Jump to content

Trayvon Martin


StrangeSox
 Share

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 04:50 PM)
But how can you say that if he had not given chase they would have hung out in the front yard or tried to come back? Again, that's the problem looking at these situations totally removed. We can't possibly know how he was feeling/thinking, and it's pretty s***ty to place on him the expectation of perfect judgment in such a situation. And not even perfect judgment - the potential life or death decision of letting the guys leave and then hoping they don't come back.

 

Let's ignore the law and talk principles - do you really think this guy should go to jail for decades for killing this guy?

 

If they try to come back, he is still armed. If the facts are that he chased them out of the house, into the yard and continued to fire as they were fleeing away from his house, yes, he should be imprisoned for killing this guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 04:56 PM)
If they try to come back, he is still armed. If the facts are that he chased them out of the house, into the yard and continued to fire as they were fleeing away from his house, yes, he should be imprisoned for killing this guy.

 

That's insane. You're putting the rights of a s***ty criminal that just threatened someone's life over the rights of a victim of said threat. That criminal should lose every time. If you're that dumb and immoral, getting shot and killed is an appreciated risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 04:56 PM)
The interesting thing about this case is that the thief had previously been holding a gun to the homeowner. I wonder how much that changes things legally, and more importantly to any potential grand jury or jury.

 

Sadly in Ohio I don't think it does at all. He had the duty to be inactive instead of reactive in a deadly situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 05:01 PM)
If you're going to chase someone into your yard and shoot them in the head while they're fleeing, going to jail (or hitting an innocent bystander) is a risk you have to take.

 

I agree about the risk of hitting an innocent bystander, but not the jail part. I don't get how you can so easily dismiss everything that came before the shooting. I'd agree with your position if the facts end up being that he waited 5-10 minutes before running out of the house, or if he had given chase down the road and then shot. But that doesn't appear to be what happened here.

 

Even if he SHOULDN'T have chased and shot, why doesn't he deserve some deference given that he just had a gun pointed at him and he was in serious, appreciably danger of his life?

 

What purpose does it serve to send this guy to jail? Justice for the s***head criminal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 05:05 PM)
The guy being charged is the young white guy with short hair, not that guy with dreads in those pics.

 

Eh, you sure? They look the same to me. One is a yearbook photo, the other is the updated photograph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 04:32 PM)
Yeah but they have guns and they already pointed them at you. What's to stop them from running way for a minute and then coming back? It's not like this guy waited 20 minutes or even shot at them 100 yards down the road. It reads like they run, he went after them, still on his property, and shot as they were running.

 

This is a perfect example of heat of the moment decisions of this guy v. what we all think he should have done in hindsight. How can we really judge him when he's probably scared s***less, running on adrenaline after getting a gun pointed at him by two guys that invaded his home?

 

Throw in this guys loser life criminal history and it's not like he killed a nun. When you commit an armed robbery, being shot before/during/shortly after the attempt should be an appreciated risk.

Do you mean the intruders are still on the property, or that the homeowner is on his property while he shoots at the intruders, who are no longer on his property and are running away?

 

If it's the former I don't convict, if it's the latter I do.

 

As for the "principles not law, should he spend decades in jail?" question. I don't think he should spend decades in jail. But there should be a very serious penalty. Something like 1-3 years makes sense to me. It should definitely be a felony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 05:21 PM)
Seriously though how far is too far

 

I think it's dependent on the severity of the threat, the time from the threat and distance. In this case, if it's all happening in quick succession, they could be a few houses away and I'd be fine with it especially if he's still on his property and relatively close to his house.

 

I would prefer that he go in the house and call the cops and hide. I'd prefer he didn't run after and chase the bad guys. But I'm not going to put him in jail when he's still within that time/distance bubble of his life being threatened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 05:07 PM)
I agree about the risk of hitting an innocent bystander, but not the jail part. I don't get how you can so easily dismiss everything that came before the shooting. I'd agree with your position if the facts end up being that he waited 5-10 minutes before running out of the house, or if he had given chase down the road and then shot. But that doesn't appear to be what happened here.

 

Even if he SHOULDN'T have chased and shot, why doesn't he deserve some deference given that he just had a gun pointed at him and he was in serious, appreciably danger of his life?

 

What purpose does it serve to send this guy to jail? Justice for the s***head criminal?

 

We dont want vigilante justice. And deference is given when there is imminent danger (which is a question of fact). But once that danger has passed, the deference is no longer there. Our society is built on police and the justice system handling crimes, not individual citizens. Whether that is good or bad, that is the system we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had to decide on the homeowner's fate, I'd be trying to see whether it seemed that he fired the fatal shots out of fear or out of anger. The way it is being described makes it seem like he continued to fire not because he thought he was still in danger, but because he was pissed they were getting away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Jake @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 06:53 PM)
If I had to decide on the homeowner's fate, I'd be trying to see whether it seemed that he fired the fatal shots out of fear or out of anger. The way it is being described makes it seem like he continued to fire not because he thought he was still in danger, but because he was pissed they were getting away.

 

If someone had just had a gun on me, it is hard to say any "fear" would be gone that quickly, nor am I sure that a reasonable person would be able to switch gears that quickly. A trained police officer, I can see that being a standard. A homeowner? Not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In situations like this dont they sometimes charge the other burglary suspect with some type of manslaughter? I could swear I remember seeing an episode of the first 48 where 2 teens robbed a guy on the street, and the guy took the gun and killed one of the kids and they charged the friend of the deceased since he was apart of the crime that got the other guy killed. Maybe that would only matter if they didnt decide to charge the homeowner though?

 

Also, if I was a juror Id have a hard time convicting this guy unless he says all the wrong things on the stand. But if he says that the burglars threatened that they would be back to cause harm to his family or something like that I dont think any jury will convict him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 07:56 PM)
If someone had just had a gun on me, it is hard to say any "fear" would be gone that quickly, nor am I sure that a reasonable person would be able to switch gears that quickly. A trained police officer, I can see that being a standard. A homeowner? Not so much.

 

Sounds like an argument against using guns for home defense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 07:09 PM)
In situations like this dont they sometimes charge the other burglary suspect with some type of manslaughter? I could swear I remember seeing an episode of the first 48 where 2 teens robbed a guy on the street, and the guy took the gun and killed one of the kids and they charged the friend of the deceased since he was apart of the crime that got the other guy killed.

That's felony murder. If you commit a felony (in this case, aggravated robbery) and someone dies during the commission of that felony, it can be a murder charge. Specifics depend on a state' statute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's felony murder. If you commit a felony (in this case, aggravated robbery) and someone dies during the commission of that felony, it can be a murder charge. Specifics depend on a state' statute.

 

In Indiana, if you are committing armed robbery in conjunction with one or more other persons and one of those other persons dies at the hands of a third party due to justified self-defense, you can be charged with murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...