I'm an equal opportunity defender of those whose guilt is in reasonable doubt - the case of Michael Giles

[Rhea]

This is a good point. This is what a carry permit wreaks. He got into this position because he had a gun to go get. Having a gun made him think getting his gun was a good idea. Getting his gun made him think using his gun was reasonable.

Without the gun, would he have waded into the melee? Without the gun, would he have even been hit?

Note that this applies to Zimmerman, too.

 

[Davka]

This is a good point. This is what a carry permit wreaks. He got into this position because he had a gun to go get. Having a gun made him think getting his gun was a good idea. Getting his gun made him think using his gun was reasonable.

Without the gun, would he have waded into the melee? Without the gun, would he have even been hit?

I think this looks past the critical point... since when was being hit a threat of life situation?

Since Trayvon Martin hit Zimmerman.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

With a sidewalk.

 

[Playball40]

Honestly it's the going outside to get his gun, then coming BACK into the situation that just doesn't sit right with me. If he had his gun the entire time and someone sucker punched him out of the blue, I might feel differently but that's not what happened here.

That said, I don't believe in guns in any fashion (outside of maybe hunting rifles which I still hate but will concede) and certainly don't believe they should be allowed in bars, restaurants or public places. Just not feeling that sympathetic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is a normal exception to the rule that you can't advance into a threat--you can do so for the purpose of rescuing others in danger.

Didn't call the police. At least Zimmerman had called the police. There was no "danger".

I can't see why he was convicted.

Of course you can't. If anyone claims "self-defense" you lose all self conscious thought and drone on about how they were in the right.

 

[Arctish]

Honestly it's the going outside to get his gun, then coming BACK into the situation that just doesn't sit right with me. If he had his gun the entire time and someone sucker punched him out of the blue, I might feel differently but that's not what happened here.

I agree. The guy had extricated himself from the situation. He didn't have to go back in, and he certainly didn't need to bring a gun to a fistfight. Perhaps his Army training played a part here; "I will leave no man behind", "Never advance into a potential life threatening situation without your weapons", etc.

I'm a little uneasy with the 20 year sentence, not because I don't think firing into a crowd is a serious offense, but because I don't think Florida law is fair, equitable, or sane. Florida law is both extremely harsh and extremely lax, and it appears race influences outcomes. I believe a white soldier would have gotten off with a much lighter sentence or perhaps been excused as Zimmerman was.

 

[RavenSky]

I think this looks past the critical point... since when was being hit a threat of life situation?

Since Trayvon Martin hit Zimmerman.

In Zimmerman's imagination

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't call the police. At least Zimmerman had called the police. There was no "danger".

I can't see why he was convicted.

Of course you can't. If anyone claims "self-defense" you lose all self conscious thought and drone on about how they were in the right.

This guy was military, too. We know that Loren will defend any and all cops in any situation. Perhaps that applies to military too?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm a little uneasy with the 20 year sentence, not because I don't think firing into a crowd is a serious offense, but because I don't think Florida law is fair, equitable, or sane. Florida law is both extremely harsh and extremely lax, and it appears race influences outcomes. I believe a white soldier would have gotten off with a much lighter sentence or perhaps been exonerated as Zimmerman was.

^^^ this

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is a normal exception to the rule that you can't advance into a threat--you can do so for the purpose of rescuing others in danger.

I can't see why he was convicted.

Did they ever establish that his friends were in danger? Were any of them injured?

Here is an academic question: Suppose the man who was hit by bullet fragments, happened to have a concealed carry permit, and also had his pistol with him. He hears the shot, feels the wound, and sees a man lying on the ground with a pistol pointed in his direction. He shoots the man on the ground.

Who is at fault in this scenario?

The ones hit by fragments have civil actions against him.

They would also have been justified in defending themselves as as you say they would reasonably consider themselves under threat if they didn't know what had prompted the shooting.


I rather suspect he got convicted because of the large number of people around when he fired.

- - - Updated - - -

He made a decision from a position of relative safety to walk into a melee, he should have had a reasonable expectation of getting hurt. I do not believe he had the right to up the ante by bringing a gun in. His best defense was to keep himself outside in this case.

His best defense, yes. If he weren't trying to rescue friends he most certainly would have been crucified here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Did they ever establish that his friends were in danger? Were any of them injured?

Here is an academic question: Suppose the man who was hit by bullet fragments, happened to have a concealed carry permit, and also had his pistol with him. He hears the shot, feels the wound, and sees a man lying on the ground with a pistol pointed in his direction. He shoots the man on the ground.

Who is at fault in this scenario?

The ones hit by fragments have civil actions against him.

They would also have been justified in defending themselves as as you say they would reasonably consider themselves under threat if they didn't know what had prompted the shooting.

Well that and they were physically harmed from the shooting... unlike the shooter, who had merely been punched.

I rather suspect he got convicted because of the large number of people around when he fired.

Or the fact that you can't go discharging a gun whenever something you don't like happens!

 

[Bronzeage]

Did they ever establish that his friends were in danger? Were any of them injured?

Here is an academic question: Suppose the man who was hit by bullet fragments, happened to have a concealed carry permit, and also had his pistol with him. He hears the shot, feels the wound, and sees a man lying on the ground with a pistol pointed in his direction. He shoots the man on the ground.

Who is at fault in this scenario?

The ones hit by fragments have civil actions against him.

They would also have been justified in defending themselves as as you say they would reasonably consider themselves under threat if they didn't know what had prompted the shooting.


I rather suspect he got convicted because of the large number of people around when he fired.

- - - Updated - - -

...

His best defense, yes. If he weren't trying to rescue friends he most certainly would have been crucified here.

A civil action in a stand your ground state? What a remarkable idea. It keeps getting better and better. We have to assume the person hit by bullet fragments is cognisant enough to understand from where the original bullet was fired. Since one bullet already hit three people, those three people have the right to defend themselves against any perceived deadly threat and shoot back. If this ration of 1 to 3 continues, we now have nine victims. If each of those produces a gun to defend themselves, there are now 81 bullets in the air at the same time. In a few more minutes, the entire state of Florida will be hit by bullet fragments. All we have to do now is go to civil court and quibble over who shot who.

Have we ever established the hazard from which his friends required rescue by means of deadly force? Were they huddled in a corner, fending off a band of attackers with a chair? It's strange how a gun lends nobility to our actions.