-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Spokanae Shooting called self defense
- Thread starter Trigger Dr
- Start date
decklin
Regular Member
Those people are alive because that guy didn't stop evaluating the situation. Good for him. I wouldn't have let him get up the stairs though. That was risky. Take out the shooter while he is in a fatal funnel. Like the bottom of the stairs or the stairs themselves.
It's interesting that they say Parsons died because of homicide even though this whole case presents itself as a textbook self defense exception to homicide.
It's interesting that they say Parsons died because of homicide even though this whole case presents itself as a textbook self defense exception to homicide.
Trigger Dr
Regular Member
Homicide is homicide, sometimes justified (as in this case) sometimes not. The death of one person at the hand of another is homicide.
Homicide is the intentional killing of a human. Homi - person & cide - to kill. That's to distinguish it from accidental or unintentional death. Murder is criminal homicide. Self defense is justifiable homicide.
I'm glad they were successful in defending themselves. I'm also glad they had the foresight to keep 911 on the line the whole time.
I'm glad they were successful in defending themselves. I'm also glad they had the foresight to keep 911 on the line the whole time.
Lammo
Regular Member
Even if it's accidental or negligent the death of one person as a result of the actions of another is homicide (unless the person doing the action and the the person dying are the same in which case it is suicide). There are many forms of homicide that are classified as criminal ranging from murder through manslaughter (in some states called negligent homicide) and including controlled substance homicide, vehicular homicide and felony murder.
For an interesting story highlighting the difficulties sometimes present in classifying a death read on:
Suicide, Accident or Murder?
On March 23 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun.
Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building with the intent to commit suicide (he left a note indicating his despondency). As he passed the ninth floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers and that the decedent would not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this.
Ordinarily, a person who starts into motion the events with a suicidal intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide. But the fact that his suicidal intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.
Further investigation led to the discovery that an elderly man and his wife occupied the room on the ninth floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window striking the decedent.
When one intends to kill subject A, but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.
But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son’s financial support and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.
Further investigation revealed that the son became increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten story building on March 23, only to be killed by shotgun blast through a 9th story window.
The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.
tombrewster421
Regular Member
Wow! That's a great story. Someone should make a novel out of it.
decklin
Regular Member
Triggerdr, the point I was trying to make was that they said homicide but it is justified homicide. We are both saying the same thing.
Lammo, whether that's true or not it is very entertaining. Better than your average "news" report.
Lammo, whether that's true or not it is very entertaining. Better than your average "news" report.
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Doug Snarski did a great job in defending himself, family and home.
It was noted by one poster that he would have shot him sooner, I do not agree he did very well as to the conditions of likely low light, using concealment, taking into account of not harming an innocent if he missed and with in a range to ensure good and multiple hits, if he had shot to soon from a farther distance in low or no light this might have played out differently.
It was noted by one poster that he would have shot him sooner, I do not agree he did very well as to the conditions of likely low light, using concealment, taking into account of not harming an innocent if he missed and with in a range to ensure good and multiple hits, if he had shot to soon from a farther distance in low or no light this might have played out differently.
Jeff Hayes
Regular Member
I agree with you Dave.
In my mind Doug Snarski did what was best for him at that moment in time, none of us were there walking in Snarski's shoes.
I understand not waiting especially when shots have already been fired, but maybe that was as soon as he felt he could shoot. What ever Snarski did it was the correct thing to do at that time, he is alive, unharmed and the bad guy is not, it does not get any better than that.
None of us know what Snarski's level of training is. What I may do with the level of training & experience I have will be different form what BigDave would do with his level of training & experience, both of us may be absolutely correct in our actions once the dust settles.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Practice? We don't need no stinking practice!
Metalhead47
Regular Member
Even if it's accidental or negligent the death of one person as a result of the actions of another is homicide (unless the person doing the action and the the person dying are the same in which case it is suicide). There are many forms of homicide that are classified as criminal ranging from murder through manslaughter (in some states called negligent homicide) and including controlled substance homicide, vehicular homicide and felony murder.
For an interesting story highlighting the difficulties sometimes present in classifying a death read on:
Suicide, Accident or Murder?
On March 23 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun.
Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building with the intent to commit suicide (he left a note indicating his despondency). As he passed the ninth floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers and that the decedent would not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this.
Ordinarily, a person who starts into motion the events with a suicidal intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide. But the fact that his suicidal intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.
Further investigation led to the discovery that an elderly man and his wife occupied the room on the ninth floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window striking the decedent.
When one intends to kill subject A, but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.
But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son’s financial support and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.
Further investigation revealed that the son became increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten story building on March 23, only to be killed by shotgun blast through a 9th story window.
The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.
Wasn't that an episode of CSI?
That story is an urban legend that been floating around for a long time. I remember hearing it back in the late '80s. I have no idea of how true it is though. Anyone have Jamie and Adam's number?
Difdi
Regular Member
IIRC, it was a made-up story from a speech given by a medical examiner at a convention, to illustrate how the facts don't always lead to the obvious conclusion.
It got reported as fact a number of times in a number of places since then, but it purely fiction (though quite entertaining).
BigDave
Opt-Out Members
Last edited:
J1MB0B
Regular Member
'Who cares, you're going to die,'
I love it.
I love it.
Set
Regular Member
Funny:
"Snarski was angry with him for entering his home with guns, threatening his life, then bleeding all over his hallway."
Sad, Scary:
"He said he'd bought the handgun about a year ago but had never fired it before Sunday's encounter."
I'd not trust it until fired at the range quite a bit, even if it was only for HD. Especially since he claims he NEVER fired it. Not sure how accurate that statement was, but imagine the outcome if it FTF?
"Snarski was angry with him for entering his home with guns, threatening his life, then bleeding all over his hallway."
Sad, Scary:
"He said he'd bought the handgun about a year ago but had never fired it before Sunday's encounter."
I'd not trust it until fired at the range quite a bit, even if it was only for HD. Especially since he claims he NEVER fired it. Not sure how accurate that statement was, but imagine the outcome if it FTF?
Bookman
Campaign Veteran
Even if it's accidental or negligent the death of one person as a result of the actions of another is homicide (unless the person doing the action and the the person dying are the same in which case it is suicide). There are many forms of homicide that are classified as criminal ranging from murder through manslaughter (in some states called negligent homicide) and including controlled substance homicide, vehicular homicide and felony murder.
For an interesting story highlighting the difficulties sometimes present in classifying a death read on:
Suicide, Accident or Murder?
On March 23 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a gunshot wound of the head caused by a shotgun.
Investigation to that point had revealed that the decedent had jumped from the top of a ten-story building with the intent to commit suicide (he left a note indicating his despondency). As he passed the ninth floor on the way down, his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast through a window, killing him instantly. Neither the shooter nor the decedent was aware that a safety net had been erected at the 8th floor level to protect some window washers and that the decedent would not have been able to complete his intent to commit suicide because of this.
Ordinarily, a person who starts into motion the events with a suicidal intent ultimately commits suicide even though the mechanism might be not what he intended. That he was shot on the way to certain death nine stories below probably would not change his mode of death from suicide to homicide. But the fact that his suicidal intent would not have been achieved under any circumstance caused the medical examiner to feel that he had homicide on his hands.
Further investigation led to the discovery that an elderly man and his wife occupied the room on the ninth floor from whence the shotgun blast emanated. He was threatening her with the shotgun because of an interspousal spat and became so upset that he could not hold the shotgun straight. Therefore, when he pulled the trigger, he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window striking the decedent.
When one intends to kill subject A, but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. The old man was confronted with this conclusion, but both he and his wife were adamant in stating that neither knew that the shotgun was loaded. It was the longtime habit of the old man to threaten his wife with an unloaded shotgun. He had no intent to murder her; therefore, the killing of the decedent appeared then to be accident. That is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.
But further investigation turned up a witness that their son was seen loading the shotgun approximately six weeks prior to the fatal accident. That investigation showed that the mother (the old lady) had cut off her son’s financial support and her son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that the father would shoot his mother. The case now becomes one of murder the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.
Further investigation revealed that the son became increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to get his mother murdered. This led him to jump off the ten story building on March 23, only to be killed by shotgun blast through a 9th story window.
The medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.
Just so ya know, this story is pure fiction.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/ronaldopus.htm
Lammo
Regular Member
Of course it is and I never presented it as true (in fact, I pulled it out of my archive of jokes). The discussion was about murder v. homicide and I put this out as a humorous example of the distinctions with differences, the point being that every murder is a homicide but not every homicide is a murder.
amlevin
Regular Member
The story sounds like something a Law Professor might also present to a class just to "exercise their minds".
Lammo
Regular Member
Yup. I got a million of those (well, maybe a couple hundred). Like this one:
One day in Contract Law class, a Professor asked one of his better students, “Now, if you were to give someone an orange, how would you go about it?”
The student replied, “Here's an orange.”
The professor was livid. “No! No! Think like a lawyer!” the Professor instructed.
The student then recited, “Okay, I’d tell him, ‘I hereby give and convey to you all and singular, my estate and interests, rights, claim, title, claim and advantages of and in, said orange, together with all its rind, juice, pulp and seeds, and all rights and advantages with full power to bite, cut, freeze and otherwise eat, the same, or give the same away with and without the pulp, juice, rind and seeds, anything herein before or hereinafter or in any deed, or deeds, instruments of whatever nature or kind whatsoever to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding.’”
_ _ _ _ _
And we wonder why 98% of us give the rest a bad name.