Monroe County Man Acquitted, Self Defense Justified

[Exbiker]

"Why did you keep shooting once he was down?"

"Because my magazine wasn't empty"

[Adam-12]

If the evidence showed the shooter was justified to shoot then how many shots and where those shots were placed should not matter.

Once the threat is neutralized, there's nothing to defend yourself from. Continuing to shoot when there's nothing to defend against, isn't self-defense. I'm with the others; as described in the paper, it sounds like murder.

[DonM55]

Two in the torso,one in the leg and the guys down and unarmmed. He could have safely retreated.

[indiandave]

Two in the torso,one in the leg and the guys down and unarmmed. He could have safely retreated.

That's what I was thinking.

[Dredly]

IMO self defense is self defense.

If the evidence showed the shooter was justified to shoot then how many shots and where those shots were placed should not matter.

If I should ever need to defend myself with deadly force (God forbid) I should not be judged on how I took out my attacker, no more than the type of ammunition used, or the capacity of the gun should come into play. If the first shot was justified IMO that’s all that matters. Prosecutors routinely excuse leo’s when they collectively shoot 60+ rounds into a vehicle, but somehow regular citizens are suppose to have more restraint in a dangerous situation.

I applaud the jury for not being led into the emotional temptation to judge the defendant based on the blurry actions once deadly force became necessary, but rather the events which led up to that decision.

I'm still not sure HOW deadly force because "okay" to be used as we have no castle law yet. The BBQ was outside the house, the man was able to safely retreat inside his house to retrieve his firearm, he then went back OUTSIDE his house where the man was still waiting and opened fire on him.

Everything I've ever read or heard is that you have a duty to retreat but you don't have to retreat from inside your house, you DO have to retreat from your property. When he got the gun and went back outside he became the aggressor.

I'm sure the defendant played up the whole vet angle and PTSD angle as much as possible to sway the jury... but a vet who can put 2 in the chest, 2 in the leg and then fires 10 more while the guy is on the ground? After going outside to confront him, leaving his home to do so, and then telling the cops "i hope he dies" while extremely intoxicated?

I don't think justice was done here

[Dredly]

Two in the torso,one in the leg and the guys down and unarmmed. He could have safely retreated.

HE was able to safely retreat while the man was still standing!

[God's Country]

I'm still not sure HOW deadly force because "okay" to be used as we have no castle law yet. The BBQ was outside the house, the man was able to safely retreat inside his house to retrieve his firearm, he then went back OUTSIDE his house where the man was still waiting and opened fire on him.

Everything I've ever read or heard is that you have a duty to retreat but you don't have to retreat from inside your house, you DO have to retreat from your property. When he got the gun and went back outside he became the aggressor.

I'm sure the defendant played up the whole vet angle and PTSD angle as much as possible to sway the jury... but a vet who can put 2 in the chest, 2 in the leg and then fires 10 more while the guy is on the ground? After going outside to confront him, leaving his home to do so, and then telling the cops "i hope he dies" while extremely intoxicated?

I don't think justice was done here

Unable to get Lee to stop, Johnson told another guest to call 911, got his 9mm handgun from his bedroom and told Lee to leave his house. Lee refused to leave, threatened to kill Johnson and came at him again.

Based on the above quote I assumed the final confrontation occurred within the home, where there is no duty to retreat.


Regardless if we had Stand Your Ground in Pa suddenly it becomes a non issue?
Sure legally it may become less of an issue, but it seems to me most are appalled that this guy emptied his gun into his assailant when perhaps it was not necessary.

I still feel that once someone provokes the need for deadly force it likely could be just that, and how it is accomplished should not matter. Emotions, adrenaline, anger, (and in this case alcohol) may often play a role, but IMO if the first shot was justified the rest should not matter provided all the rounds fired either hits its target or did not harm any other person.

Who’s to say when deadly force became unnecessary and the threat was stopped, and just how long we should be permitted to process that realization, when many factors complicate that process?

This guy may have been incredibly pissed off that he just took a good beating for no good reason and his alcohol consumption intensified that anger which may have caused him to just unload his gun into an assailant that just would not stop coming.

If one perfect well placed shot could kill someone dead as a doornail, what would 12 more perfect well placed shots do? Kill him deader than a door nail? Kill him deader than dead? Kill him more than was necessary? Maybe instead of shooting him in the torso first he should have gone for the legs with less than lethal force.

I see no good reason why we as a society must routinely victimize those that become violent, and get what they asked for.

[gnbrotz]

Umm, I wish the pocono record, for once, would actually give some fucking insight into what happened.

If you're really interested in a higher level of more reliable information, you could obtain a transcript and see for yourself what evidence and testimony were offered.

[jcabin]

If you're really interested in a higher level of more reliable information, you could obtain a transcript and see for yourself what evidence and testimony were offered.

What is the best way to go about getting this information? Where in the court house do I request the info, and how long before the transcripts are available? I think this is a really interesting SD case and would like to see how the defense argued the shooting was justified. I certainly think it's possible to shoot an attacker a dozen or more times, and that in doing so one may still be considered justified. It's just that in this case, the only thing I know is from what the PR wrote, and their writing is generally lacking in critical details. Sometimes it seems as though they create fictitious reports, the content of some articles is so far from the truth.

[gnbrotz]

What is the best way to go about getting this information? Where in the court house do I request the info, and how long before the transcripts are available? I think this is a really interesting SD case and would like to see how the defense argued the shooting was justified. I certainly think it's possible to shoot an attacker a dozen or more times, and that in doing so one may still be considered justified. It's just that in this case, the only thing I know is from what the PR wrote, and their writing is generally lacking in critical details. Sometimes it seems as though they create fictitious reports, the content of some articles is so far from the truth.

I'd start by looking up the guy's name on the PA Judicial Portal site. You can use the docket number to reference the transcript you will request. Then, contact the Clerk of Courts for the county court where the trial was held and make your request. The may pass you on to the actual court reported. Somewhere along the line, you will be told how many pages it's expected to be, and how much it will cost. Sometimes they want you to pay up front, sometimes they don't.

I'd expect the transcript will be at least $100, and perhaps closer to $200, depending on how long the actual trial lasted. The don't convert the transcription to text unless someone requests it, so it's not as simple as running a stack of copies.