LEO the Lion
Regular Member
imported post
I wasn't sure if this had been discussed already and didn't want to post the story again.
I wasn't sure if this had been discussed already and didn't want to post the story again.
I hear ya. I'm conflicted on it myself, I'd rather err on the side of caution I guess and say hey, if you shoot someone while in the process of committing a crime, and that crime itself is what put you in the position to have to shoot someone in the first place, then self defense can't be argued.I don't know enough about it to really comment. Sorry. I will upate as I find out more information.
People have been killing people for a very long time. We've got what? 4000 years of common law and legal tradition in the West? The law has had a very long time to sort out these kinds of questions.SNIP I hear ya. I'm conflicted on it myself, I'd rather err on the side of caution I guess and say hey, if you shoot someone while in the process of committing a crime, and that crime itself is what put you in the position to have to shoot someone in the first place, then self defense can't be argued.
Now if say it was a drug deal and some armed robber came around and tried to rob him and the dealer both and he had to shoot the robber and defend himself, I'd be more lenient towards allowing Self Defense. That's just me.
In the end, I'd hope the jury would judge it on a case-by-case basis, on it's own merits, it's not really a black-n-white issue.
I'm aware. Again, I was just asking people's opinion on it....Between court cases and statutes, I doubt there will be a real question on the law...
We can't do that. Our Congressmen need to make their $175,000 a year!!!Course, I'm of the mind drugs should be legal.
Between court cases and statutes, I doubt there will be a real question on the law. The question will be more a matter of who is telling the truth about the circumstances, and which law applies to those circumstances.
I just read the story in the Advocate. It's is the Sunday Advocate 7/26/09 on page 5B.
They don't have it online, maybe tomorrow.
charlie12 wrote:I just read the story in the Advocate. It's is the Sunday Advocate 7/26/09 on page 5B.
They don't have it online, maybe tomorrow.
What are the details?
The headline is, Clinton drug deal leaves man dead; three arrested.
Looks like a drug deal the story says "An apparent drug deal went sour Friday night in Clinton.
Seem like Matthew and Barnes were at Matthew's residence Friday about 11pm when AnthonyManzella and Andrew Robertson both of Hammond arrived for an apparent drug deal.
As Manzella and Robertson entered the residence Matthew pulled out an AK-47 assault rifle and struck Manzella on theback of the head with the butt of the gun, Dunn said (Dunn is from Clinton PD) Manzella responded by shooting Matthew once with a .40 cal. Glock and Matthew died withinminutes.
After the shooting the three men ran out in the street and Barnes approached a Clinton police officer who just happened to be patrolling the street at that moment Dunn said.
The LEO stopped all three and arrested them CPD recovered the glock and one shell casing from the glock and the AK.
Manzella's head wound was treated by Acadian at the scene.
The are questioning one other person who may have been involved.
the booked Johnny Barnes 27, 3302 Quiet Lane, Jackson, Anthony Manzella, 19, 52423 Piazza Rd. Hammond and Andrew Robertson, 23 14568 Kohnke Hill Rd. Hammond.
That's is most of the important stuff ... I wonder if he was OCing?
If he's only 19 years old he cannot carry concealed.