One Person Dead in Shooting Near Walmart - Man charged with Murder for Self Defense?

[MAC702]

Is one allowed to point to examples of police shooting fleeing suspects in the head (or the back) at 3 paces, only to be rubber stamped as "justified," to show a pattern that would lead one to believe that such is acceptable and even considered the classic solution?

 

[MAC702]

All kiling is unlawful. Some killings, athough unlawful, can be excused or justified.

"Guilty, but excusable." If you plead Not Guilty then the jury will look to see if you meant to kill the guy or not, and most likely find you did in fact mean to kill him. No way to claim it was excusable/justified if you say you didn't do it. They'll find you guilty of some version of homicide, sure as you're born. Defense of excusability precluded because you denied you killed him at all.

I agree it sounds counterintuitive, but that's the way it works.

stay safe.

I've never seen anyone formally charged with "killing." Or am I missing your point?

 

[stainless1911]

scot623 lives in MI, I was responding to him.
An armed man running toward a crowd falls in the might category so there is no imminent threat to anybody.


Bronson

What bothers me about this situation, is that if a man is running towards a crowd, and someone opens fire on him from behind, then that puts the crowd downrange.

 

[Rasher]

I'm not legally obligated, but I am legally authorized to protect other victims...as Dan pointed out. I'm not a cop, but I wouldn't stand by on the phone with 911, describing a slaughter in progress with my firearm holstered on my hip.

I agree with you 110%, but now you're on the phone(youre telling them whats going on) or setting it down(DO NOT HANG UP) and they know and can hear why you took action. CYA.

The imminent threat was over. He may have been running away or to another victim but you can't know that until he actually threatens another person. Imminent threat is the key here. Until it is clear that he is going to attack or is attacking another person there is NO imminent threat.

It sounds like you're looking for a justification for shooting someone in the back of the head in retribution for him attacking you. Has Stainless1911 hacked your account?

Bronson

Bronson has elaborated better on what I was getting at, but did'nt say so well.

 

[Bronson]

Hey Joe, where you goin' with that gun your hand?
I'm goin' down to shoot my old lady. You know I caught her messin' 'round with another man.

So Joe has a gun, has voiced his intent to shoot his "old lady," and is on his way to commit said shooting. We have means, intent, and ability and due to your long friendship with Joe and your understanding of his emotional states you absolutely believe he means to carry through with his intent to shoot his "old lady"....can you shoot Joe?

No, there is no imminent threat.

Bronson

 

[Rasher]

What bothers me about this situation, is that if a man is running towards a crowd, and someone opens fire on him from behind, then that puts the crowd downrange.

GREAT point, dont know how I missed that. That clown that chased the car jacker down the street in the big D come to mind-shootin at him and killed theelderly lady sitting in her kitchen.

 

[DocWalker]

GREAT point, dont know how I missed that. That clown that chased the car jacker down the street in the big D come to mind-shootin at him and killed theelderly lady sitting in her kitchen.

A good point of knowing what is down range; I still don't get how close the BG was to the shooter. If he was still in slashing distance, say 3 feet then even though he was shot in the head it could be justified. He could argue he couldn't defend himself with the blade to his jugular but had to wait until he brought his had down, but that he was still withing killing distance and as such still a threat.

 

[Gort]

So I guess it comes down to whether the "robber" was a reasonable distance away when shot or not. My guess, and it is only a guess: since Mr Canul used a handgun against Mr Abbott... which implies a rather short range...that this range that would most likely still allow Mr Abbott to be an immediate threat to Mr Canul's life. In fact, I would think that a knife within general pistol distances would actually be more dangerous than the pistol itself, especially since the knife is unsheathed. What I find particularly troubling is that Mr Canul is being held without bond until the grand jury convenes in September.

I was thinking the same, a person repeatedly says I will cut your throat, he is involved in a felony to take your life, now was he within the 20ft rule to be concerned that your life is in eminent danger, or persons in this area were in danger, or the distance from the felon does not matter.

 

[DocWalker]

So Joe has a gun, has voiced his intent to shoot his "old lady," and is on his way to commit said shooting. We have means, intent, and ability and due to your long friendship with Joe and your understanding of his emotional states you absolutely believe he means to carry through with his intent to shoot his "old lady"....can you shoot Joe?

No, there is no imminent threat.

Bronson

He may have means/ability (they are the same) and intent but your senerio doesn't allow for opportunity. Joes friend can try and talk him out of going or call the police. Joe has to travel to get to his "old lady". He may have the opportunity in 10 minutes or an hour but not at this moment.

Of course if Joe voice intent and raise the gun to her head then there is imminent danger/threat.

I feel your senario misses the point of opportunity.

 

[TheQ]

In Michigan the term for it is an "affirmative" defense. That is you stipulate to committing the underlying killing as a part of your defense. If your defense falls apart you're already convicted of the murder by virtue basically of your confession. The prosecution needn't prove you killed the person, you already confessed to that. They only need prove it wasn't in self-defense (from a "reasonable person's" point of view).

 

[DanM]

By your reasoning a person could be shot for OCing because they were walking toward a crowd and somebody had a "belief" that the OCer was there for nefarious purposes.

No, I said "reasonable belief", not "belief". My position on justified use of force is to go with the standard as it is stated in whatever law you're discussing, not a standard that is stated anywhere or by anyone else.

 

[DocWalker]

"By your reasoning a person could be shot for OCing because they were walking toward a crowd and somebody had a "belief" that the OCer was there for nefarious purposes."


I don't believe he was OCin, the story said he took the gun from his waist band, sounds like CC.

If he was OCing the BG that was shoot while commiting a felony might have thought twice about it. Another reason OC is prefered to CC in most cases, not all but most. It acts like a stop sign, most BG's see it and stop but like drivers some just can't resist blowing the stop sign and risk injury or death my on coming traffic/bullet.

 

[DanM]

Do you really believe that it is a "reasonable belief" of imminent danger when a person is running AWAY FROM YOU?

What is the totality of circumstances? Does it give rise in my mind to reasonable belief of imminent danger (if that is the legal standard I'm bound to follow)?

That would be the mindset I earnestly try to maintain as a crime victim or in protecting other potential or actual crime victims. That would be the mindset I definitely would apply in judging a case as a juror.

 

[DocWalker]

What is the totality of circumstances? Does it give rise in my mind to reasonable belief of imminent danger (if that is the legal standard I'm bound to follow)?

That would be the mindset I earnestly try to maintain as a crime victim or in protecting other potential or actual crime victims. That would be the mindset I definitely would apply in judging a case as a juror.

One could also make the argument that with him stealing his wallet his whole family was in danger as he had all his information like address and such. He was threatend and robbed. He was in fear from his life and feared for his family and their safety.

The law needs to be changed to allow self defense in cases that involve your being the victim of a felony.

I side with the good people but if the victim (gun owner) does go to trial then Casey Anthonys jury would give him the chair for making the world better by protecting us from his further felonies. I'm sure this was not a one time felony then the BG (dead guy) was going to go to church.

 

[Gort]

Stories like this may help me be more aware of my surroundings and people that come within my belief of security, this man was caught off guard and may have detoured this incident in his favor.

 

[dougwg]

I have jury duty the next two months in my county, I would vote not guilty. The reason an (I could care less what the law said) is that if you die while commiting a felony then that is fair. I don't care what they say about it, I'm tired of criminals getting more rights and protection than the honest citizen. I also don't care if it is when he puts the knife to my throat or when he turns to leave, if he will do it to me he will do it to another person. If you threaten me and try to leave with my wallet with all my information you will not get far. I will take my chances with a jury in my town/state. I know I will get ripped for my stance but I refuse to be a victim, I rufuse to let criminals be in charge.

We in America have a mechanism for this. It's call Jury Nullification.

More people need to understand it and use it. (not saying you, Doc, don't but I'm speaking to everyone here)

 

[dougwg]

Stories like this may help me be more aware of my surroundings and people that come within my belief of security, this man was caught off guard and may have detoured this incident in his favor.

While OCing I'm very aware of my surroundings and people near me.

+1 for OC

 

[skidmark]

One could also make the argument that with him stealing his wallet his whole family was in danger as he had all his information like address and such. He was threatend and robbed. He was in fear from his life and feared for his family and their safety.

The law needs to be changed to allow self defense in cases that involve your being the victim of a felony.

I side with the good people but if the victim (gun owner) does go to trial then Casey Anthonys jury would give him the chair for making the world better by protecting us from his further felonies. I'm sure this was not a one time felony then the BG (dead guy) was going to go to church.

Doc -

Why do you seem to work so hard to ignore the point? Self defense is a response to an imminent threat - not one that might happen a few moments, a few hours, a few days, a few weeks or even a few years from now. A threat that is going to happen right here, right now!

If I followed you line of thought I'd saddle up and hunt you down and shoot you because you pose a threat to somebody, somewhere, if you ever lose what modicum of self control you currently are operating under. And according to your reasoning, I'd be both justified and excused for doing so.

For the record, Casey Anthony is a woman, not a man. And the jury was not convinced that some reasonable doubt was not there about who killed that child.

As much as I agree with you that the probabilities are high that David Abbott was not going to pull that one robbery, head for church and totally turn his life around, we will never know. Well, all of us except you - you seem to have all the answers.

Do you recall your history lessons? Can you recall what the first three crimes to be declared felonies were, and why? Are you aware that in most jurisdictions spitting at - not actually landing spit on, but just spitting in the direction of - someone can be charged as a felony (attempted murder by biohazard material)? And you would shoot someone for spitting at you?

Doc, you are the wild-eyed crazy person the antis are frothing at the mouth about, saying "That [pointing at you] is why we need to take the guns away from everybody." Do us a favor and stop helping them.

stay safe.

 

[papa bear]

i have seen this in other sources. a lot of the conjecture is in that milli-second weather or not you are still under threat, between to shoot or not. weather or not the shooter would have even been arrested, hinged on which jurisdiction the situation happened . we have all read some stories where the local authority would not have even arrested the shooter.

i was wondering if the 20 ft rule could be used? years ago we had a family friend that was robbed at knife point, even though his surrendered his valuables, the perp started to walk away and then turned and stabbed him in the throat. he died

basically, it will break down to what the courts will decide. one thing i am hopeful for is the shooter will receive fair treatment and not be persecuted as well as prosecuted

 

[papa bear]

thought someone else had made this point. but i couldn't find it

if Mr. Canul had been OCing he probably would not have been picked as a victim in the first place