Ruger Forum

Bigdog · July 21st, 2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack D

I'm not thinking hindsight either....just law. What the law says (here in Oregon) is shooting after the attack has stopped and he (the attacker) is running away will get you in trouble. What is in the shooters mind is a matter for a jury to decide and maybe two juries in the case of a civil suit. The police, prosecutor and grand jury must follow the law and if they decide he went too far, he will be defending himself in a criminal trial. If they file a civil suit contending he went too far, then he will be defending himself in a civil trial, too. This is reality. This is why they say every bullet comes with a lawyer attached. It sucks. But that's the way it is. At least here. Can't say what happens in GA. But I'd bet it is similar.

If I'm on the jury, then, knowing what I know, I'm aquitting and in a civil case, no awards. With adrenaline flowing, it was probably a natural reaction to keep shooting, but if the law is the same in GA as it is here, then he should have stopped firing when they decided to flee.

How does Oregon law define the attack has stopped? Who makes the decision the attacker is running away and not regrouping? Georgia law makes it pretty clear, if you think your life is in danger, you are within the law. I think the old man thought his life was in danger. This would not be an issue in Georgia. Let's hope none of us are ever in position to make the choices he did. Either way, either state, it would still be life changing event.

IowaBibleMan · July 21st, 2012, 05:55 PM

Georgia law makes it pretty clear, if you think your life is in danger, you are within the law.

Is this the case in Georgia? Or do you have to reasonably think you are in danger? In that case, don't a lot of people other than the man defending himself decide if he did what a reasonable man would do? police on scene? police department? DA? his investigators? Fact finder (most often, the jury)?

Within the past 12 months in West Des Moines, Iowa, the Polk County DA -- zealously anti-gun -- took a man to trial. The man sat in the county jail for 7 months, waiting trial. The jury believed he acted reasonably under the circumstances and acquitted him in no time. Did the DA say, "I'm sorry I put you through this?" No. His attitude: The system worked; that's what juries are for. Most of us on this forum would think the defendant got the shaft: it was a clear case of self-defense, but the DA doesn't want gunfights in his county, so he takes cases to trial.

Bigdog · July 22nd, 2012, 12:05 PM

I was referring to being in the same situation. I have sat on more than one jury where the charges were attempted murder. One being a car as the weapon. Now, if your neighbor tries to run you over with his lawn mower, don't expect to walk if you shoot him. As in all criminal trials, the judge reads the law in open court. The jury is also given a written copy of the law. If you are under attack and you believe your life is in danger, the attacker has the means and has shown the intentions to do harm, you can do what this old man did, shoot in the backside as the thug is running away, you are legal in doing so. What is important in Georgia is what the VICTIM believes is happening to him/her. Again, you cannot walk through a grocery store and claim someone tried to kill you with a box of ho-hos. You have to be under duress. You still may get arrested in some jurisdictions and spend time behind bars before your trial. One thing we do know, once that trigger is pulled, lives are changed forever. In my opinion, I think some of the members on this forum are a little to cavalier in what they claim they will do.

Jack D · July 22nd, 2012, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigdog

How does Oregon law define the attack has stopped? Who makes the decision the attacker is running away and not regrouping? Georgia law makes it pretty clear, if you think your life is in danger, you are within the law. I think the old man thought his life was in danger. This would not be an issue in Georgia. Let's hope none of us are ever in position to make the choices he did. Either way, either state, it would still be life changing event.

That, I would think, is a matter for the officers on the scene, the Attorney General, and Grand Jury to decide. In this case, as I understand it, the gun was dropped inside and they ran out the door. That makes it pretty clear in my mind the attack was over. Opening the door and shooting at them as they were running away would probably be an act of attempted murder in many minds. A very grey area. An unnecessary shot. And a dangerous one to boot. Sure, they could come back, but that would be a separate attack.....would it not?

gunnysmith · July 22nd, 2012, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pat-inCO

Then you had better NEVER be involved in a shooting.
Your attitude will bet you twenty to life, because you are in it to KILL.
Everyone else is in it to . . . stop the threat.
HUGE difference.

Odd comment, stopping a percieved deadly threat requires deadly force.
Too many TV crime shows perhaps.

gunnysmith · July 22nd, 2012, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IowaBibleMan

Your post is too cryptic for me to understand. Please explain it.

The focal point for iron sight accuracy is the front sight.

Bigdog · July 22nd, 2012, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack D

That, I would think, is a matter for the officers on the scene, the Attorney General, and Grand Jury to decide. In this case, as I understand it, the gun was dropped inside and they ran out the door. That makes it pretty clear in my mind the attack was over. Opening the door and shooting at them as they were running away would probably be an act of attempted murder in many minds. A very grey area. An unnecessary shot. And a dangerous one to boot. Sure, they could come back, but that would be a separate attack.....would it not?

Murder is defined by premeditated thought with the intent and ability to kill. Manslaughter maybe, murder, no. If they come back, it was never over. I would agree if they were running away, I probably would stop shooting. If "A" gun was dropped, I'm still shooting. We know NOW that there was only one gun. The old man didn't know at the time. A mentor in my past once told me I needed to stop seeing the world as black or white. He said it is about 10% black, 10% white and 80% gray. The older I get, the more I not only understand this but also accept.

Jack D · July 23rd, 2012, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bigdog

Murder is defined by premeditated thought with the intent and ability to kill. Manslaughter maybe, murder, no. If they come back, it was never over. I would agree if they were running away, I probably would stop shooting. If "A" gun was dropped, I'm still shooting. We know NOW that there was only one gun. The old man didn't know at the time. A mentor in my past once told me I needed to stop seeing the world as black or white. He said it is about 10% black, 10% white and 80% gray. The older I get, the more I not only understand this but also accept.

I've been around the block a few times myself, Bigdog. And I mostly agree with you. I think everyone will have a differing view of things surrounding this event. And certainly, the people inside that cafe will have their own views as well. I've watched the video tapes only once and to draw any conclusions, I have to make some assumptions.

He shot at someone or something on the tile floor. Assuming it was one of the robbers on the floor, were they still armed and trying to shoot back or were they disabled at that point and perhaps trying to give up?

Why did the gent open the closing door and shoot at the robbers after they left the building?

It seems to me that at some point the gent stopped defending and started being the aggressor. Adrenalaine, I think can cause a person to over-react and perhaps that is an answer.

All I'm saying is that this is a case that could have the old gent wishing he hadn't reacted the way he did. Even if the DA declines to press charges, he could face civil penalties. The case of OJ Simpson comes to mind. Criminal trial jury says "not guilty", but civil trial awards steep damages and breaks him financially. Same case. Two different juries. At the very least, he could spend a ton of cash defending himself.

Fortunately, he didn't kill anyone and no by-standers were hurt either. I feel for him and wish him the best possible outcome.

I've asked myself many times, how I think I would have reacted. No answer yet.