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

[Rasher]

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.

Yes indeed, it is very possible that he(bad guy) turned trying to get away from the gun and was shot in that way. From a former TKD instructors stand point, I know just how fast people can move when motivated, but without Paul Harvey and THE REST OF THE STORY, and eye witness statements we will most likely never know exactly how it went down. So we can only go by what we have read at this point.

 

[DocWalker]

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.

Wow, you don't even know me. You know nothing about me. What I stand for and what I would do in different situations.

Don't try to lecture me about what is and what is appropriate in response to a situation. In this case neither of us was there so we are just speculating as to the mind set, mental reasoning, what way he was turned, how far he was, and other.

We use this thread for multiple reasons a few of are education, support and venting. Like the waste and corruption in Washington people are fed up with a system set up to protect and encourage CRIMINALS. Yes our system protects and actually encourages people to commit crimes; if you do get caught you get three meals, a roof, and medical/dental care. The death penalty isn't much of a deterrent since you could die of old age waiting for all the appeals to go through.

People are fed up with the system and the criminals. With unemployment and the economy crime is only going to increase, and without people being held accountable then society is domed. Unfortunately jail and prison are not the answer as there is no room. California just released thousands of prisoners due to overcrowding, and they were not the first state.

Before judging other people and preaching to them you should clear your own slate. My comments are just "what if's" as the stories don't tell the whole picture. What we need is a little more justice and less criminal encouragement is all I'm getting at.

I suppose you would like to give the wallet of the VICTIM to the family of the BAD GUY/DEAD GUY. Since he was only robbing someone who actually had a job. Ask yourself why do you carry a gun if you will allow yourself to be raped, robbed, injured, or killed?

The only I will tell you as to 100% of what I would do in any situation is if someone hurt one of my children I would hunt them down and make them suffer. I would spend the rest of my life in prison without thinking twice. As for this situation we are only speculating, so get off your high horse and relax.

 

[DocWalker]

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

I hope his lawyer can get the documentation on this story you quote. This could be used as an example that he was still in danger and his life was still at risk.

 

[DocWalker]

Doc -

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.

stay safe.

My statement about Casey Anthony didn't refer to her as a man or women you dweeb. My statement said Casey Anthony's JURY would give HIM (referring to the shooter/victim) in this story.

I know the little girl killed herself after putting the duck tape on her mouth, and then she let herself decompose in her mother’s trunk before moving herself to the ditch behind her house. Nobody is responsible for her death and her mother figured at her age she could take care of herself so she partied for a month. (Sarcasm) Yes the jury got it right nobody killed the little girl.

 

[rscottie]

We must also remember that eye witness stories can be very much in conflict with what the victim told the police.

Why is this? Think about this, how many people were so observant that they even saw the robber grab the victim and put the knife to his throat? Probably none. What they did do is turn when they heard the shot ring out. There was only one shot, so after hearing it, they had to find where it came from and then focus on what was going on.

So, it is quite plausible that the robber relaxed his grip on the victim, allowing the victim to reach for his gun. As the victim felt the robber relaxing his grip he turned and shot. The robber had already begun to turn to run when the shot went off. The robber continued to run towards the building. At the point when all the witnesses saw the robber running towards the building, he probably was 15 feet from the victim as the DA stated. The robber ran quite some ways before dropping and dying.

For anyone to second guess a man that was a victim of a life threatening event, having a knife held to their throat, for us to second guess what state of mind he was in and whether he was justified in shooting is not right. He deserves the benefit of the doubt as he was not the aggressor, his life was threatened, and he defended himself. At the very least, it needs to be acknowledged that he was in fear for his life and that is the standard of the law that is used for self-defense.

There was a shooting in Cleveland that was ruled justifiable.

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/lo...lice-officer-shoots-teen-in-cleveland-heights

So, there is precedent that shooting someone that is fleeing is not always automatically a murder charge.

 

[DocWalker]

We must also remember that eye witness stories can be very much in conflict with what the victim told the police.

Why is this? Think about this, how many people were so observant that they even saw the robber grab the victim and put the knife to his throat? Probably none. What they did do is turn when they heard the shot ring out. There was only one shot, so after hearing it, they had to find where it came from and then focus on what was going on.

So, it is quite plausible that the robber relaxed his grip on the victim, allowing the victim to reach for his gun. As the victim felt the robber relaxing his grip he turned and shot. The robber had already begun to turn to run when the shot went off. The robber continued to run towards the building. At the point when all the witnesses saw the robber running towards the building, he probably was 15 feet from the victim as the DA stated. The robber ran quite some ways before dropping and dying.

For anyone to second guess a man that was a victim of a life threatening event, having a knife held to their throat, for us to second guess what state of mind he was in and whether he was justified in shooting is not right. He deserves the benefit of the doubt as he was not the aggressor, his life was threatened, and he defended himself. At the very least, it needs to be acknowledged that he was in fear for his life and that is the standard of the law that is used for self-defense.

There was a shooting in Cleveland that was ruled justifiable.

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/lo...lice-officer-shoots-teen-in-cleveland-heights

So, there is precedent that shooting someone that is fleeing is not always automatically a murder charge.

+1 on your entire post. A persons can still take a few steps and fall away from the shooter before they fall dead even shot in the head. If the DA said 15-20 feet is how far the robber was when he fell from the spot the shot was fired means the robber still could have killed the victim if he wanted to. I hope the DA drops the case and gives they guy his gun back.

That might keep someone from turning toward crime if they hear the laws don't protect the criminals anymore.

 

[stainless1911]

,

That might keep someone from turning toward crime if they hear the laws don't protect the criminals anymore.

Exactly, we need to stop with this crap. The criminals have some pretty powerful enablers, the courts. I've said that before, and will again until its no longer an issue.

 

[Gunslinger]

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).

You are exactly right, but in 'all' states, when pleading self defense, you stipulate to the facts of the case--yes, you admit you killed him. Affirmative defense then comes into play showing you had justification, i.e., fear of imminent death or grievous bodily harm. You show the jury you acted in response to this reasonable fear, and you are found justified for committing the action and not guilty of the crime charged. The question is moot if the facts of the case are so clear that a Grand Jury will not return a true bill or the DA declines to prosecute. In this case, I have no doubt it will go to trial. As to the outcome: not enough facts presented to hazard a guess. (If it happens in your home with Castle Doctrine, no affirmative defense is required. The act itself is lawful.) The prosecution still has the burden of proof to show your defense is not justified.

 

[stainless1911]

It should never go to trial. If you dont want to get shot in the head, then maybe dont rob people with a knife? Hmmm?

 

[smellslikemichigan]

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)

+1 doug
docwalker,
check this out before you go.
http://fija.org/

 

[smellslikemichigan]

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.

he was refering to the subject of this thread as "he" not casey anthony.

 

[rscottie]

+1 on your entire post. A persons can still take a few steps and fall away from the shooter before they fall dead even shot in the head. If the DA said 15-20 feet is how far the robber was when he fell from the spot the shot was fired means the robber still could have killed the victim if he wanted to. I hope the DA drops the case and gives they guy his gun back.

That might keep someone from turning toward crime if they hear the laws don't protect the criminals anymore.

I wanted to clarify that I got the 15 ft because the complaint states the robber was shot 15 ft from the victim.

My point was that the DA got the 15 ft from witnesses that stated when they saw the robber he was 15 ft from the victim and how many people were even looking before the shot rang out? If the robber was already breaking free to run when the shot rang out, he could have easily cleared 15 feet in the time it takes for someone to turn, look and focus to even find where the shot came from.

If you read all the stuff out there when you google this incident, the robber actually ran much further and almost made it back in to the store, which was much further than 15-20 feet.

 

[OC-moto450r]

2A

 

[HKcarrier]

Seems to me that Ayoob stated that even when the shots were to the back, a defensive shoot could still be a good shoot due to the timing and mechanics involved from when someone evaluates threat, draws, levels, fires, and the reaction of the perp... and when it all happens so quickly.... sounds like someone better see if Ayoob is avail for expert testimony at their trial....

 

[DocWalker]

It should never go to trial. If you dont want to get shot in the head, then maybe dont rob people with a knife? Hmmm?

Quit it your making simple, logical sense and the courts and politicians will be confused.

 

[DrTodd]

Quit it your making simple, logical sense and the courts and politicians will be confused.

Yep, pretty clear to me. Now, if Mr Canul had chased after the perp through the parking lot, then I might feel differently. The issue of being shot in the front or the back should not have any bearing on the assertion of self-defense. If I were on the jury, and the issue turns on whether the facts as stated indicate the terms needed for an act of self-defense, I would vote to absolve Mr Canul of all charges.

 

[papa bear]

I hope his lawyer can get the documentation on this story you quote. This could be used as an example that he was still in danger and his life was still at risk.

that particular incident happened more than 35 years ago. i think the perp in that case, has killed a couple of more people serving prison sentences ea. time. there was another story that happened in Greensboro, NC, in the mid 80's. of a elderly woman that shot a burglar while escaping out a window, after he shot and killed her husband. the DA was going to prosecute, until there was such a public out cry, he drooped it. just trying to make a point things are a bit subject to where it happens

BTW, i tried to find an official wording on the 21 ft. knife rule, but failed. i have heard and read it spoke of in several sources. here is one that i ran across

http://www.policeone.com/edged-weap...ense-Is-or-was-the-21-foot-rule-valid-Part-1/

 

[stainless1911]

I have not read a 21 foot rule in the law either.

 

[WalkingWolf]

I have not read a 21 foot rule in the law either.

Because the law uses the word reasonable, an elderly person might feel threatened at 100ft. I certainly would not wait to drop a charging BG until 21ft. If they are within the range of my accuracy and I perceive them as a threat, they are toast. It is then up to law enforcement, prosecutors, and possibly a jury whether my action is reasonable. If I reasonably believe they continue to be a threat after the initial confrontation to myself or others I will still drop them.

That said I do not know the circumstances in this case, I may not have used deadly force. But if I was on the jury and his story about being robbed at knife point has merit I would not vote guilty. Knife wielding thugs deserve what the get.

 

[stainless1911]

+1