Archangel
Regular Member
Did a search on JS Online. Found only old stuff.
Any word?
Any word?
If you are responding to my post and if "hearing" means scheduling conference, then, yes.Looks like hearing tomorrow?
Part of the great responsibility of carrying a firearm is being willing to defend your actions in court should you choose to take a life. You should be willing to articulate why the taking of another life was justified in order to prevent loss of yours. You should be willing to articulate why you felt your life was in danger.the worst crime here is that they are prosecuting someone for defending themselves.
Why are they wasting their time & taxpayers' money on this?
Intentional homicide means he meant to kill them. Since he was defending himself, rather than hunting for someone to shoot, it's not intentional, and self-defense is a defense to homicide.
Sheesh.
939.48... The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
Not a single punch was thrown by either side in this case before the gun was drawn and fired.
Please excuse my poor choice of words. There has not yet been a trial and any "evidence" for self defense which should include all actions by the 2 men shot has not been made public. A better choice of words would be that there was no claim that any punches were thrown either by Jesus or the men shot in the criminal complaint or the media reports.1. Do you know this?
2. If you do KNOW this, why are you publishing it on an open forum?
.
If you shoot someone for simply "approaching" you , then you should be prepared to serve time as a felon. You had better be justified in using deadly force before you even draw your firearm. If you carry a firearm you should think of it as your last line of defense and be prepared to use your hands and feet first. The primary purpose of your feet being to get your threatened butt away from the threat.Also, I do not think fisticuffs are necessary. If someone keeps approaching while I have my gun pointed at them I'd have a tough time not pulling the trigger unless I something that shows I won't be attacked.
If you shoot someone for simply "approaching" you , then you should be prepared to serve time as a felon. You had better be justified in using deadly force before you even draw your firearm. If you carry a firearm you should think of it as your last line of defense and be prepared to use your hands and feet first. The primary purpose of your feet being to get your threatened butt away from the threat.
Part of the great responsibility of carrying a firearm is being willing to defend your actions in court should you choose to take a life. You should be willing to articulate why the taking of another life was justified in order to prevent loss of yours. You should be willing to articulate why you felt your life was in danger.
If your child were shot and killed, I am certain that you would demand that the shooter would be able to justify their actions. Since no physical harm was done to Jesus and the men shot had no weapons on them, the prosecutor is forcing Jesus to justify his actions in court. If deadly force was justified, this trial should go well for Jesus.
The question which needs to be sorted out is if deadly force was justified. This goes back to the WI Statute regarding self defense. You can not draw and shoot unless you are in immenant danger to lose your life. If someone only verbally threatens harm and they have no weapons, deadly force is difficult to justify in WI. You may not use deadly force to defend against property. Not a single punch was thrown by either side in this case before the gun was drawn and fired.
I sincerely hope that Jesus was justified in his actions and that the facts will support it in court.
Criminal defense is a very specialized practice of law and I'd leave it to my hired criminal defense lawyer. Like my good friend Dale T. Cobb of Charleston, SC firm Belk, Cobb, Infinger & Goldstein, PA We first met on bicycles.
Interesting.
940.01 - ANNOT.
A defendant who claims self-defense to a charge of first-degree intentional homicide may use evidence of a victim's violent character and past acts of violence to show a satisfactory factual basis that he or she actually believed he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and actually believed that the force used was necessary to defend himself or herself, even if both beliefs were unreasonable. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, 99-3071.
¶6. Third, we hold that a defendant who claims self-defense to a charge of first-degree intentional homicide may use evidence of a victim's violent character and past acts of violence to show a satisfactory factual basis that she actually believed she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and actually believed that the force used was necessary to defend herself, even if both beliefs were unreasonable.
IK:
The above is an excerpt from the WSC ruling in State v Head. It says nothing about knowing. It says use evidence.
Read it again. It states that the defendent may use this violent past as a factual basis that they believed they were in immenant danger.
In other words, they believed that because of the victim's past and character that they were in danger. Because this person harmed others or themself in the past they believed that this person was going to harm them.