Old white man shoots pregnant black woman intruder (he's going to jail)

#401
#401
Orange_Crush said:
Perhaps you are correct. Maybe I've just watched too much law and order, and seen the fictional cases where a woman kills her lover while he's asleep because she fears he'll kill her one of these days.

And I would disagree that emotion and state of mind should be ignored in such cases. Pretty much the entire basis of "provocation" depends on the emotional state of the person committing the crime. i.e. that it's not so easy to separate fear and anger when one has been brutalized.

Now, there's been a lot of abuse of the provocation defense, but I wouldn't consider this one of them.

In my mind, I'd return a guilty verdict in return for a suspended (OK... Vastly reduced) sentence. How's that? :)
Click to expand...

The problem with provocation is, and I know I'm sounding like a broken record here, is the past tense response. If he'd shot both these people in his home we almost certainly wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. It is that little difference that is EVERYTHING in this case. If he left his residence to pursue and ultimately kill a person trying to get away (what I understand the case to be here) it's extremely difficult to bring in these other mitigating mindsets and have them hold much weight in a courtroom.

For myself I have no small amount of sympathy for the old fella. Don't start nuthin won't be nuthin and it wasn't him that started anything. The problem is there's just no room in the law that allows someone to pursue and kill in self defense. It's simply a round hole/square peg sort of argument.

Having said the above it wouldn't bother me one bit to have the court case turn out like you state. :)
 
#402
#402
volbeast33 said:
This is ridiculous....he is not a murderer....he was fighting back after being attacked. I cant believe anyone would have an ounce of sympathy towards a couple of thieves breaking in a elderly man's home and beating him.
Click to expand...

That's a nicely sociopathic point of view.
 
#405
#405
dooley2 said:
I'm not just saying this. I was told by a LEO in my hometown to drag them back in. There are a lot of cops out there that would sweep this under the rug.
Click to expand...

Perhaps...but it will play hell with your case if it's determined you tampered with the scene and lied about it to the police if they DID want to make something of it.

Attempt at your own (great) risk.
 
#406
#406
hndog609 said:
The problem with provocation is, and I know I'm sounding like a broken record here, is the past tense response. If he'd shot both these people in his home we almost certainly wouldn't be having this conversation. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. It is that little difference that is EVERYTHING in this case. If he left his residence to pursue and ultimately kill a person trying to get away (what I understand the case to be here) it's extremely difficult to bring in these other mitigating mindsets and have them hold much weight in a courtroom.

For myself I have no small amount of sympathy for the old fella. Don't start nuthin won't be nuthin and it wasn't him that started anything. The problem is there's just no room in the law that allows someone to pursue and kill in self defense. It's simply a round hole/square peg sort of argument.

Having said the above it wouldn't bother me one bit to have the court case turn out like you state. :)
Click to expand...

I understand. However, my understanding of some of the criticisms of the "provocation" defense is actually the problem defining what you mentioned-- how to define "sudden". So, you seem to making provocation a matter of "where", and the law actually makes it a matter of "when".

Then there is the difficulty of the 'ordinary person' test-- i.e. what we can expect from the average person. What is reasonable for an old man, confused, in the middle of the night, facing two people who had brutalized him? Compare that to what is reasonable for a 6'6" brawny man at noon at his son's soccer game?

Those are two separate criteria for deciding what a person may reasonably be feeling.

I haven't read up fully on this. I've been playing a bit of devils' advocate. Did he chase her out in the yard ten minutes later, or was it a fairly immediate thing? Because that's really the proper test for provocation-- when, not where.

And to be clear, provocation is not a self defense argument. It is an argument that tries to account for what may be a person's mindset after being victimized in some way. It's basically "Hey, I wasn't in my right mind because of that persons' actions."
 
#407
#407
Think about what is being said here. If you kill a burglar I'm your doorway, it's cool. If you kill them two feet out the door, it's murder. If they're in your house, running and begging for their life, what's the difference?
 
#409
#409
82_VOL_83 said:
Told the same thing in Port St Lucie, FL.
Click to expand...

See? Jails are full. Prisons are full. It sounds harsh, but think about how stupid it is that responsible tax payers pay to keep these thieves alive and well. Hell, if I was single and struggling to pay my bills, I'd consider being put in prison as a last resort. Not kidding.
 
#410
#410
dooley2 said:
Think about what is being said here. If you kill a burglar I'm your doorway, it's cool. If you kill them two feet out the door, it's murder. If they're in your house, running and begging for their life, what's the difference?
Click to expand...
If you don't see the difference I feel sorry for you.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#411
#411
Orange_Crush said:
I understand. However, my understanding of some of the criticisms of the "provocation" defense is actually the problem defining what you mentioned-- how to define "sudden". So, you seem to making provocation a matter of "where", and the law actually makes it a matter of "when".

Then there is the difficulty of the 'ordinary person' test-- i.e. what we can expect from the average person. What is reasonable for an old man, confused, in the middle of the night, facing two people who had brutalized him? Compare that to what is reasonable for a 6'6" brawny man at noon at his son's soccer game?

Those are two separate criteria for deciding what a person may reasonably be feeling.

I haven't read up fully on this. I've been playing a bit of devils' advocate. Did he chase her out in the yard ten minutes later, or was it a fairly immediate thing? Because that's really the proper test for provocation-- when, not where.

And to be clear, provocation is not a self defense argument. It is an argument that tries to account for what may be a person's mindset after being victimized in some way. It's basically "Hey, I wasn't in my right mind because of that persons' actions."
Click to expand...

First, to get it out of the way, a DEADLY FORCE response to provocation is very bad mojo. And you've been too quick in separating "where" and "when". You're also getting a bit carried away bringing the "what if's" into this. It's interesting to ponder such things but distracts from the task at hand if we're talking about the case in the OP.

"Where" moved from inside the residence to outside. Not good. "When" was from what was an obvious threat to people actually trying to flee the scene but were pursued and one was shot and killed. Really, REALLY not good.

To put some perspective on it why do you think lethal force can so often be a "given" when inside one's own home, even against unarmed invaders? Now THAT is when some of what you address is expressly applied to the situation. It's just extremely difficult to apply these mitigating circumstances you are introducing to THIS specific case. (or at least as I currently understand it)
 
#412
#412
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
If you don't see the difference I feel sorry for you.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

There is no difference. If they're in your floor begging for their life, then is there really a reason to feel threatened?

If they see you have a gun and start hightailing it to your door, is there a real reason to feel threatened? Most here say that she was running and pleading in a street, therefore it's cold-blooded murder. What if she's running in your house and begging you not to shoot? How is that any less cold-blooded?
 
Last edited:
#413
#413
hndog609 said:
First, to get it out of the way, a DEADLY FORCE response to provocation is very bad mojo. And you've been too quick in separating "where" and "when". You're also getting a bit carried away bringing the "what if's" into this. It's interesting to ponder such things but distracts from the task at hand if we're talking about the case in the OP.

"Where" moved from inside the residence to outside. Not good. "When" was from what was an obvious threat to people actually trying to flee the scene but were pursued and one was shot and killed. Really, REALLY not good.

To put some perspective on it why do you think lethal force can so often be a "given" when inside one's own home, even against unarmed invaders? Now THAT is when some of what you address is expressly applied to the situation. It's just extremely difficult to apply these mitigating circumstances you are introducing to THIS specific case. (or at least as I currently understand it)
Click to expand...

That's cool. My understanding was that "provocation" is not a self defense defense. It is a "state of mind" defense? Is this true?

It sounds to me that you're still talking about self defense.

Rereading my post, I'm not sure how you thought I was playing "what if" scenarios. I was distinguishing between the expected state of mind of a hulking young man at a soccer game, and an old man, beaten in his home in the middle of the night. Seems to be a good distinction if we're trying to decide the person's state of mind. And I was trying to find out the amount of time after the confrontation before he shot her. Again, seems pertinent to his state of mind.
 
#414
#414
dooley2 said:
I'm not just saying this. I was told by a LEO in my hometown to drag them back in. There are a lot of cops out there that would sweep this under the rug.
Click to expand...

Did I accidentally click on the protect and serve thread? The cop who told you that is worthless and lazy. But feel free to call him as a witness if you've followed his advice and end up on the wrong end of a murder trial
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#415
#415
dooley2 said:
Think about what is being said here. If you kill a burglar I'm your doorway, it's cool. If you kill them two feet out the door, it's murder. If they're in your house, running and begging for their life, what's the difference?
Click to expand...

Legally? A lot. And even that varies depending on where you are.

Just curious, have you been keeping up with the Byron Smith case in Minnesota?
 
#416
#416
dooley2 said:
There is no difference. If they're in your floor begging for their life, then is there really a reason to feel threatened?

If they see you have a gun and start hightailing it to your door, is there a real reason to feel threatened? Most here say that she was running and pleading in a street, therefore it's cold-blooded murder. What if she's running in your house and begging you not to shoot? How is that any less cold-blooded?
Click to expand...
It isn't IMO. If she is subdued and no longer a threat, and you shoot her anyway then you just committed murder.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#417
#417
hndog609 said:
Legally? A lot. And even that varies depending on where you are.

Just curious, have you been keeping up with the Byron Smith case in Minnesota?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking legally. I'm talking about where it is on a moral compass. I've already stated in the midst of all of this that I understand the law, but I would do the same thing as the old man if someone harmed my family.
 
#418
#418
utvolpj said:
Did I accidentally click on the protect and serve thread? The cop who told you that is worthless and lazy. But feel free to call him as a witness of you've followed his advice and end up on the wrong end of a murder trial
Click to expand...

Lulz
 
#419
#419
utvolpj said:
Did I accidentally click on the protect and serve thread? The cop who told you that is worthless and lazy. But feel free to call him as a witness if you've followed his advice and end up on the wrong end of a murder trial
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. So the person that doesn't agree with your opinion of right and wrong is "worthless and lazy". Maybe you just can't grasp the reality of the situation.

I'm just going to leave this here. The man saved the American tax payer about 150,000 dollars by killing this soulless woman. Yet, people are all up in a frenzy saying that the man was wrong. He killed someone that contributes nothing but debt to society. Who cares? We've been so brainwashed by the idea of blindly following laws that we can no longer think for ourselves. Is that it?

Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's a good idea. Might I remind you that slavery used to be the law too? How do you know that 100 years from now, our society won't praise one another for vigilante justice? We should praise this man. He's protecting himself and protecting his neighborhood.
 
#420
#420
dooley2 said:
I'm not talking legally. I'm talking about where it is on a moral compass. I've already stated in the midst of all of this that I understand the law, but I would do the same thing as the old man if someone harmed my family.
Click to expand...

And who would take care of your family if you end up spending 15-20 in prison?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#421
#421
dooley2 said:
Oh, okay. So the person that doesn't agree with your opinion of right and wrong is "worthless and lazy". Maybe you just can't grasp the reality of the situation.

I'm just going to leave this here. The man saved the American tax payer about 150,000 dollars by killing this soulless woman. Yet, people are all up in a frenzy saying that the man was wrong. He killed someone that contributes nothing but debt to society. Who cares? We've been so brainwashed by the idea of blindly following laws that we can no longer think for ourselves. Is that it?

Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's a good idea. Might I remind you that slavery used to be the law too? How do you know that 100 years from now, our society won't praise one another for vigilante justice? We should praise this man. He's protecting himself and protecting his neighborhood.
Click to expand...
This mentality is why the anti gun lobby will always be around.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#422
#422
dooley2 said:
Oh, okay. So the person that doesn't agree with your opinion of right and wrong is "worthless and lazy". Maybe you just can't grasp the reality of the situation.

I'm just going to leave this here. The man saved the American tax payer about 150,000 dollars by killing this soulless woman. Yet, people are all up in a frenzy saying that the man was wrong. He killed someone that contributes nothing but debt to society. Who cares? We've been so brainwashed by the idea of blindly following laws that we can no longer think for ourselves. Is that it?

Just because something is a law doesn't mean it's a good idea. Might I remind you that slavery used to be the law too? How do you know that 100 years from now, our society won't praise one another for vigilante justice? We should praise this man. He's protecting himself and protecting his neighborhood.
Click to expand...

Is this worth the possibility of spending years in prison to you?
 
#423
#423
Orange_Crush said:
That's cool. My understanding was that "provocation" is not a self defense defense. It is a "state of mind" defense? Is this true?

It sounds to me that you're still talking about self defense.

Rereading my post, I'm not sure how you thought I was playing "what if" scenarios. I was distinguishing between the expected state of mind of a hulking young man at a soccer game, and an old man, beaten in his home in the middle of the night. Seems to be a good distinction if we're trying to decide the person's state of mind. And I was trying to find out the amount of time after the confrontation before he shot her. Again, seems pertinent to his state of mind.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I could have been more clear. I'm not aware of any application of provocation or self defense that would justify the pursuit and shooting of a person as they tried to get away. I've simply not come across how that works out as "reasonable" under provocation or self defense statutes. (meaning if there are instances I've not heard of them)

I think we've overlooked something in some people's minds. How a person is actually sentenced can be affected by the kind of things you bring up. There's almost no way to legally run a person down and kill them after the fact. No amount of emotion is likely to get that argued as legally acceptable. Exactly what one is charged with and what the sentence will be is a much greater variable.
 
#424
#424
hndog609 said:
Sorry, I could have been more clear. I'm not aware of any application of provocation or self defense that would justify the pursuit and shooting of a person as they tried to get away. I've simply not come across how that works out as "reasonable" under provocation or self defense statutes. (meaning if there are instances I've not heard of them)

I think we've overlooked something in some people's minds. How a person is actually sentenced can be affected by the kind of things you bring up. There's almost no way to legally run a person down and kill them after the fact. No amount of emotion is likely to get that argued as legally acceptable. Exactly what one is charged with and what the sentence will be is a much greater variable.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, and I'm pretty sure I failed to be explicit on that. "Provocation" doesn't usually mean "not guilty". It usually garners a reduced charge and/or reduced sentencing. (That's why, after mentioning 'provocation', I joked that'd trade a guilty verdict for a reduced sentence.)

:hi:
 
#425
#425
dooley2 said:
Oh, okay. So the person that doesn't agree with your opinion of right and wrong is "worthless and lazy". Maybe you just can't grasp the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

No but this hypothetical man definitely is. A man sworn to uphold the law is trying to tell you how to cover up a murder. If he really exists then he should never have a badge or gun paid for by the public who thinks he's protecting them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top