Old Man Kills Intruder

[Gauthier]

Don't forget to give an award to George Zimmerman while you're at it.

He was already acquitted.

So...

So was O.J. Simpson. Shall we give O.J. a medal then?

[Trotskylvania]

Self-defense requires imminence. There must be a clear and present danger to your life. And it must be reasonable. In California, an objective reasonable person standard is employed for self-defense.

When the assailants flee, the imminent danger is over and your right to use deadly force ends. And when you leave your home, the place of safety, and give chase and kill someone, that's murder.

Stop defending murderers. Quit being pro-criminal.

This is Castle Doctrine we're talking about here. They were on his property and he'd been robbed four times before. They'd just got done beating him and who's to say they wouldn't return? It's reasonable to say he would think they'd harm him again the future.

Stop trying to re-victimize this man.

They had left his home. The "castle doctrine" does not apply. The use of deadly force requires a reasonable, imminent fear for your life. Fleeing criminals don't satisfy that.

Your assuming a whole lot of shit. You don't know if they had robbed him before. He was robbed before, but there's no evidence that it was them. And there's no reason to suppose they would again. And even if there were, the law requires a imminent fear for your life. This man is a murderer. He stopped being the victim when he disregarded the law, and decided that he got to be judge, jury and executioner.

[Fartsniffage]

Based on what? Did he own the alley?

It might have been inside his property.

You have any evidence of that?

[Viritica]

He was already acquitted.

So...

So was O.J. Simpson. Shall we give O.J. a medal then?

Doesn't he already have medals from his golf career?

[Greed and Death]

His lawyers will likely argue he was in shock from having his shoulder broken as to both the police statement and the shooting. I just don't see the DA being eager to charge an old man who was attack had his shoulder broken and and then killed one of the attackers. espeically since by the time the trial is over he will likely be eligible for compassionate release.

[Viritica]

This is Castle Doctrine we're talking about here. They were on his property and he'd been robbed four times before. They'd just got done beating him and who's to say they wouldn't return? It's reasonable to say he would think they'd harm him again the future.

Stop trying to re-victimize this man.

1. They had left his home. 2. The "castle doctrine" does not apply. 3. The use of deadly force requires a reasonable, imminent fear for your life. Fleeing criminals don't satisfy that.

4. Your assuming a whole lot of shit. You don't know if they had robbed him before. He was robbed before, 5. but there's no evidence that it was them. And there's no reason to suppose they would again. And even if there were, the law requires a imminent fear for your life. This man is a murderer. 6. He stopped being the victim when he disregarded the law, and decided that he got to be judge, jury and executioner.

1. Were they not still on his property?
2. If they're on his property then it does.
3. Which there was.
4. Not really.
5. So what?
6. So melodramatic.

[Fartsniffage]

His lawyers will likely argue he was in shock from having his shoulder broken as to both the police statement and the shooting. I just don't see the DA being eager to charge an old man who was attack had his shoulder broken and and then killed one of the attackers. espeically since by the time the trial is over he will likely be eligible for compassionate release.

Is shock an acceptable defence in the American judicial system?

[Geilinor]

His lawyers will likely argue he was in shock from having his shoulder broken as to both the police statement and the shooting. I just don't see the DA being eager to charge an old man who was attack had his shoulder broken and and then killed one of the attackers. espeically since by the time the trial is over he will likely be eligible for compassionate release.

Is shock an acceptable defence in the American judicial system?

It is if it prevents you from thinking clearly.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Jesus fucking Christ people, castle doctrine doesn't allow you to shoot fleeing assailants. The cops aren't allowed to shoot fleeing assailants. It's been upheld in court dozens of times. For the last fucking time, castle doctrine doesn't matter, here. It's not some magical law you can hide behind, like anything else it has limitations.

[Fartsniffage]

Is shock an acceptable defence in the American judicial system?

It is if it prevents you from thinking clearly.

Really? When was it last used?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Jesus fucking Christ people, castle doctrine doesn't allow you to shoot fleeing assailants. The cops aren't allowed to shoot fleeing assailants. It's been upheld in court dozens of times. For the last fucking time, castle doctrine doesn't matter, here. It's not some magical law you can hide behind, like anything else it has limitations.

*Cops actually can shoot fleeing assailants, provided they believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Jesus fucking Christ people, castle doctrine doesn't allow you to shoot fleeing assailants. The cops aren't allowed to shoot fleeing assailants. It's been upheld in court dozens of times. For the last fucking time, castle doctrine doesn't matter, here. It's not some magical law you can hide behind, like anything else it has limitations.

*Cops actually can shoot fleeing assailants, provided they believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

That requires them to justify it in special hearings and trials.

[Trevor Philips Industries]

In my opinion, he doesn't deserve any punishment. He defended himself from burglars. Shooting a burglar as they're fleeing just makes sure that they don't come back again with lethal or non-lethal motives.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

In my opinion, he doesn't deserve any punishment. He defended himself from burglars. Shooting a burglar as they're fleeing just makes sure that they don't come back again with lethal or non-lethal motives.

Unfortunately, that's not the law.

[Gauthier]

His lawyers will likely argue he was in shock from having his shoulder broken as to both the police statement and the shooting. I just don't see the DA being eager to charge an old man who was attack had his shoulder broken and and then killed one of the attackers. espeically since by the time the trial is over he will likely be eligible for compassionate release.

Is shock an acceptable defence in the American judicial system?

This is the same American judicial system where affluenza is a legal defense.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Is shock an acceptable defence in the American judicial system?

This is the same American judicial system where affluenza is a legal defense.

Oh yeah?!?? Well Italy...has cops...with stupid hats...

[Tarsonis Survivors]

It is if it prevents you from thinking clearly.

Really? When was it last used?

The official designation I think would be Temporary Insanity plea. And it's really hard to prove.

[Tekania]

This is the same American judicial system where affluenza is a legal defense.

Oh yeah?!?? Well Italy...has cops...with stupid hats...

I personally think they look faux-fascists....... like Metrosexual Nazis.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Oh yeah?!?? Well Italy...has cops...with stupid hats...

I personally think they look faux-fascists....... like Metrosexual Nazis.

Metrosexual Nazis? Isn't that kinda redundant?

[Greed and Death]

His lawyers will likely argue he was in shock from having his shoulder broken as to both the police statement and the shooting. I just don't see the DA being eager to charge an old man who was attack had his shoulder broken and and then killed one of the attackers. espeically since by the time the trial is over he will likely be eligible for compassionate release.

Is shock an acceptable defence in the American judicial system?

It is an issue for the jury. When the police use his statement either for rebuttal against his testimony or as stand alone evidence his attorney will bring an expert witness in to explain how immediately after a traumatic event like having his should broken and shooting a person the human brain tends to exaggerate and add dialog as a self defense mechanism so the jury should consider his statement immediately proceeding the incident an exaggeration at best or as near nonsense at worse.

While we are on the statement he had his shoulder broke, was he on pain killers when he made his statement to the police ? If so there is a good argument to exclude the statement altogether. The police really should wait until the person is not drugged to seek incriminating statements.

Now to self defense itself the defense will bring an expert in who will explain how shock changes the perception of the world and how what may not be reasonable to an outsider would be reasonable to someone in shock. Next they would bring a doctor to explain how because of the injuries inflicted on him by the assailants, the old man would be at increase risk of passing out which would increase the danger if the assailants returned.

Is it guaranteed ? No. But you have a sympathetic defendant an unsympathetic assailant I would give conviction about 50/50 chance, especially considering juries tend to be made up of older people.

[Tekania]

I personally think they look faux-fascists....... like Metrosexual Nazis.

Metrosexual Nazis? Isn't that kinda redundant?

not really... Nazi lacked real style... too many hard lines in their outfits, and the cuts were not very flattering. Italian police unforms are much more stylistic.... the graceful curves in the cuts really highlight the figure.

[Viritica]

Metrosexual Nazis? Isn't that kinda redundant?

not really... Nazi lacked real style... too many hard lines in their outfits, and the cuts were not very flattering. Italian police unforms are much more stylistic.... the graceful curves in the cuts really highlight the figure.

Are you kidding me? I mean, I despise Nazis, but their uniforms were glorious. Simple yet eloquent.

[Scomagia]

Is shock an acceptable defence in the American judicial system?

It is if it prevents you from thinking clearly.

Which is why manslaughter exists.

[Spoder]

not really... Nazi lacked real style... too many hard lines in their outfits, and the cuts were not very flattering. Italian police unforms are much more stylistic.... the graceful curves in the cuts really highlight the figure.

Are you kidding me? I mean, I despise Nazis, but their uniforms were glorious. Simple yet eloquent.

The SS officer uniforms were redonkulous.

Those wierd puffed up thigh bag things.

[Viritica]

It is if it prevents you from thinking clearly.

Which is why manslaughter exists.

Well, actually, the jury can find people not guilty by reason of disease or mental defect, in which case that person will be carted off to a mental hospital to receive proper treatment.