Another Vigilante Case.......We Knew It Was Coming .....

Some Righty will point out that someone tried to grab the gun he was waving around. So that person was the aggressor. :palm:
 
stupid person should have just let the nutter shoot them.

Dont you know people holding guns have more rights than people without them
 
I have no doubt that many of the people I debate on these forums and others look exactly like that guy LOL.
 
Ok, you shouldn't pee that close to the river. But I had no idea it was a capital offense.

I assume this guy will be charged and convicted. On the other hand, it's Missouri....



(note: I lived in Missouri for years, so can make cheap jokes at its expense)
 
Pretty clear cut case of murder.

Does not conform to Missouri State Code pertaining to Castle Doctrine:

563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony;

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person; or

(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining. A person does not have a duty to retreat from private property that is owned or leased by such individual.

4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section. If a defendant asserts that his or her use of force is described under subdivision (2) of subsection 2 of this section, the burden shall then be on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the use of such force was necessary to defend against what he or she reasonably believed was the use or imminent use of unlawful force.
 
Pretty clear cut case of murder.

Does not conform to Missouri State Code pertaining to Castle Doctrine:

Why not? Can't he claim he felt threatened due to the one guy picking up rocks? A good rock is a better deadly weapon than a slab of concrete planted in the ground.
 
No... not even close.

Was that supposed to be an answer? Why can't he claim he felt threatened by the guy who picked up the rocks?

I guarantee you more people have been killed with rocks than have been killed by being slammed against a slab of concrete.
 
Are you that desperate to start fighting about Trayvon Martin that you would try and make a comparison to a case that has absolutely no resemblance to it?

These cases are as different as night and day.

Have it your way... enjoy your hate thread... I wont play the game with you.
 
Are you that desperate to start fighting about Trayvon Martin that you would try and make a comparison to a case that has absolutely no resemblance to it?

These cases are as different as night and day.

Have it your way... enjoy your hate thread... I wont play the game with you.

How are they different? Why isn't this self defense?

This is about the legal standards of self defense which is what interested me most about Zimmerman-Martin.
 
Why not? Can't he claim he felt threatened due to the one guy picking up rocks? A good rock is a better deadly weapon than a slab of concrete planted in the ground.

can you stop being an idiot for one day?

Picking up a rock vs. actively having ones head slammed into the concrete is very different. I know you see that. Stop being so obtuse. As a libertarian you should respect the sanctity of ones body and the right to defend oneself.
 
can you stop being an idiot for one day?

Picking up a rock vs. actively having ones head slammed into the concrete is very different. I know you see that. Stop being so obtuse. As a libertarian you should respect the sanctity of ones body and the right to defend oneself.

You guys argued that it was not necessary for him to be struck, which is what the Zimmerman's expert witness explained.

I certainly respect one's right to defend themselves. My problem in both cases is that the shooter instigated the confrontation and created the threat to himself and the victims.
 
You guys argued that it was not necessary for him to be struck, which is what the Zimmerman's expert witness explained.

I certainly respect one's right to defend themselves. My problem in both cases is that the shooter instigated the confrontation and created the threat to himself and the victims.

Hmm.... let's see. I'm outside. I see a bunch of strangers on my property. One of them is urinating, so I yell at him. The strangers yell back. ("argued for several minutes before the shooting"). I fire warning shots. They move closer; one has rocks. I shoot one of them.

I could see it. Don't know if it falls under Missouri's self-defense laws.

Of course questions remain - were they yelling? was the arguing threatening? did he really fire a warning shot?

To me, it seems to be way overreaction on his part. But I'm not the jury.

They should have left when he told them to get off his property. He shouldn't have fired a "killing" shot.

Sad story, really.
 
Hmm.... let's see. I'm outside. I see a bunch of strangers on my property. One of them is urinating, so I yell at him. The strangers yell back. ("argued for several minutes before the shooting"). I fire warning shots. They move closer; one has rocks. I shoot one of them.

I could see it. Don't know if it falls under Missouri's self-defense laws.

Of course questions remain - were they yelling? was the arguing threatening? did he really fire a warning shot?

To me, it seems to be way overreaction on his part. But I'm not the jury.

They should have left when he told them to get off his property. He shouldn't have fired a "killing" shot.

Sad story, really.

It's just another case of a coward with a gun trying to prove to those damn interlopers how wrong they were to trifle with him.
 
Back
Top