Here's one to watch

okboomer · Aug 29, 2011

West Virginia

The Logan County Courthouse was packed Monday morning. About 100 people showed up to voice their support for Jesus Canul.

Canul was charged with first degree murder following a shooting in the Walmart parking lot in Logan last week. Police say David Abbott went up to Canul, put a sharp object to his throat and went for Canul's wallet. Officers say Canul then pulled out a gun and shot Abbott as he walked away.

Canul's supporters believe he acted in self defense.

His bond was set at $40,000 at a bond hearing, Canul's preliminary hearing is set for later this week.

----------------

People are planning to rally around a man charged with murder.

Jesus Canul will be in court in Logan County Monday. He's charged with murder after police say he shot a man who was trying to rob him in the Walmart parking lot.

Some people in Logan County plan to rally at the courthouse Monday at 9am in support of Canul because they believe he acted in self defense.

http://wchstv.com/newsroom/eyewitness/110828_6399.shtml

eye95 · Aug 30, 2011

Key words: "as he walked away."

If those words are accurate, murder or manslaughter, depending on the vagaries of State law.

Once the threat is ended, even if it is ended by the choice of the BG, self-defense is no longer on the table.

okboomer · Aug 30, 2011

eye95 said:
Key words: "as he walked away."

If those words are accurate, murder or manslaughter, depending on the vagaries of State law.

Once the threat is ended, even if it is ended by the choice of the BG, self-defense is no longer on the table.

There seems to be some debate as to whether what the LEOs claim and what other witnesses claim is true. LEO says the BG was walking away, witnesses claim he was not walking away. The telltale video is now in LEO hands and not available to the public, hope it doesn't get 'lost.'

eye95 · Aug 30, 2011

Like I said, "if."

Jumping to conclusions, either way, is not rational.

JimMullinsWVCDL · Aug 31, 2011

Column: Was that murder or was it self-defense?

Don Surber: Was that murder or was it self-defense?

okboomer · Aug 31, 2011

eye95 said:
Like I said, "if."

Jumping to conclusions, either way, is not rational.

Show me where I jumped to ANY conclusion!

For you to insinuate that I did is UNACCEPTABLE!

Put up or SHUT UP!

slowfiveoh · Aug 31, 2011

In either case, it is astounding that this criminal didn't avoid said victim because of the thought that he might be armed. I wonder how this would have played out had the criminal known he was armed.

lil_freak_66 · Sep 1, 2011

the way i understood the original story is that the dead perp was walking back TOWARD walmart...which would obviously present a serious danger to those inside of walmart,i feel that while the man may not have been in fear of HIS life anymore,there is a more than reasonable fear that the perp would have attacked others if ya ask me

Flopsweat · Sep 1, 2011

If you want to see some actual jumping to conclusions, click the link in the OP. The title to the article is "Logan Murder Update".

Gunslinger · Sep 2, 2011

"He was an escaping felon" would be my line if I were defending him. I don't know that state's laws in that area, but shooting an armed felon--even in the back, is lawful and an affirmative defense in many states.

SovereignAxe · Sep 2, 2011

If I were on that jury and the facts showed that the "victim" had the shooter's wallet on his person at the time of the incident, there is no way I could ever convict this guy of murder one. I don't give a damn what the law says and I don't give a damn if I cause a hung jury, the world is a better place without the robber and I could not in good conscience send a man to prison because of it.

frommycolddeadhands · Sep 3, 2011

Headshot: +50

He shot a felon in the midst of comitting a crime. Make sure he gets his wallet back, shake his hand, and send him on his way.

Pack the creep up to boot hill and send his next of kin a bill to compensate for the bullet. Putting knives to people's throats and robbing them is a no-no, and he'll get no sympathy from me.

OldCurlyWolf · Sep 3, 2011

eye95 said:
Key words: "as he walked away."

If those words are accurate, murder or manslaughter, depending on the vagaries of State law.

Once the threat is ended, even if it is ended by the choice of the BG, self-defense is no longer on the table.

We had/have no say/input with the DA there in WV. The real valid point is "Why is it even a question?" The BG is/was a Violent Felon that had just committed a VIOLENT FELONY. Whether or not he was an immediate threat to that particular person, he was an immediate threat to any person he approached within 20 feet and to society at large. When trying to decide to prosecute the victim of the robbery, the deciding factor should be was he actually robbed. If that is what happened, pat on the back, thanks, hope it doesn't happen again.

JimMullinsWVCDL · Sep 3, 2011

Collection of news articles & WV law

WVCDL-ALERT Update September 2, 2011

va_tazdad · Sep 5, 2011

Not quite

Gunslinger said:
"He was an escaping felon" would be my line if I were defending him. I don't know that state's laws in that area, but shooting an armed felon--even in the back, is lawful and an affirmative defense in many states.

He may have been, or he may not have been.

Unless he had a record as a convicted felon, he was just an escaping criminal and as such, you can’t just shoot as the danger had vacated.

The better choice for defense is the belief of emanate danger to others.

matt2636 · Sep 5, 2011

so riddle me this. and being in this guys shoes this is a question i would ask a jury of my peers. as soon as someone robs you with a deadly weapon (knife, gun or whatever) and they start to walk away does that automatically not make him a robber who just commited a felony with a deadly weapon? and if so does that mean hes not going to rob or perhaps kill someone hes robbing later? or even later that night!?!?! the robber showed opertunity, ability and jepardy to do serious bodily harm not just to the victum but to the public. this is america where im innocent until proven guily and unless you can prove he didnt have those 3 things then why would i even be in this court room?

zack991 · Sep 5, 2011

SovereignAxe said:
If I were on that jury and the facts showed that the "victim" had the shooter's wallet on his person at the time of the incident, there is no way I could ever convict this guy of murder one. I don't give a damn what the law says and I don't give a damn if I cause a hung jury, the world is a better place without the robber and I could not in good conscience send a man to prison because of it.

This. Our justice system is flawed where it protects the criminals and punishes the true victims of such crimes. I love it how a police officer has the blanket of protection where they are allowed to shoot crooks like this in the back but if the lone subject dares to-do the right thing they are then charged with murder. Vitim s should have absolute immunity from ever having to go to court civil charges or other if they ever had to use deadly force in protecting themselves or in the safety of others,

papa bear · Sep 5, 2011

i talked to a lady from Logan Saturday. she said it was rumored that Abott had rob Canul before, and had rob others in the area. i still say there seems to be an emanate threat.

i think it is telling that the community is standing up for him

Gunslinger · Sep 6, 2011

va_tazdad said:
He may have been, or he may not have been.

Unless he had a record as a convicted felon, he was just an escaping criminal and as such, you can’t just shoot as the danger had vacated.

The better choice for defense is the belief of emanate danger to others.

He had just 'committed' a felony. His past record is immaterial to that fact. And I believe you mean "imminent" danger. As an armed person who had just committed a felony, imminent danger is implied--again, depending upon state law.

OldCurlyWolf · Sep 6, 2011

Gunslinger said:
He had just 'committed' a felony. His past record is immaterial to that fact. And I believe you mean "imminent" danger. As an armed person who had just committed a felony, imminent danger is implied--again, depending upon state law.

However a lawyer or some one else wants to parse words. No matter what the current law is, if him shooting the man who had within a very short period of time is considered Illegal the law needs to be changed. The lawyer who wrote it and all those who voted for it and the governor who signed it deserve at a minimum 10 years in the pen being introduced to "Bubba"

Here's one to watch

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member