Contents of the legal refrigerator thrown at the wall, hoping something will stick?Yup, it will be interesting to listen to his lawyer's explanation of the reason for the 2nd shot.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Contents of the legal refrigerator thrown at the wall, hoping something will stick?Yup, it will be interesting to listen to his lawyer's explanation of the reason for the 2nd shot.
In this state it will be especially difficult but it would be difficult in any state to justify shooting someone in the back of the head.
The article discusses the difference between murder and manslaughter and how the grand jury came to the decision it was manslaughter. Using the legal definitions provided to the grand jury it's not a murder. It will be very hard to escape the manslaughter charge for the 2nd shot, however.Sounds like murder to me.
Yeah.
I'm a little impressed they went with manslaughter instead of murder, honestly.
The perp was apparently face down, bleeding out on the floor. Deadly force is not legally justified unless you are in immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury. It's pretty hard to argue that you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury when you shoot someone in the back of the head while they are on the floor bleeding out.Mass has castle doctrine. Try as I may, I can't find in the law the requirement that shots must occur within a prescribed timeframe. Dude was defending himself from a home invasion. That's how I see it. Grand Jury shouldn't have indicted at all...
Mass has castle doctrine. Try as I may, I can't find in the law the requirement that shots must occur within a prescribed timeframe. Dude was defending himself from a home invasion. That's how I see it. Grand Jury shouldn't have indicted at all...
That is correct - I believe one of the articles mentions that. Wonder if Infidelity is at play here… might explain the second shot. Entirely speculation though need to read the court documents if released.I am guessing the dead guy is an old boyfriend of the woman.
The perp was apparently face down, bleeding out on the floor. Deadly force is not legally justified unless you are in immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury. It's pretty hard to argue that you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury when you shoot someone in the back of the head while they are on the floor bleeding out.
Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for the deceased. But I think Mr. Camp's defense attorney is going to have a very hard time keeping him out of jail.
In the unlikely even that someone invades my house, I want to win both battles -- the one at the scene and the one in the courtroom. I'd rather not spend my retirement years rotting in prison.
The perp was apparently face down, bleeding out on the floor. Deadly force is not legally justified unless you are in immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury. It's pretty hard to argue that you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury when you shoot someone in the back of the head while they are on the floor bleeding out.
Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for the deceased. But I think Mr. Camp's defense attorney is going to have a very hard time keeping him out of jail.
In the unlikely even that someone invades my house, I want to win both battles -- the one at the scene and the one in the courtroom. I'd rather not spend my retirement years rotting in prison.
The blood on the floor will indicate whether he was crawling or not and if his hand wasn't found underneath him than the argument that he was reaching for a weapon seems unlikely to work either. In other words, good luck with that."He was crawling away from me while yelling he was going to shoot me. Then he reached into his appendix area. In fear for my life, I shot the assailant a second time."
The blood on the floor will indicate whether he was crawling or not and if his hand wasn't found underneath him than the argument that he was reaching for a weapon seems unlikely to work either. In other words, good luck with that.
The blood on the floor will indicate whether he was crawling or not and if his hand wasn't found underneath him than the argument that he was reaching for a weapon seems unlikely to work either. In other words, good luck with that.
Now if that's the case, then he's got a tough road.Also $10 says that he said something dumb to the police when they showed up, which probably sealed his fate
Good luck with that.I think he will have very good luck with it...
"I didn't want to shoot him again. He did initially stop after the first shot. I kept my weapon trained on him and observed, waiting for law enforcement to arrive, which was not prompt. But when he said he was going to shoot me and made a motion to reach for a weapon, what choice did I have? What choice would you have had in the same situation?"
Case closed.
I disagree. Although if he does plead out it will be because he lacks the resources to mount a competent legal defense. Not because he is guilty.Good luck with that.
The DA will eat him alive if he takes the stand. My prediction is he takes a plea.
I said nothing to the police during my rodeo, so they invented somethingAlso $10 says that he said something dumb to the police when they showed up, which probably sealed his fate
Ask a criminal defense attorney two questions:I disagree. Although if he does plead out it will be because he lacks the resources to mount a competent legal defense. Not because he is guilty.
Sadly, justice is directly tied to one's ability to pay for it.
I disagree. Although if he does plead out it will be because he lacks the resources to mount a competent legal defense. Not because he is guilty.
Sadly, justice is directly tied to one's ability to pay for it.
Ask a criminal defense attorney two questions:
1) How many times has his defendant talked his way out of a conviction in a bad shoot, with no evidence to support his tory?
2) How many times has his defendant talked his way into a conviction in a bad shoot.
I'd guess the answer to 1) is 0 and the answer to 2) is too many to count.
You simply aren't going to talk your way out of a conviction in a bad shoot. It's not going to happen.
We agree on that.He can easily be guilty under the letter of the law, because the laws on this kind of thing are completley f***ing stupid and don't offer nearly enough deference to the property owner. Even places like Texas which offer greater latitude, are still not nearly where I think they should be.
I’d rather suspect it would be the girlfriend had more motivation to put a second shot, in at eight minutes timestamp…. And that’s just pure speculation.Ask a criminal defense attorney two questions:
1) How many times has his defendant talked his way out of a conviction in a bad shoot, with no evidence to support his tory?
2) How many times has his defendant talked his way into a conviction in a bad shoot.
I'd guess the answer to 1) is 0 and the answer to 2) is too many to count.
You simply aren't going to talk your way out of a conviction in a bad shoot. It's not going to happen.
Ok... Tell that to OJ, who literally bought his way off a murder rap. If you have enough money for lawyers.... you can burn down the white house and get away with it in this country. All it costs is money.