while carrying a pistol. If it is taken then it can be turned on you or any number of innocent bystanders. Not really a smart risk to take.

Get your high school ideas of being a tough guy out of your head or take off the damn gun.

[KWalk313000]

I agree with Ben Towe in the post above. In a situation like this, although ill advised in the first place to be in this situation, with circumstances considered the shooting was appropriate to me if he feared for his life which he did and then proved in court.
I believe someone said he had no right to shoot him unarmed. He did it, was charged with murder, and was acquitted on the grounds of self defense, so he did have some right to shoot here obviously.
I've never been in a fight since I've started carrying and don't plan on every being in one, I'll either run away deescalate as much as I can or do what I need to defend myself.
As to the parties involved, both these guys were asking for trouble based on all the info and although the shooter was acquitted in this case it does not seem like he should be carrying a gun if he's introducing himself into situations like this. Ain't nothing like a women to get a man acting crazy. Emotions and guns don't mix. Leave 'em at home when you strap on and walk out the door.

[Double Naught Spy]

The guy had to be doing some heavy thinking as he chased Waller through town. He must have known Waller carried a gun (via the woman in center stage in this scenario).

Not necessarily. I dated my wife for 4 years and it was several months into our marriage before she knew of my firearms.

I think Waller must have had his gun in his hand when he got out of his car, as the shooting took place very quickly.

I certainly would be inclined be inclined to have my gun ready, if not in my hand, if some maniac is chasing me with his vehicle.

[Merad]

Can't see the video at work, but 2 thoughts based on the articles and comments:

-should've been on the phone with 911 as soon as he realized he was being pursued
-I probably would've stayed in the car to keep castle doctrine coverage. Under NC law if he was unarmed, you'd probably be facing the same murder charges unless you were under castle doctrine.

[Spats McGee]

Just in case anyone wants to order a transcript of the trial, the case was tried in the Faulkner County, Arkansas, Circuit Court, Third Division, the Honorable Charles Clawson, Jr., presiding. It was docket number CR-2010-827. The Arkansas Judicial Directory, through which you can track down the court reporter's contact information, can be downloaded here: https://courts.arkansas.gov/ by opening up the "Publications" menu on the left side.

Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in any fees charged for the preparation of the afore-mentioned transcript.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

-I probably would've stayed in the car to keep castle doctrine coverage.

That brings up a good point. In many states, Castle Doctrine has been extended to people's personal vehicles. This gives you greater legal protection if you stay in the vehicle and the vehicle itself can offer some protection from contact weapons like hammers/knives/fists. The flip side of this is that if your attacker has a firearm and does actually intend to kill you, staying in the car seriously limits your mobility and ability to fight back. Had Childress jumped out of the SUV with a gun and Waller was still sitting in his locked car, he would have been in a tight spot.

And the flip side of extending Castle Doctrine to vehicles is we all need to understand the danger in approaching someone's vehicle and trying to forcibly enter it (or do something that might be perceived that way like beat on the doors or windows) in those states where Castle Doctrine extends to vehicles. An acquaintance was telling me of a "road rage" incident where he was repeatedly endangered by a drunk. At a red light, he got out of his car, walked to the other's car and opened the drunk's door to find a pistol pointing at him. The drunk had definitely earned some personal counseling; but had the drunk shot my acquaintance, he might well have been justified under Castle Doctrine.

[Hansam]

According to what was seen in the video the shooting was justified self-defense. What happened prior to that is immaterial really in the eyes of the court. Keep in mind that he'd been charged with murder and claimed self defense in regards to the act of killing Childress. From what can be seen its self defense regardless of how immoral or wrong the events that lead up to this might have been.

To all of you who are saying you wouldn't have shot because he was unarmed... how do you know he was unarmed? He could have had a knife tucked behind his shirt... and I know of plenty of guys who could kill you without a weapon. I'll be frank and say that if it was one of them and you'd messed with their wife you'd better gun them down if they were rushing you like that. If not it'd be you dead on the ground and him being arrested for murder - and he wouldn't need a weapon for that.

Forget all the movie and macho stuff about not shooting someone who seemed unarmed. If you perceive your life or physical safety in actual danger the do what you carry for - draw and defend yourself. There's a quote I've read around here often - "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." This is all too true. If you're not prepared to draw and shoot to defend yourself or you loved ones just because you think your attacker is unarmed then sell your EDC weapon and learn to fight like Jet Li.

[Spats McGee]

If Castle Doctrine is going to be debated, I'll set out what Arkansas has on the books.

First, Ark. Code Ann. 5-2-607: Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;
(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or
(3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.
(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:
(1)(A) By retreating.
(B) However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is:
(i) In the person's dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or
(ii) A law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or
(2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.
(c) As used in this section: (1) “Curtilage” means the land adjoining a dwelling that is convenient for residential purposes and habitually used for residential purposes, but not necessarily enclosed, and includes an outbuilding that is directly and intimately connected with the dwelling and in close proximity to the dwelling; and
(2) “Domestic abuse” means:
(A) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members; or
(B) Any sexual conduct between family or household members, whether minors or adults, that constitutes a crime under the laws of this state.

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-607 (West)

Second, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-620. Defense, person or property

(a) The right of an individual to defend himself or herself and the life of a person or property in the individual's home against harm, injury, or loss by a person unlawfully entering or attempting to enter or intrude into the home is reaffirmed as a fundamental right to be preserved and promoted as a public policy in this state.
(b) There is a legal presumption that any force or means used to accomplish a purpose described in subsection (a) of this section was exercised in a lawful and necessary manner, unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
(c) The public policy stated in subsection (a) of this section shall be strictly complied with by the court and an appropriate instruction of this public policy shall be given to a jury sitting in trial of criminal charges brought in connection with this public policy.

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-620 (West)

[Merad]

To all of you who are saying you wouldn't have shot because he was unarmed... how do you know he was unarmed? He could have had a knife tucked behind his shirt... and I know of plenty of guys who could kill you without a weapon. I'll be frank and say that if it was one of them and you'd messed with their wife you'd better gun them down if they were rushing you like that. If not it'd be you dead on the ground and him being arrested for murder - and he wouldn't need a weapon for that.

Totally depends on your state laws. I dont know about laws where you live or where this took place, but in NC you do NOT have the right to respond to a simple assault with deadly force. If you have the reasonable belief that the guy is going to kill you or do severe harm even though he's unarmed, or if you're covered by something like castle doctrine, things are different.

[Hansam]

Let's see - the guy chased him down to the police station. Nearly slammed his SUV into his vehicle and blocked off exit route. Then he leaves his vehicle and rushes the shooter.

Frankly if I were in his situation I'd be fearing for my life or at very least fearing serious bodily injury. That warrants drawing and shooting. Anything less and you're risking your life on a chance he won't pummel you to death or cause serious brain injury and make you a vegetable for the rest of your life.

[icedog88]

Does Arkansas have any laws pertaining to stand your ground? If so, castle doctrine would be a moot point.

As far as the don't mess with a woman who is in a relationship. 3 people acted like fools. The man messing with a woman in an obviously committed relationship, the woman, messing around outside of her very committed relationship, and the man who stayed with the woman who messed around outside of their very committed relationship and went looking for a fight to preserve her honor (or his own)

A man who has a beef with me chases me through town, stops his car a few feet from mine and charges me obviously intends to do great bodily harm. If my gun was holstered when he was pulling up, it isn't when he leaps out.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by icedog88

Does Arkansas have any laws pertaining to stand your ground?

See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-607, known as our "Stand Your Ground" law. It's posted above.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Typically a "Stand Your Ground" law removes the duty to retreat in a public place. It appears Arkansas still requires you to retreat in a public place if you can do so safely. It also looks like Arkansas Castle Doctrine only extends to the home, so in this case Waller would not gain any extra legal advantage by staying in his car.

I might have to order that transcript now so I can see how Waller's lawyer handled the argument for duty to retreat.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

Typically a "Stand Your Ground" law removes the duty to retreat in a public place. It appears Arkansas still requires you to retreat in a public place if you can do so safely. It also looks like Arkansas Castle Doctrine only extends to the home, so in this case Waller would not gain any extra legal advantage by staying in his car.

Yes, but take a close look at § 5-2-607:

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;
(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or . . . .

(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:
(1)(A) By retreating.
(B) However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is:
(i) In the person's dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or
(ii) A law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or
(2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.
(c) As used in this section: . . . .[edited by Spats McGee for brevity]

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-607 (West)(emphasis supplied by Spats)

BR, your analysis is just a little off.

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

It appears Arkansas still requires you to retreat in a public place if you can do so safely.

Not quite. Arkansas law requires you to retreat if: (a) you're in a public place; and (b) you know (c) that you can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with (d) complete safety. Not, "I think I'll have complete safety over there," or "I know I'll be safer over there," but "I know that I can avoid deadly force in complete safety by retreating."

I would agree that the car does not afford him any extra legal protection in Arkansas, but I'm not convinced that he was under a duty to retreat, either.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Yes, I think you are right. I am so used to seeing the "with safety" qualifier in duty-to-retreat statutes that I kind of skimmed over that and didn't appreciate the emphasis on "complete safety."

Depending how the courts read that, that is a very fine dstinction from no duty to retreat at all since it would be rare you could ever retreat in "complete" safety.

[Spats McGee]

I think "with safety" is a pretty standard wording, but it looks like this has been our law since 1975. I'm digging around to see how it's been handled by our Supreme Court. I'll get some good quotes up in just a little bit, so that you can see how the contours of our duty to retreat have been drawn.

[mayosligo]

You really never know who you are dealing with. Not sure what the man in the SUVs plan was, but he paid the ultimate price for his action. In the end the lesson is "think" before you act. It looks like the shooter clearly "reacted" to a threat.

[B.N.Real]

Guy 'has relations' with another guys girl then kills the guy and people complain how the police treat him.

X 478 gajillion.

[m&p45acp10+1]

Regardless of the shooters advances towards the shootee's girlfriend. The shootee followed like a stalker, then rushed him. I do not blame the man for defending himself with force. The man that was shot learned a lesson to die for. Not everyone gets to live to learn the lesson.