July 27, 2010, 09:25 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 17, 2008
Location: ex upstate ny...now free
Posts: 119
|
one too many
here is a case where an armed robber grapples with a man
and loses his gun....and gets shot multiple times http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=487787 this is a good example that even the regular non-carrying citizen needs to know the laws on use of force...and excessive use of force... he stopped the threat, which is okay it was the bullet to the head, when he was down, that got him the murder charge, in what was at first thought to be a good self defense shoot might it have been the heat of the moment that got him to go too far? or should a even a reasonable non carrying person know that the one to the back of the head was a big no no? for sure the adrenaline is surging, but this shows that even non gunners need to know the laws when it comes to self defense edit: one bullet to the BACK of his head......
__________________
Now I don't know, but I been told it's hard to run with the weight of gold. Other hand I have heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead. hunter/garcia (new speedway boogie) |
July 27, 2010, 12:11 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 8, 2010
Location: charlotte, nc (but indianapolis is home)
Posts: 100
|
not sure how long this thread will last (tactics and training?), but i agree that even average citizens need to know the rules/laws on excessive use of force.
if someone did, in fact, try to harm me (and/or my family), i think being upset would be an understatement. i couldn't imagine how irate i would be. although i would like to believe that i wouldn't dump an extra round into the back of the guy's head, i don't think i would hesitate to give him a couple rib kicks just for good measure. tough situation, and i really feel bad for the guy who appears to have legally defended himself (and a family member) PRIOR to making the poor decision to "put a lil extra hot sauce" on the bad guy |
July 27, 2010, 01:15 PM | #3 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Posts: 863
|
If that attorney gets him off, I know who I'm hiring if I'm ever involved in a shooting. He shoulda rolled the BG over.
|
July 27, 2010, 01:24 PM | #4 |
Junior member
Join Date: March 13, 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,129
|
Tough one...
It's easy for some bureaucrats to armchair quarterback what this guy did. Nice to be judged by some fool who wasn't there fighting for HIS life. Proving that the attacker was incapacitated when the head shot was made seems a big stretch to me. I feel bad for the victim having to fight this. |
July 27, 2010, 03:47 PM | #5 |
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
|
Man with his wife gets accosted by an individual with a gun. He is fighting for his life, was lucky enough or good enough that he got the gun and shot the bad guy. I don't care how many times he shot him or where. He had no way of knowing how bad that man was hurt or if he had another weapon on him or if he was capable of getting up and resuming the fight. Shoot till the threat is no longer a threat. He was fighting for his wife not just himself.
DA is a politician seeking glory for prosecuting a man who used a gun in the hopes of an easy conviction to pad his record. DA wasn't there. I wasn't there, you weren't there. I will not second guess the shooting. He survived, that is what counts. Boogerman is off the street...permanently. No down side.
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster-- Last edited by Old Grump; July 27, 2010 at 04:08 PM. |
July 27, 2010, 04:11 PM | #6 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Posts: 863
|
Quote:
Grump, you're 100% correct - none of us were there. We don't know the details of how the BG was reacting once down. Trying to get up? Reaching for another weapon? We just don't know. It's the guy's attorney's job to make the jury think THEY were there and afraid for their lives. To me, bottom line: Good guy - 1, BG - 0 It IS better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. |
|
July 28, 2010, 08:54 AM | #7 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 13, 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,129
|
Quote:
|
|
July 28, 2010, 09:11 AM | #8 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
You shouldn't need to be educated in matters of the law to know that executing someone out on the street is not the right thing to do.
It should be a basic moral sensibility. Notice, I say "should". I no longer have that expectation for our society.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
July 28, 2010, 09:40 AM | #9 |
Member
Join Date: July 23, 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 99
|
I'd have to agree that it went too far. As nice as it would be to rid the world of one more slim ball and execution style shot may be legally excessive. I wasn't there and have never been in a situation like that so this is nothing more than an outsiders opinion.
We had case here in Rochester a year ago where a guy approached a few teens who had broke into his car, as they fled hey shot one kid twice killing him. The kid should have never been there breaking into cars so I don't sympathize for him at all but then again the shooter may have gone a little far shooting a person who is fleeing.
__________________
ZCORR Products 10% Forum Member Discount Code ZCORR-FORUM2013 Free shipping on all domestic & APO/AFO orders over $75 |
July 28, 2010, 01:43 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 395
|
If the man doesn't have his gun anymore (because you are holding it.. duh), and he is on the ground....... you DON'T shoot him. You get some distance from him and prepare for the off chance that he defies simple human reaction and charges you... then you shoot.
__________________
Amateurs think equipment, Students think techniques, Experts think tactics. |
July 28, 2010, 02:23 PM | #11 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: March 13, 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 1,129
|
Quote:
I'm not judging the vicitm based on what little we know. I agree that we don't have the right to execute criminals. But just because the attacker took a round to the back of the head doesn't make it per se murder. Quote:
Short of that, making the call from an article is just more internut armchair second guessing. |
||
July 28, 2010, 02:52 PM | #12 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
I'm judging the story as presented. The old cliche "Two wrongs don't make a right." Mr BG was wrong. If the story is as presented, Mr Good Guy became Mr Bad Guy. Worse, in fact, than a mere robber, he is a murderer.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 28, 2010, 04:04 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
|
Quote:
|
|
July 28, 2010, 07:23 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2005
Location: USA The Great State of California
Posts: 2,090
|
Simply be aware that no matter how each of us rationalizes a scenario, it will be a jury, not a DA, that decides our fate.
__________________
Hook686 When the number of people in institutions reaches 51%, we change sides. |
July 29, 2010, 06:22 AM | #15 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Posts: 863
|
Quote:
|
|
July 29, 2010, 09:39 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
I couldn't even type that with a straight face. Next, you're going to be telling us to carry a "throwdown" gun to put in his hand. |
|
July 29, 2010, 02:52 PM | #17 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Posts: 863
|
Quote:
Gee, everyone's got a smart ass comment (that'll probably get me kicked out)...no need for a throwdown gun if he's still a menace. Only the people at the scene can determine that. The "victim" has only a second or two to determine what the BGs motives are for his movements. The penality for being wrong is severe. I'm not saying the shoot was righteous or excessive force was used - I wasn't there. What I AM saying is ALL possibilities MUST be considered before comment can even be made, much less a judgment given. |
|
July 29, 2010, 03:45 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
|
Quote:
I read a story by Ayoob about a policeman that shot a man that was coming out of a house his mobile camera was running, he went to check on bad guy camera showedd this, jury was going after him tho cause it looked like he went over and finished the bad guy off. This stuff really happens, read up on some of the actual SD cases and learn from them. I would hate to see a person trying to do good go to jail for one silly mistake. |
|
July 29, 2010, 03:58 PM | #19 |
Member
Join Date: February 12, 2000
Location: Groton, CT
Posts: 68
|
Sorry if I don't have alot of sympathy for the BG, it is certain if he had not tried to rob this man he would not have shot him! I am not saying what this man did was right, but I am not sure I would convict if I was called to try the case as part of the jury.
__________________
Mark Zanghetti U.S.A.F. 1981-1985 http://www.thewebcorner.net Absurdum est ut alios regat, qui seipsum regere nescit. |
July 30, 2010, 08:28 AM | #20 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
It seems odd to me that we should have no sympathy on a robber but would exonerate a murderer because he "only" murdered a robber.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
July 30, 2010, 09:08 AM | #21 |
Member
Join Date: June 15, 2010
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 55
|
No sympathy for the BG...none. He deserved it, the one to the back of the head...well, again, no sympathy... The man was protecting his wife and himself, and in the heat of the moment things like this obviously can happen.. If you don't want to be shot, don't play with guns and commit crimes while you're doing it... Unfortunately our judicial system may see it otherwise...
Now having said that..Would I do the same? Considering the potential outcome and court case..I don't think so. But of course thats easy to say while i'm typing on a keyboard.. Last edited by primetime; July 30, 2010 at 09:24 AM. |
July 30, 2010, 01:32 PM | #22 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
I can say with certainty that I will not murder a person who is no threat to me, regardless of what threat they may have been 5 seconds prior.
Defense becomes murder in the blink of an eye and anyone who believes that they may not know or care when to stop shooting should not be carrying a gun.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
July 30, 2010, 02:05 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2009
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 727
|
I think too much has been assumed. Just because some Medical Examiner says he was murdered doesn't make it so. The guys story seems completely plausible to me.
He wrestles with a theif for a gun. Fires the gun multiple times and the theif falls down and dies. Sounds entirely possible that he fired a burst of shots the instant he got some control of the gun. The BG began to turn away as soon as he realized he was being shot. As he turned away he caught one in the back of the head. My point is that all the M.E. knows is there is a hole in the front of the BG and a hole in the back of his head. CSI is fiction. |
July 30, 2010, 02:45 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
That "good guy" thing again...
The story linked by the OP failed to mention that Mr. Peterson, the defendant, is a convicted felon who was recently released from jail. According to this story, "In 1998, Peterson was sentenced to 20-years-to-life in prison for attempting to buy more than four pounds of cocaine, but he was resentenced to approximately 12 years, including time already served, in 2005."
But wait... there's more. In addition to being charged with second degree murder, he is also charged with "second degree criminal possession of a weapon," based, apparently, on his use of the mugger's own gun in what began as a clear-cut case of self-defense. And he's being held without bail, because he "...has seven prior felony convictions and four incidents where he failed to appear in court as required." Does he still get the benefit of the doubt from those who are maintaining that what he did was OK? If not, what difference does his status as a convicted felon make to his fundamental human right to self-defense? Suppose he hadn't (allegedly) administered a coup de grĂ¢ce, in which case it would have been a justifiable self-defense shooting. Would it still be right to charge him with the weapons violation because he used the mugger's gun to defend himself?
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
July 30, 2010, 03:00 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2009
Location: West Coast
Posts: 450
|
As for the situation on defending himself with the gun, he should not have faced any legal problems. However because of the alleged coup de grace, he should face something. I think having his past makes it less probable that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong.
__________________
"Today is victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men." - Miyamoto Musashi [Insert random irrelevant religious quote here] |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|