1. #3001
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Related to the matter the use of deadly force is unjustified AFTER THE FIRST SHOTS, because the target weren't posing a threat anymore.
    And to be honest, not even in the first place as they weren't posing an imminent threat to him but that's debatable.
    Thats incorrect.

    One shot is not enough to stop the need for deadly force. I bet he could have fired 3-4 rounds into each teen and if he had left it at that, there would be no trial at all unless the family just wanted to push it.

    Only when the targets were nearly unconscious would they pose no threat.

    Threat was there when they broke into the home unannounced. There is no room for debate there. 2 teens against one senior adult in a community that has had a rash of break ins including his home.

    He had every right to fire more than once at each target. 3 at each target at a minimum I would bet is ok.

  2. #3002
    We cant say why he did no one can but him. Then its up to a jury of his peers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    He admitted to dragging her around before shooting her again. He wasn't afraid to grab her body and move it around...

    ---------- Post added 2012-11-28 at 07:24 PM ----------



    Safe for who?

    He felt safe enough to move the body. If he felt threatened why would he move closer? Why would he risk touching the body? Obviously he didn't feel like he was in danger...

  3. #3003
    Quote Originally Posted by SirRobin View Post
    However, what determines that that threat is neutralized? At the time, the one being threatened is who determines it.
    And that's EXACTLY where the problem lies.
    It is not up to him to define if he's threatened or not. That would be HELL to try and regulate by law.
    Danger is an imminent threat to you. And an imminent threat is well defined.
    A body lying is not an IMMINENT threat so use of deadly force on the bodies is unjustified.
    Of course he can say something else but he'd be wrong and he'd go to prison.

  4. #3004
    I am Murloc! SirRobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    Nice try, that's what he told the police. Unless your saying the police lied.

    "'Smith described it as "a good clean finishing shot",' according to the compliant, and acknowledged he had fired 'more shots than (he) needed to'."
    With, again, such a state of detachment being explainable due to him being in a state of shock at the time the statement was given. He also said "I want him dead" about the boy. Apparently in a mental state that made him unaware that the boy was already dead. Had been for over a day in fact.
    Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
    Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
    Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
    And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  5. #3005
    Quote Originally Posted by kjcasey View Post
    We cant say why he did no one can but him. Then its up to a jury of his peers.
    This is a forum, not a court room. I don't see how that statement adds anything to the discussion.

  6. #3006
    Actually you dont sir you have only your opinion
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    I don't think you know what duress means....

  7. #3007
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,143
    Quote Originally Posted by SirRobin View Post
    However, what determines that that threat is neutralized? At the time, the one being threatened is who determines it.
    Bang bang bang bang bang. Walk over. Drag body to another location. Bang.

    That last bang is what fucked him. Being able to move the body indicated the threat was neutralized.

    By the way; WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU MOVE THE BODY. Stupid people do stupid things I guess. In that situation, when you fire your weapon at a home invader, as soon as the threat is down you immediately call the police, holster or place your weapon on the ground, and make sure your hands are in the air when the police show up. (And, if the invader is still alive, you should give first aid if you are so trained, but are by no means obligated to do this). You don't execute the bleeding felon and then go stack the bodies in the corner...

  8. #3008
    Quote Originally Posted by kjcasey View Post
    Actually you dont sir you have only your opinion
    Are you even trying to contribute to the thread?

  9. #3009
    You took that out of context but thats ok I understand your way of thinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    This is a forum, not a court room. I don't see how that statement adds anything to the discussion.

  10. #3010
    Quote Originally Posted by SirRobin View Post
    With, again, such a state of detachment being explainable due to him being in a state of shock at the time the statement was given.
    SHOCK?

    He waited a day...
    He asked if they knew a good lawyer...


    Seems like he was pretty lucid.

  11. #3011
    Let me guess you are? What a joke!!!
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    Are you even trying to contribute to the thread?

  12. #3012
    Quote Originally Posted by quras View Post
    Thats incorrect.

    One shot is not enough to stop the need for deadly force. I bet he could have fired 3-4 rounds into each teen and if he had left it at that, there would be no trial at all unless the family just wanted to push it.

    Only when the targets were nearly unconscious would they pose no threat.

    Threat was there when they broke into the home unannounced. There is no room for debate there. 2 teens against one senior adult in a community that has had a rash of break ins including his home.

    He had every right to fire more than once at each target. 3 at each target at a minimum I would bet is ok.
    Neutralisation of a threat isn't given by a specific number of shots. It depends by the gun, the way the target is hit, the target itself. Sorry mate but that doesn't sound right.
    Neutralisation is given when the target doesn't pose a threat anymore, AKA when you have the upper hand and you have him wounded, unable to move a d held at gunpoint.
    Which is how these two found themselves when he shot them again.
    By doing that, he shot at a target that, BY LAW AND NOT BY ANYONE'S JUDGEMENT, wasn't posing a direct and immediate threat to him, so unjustifiable use of deadly force.

  13. #3013
    Quote Originally Posted by kjcasey View Post
    Let me guess you are? What a joke!!!
    Yes, actually I do. I provide arguments, not just quick 1 liners with no substance.

  14. #3014
    I am Murloc! SirRobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Counciltucky
    Posts
    5,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    And that's EXACTLY where the problem lies.
    It is not up to him to define if he's threatened or not. That would be HELL to try and regulate by law.
    Danger is an imminent threat to you. And an imminent threat is well defined.
    A body lying is not an IMMINENT threat so use of deadly force on the bodies is unjustified.
    Of course he can say something else but he'd be wrong and he'd go to prison.
    No, it is up to him to determine whether his life was in danger or not. When that body could be playing possum, hiding firearms in its pockets, could have more comrades upstairs, and other unknowns like how well was the basement lit for him to even be able to tell whether it was moving or not? He felt the need to move the boy so it is possible that he felt it would put him in even more danger to leave the body there.
    Sir Robin, the Not-Quite-So-Brave-As-Sir-Lancelot.
    Who had nearly fought the Dragon of Angnor.
    Who had almost stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol.
    And who had personally wet himself, at the Battle of Badon Hill.

  15. #3015
    You have done nothing to contribute!!! All you have done is attack my opinion!!
    Quote Originally Posted by kjcasey View Post
    Let me guess you are? What a joke!!!

  16. #3016
    In this case the defendant was convicted after executing a robber who was actually armed:

    http://newsok.com/article/3571542?hi...cted%2522%255D

    I would be surprised if this guy doesn't at least get manslaughter.

  17. #3017
    No you provided a worthless opinion with no respect for law!
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    Yes, actually I do. I provide arguments, not just quick 1 liners with no substance.

  18. #3018
    Quote Originally Posted by SirRobin View Post
    No, it is up to him to determine whether his life was in danger or not. When that body could be playing possum, hiding firearms in its pockets, could have more comrades upstairs, and other unknowns like how well was the basement lit for him to even be able to tell whether it was moving or not? He felt the need to move the boy so it is possible that he felt it would put him in even more danger to leave the body there.
    Playing possum? He fired several rounds into her chest, then dragged the body around. Then held a gun to her head and executed her.

  19. #3019
    Quote Originally Posted by SirRobin View Post
    No, it is up to him to determine whether his life was in danger or not. When that body could be playing possum, hiding firearms in its pockets, could have more comrades upstairs, and other unknowns like how well was the basement lit for him to even be able to tell whether it was moving or not? He felt the need to move the boy so it is possible that he felt it would put him in even more danger to leave the body there.
    No man. By law, he does not have that power. Not an opinion, it's fact.

  20. #3020
    Quote Originally Posted by kjcasey View Post
    No you provided a worthless opinion with no respect for law!
    You mean the law that says you may not execute people? Actually I am in favor of that law. Thank you very much...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •