Ryan Frederick Trial Begins

bcr229 · Feb 2, 2009

imported post

Ric in Richmond wrote:

Everyone should remember to STFU and ask for your lawyer! YOU CANNOT HELP YOURSELF IN THAT SITUATION!!!!!!!!!

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131383.html

Should be required viewing for getting a CHL - how you may react to a SD shooting. Granted, Ryan would have been under a lot more stress since he knew he'd be facing some serious charges, and potentially the death penalty, at that point.

wylde007 · Feb 2, 2009

imported post

I sent a request to the governor to pardon Ryan if the jury does not acquit him.

If a man should have to stop and see who is invading his home before he defends himself, he will most-surely find himself shortly dead.

I feel for the family of the officer who was enforcing an unconstitutional law backed by a poor informant system and bad policy, but that's no reason to punish this man for defend HIS SOVEREIGN AND INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

I guarantee that if it happened at my house, there would have been more casualties... my gun doesn't "lock up".

2a4all · Feb 2, 2009

imported post

According to Ch13 news, the jury will get the case tomorrow morning (2/3/2009). The judge has allowed the jury to convict on lesser charges, from capital murder down to involuntary manslaughter.

§ 18.2-36. How involuntary manslaughter punished.

Involuntary manslaughter is punishable as a Class 5 felony.
§ 18.2-10. Punishment for conviction of felony; penalty.(e) For Class 5 felonies, a term of imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than 10 years, or in the discretion of the jury or the court trying the case without a jury, confinement in jail for not more than 12 months and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.

Perhaps Ryan Frederick will get justice. But justice for Det Shivers won't happen until the Chesapeake PD is also tried and convicted.

Neplusultra · Feb 2, 2009

imported post

Holy Fu*king sh*t. You've got to be kidding me. Until someone is "through" your door you cannot be shooting at him.......

Reverend73 · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

Holy Fu*king sh*t. You've got to be kidding me. Until someone is "through" your door you cannot be shooting at him.......

I disagree.

2a4all · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

Reverend73 wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

Holy Fu*king sh*t. You've got to be kidding me. Until someone is "through" your door you cannot be shooting at him.......

Click to expand...

I disagree.

The jury got the case this morning. Per WAVY-TV-10, right before noon, they asked to hear the audio of the interview conducted in the patrol car. (where the above issue was discussed).

Xeni · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

2a4all wrote:

The jury got the case this morning. Per WAVY-TV-10, right before noon, they asked to hear the audio of the interview conducted in the patrol car. (where the above issue was discussed).

Do you have a link? I'm really interested in this case...

TFred · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

There are tons of links:

http://www.google.com/news?scoring=n&q=%22ryan+frederick%22

That should return news items, in order, newest at the top.

The Reason blog has been particularly interesting, the latest entry from that blog is here:

http://reason.com/blog/show/131455.html

TFred

crazydude6030 · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

Neplusultra, According to the class I took you would have to wait until the person is completely in your house in order to open fire with in the law.

Neplusultra · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

crazydude6030 wrote:

Neplusultra, According to the class I took you would have to wait until the person is completely in your house in order to open fire with in the law.

Perhaps I should wait until he draws a bead on me too..... just to be fair. I think we should look into the statutes and case law. I find it hard to believe.

Doug Huffman · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

Or look to English common law.

The four elements of common law self-defense are; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, and attempt to withdraw.

I took a class that was instructed to 'kill a carjacker when he breaks the plane of the window' that is easily extrapolated to the invasion of ones home. The homeowner is easily innocent of inviting the BG. The homeowner is reasonable to expect that the home invader wishes harm. The homeowner can withdraw no further than his curtilage.

crazydude6030 · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

crazydude6030 wrote:

Neplusultra, According to the class I took you would have to wait until the person is completely in your house in order to open fire with in the law.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I should wait until he draws a bead on me too..... just to be fair. I think we should look into the statutes and case law. I find it hard to believe.

Well, I am just restating what a lawyer had told me so I'll take his advice on this one. It had something to do with the plane of your house, what the law defines as the inside of your home vr the outside. Once a person fully crosses that line then you can open fire (that is assuming its already dark out). If its during the day you better have a dang good reason for it (such as him being armed).

Granted this information i got could be bad and there is a fine line between defending yourself and doing it legally.

Hawkflyer · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

crazydude6030 wrote:

Neplusultra wrote:

crazydude6030 wrote:

Neplusultra, According to the class I took you would have to wait until the person is completely in your house in order to open fire with in the law.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I should wait until he draws a bead on me too..... just to be fair. I think we should look into the statutes and case law. I find it hard to believe.

Click to expand...

Well, I am just restating what a lawyer had told me so I'll take his advice on this one. It had something to do with the plane of your house, what the law defines as the inside of your home vr the outside. Once a person fully crosses that line then you can open fire (that is assuming its already dark out). If its during the day you better have a dang good reason for it (such as him being armed).

Granted this information i got could be bad and there is a fine line between defending yourself and doing it legally.

This is dependant on the state you live in and what the laws are there. If you have a castle doctrine then you do not have to retreat. If not, some states say if there is a rear door you have to use it to escape. It all depends.

Neplusultra · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Or look to English common law.

The four elements of common law self-defense are; be innocent of instigation, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm, use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, and attempt to withdraw.

I took a class that was instructed to 'kill a carjacker when he breaks the plane of the window' that is easily extrapolated to the invasion of ones home. The homeowner is easily innocent of inviting the BG. The homeowner is reasonable to expect that the home invader wishes harm. The homeowner can withdraw no further than his curtilage.

The notion that the BG can do you no harm while he is outside a locked door is obvious, no doubt. My issue is if the BG appears to be intent on getting in and appears he will, allowing him to actually get in the house is of great disadvantage to the homeowner. Why should or would the law require this?

There was a pretty good discussion a while back about a man who had shot through a door and struck the BG in the foot (purposefully aiming low). The BG was in the process of knocking the door down and yelling that he was going to kill the homeowner after he did. I can't remember what the legal outcome of it was though.

wylde007 · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

Can do you no harm behind a door? Tell that to those LA LEOs who were shot THROUGH THEIR SQUAD CARS.

Personal property and safety are not limited to the confines of your house. You are permitted to defend yourself at any time, ESPECIALLY on your own property.

So what? If you are assailed by someone in your yard you would have to make it into your house before defending yourself? Rubbish.

2a4all · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

Xeni wrote:

2a4all wrote:

The jury got the case this morning. Per WAVY-TV-10, right before noon, they asked to hear the audio of the interview conducted in the patrol car. (where the above issue was discussed).

Click to expand...

Do you have a link? I'm really interested in this case...

Try this:

http://www.wavy.com/

WavyTV10 reported at 5:00pm that the jury has gone home for the day without reaching a verdict. Deliberations will resume at 9:00am tomorrow (2/4/2009).

Citizen · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

crazydude6030 wrote:

SNIP Well, I am just restating what a lawyer had told me so I'll take his advice on this one. It had something to do with the plane of your house, what the law defines as the inside of your home vr the outside. Once a person fully crosses that line then you can open fire (that is assuming its already dark out). If its during the day you better have a dang good reason for it (such as him being armed).

Granted this information i got could be bad and there is a fine line between defending yourself and doing it legally.

I suspect the lawyer was a little inexperienced in self-defense tactics. Law cannot foresee all circumstances, and is thus not perfect. There is a latin term for this, but I couldn't find it again on a quick internet search. (Chip in, anybody)

Wylde007's comment about being shot through a door highlights that the threshold is not some magic barrier that prevents injury.

The law may be clear about shooting once the bad guy is inside. But, I'm not familiar with any law that says you cannot shoot the badguy who is outside but also presenting all other elements required forlawful deadly force.

Hawkflyer · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

...SNIP

There is a latin term for this, but I couldn't find it again on a quick internet search. (Chip in, anybody)

SNIP...

Cogito sumere potum alterum

Xeni · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

crazydude6030 wrote:
I suspect the lawyer was a little inexperienced in self-defense tactics. Law cannot foresee all circumstances, and is thus not perfect. There is a latin term for this, but I couldn't find it again on a quick internet search. (Chip in, anybody)

Wylde007's comment about being shot through a door highlights that the threshold is not some magic barrier that prevents injury.

The law may be clear about shooting once the bad guy is inside. But, I'm not familiar with any law that says you cannot shoot the badguy who is outside but also presenting all other elements required forlawful deadly force.

I want to say that our southern brethern in North Carolina have it easier. I think I remember reading that they ARE allowed to shoot through a door if they are in fear of life, property damage, or a forcible felony. I'll have to research it for a cite.

Neplusultra · Feb 3, 2009

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

...SNIP

Click to expand...

There is a latin term for this, but I couldn't find it again on a quick internet search. (Chip in, anybody)

SNIP...

Click to expand...

Cogito sumere potum alterum

Nope, that's not it :^). Speaking of which I need to go on a beer run.

Ryan Frederick Trial Begins

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member