Quote:
|
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.