Possible self defense shooting Lawrence County

[Doughdaddy]

Again you are incorrect...

The DEFENDANT left before the DECEASED. You are schooling us, but you can't even get your facts straight.

Yes the JURY will weigh the evidence, and they will decide whether they believe the Defendant is CREDIBLE. And I assure you, unless you are the pope, a priest, or a kindergarten teacher they are probably going to be suspicious of the word of the DEFENDANT. Because that is Common sense (and believe me, I understand that isn't a strength of yours)! There is one person in this WHOLE mess who has a REASON to lie, and that is generally the Defendant. Juries recognize that, you can't recognize that because.....

Instead of focusing your efforts on schooling me, please take the time to educate yourself. It would be a better use of your time.

And while the law may separate the two as "separate incidents" they have a substantial relationship, which is why there was testimony regarding the bar fight during the preliminary hearing. It also goes to "state of mind" and motive. But I would expect someone would've already come to that conclusion, assuming that they were capable of using any logic.

You keep trying to convict the guy on hearsay, not fact. By your own statement, there is no witness to what actually transpired at the car, just the defendants testimony and any physical evidence. There is a statement that the dead guy ignored his friend and went to the defendants car to "settle this". It would seem by that, that your dead friend was wrong and a jury will see that and not just a defendant. Any good defense attorney will make sure of that. The prosecutor needs proof beyond doubt, the defendant just needs doubt.

[BestDefense=StrongOffense]

Again you are incorrect...

The DEFENDANT left before the DECEASED. You are schooling us, but you can't even get your facts straight.

Yes the JURY will weigh the evidence, and they will decide whether they believe the Defendant is CREDIBLE. And I assure you, unless you are the pope, a priest, or a kindergarten teacher they are probably going to be suspicious of the word of the DEFENDANT. Because that is Common sense (and believe me, I understand that isn't a strength of yours)! There is one person in this WHOLE mess who has a REASON to lie, and that is generally the Defendant. Juries recognize that, you can't recognize that because.....

Instead of focusing your efforts on schooling me, please take the time to educate yourself. It would be a better use of your time.

And while the law may separate the two as "separate incidents" they have a substantial relationship, which is why there was testimony regarding the bar fight during the preliminary hearing. It also goes to "state of mind" and motive. But I would expect someone would've already come to that conclusion, assuming that they were capable of using any logic.

Oh yes, because someone who (admittedly) wasn't very observant wouldn't have reason to "stretch the truth" to fill some gaps...

And maybe, just maybe, Knox forgot his big boy pants that night and HIS state of mind was revenge...so how much do you want to lean on that if applied against the guy that assumed ambient temperature?

[Adam-12]

The DEFENDANT left before the DECEASED. You are schooling us, but you can't even get your facts straight.

You're right, thanks. I got that confused. Which makes it murkier: the defendant left first--but the deceased was found lying near the defendant's car, which isn't near his own car.

Yes the JURY will weigh the evidence, and they will decide whether they believe the Defendant is CREDIBLE. And I assure you, unless you are the pope, a priest, or a kindergarten teacher they are probably going to be suspicious of the word of the DEFENDANT...

You're fantasizing. That's not how courts work. Listen to a lawyer like GL, who can actually tell you how this works.

And while the law may separate the two as "separate incidents" they have a substantial relationship...

You're fantasizing again. The judge will instruct the jury that who started the fight inside the bar has NOTHING to do with who is to blame for what happened outside the bar. It is only meaningful as relates to forming an opinion about what happened outside the bar. And yes, painting the defendant as an asshole might lead people to assume he started the confrontation, but you are way to confident that a jury will see things your way.

[twency]

...
I am choosing not to release information because I think some things should be held back until trial, but the preliminary hearing, and the bail hearing, were very informative.
...

We're going by what has been reported and what statements have been taken for the record. We're not going by what someone else on the forum heard or said off the record.

If anything contrary gets released, then opinions may or may not change. Until then, the shooting looks to be a defensive one.

If you have information that hasn't been released, then don't talk about it or drop any hints until they are released. You're not bringing much credibility to yourself otherwise.

...
Preliminary hearings, bail hearings, etc are all OPEN to the public. You do not need to be a friend or family member of any participant involved in order to sit in on them and watch.

Additionally, police reports are matters of public records. You could always file a Freedom of Information request to obtain them.

But what you are saying is rather than go to the trouble, you would prefer to speculate based on what the police, District Attorney, and witnesses may say to the ..... PRESS???? Yes, because these people LOVE to talk to the press. They aren't going to lie to the press, but I sincerely doubt they are going to go into much detail either.

It isn't my fault you are lazy.
...

Wait a minute, you claimed to have some kind of inside knowledge of secret information which is being "held back until trial", ShaulWolf points out that if it's not public we can't very well discuss it, and then you change your story to say you're talking about public information instead of info being "held back until trial".

Which is it?

[ktodd29]

I am sure everything I would have to say could be obtained by filing freedom of information requests with the proper agencies, or requesting transcripts of the hearings.

So far the information has not been released to the press.

I personally will not release the information, because I'm "biased" remember.

You guys can do your own homework, or choose to remain uneducated.

[Adam-12]

You guys can do your own homework, or choose to remain uneducated.

This is 2012, not 1992. In 1992, it seemed clever to pretend you know something, but you won't tell us because you want to teach us to do our own homework. Even then it didn't fool anyone. But I'm amazed that someone in 2012 still thinks he's fooling someone.

This is a discussion forum, friend. Put up or shut up.

[BestDefense=StrongOffense]

Does anyone else get the image of a dog chasing its tail...

[Doughdaddy]

I personally will not release the information, because I'm "biased" remember.

You sound like my little sister when we were kids. The only thing you're missing is "I know something you don't know! pbbbt"

[Chazman321]

Only in my neck of the woods can a cop, a lawyer, two EMTs, and people of various other professions built on higher morals and ethics than that of a professional barfly can be looked upon as idiots with no common sense. Sure, I may not be a lawyer, nor do I claim to be. But as far as Pennsylvania law goes and as far as case law regarding firearms in Pennsylvania, I think I can speak intelligently on the subject.

I ran ambulance for many years in Lawrence and Beaver County, and for a short time I volunteered with Portersville EMS during Medic school. The ability to think rationally during a crisis and under pressure isn't something most people can just do. It takes 2 things to do it. Either you need to be a special kind of person, or you need to do it, a lot, to get the hang of it. Some people freeze up while others, like myself, rush right into the fray and try to pick up the pieces.

So is it possible that Frey just reacted to being hit?
Is a witness that didn't see anything a witness at all?

So far we have 1 person dead and 1 person sitting in jail, and the only human that knows anything is the one sitting in jail, and people are hesitant to believe him for the simple fact that he's in jail. I think that is the lowest form of intelligence out there. That's like saying you can't be a fair juror because everyone is guilty of something, so you're going to vote guilty either which way...

Your witness can't say anything because he didn't see anything. He was a shitty friend. Sorry to tell the truth here, but if I knew my buddy was going to go kick someone's ass, I would be watching like a hawk and going with him. For him to look and walk away and not give his buddy any overwatch, just means he's a crappy friend. I don't give credibility to crappy friends, especially when they didn't actually see anything. He is a bystander, nothing more.


-Chaz

[ahanu]

Ahanu, you should pay attention. These people are schooling you on the law. Specifically, it's irrelevant who started the fight in the bar: that incident was legally over once the two parties broke contact, which certainly was the case when one went outside.

Adam-12 Thanks for you advice. Let me assure you I am paying attention. Having said that, I may agree or respectfully disagree with members of this board.

You portray yourself as a hayseed, but it's not charming. "There's right and there's wrong" indeed, but your own hick definition of right and wrong isn't the rest of ours. Specifically, none of us believe that it's OK to assault someone later, in revenge for what he did to you in a previous incident. Vengeance belongs to The Lord and the courts, not to liquored-up rednecks outside of bars.

Why do you say that I am biased? Because I question what little facts that are in the public domain, and question how certain members of this board may misread a news article? GunLawyer admitted that the one news artilce was ambiguous, thus conclusions drawn from may have been right or wrong.

You portray yourself as a hayseed, but it's not charming. "There's right and there's wrong" indeed, but your own hick definition of right and wrong isn't the rest of ours. Specifically, none of us believe that it's OK to assault someone later, in revenge for what he did to you in a previous incident. Vengeance belongs to The Lord and the courts, not to liquored-up rednecks outside of bars.

Got me there. Charm is not one of my stronger attributes. But that does not mean my hick definition of right and wrong differs from yours. What specific values or beliefs do I cherish that you disagree with?

And which liquored up redneck are you referring too, Knox, Frey, or both? Both were presumed to be drinking that night, but then again, maybe neither was.

Force is for self-defense, as your friend seems to have learned the hard way when he decided to bring his dick to a gunfight.

Where did I say either one of these characters were friend or foe?

So this was a gunfight...that statment is chilling ..wow!!