Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Formaldehyde, Sep 28, 2010.
Missouri doesn't have a stand-your-ground law. Yet.
Shouldn't the amount of force used in the defence be reasonable with respect to the amount of force used in the attack?
I mean, you don't shoot a guy in the head with a shotgun if he pushes you.
From reading the story I don't see how that is not murder, plain and simple.
Whacha smokin' Willis? We've had a castle doctrine law since 2007 or 2008.
I'm not black so racial epithets are pretty well lost on me.
Stand-your-ground is a specific modification to the Castle Doctrine law. As the article clearly shows, Missouri hasn't passed it. Yet.
Castle doctrine still requires reasonable self defense. Castle doctrine doesn't mean you get to kill people if they piss you off.
Also this guy apparently traveled across the street to guard his castle?
With stand-your-ground, your castle moves wherever you are as long as you have a legal right to be there.
Interesting local news video where one of the skateboarders claims that James had turned around and was walking away when Dooley pulled the gun on him. James then tried to take the gun away from him in self-defense:
Link to video.
When you are a 70 year old man, do expect to be able to defend yourself in a fist fight against anyone? The colt .45 earned the name "the great equalizer" for a reason...
Either way, I don't think they let him go because of this law, I don't think the article gives that impression, either. I expect this guy is going to be tried for murder, if he isn't then I'll start getting annoyed.
My God, man, do you see race in EVERYTHING? How in hell do you go through life like that?
Too soon? Recently posted in a different thread:
Admittedly, that sign is hilarious.
Im really curious as to see what the top of the sign that says "pork" says.
Cut and dried.
Why would you let a murder suspect go short of him making bail after a bail hearing?
The only problem is you can only use deadly force vs a threat of death or great bodily harm to yourself and another (or prevent the commission of a forcible felony which in no way applies here)
How in the world is the defense gonna convince a jury that this man was afraid of death or great bodily harm? (my thoughts on this change slightly in last paragraph but I'm leaving this first sentence here) I was on a jury that acquitted a man who pointed a gun at someone who came at his car with a Club in his hand (the steering wheel lock Club), because the defense argued that great bodily harm was possible from this man. The prosecution was pissed but screw them, the charges were bogus.
In this case though the prosecution should have no trouble whatsoever. The burden of proof is technically theirs, but this is one of those cases where a jury will need serious convincing from the defense instead of the prosecution.
My concern is that he hasn't been arrested or named as a suspect yet, which tells me some of those conflicting reports say the victim was threatening the guy in some way. I'd love to get more details on this because it may be one of those cases where on the surface the shooter looks 100% guilty, but the details tell a different story.
What? A 41-year-old man who just retired from the Air Force versus a 69-year-old? And if no charges are brought it obviously doesn't require a defense attorney to get him off.
If the shooter pulled the gun after the initial confrontation, then murder.
As a Florida native and a big supporter of being able to defend yourself and the 2nd amendment I actually support the Stand your Ground law.
How do you feel about just being able to cap guys playing ball with their kid?
Separate names with a comma.