TG Pioneer
NES Member
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***
And always have a 1/2 to 100% charged cell phone. One of the decent cops at the police station took my dying phone and charged it enough for me to make critical calls. Did they download contents, maybe, but mostly evidence of a exculpatory nature in fact all...Absolutely empty the mag, just not in a 1" group. Throw some fliers due to 'extreme panic and adrenaline rush.' And have your lawyer on speed dial.
The paper did say the gun was a SigSauer.....go off all the time, and nobody can explainI'm not paying much attention to how he's "painted." I don't much care about his temperament or personality. I care about whether him killing this guy was done in self-defense or not. To me, given a fatal shot to the back of the melon, "self-defense" is an uphill struggle.
Hell, it could have been unintentional while holding the gun on him 8 mins after an adrenaline dump.
No. What matters is not when the second shot was fired but rather whether the perp was posing an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury at the time the second shot was fired. If the DA’s statement is correct — that the perp was face down on the floor when he was shot in the back of the head — then the defense will have an uphill battle to convince the judge or jury that the perp was an immediate threat at that time.Most of the prosecution's case will hinge on when the second shot was fired.
The law doesn’t allow you to shoot someone for what they might do at sometime in the future.You sure about that ?
Would you bet the safety or lives of your wife and children on that?
You have a proven threat to them , Can you protect them 24/7 for the rest of their lives ?
Going to spend every night for the rest of your life sleeping with one eye open ?
Going to wonder every day when you leave for work what you might find when you get home?
This guy wasn't just making idol treats , he actually went through with it .
If the victim wasn't armed that night , how would it have ended ?
Doubtful he was there to deliver fresh baked brownies .
There was another case of MA. stupidity years ago where an ex was stalking a gal.
He waited outside her place of work and stabbed her , not fatal.
While he was in jail he told the prison shrink at least a half dozen times that the first thing he was going to do when he got out was "Kill that bitch."
Despite that the parole board in their wisdom decided to release him anyway .
Neither she or her family had any idea he was even out.
Guy went directly from jail to her home , dragged her out of the house by the hair right in front of her elderly parents and finished the job.
It's not "Speculation" when someone has proven what they are willing to do.
Why do people keep posting this as though this would make the situation better? Yes, I know it is somewhat tongue in cheek, but really? In the unlikely event that the gun discharged accidentally, Mr. Camp is still responsible for the shot. The most it could do would be to reduce the charge to involuntary manslaughter.The paper did say the gun was a SigSauer.....go off all the time, and nobody can explain
Thanks, Captain Obvious, but you missed the point. My point was only that it’s one possible explanation of how the dirtbag got a bullet to the back of the head. That would be manslaughter, and no, I wouldn’t convict on it with this overall fact pattern.That's cool and all, but he's still responsible for everything that gun did. It didn't fire itself.
How many times do we remind ourselves on here that we're responsible for every round that comes out of our guns? I think I read that about forty times in the thread about the Alec Baldwin case alone.
That would be manslaughter, and no, I wouldn’t convict on it with this overall fact pattern.
The question is not whether he is "responsible" but rather what should be done about it. The law isn't perfect, and a felony conviction would result in a grave injustice.If you say it's manslaughter, then why wouldn't you convict?
And if it's obvious, and he's responsible, then what do you think "he's still responsible" should mean, if not a conviction? What level of accountability do you think is appropriate for his responsibility to be discharged (no pun intended)?
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 question is not whether he is "responsible" but rather what should be done about it. The law isn't perfect, and a felony conviction would result in a grave injustice.
added two lettersNo. What matters is not when the second shot was fired but rather whether the perp was posing an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury at the time the second shot was fired. If the DA’s statement is correct —IF that the perp was face down on the floor when he was shot in the back of the head — then the defense will have an uphill battle to convince the judge or jury that the perp was an immediate threat at that time.
added two letters
I will guess the number of people on NES that actually have a lawyer on speed dial = 5.Absolutely empty the mag, just not in a 1" group. Throw some fliers due to 'extreme panic and adrenaline rush.' And have your lawyer on speed dial.
You missed this part:added two letters
If the DA’s statement is correct
Can't disagree with you, there will be a number of facets on how this is prosecuted.No. What matters is not when the second shot was fired but rather whether the perp was posing an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury at the time the second shot was fired. If the DA’s statement is correct — that the perp was face down on the floor when he was shot in the back of the head — then the defense will have an uphill battle to convince the judge or jury that the perp was an immediate threat at that time.
I sit squarely in position that guy that was shot chose his fate. He could have avoided what happened if he did not enter the house.
The actions that happened are the result of his decisions.
There is a reason why there are so many home invasions and home burglaries. "Society" has found it reasonable to let animals continue being animals. You don't accidently break in to a house and attack the occupants. That is not something a reasonable person would do. Us "reasonable" people let these animals serve their laughable jail time where they become more dangerous animals. Until finally one of us "reasonable" people pays the ultimate price.IF the DA's story is what happened, would you have chosen to shoot the guy in the back of the head? Do you think that's what most reasonable people would do?
A reasonable person would contend that physically breaking in to a man's castle and attacking him should be a death sentence.
It absolutely should be and there is a window for being the judge, jury AND executioner it's just not 8 minutes after you drop the intruder.There is a reason why there are so many home invasions and home burglaries. "Society" has found it reasonable to let animals continue being animals. You don't accidently break in to a house and attack the occupants. That is not something a reasonable person would do. Us "reasonable" people let these animals serve their laughable jail time where they become more dangerous animals. Until finally one of us "reasonable" people pays the ultimate price.
A reasonable person would contend that physically breaking in to a man's castle and attacking him should be a death sensentenceit
OK I am taking some grief on my opinion but...
I've thankfully never needed to shoot anyone. If someone broke into my home, if they made me so angry that I went back and put another $5 of 5.56 into their face, I think that would be on them. I hope anyone on the jury is also capable of empathy for the real victims.OK I am taking some grief on my opinion but...
You shoot to stop the threat, 2 shots center mass/largest exposed area of flesh and keep firing until the threat is stopped.
I would not count on a jury nullification.I've thankfully never needed to shoot anyone. If someone broke into my home, if they made me so angry that I went back and put another $5 of 5.56 into their face, I think that would be on them. I hope anyone on the jury is also capable of empathy for the real victims.
I doubt it tooI would not count on a jury nullification.
Correct BUT they're not many reasonable people in the People's Republic when a firearm is involved in a killing. They don't believe in armed citizens and self defense.There is a reason why there are so many home invasions and home burglaries. "Society" has found it reasonable to let animals continue being animals. You don't accidently break in to a house and attack the occupants. That is not something a reasonable person would do. Us "reasonable" people let these animals serve their laughable jail time where they become more dangerous animals. Until finally one of us "reasonable" people pays the ultimate price.
A reasonable person would contend that physically breaking in to a man's castle and attacking him should be a death sentence.