Man Claims Self-Defense, Charged With Murder

[Double Naught Spy]

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

X 478 gajillion.

Whether or not the guy had relations with another person's girlfriend isn't relevant to the police's treatment of him after a self defense shooting where he has been acquitted. He was justified in using lethal force to defend himself against his aggressor. Like it or not, he was the intended victim in the confrontation.

[Nanuk]

I see no evidence that the deceased was armed. The shooter is a weasel whom bad things were catching up to. The woman was the catalyst, and twisted the emotions of these two men. I would hazard a guess that neither one of them was being thoughtful or logical. All parties were wrong, who was more wrong? I say the shooter was more wrong by introducing deadly force into a domestic situation.

[Catalyst]

Originally Posted by Nanuk

I see no evidence that the deceased was armed. The shooter is a weasel whom bad things were catching up to. The woman was the catalyst, and twisted the emotions of these two men. I would hazard a guess that neither one of them was being thoughtful or logical. All parties were wrong, who was more wrong? I say the shooter was more wrong by introducing deadly force into a domestic situation.

Weasels may not be afforded the right by law to defend themselves from attack, but weasel-like humans do have that right.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by GaryH

...f the dude didn't display a weapon then the killer murdered someone because he was afraid of an ass whooping. I didn't see or hear all of the evidence, but when is it acceptable to gun someone down on a city street? To me it looked like a coward committed murder...

Originally Posted by GlockedNLoded32

...Childress boxed Waller in and approached in a threatening manner he was still unarmed...that doesn't give Waller the right to kill a defenseless man that just proves hes a coward...

Originally Posted by Merad

...Under NC law if he was unarmed, you'd probably be facing the same murder charges unless you were under castle doctrine...

Originally Posted by Nanuk

...The shooter is a weasel whom bad things were catching up to...

BUT --

In any case, Mr.Waller was charged with murder but the jury acquitted him. So the jury, who heard all the evidence, from both sides, apparently concluded that Mr. Waller's use of lethal force was legally justified under the circumstances.

[m&p45acp10+1]

I see some people still love to play the blame the victim game. The other man chased and pusued him. Then got out to attack him.

I do not care what you say the motivator for a guy to chase someone then rush out of a vehicle and then assaualt him are. If you are dumb enough when angry to do this. I have no pitty for you when ther other guy shoots you. If I were on the jury I can say that I would have asked why charges had even been filed.

[Double Naught Spy]

I say the shooter was more wrong by introducing deadly force into a domestic situation.

More wrong? Not illegally so and that is what the jury had to decide on.

I am not sure of your justification of it not being right because it was a domestic situations. People are often killed in "domestic situations." Cops often suffer the worst harm in "domestic situations."

When you are being illegally chased down and then rushed as the shooter was, you certainly may be in a position to reasonably fear for his life. It does not matter what the impetus may have been. At the point of the shooting, the shooter was the victim who was being attacked. That the attacker acted to solidify the affection of a woman isn't legal grounds for making the attack. He was wrong, made a very stupid choice, and died in front of his kids.

[Nanuk]

I think some people are taking my statement the wrong way.

I am not defending anyone, I am saying they are both stupid, a woman wittingly or not manipulated the situation and somebody died.

We only saw a small snippet of film and no evidence one way or the other besides the video itself. I was not on the scene, nor the jury, nor am I passing judgement. It is however suspicious as H$#@ when one part of a love triangle kills another part of the love triangle.

Lets just say this was a road rage incident taken too far. Did anyone make contact with anyone else's vehicle in any manner? Following someone as the deceased did was really stupid, stopping like he did was really stupid, getting out to confront the other driver was really stupid.

Double Naught, I say it was not right because an angry armed man killed and angry unarmed man over a relationship. Maybe where you live its ok to kill your squeeze's boyfriend. I don't know what precipitated this event, all I can do is comment on the information I have available.

[Bubba in c.a.]

i had a friend whose brakes gave out on a hill and he hit a squad car at the intersection. The police came out of their car with guns pointing and had the terified guy spread eagle on the ground in no time.

The reasonable person test will be debated forever, but cutting somebody off with a vehicle and them coming at him aggressively would ``put the victum in reasonable fear for his life``. Bang.

Sad deal, but cars are deadly weapons, too.

[icedog88]

a woman wittingly or not manipulated the situation and somebody died.

Her boyfriend she was living with allowed himself to be "manipulated".

Lets just say this was a road rage incident taken too far. Did anyone make contact with anyone else's vehicle in any manner?

That didn't matter. Isolated, a man parks at the police station, gets out of his car with his back to it, another car speeds toward him, stops short, driver charges him allowing no avenue to retreat. This man in the car was going to try to beat him up in front of the police station! Not in the right frame of mind IMO. Whether or not we saw what led up to the shooting on tape is immaterial. The jury heard the past history. Coupled with the shooting on tape, the jury made the right verdict. The law as written in Arkansas doesn't require your attacker to be as well armed as you might be. Or armed period. What if the attacker (because that's what the man who charged was), picked up a brick during the tussle were he not shot? Did he have a pocket knife that he could have pulled out? Where do you draw the line for a "fair fight"? The shooter had a .45. If the attacker had a .22, is it more fair? Those two calibers aren't equal. Justified shooting.

[TailGator]

I say it was not right because an angry armed man killed an angry unarmed man over a relationship.

(Emphasis added.)

This sentence makes it sound like the shooter went and found his competitor and shot him so he could have the woman to himself. That is a mis-statement of the situation that appears in the video. I don't see evidence that the shooter acted in anger; nor do we have any reason to think that he shot the deceased "over of a relationship," which I take the writer to mean out of jealousy or possessiveness. The deceased was visibly angry, aggressive, and taking overtly threatening action against the shooter. What went on before was of questionable moral fiber, but it is only the back story in an incident in which a person was, according to a jury, in legitimate fear of death or serious injury and defended himself against the immediate actions of an assailant.

It certainly is good advice to keep oneself out of situations like this, and for reason that go much deeper than the prospect of gunplay. But being a jerk does not give the rest of the world the right to dispense vigilante justice; hence the right of jerks to defend themselves.

[Nanuk]

Icedog, what if'ing the situation does not help. What if I had a thermal nuclear bomb in my car. What if he shot him in the Hospital? Is it ok to go to a movie in a crowded firehouse?

Tailgator, precisely, we do not know what led up to the confrontation.

What if he had this or that, it changes the facts as we know them and is irrelevant. I am not saying the jury was wrong. I am saying that the shooter was rightfully arrested and charged with murder. If his attorney was able to interject reasonable doubt and get him acquitted, great, thats his job.

If you guys feel justified shooting someone in this situation, go for it.

As I have posted before, I spent a career in Law Enforcement. I have been shot at, stabbed, spit on, fought with you name it, when I have used force it has been appropriate to the situation. In MY OPINION shooting him was NOT an appropriate response. After being involved in thousands of bad situations over 3 decades, I feel that I have learned a thing or two and feel pretty comfortable calling a spade a spade. It is a rare thing indeed that you get to watch a shooting on video like that. I know you tube is full of them, but that just scratches the surface.

Anger- someone is tailgating you, following you, driving aggressively, you go to the police department with him following you, you are scared, angry, or what? Oh wait, the guy is following you because you are banging the mother of his children and you will not stay away from her after being told to do so. So the stalker shoots the guy who is apparently trying to get the stalker to leave his woman alone.

You can what if this and every scenario to death, so some of do not agree, cool. That is why we have the judicial system we do. He received a fair trial and was acquitted.

[Spats McGee]

IMO, it's important to recognize the distinction between "right vs. wrong" and "legal vs. illegal." Perhaps the two analyses should be the same, but they are not.

I'd say that there was plenty of stupid to go around in this situation. Thing 1 shouldn't have been playing patty-fingers with Thing 2's girl. Thing 2 shouldn't have been chasing Thing 1 around town, trying to give him the whoopin' (that's the technical term) that 2 thought 1 so richly deserved.

Still, whether the killing was right, wrong, or indifferent, the jury decided that 2 was entitled to use deadly force to defend himself. Thing 2's actions were legal, regardless of whether we think they were right or wrong.

[icedog88]

Nanuk, that's exactly my point. The jury ruled on the law. Not

Lets just say this was a road rage incident taken too far.

. Because it wasn't. The jury took all the facts and evidence and ruled on the law. Not should they have duked it out. Not that the attacker wasn't armed. And not Thing 1 (thanks Spats McGee ) taking a whoopin that he might have deserved.

[jibberjabber]

With multiple rounds fired at close range and the kids sitting in the car behind the target I'm glad they weren't hit.

[Marty Hayes]

I want the name of the defense attorney, to solicit him for the Network. He obviously understands self-defense law, and has successfully defended one case!

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Marty Hayes

I want the name of the defense attorney, to solicit him for the Network. He obviously understands self-defense law, and has successfully defended one case!

The defense attorneys were (in no particular order):
1) Bill Luppen, of Little Rock, AR; and
2) Frank Shaw, of Conway, AR.

[TexasJustice7]

Icedog88: That didn't matter. Isolated, a man parks at the police station, gets out of his car with his back to it, another car speeds toward him, stops short, driver charges him allowing no avenue to retreat. This man in the car was going to try to beat him up in front of the police station! Not in the right frame of mind IMO. Whether or not we saw what led up to the shooting on tape is immaterial. The jury heard the past history. Coupled with the shooting on tape, the jury made the right verdict. The law as written in Arkansas doesn't require your attacker to be as well armed as you might be. Or armed period. What if the attacker (because that's what the man who charged was), picked up a brick during the tussle were he not shot? Did he have a pocket knife that he could have pulled out? Where do you draw the line for a "fair fight"? The shooter had a .45. If the attacker had a .22, is it more fair? Those two calibers aren't equal. Justified shooting

Your right that the law in Arkansas does not require your attacker to be as well armed as you might be. The law probably also requires that you did nothing to provoke the incident. This would have also been a justified shooting in Texas. One is not simply required to take a whooping, and maybe have his weapons taken away from him before defending himself.
But getting involved in a love triangle is a good way to get killed sooner or
later. Were I on that jury I would have voted not guilty as well, because
one has to render the decision according to the law. There does seem to be a lot of people who believe that you cannot shoot an unarmed person assaulting you. That is not the case in many southern states. I will bet his
legal expenses though still run into thosands of dollars.

[icedog88]

But getting involved in a love triangle is a good way to get killed

Or a parallelogram. Or playing your music too loud. Or anything else in this day and age it seems like. Too bad people in this situation had to find this out the hard way.

I will bet his
legal expenses though still run into thosands of dollars.

Not fair really, but in the long run, probably the best money he ever had to spend.

[Double Naught Spy]

Double Naught, I say it was not right because an angry armed man killed and angry unarmed man over a relationship. Maybe where you live its ok to kill your squeeze's boyfriend. I don't know what precipitated this event, all I can do is comment on the information I have available.

No, he shot and killed a man in self defense after the man vehicularly chased him down and then rushed him as he exited his own vehicle. He feared for his life. That there was an issue involving a female does nothing to change the justification for self defense.

The only person committing a criminal act here was the aggressor who is now deceased. The aggressor/deceased had no legal right to attack the shooter. Being mad about being cuckhold do not get one legal right to attack another person.

[matthew261]

After watching the video several times and reading through this thread, my conclusion is that there was a fine line a jury had to negotiate. In the end, justice was weighed and served. Moreover, there are a lot of lessons to be gleaned from this incident for all of us.

(non sequitur) I hope the shooter wised up and left that woman...she's trouble.

[gvw3]

Looks to me like the shooter was a coward afraid to take a beating. The worst person to fight is a coward as they will shoot you to avoid taking a beating. This looks like murder to me. If the other guy had a gun or a knife ok shoot him.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by gvw3

Looks to me like the shooter was a coward afraid to take a beating. The worst person to fight is a coward as they will shoot you to avoid taking a beating. This looks like murder to me...

However, it doesn't matter how it looks to you. Mr. Waller was acquitted by a jury. The jury heard all the evidence and decided (1) that the prosecutor was unable to prove Mr. Waller committed murder; and (2) that Mr. Waller was justified in using lethal force.

[gvw3]

fiddletown It did matter what I think. We had the same situation in my family. My nephew was carrying his gun due to the same type of situation. His girl friend had an x that had confronted him. I talked him out of carrying the gun as it is not legal in the state of IL

They did end up in a fight but both walked away. My nephew ended up married to the girl. The father of her 1st child is still alive and they all get along fine now. They both go fishing together with all there kids.

Don't misunderstand me. If some one comes at you with a gun, knife or any other weapon I think you are justified in shooting them. If some one is kicking down the door to your home I think you can shoot 1st and ask questions latter.

[AH.74]

gvw3- you're willing to subject yourself to possible great bodily harm, permanent disfigurement or death from an attacker before you're willing to shoot to defend yourself?

Are you sure about that?

Talking someone out of illegally carrying a gun has no relevance to this situation. Nor does the fact that all parties involved in that situation are on friendly terms now.

[icedog88]

fiddletown It did matter what I think.

As it relates to Mr. Maller's case, it doesn't.

The days of fights adhering to some sort of code is long gone. "The Outsiders", "West Side Story" and movies of that ilk, don't happen.