Shooting an unarmed man

[Loren Pechtel]

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/en/the-anatomy-of-a-self-defense-shooting-pt-3

There have been several on here who seem to feel that only the police "get away" with this.

This link is to the last of a three-part series examining a case where a civilian shot a guy pulling a cell phone. The jury exonerated him.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/en/the-anatomy-of-a-self-defense-shooting-pt-3

There have been several on here who seem to feel that only the police "get away" with this.

One sentence into the OP and we hit the strawman.

This link is to the last of a three-part series examining a case where a civilian shot a guy pulling a cell phone. The jury exonerated him.

The police rarely get put on a trial for shooting an unarmed man.

 

[laughing dog]

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/en/the-anatomy-of-a-self-defense-shooting-pt-3

There have been several on here who seem to feel that only the police "get away" with this.

This link is to the last of a three-part series examining a case where a civilian shot a guy pulling a cell phone. The jury exonerated him.

I read the link, and what it tells me is that there are too many chickenshit fearful people in the world who are willing to shoot first and ask questions later, and that there just as many of those people on juries.

And that abstracts from the big difference that police are supposed to be more experienced and trained in distinguishing actual threats from non-threats.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/en/the-anatomy-of-a-self-defense-shooting-pt-3

There have been several on here who seem to feel that only the police "get away" with this.

This link is to the last of a three-part series examining a case where a civilian shot a guy pulling a cell phone. The jury exonerated him.

I read the link, and what it tells me is that there are too many chickenshit fearful people in the world who are willing to shoot first and ask questions later, and that there just as many of those people on juries.

And that abstracts from the big difference that police are supposed to be more experienced and trained in distinguishing actual threats from non-threats.

Well, I think the situation surrounding the shooting matters. If there had been escalating tensions between the two and the one guy had a reasonable belief that the other guy pulling a gun was a legitimate risk, then it's an acceptable defense. Mistakes can be made in the heat of the moment and if you can convince a jury that you reasonably thought you were about to get shot yourself, then it's fine for them to let you off for it.

Jimmy made the key point here. This guy was put on trial and the evidence examined by an impartial jury. If he'd been let off based on a review of the situation by a panel of his co-workers and friends, that would not have been acceptable.

 

[Gun Nut]

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/en/the-anatomy-of-a-self-defense-shooting-pt-3

There have been several on here who seem to feel that only the police "get away" with this.

This link is to the last of a three-part series examining a case where a civilian shot a guy pulling a cell phone. The jury exonerated him.

The jury exonerated the man who was faced with an individual that literally said, "I am going to shoot you" as he pulled a black object out of his pocket. That person's right to not be shot ends where the other person's right to not be shot begins... and the jury agreed that a reasonable person would not bet their life on the idea that he was bluffing when he said he was going to shoot as he said he was and acted like he was.

It's like complaining that Hitler was wronged by the allied forces, "because he was just a guy trying to run a country". Well, he was, wasn't he? Just like it actually was a cell phone... just some innocent guy trying to pull out a cell phone... since when is Death the penalty for low battery?

 

[laughing dog]

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/en/the-anatomy-of-a-self-defense-shooting-pt-3

There have been several on here who seem to feel that only the police "get away" with this.

This link is to the last of a three-part series examining a case where a civilian shot a guy pulling a cell phone. The jury exonerated him.

I read the link, and what it tells me is that there are too many chickenshit fearful people in the world who are willing to shoot first and ask questions later, and that there just as many of those people on juries.

And that abstracts from the big difference that police are supposed to be more experienced and trained in distinguishing actual threats from non-threats.

Well, I think the situation surrounding the shooting matters. If there had been escalating tensions between the two and the one guy had a reasonable belief that the other guy pulling a gun was a legitimate risk, then it's an acceptable defense. Mistakes can be made in the heat of the moment and if you can convince a jury that you reasonably thought you were about to get shot yourself, then it's fine for them to let you off for it.

Deadly mistakes ought to require more than a reasonable thought.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Not really. If it’s reasonable for you to assume that you’re in a life or death situation, then it’s reasonable for you to act as if you’re in a life or death situation.

 

[Gun Nut]

Well, I think the situation surrounding the shooting matters. If there had been escalating tensions between the two and the one guy had a reasonable belief that the other guy pulling a gun was a legitimate risk, then it's an acceptable defense. Mistakes can be made in the heat of the moment and if you can convince a jury that you reasonably thought you were about to get shot yourself, then it's fine for them to let you off for it.

Deadly mistakes ought to require more than a reasonable thought.

This does not make sense. I can rephrase without changing the meaning of what you said to, "Unexpected consequences should have been expected"
Also, what part of the fractional second that existed between draw of gun and pulling of trigger should have been used to imagine all possible outcomes of all possible reactions?
As a thought experiment, why not list them here so we can all read them and time how long it takes to imagine them all. Then we can do some math and see how much of that fractional second we needed to use up... oh and any possible scenario you fail to list, we'll just call that a deadly mistake... and see how many deadly mistakes you can make in just one post, hehe.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, I think the situation surrounding the shooting matters. If there had been escalating tensions between the two and the one guy had a reasonable belief that the other guy pulling a gun was a legitimate risk, then it's an acceptable defense. Mistakes can be made in the heat of the moment and if you can convince a jury that you reasonably thought you were about to get shot yourself, then it's fine for them to let you off for it.

Deadly mistakes ought to require more than a reasonable thought.

This does not make sense. I can rephrase without changing the meaning of what you said to, "Unexpected consequences should have been expected"

You are free to babble all you wish. In my opinion, if someone makes a mistake and ends up killing someone, it ought to take more than "it was a reasonable response" to get them excused.

[
Also, what part of the fractional second that existed between draw of gun and pulling of trigger should have been used to imagine all possible outcomes of all possible reactins?

You are babbling again. The victim was unarmed. There was no need to shoot. It is that simple.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/en/the-anatomy-of-a-self-defense-shooting-pt-3

There have been several on here who seem to feel that only the police "get away" with this.

One sentence into the OP and we hit the strawman.

This link is to the last of a three-part series examining a case where a civilian shot a guy pulling a cell phone. The jury exonerated him.

The police rarely get put on a trial for shooting an unarmed man.

The point is a jury that was actually shown the facts rather than just the propaganda understood that his decision was reasonable. Or is your real objective the persecution of police?

- - - Updated - - -

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/en/the-anatomy-of-a-self-defense-shooting-pt-3

There have been several on here who seem to feel that only the police "get away" with this.

This link is to the last of a three-part series examining a case where a civilian shot a guy pulling a cell phone. The jury exonerated him.

I read the link, and what it tells me is that there are too many chickenshit fearful people in the world who are willing to shoot first and ask questions later, and that there just as many of those people on juries.

And that abstracts from the big difference that police are supposed to be more experienced and trained in distinguishing actual threats from non-threats.

I only linked part 3--which says almost nothing about what lead up to it. Of course you don't understand. Part 3 links the rest, you need to read the whole thing to understand the situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Deadly mistakes ought to require more than a reasonable thought.

<Pulls pin, throws grenade in laughing dog's lap>

You must spend at least 10 seconds considering what to do about the situation before you act.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are babbling again. The victim was unarmed. There was no need to shoot. It is that simple.

And everyone's god--all knowing?

"I'm going to kill you" and draws a black object. (Note that while the article says nothing about where the phone was it mentions an OtterBox case--which has a clip mount. In other words, it was probably drawn from the waist, not from a pocket. That would look a lot like a holster.)

 

[laughing dog]

Deadly mistakes ought to require more than a reasonable thought.

<Pulls pin, throws grenade in laughing dog's lap>

You must spend at least 10 seconds considering what to do about the situation before you act.

I would immediately toss it back to you and run. If it is a toy or a dud, then no one is harmed. If it is real, I have eliminated a real threat to me and to humanity,

 

[laughing dog]

You are babbling again. The victim was unarmed. There was no need to shoot. It is that simple.

And everyone's god--all knowing?

If they were, then this entire discussion is moot. duh.

[
"I'm going to kill you" and draws a black object. (Note that while the article says nothing about where the phone was it mentions an OtterBox case--which has a clip mount. In other words, it was probably drawn from the waist, not from a pocket. That would look a lot like a holster.)

I realize you literally have to make stuff up to advance your position. You have no idea what it looked like. My eyesight is not that good, but cellphones do not resemble firearms at all.

 

[Gun Nut]

This does not make sense. I can rephrase without changing the meaning of what you said to, "Unexpected consequences should have been expected"

You are free to babble all you wish. In my opinion, if someone makes a mistake and ends up killing someone, it ought to take more than "it was a reasonable response" to get them excused.

[
Also, what part of the fractional second that existed between draw of gun and pulling of trigger should have been used to imagine all possible outcomes of all possible reactins?

You are babbling again. The victim was unarmed. There was no need to shoot. It is that simple.

What does, "Hindsight is 20/20" mean to you?

Your notion that "reasonable is not enough" goes against the very core of how our court system works in any type of case whatsoever. The "reasonable person" is at the center of all court decisions, small and large, criminal and civil... it is the very foundation of rationality and fairness.

The alternative to the "reasonable person" is the "unreasonable person", and that is who you are being in this thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

One sentence into the OP and we hit the strawman.

The police rarely get put on a trial for shooting an unarmed man.

The point is a jury that was actually shown the facts rather than just the propaganda understood that his decision was reasonable.

I saw that one guy got off on murder charges... therefore all people charged with murder are not guilty!

Or is your real objective the persecution of police?

My real objective is to take over the world. BWHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously, why in the heck do you even go there?

 

[laughing dog]

You are free to babble all you wish. In my opinion, if someone makes a mistake and ends up killing someone, it ought to take more than "it was a reasonable response" to get them excused.
You are babbling again. The victim was unarmed. There was no need to shoot. It is that simple.

What does, "Hindsight is 20/20" mean to you?

Your notion that "reasonable is not enough" goes against the very core of how our court system works in any type of case whatsoever.

You are misinformed. In criminal trials, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "it is reasonable". The former is a higher standard. If that higher standard is appropriate to meet to deprive someone of their liberty, why is a lower one appropriate to deprive someone of their life?

The alternative to the "reasonable person" is the "unreasonable person", and that is who you are being in this thread.

You are one condoning the killing of innocent people, not me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Deadly mistakes ought to require more than a reasonable thought.

<Pulls pin, throws grenade in laughing dog's lap>

You must spend at least 10 seconds considering what to do about the situation before you act.

I would immediately toss it back to you and run. If it is a toy or a dud, then no one is harmed. If it is real, I have eliminated a real threat to me and to humanity,

That's a snap decision, something you said was unacceptable. You need the facts before you act.

- - - Updated - - -

If they were, then this entire discussion is moot. duh.

[
"I'm going to kill you" and draws a black object. (Note that while the article says nothing about where the phone was it mentions an OtterBox case--which has a clip mount. In other words, it was probably drawn from the waist, not from a pocket. That would look a lot like a holster.)

I realize you literally have to make stuff up to advance your position. You have no idea what it looked like. My eyesight is not that good, but cellphones do not resemble firearms at all.

A small pistol and a cell phone are of a similar size and this phone was black, as are many pistols.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are misinformed. In criminal trials, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "it is reasonable". The former is a higher standard. If that higher standard is appropriate to meet to deprive someone of their liberty, why is a lower one appropriate to deprive someone of their life?

You utterly missed his point.

Cases such as this are judged based on what a reasonable man would do in the situation. That's what he's referring to, it has no relationship with the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

 

[laughing dog]

I would immediately toss it back to you and run. If it is a toy or a dud, then no one is harmed. If it is real, I have eliminated a real threat to me and to humanity,

That's a snap decision, something you said was unacceptable. You need the facts before you act.

The grenade was sufficient fact. If it was fake, no harm if I throw it back. If it is real, then I defended myself and did society a favor.

A small pistol and a cell phone are of a similar size and this phone was black, as are many pistols.

BS.