Wrong, or wrongly convicted?

[Manxdriver]

http://thegrio.com/2013/12/04/us-air...d-to-25-years/


I read through the article and I think he was in the wrong. he retrieved the weapon and re-entered the fray. I can see retrieving the weapon and staying out of it, but he went back in. I think he was looking to be the hero. We don't need that.

[GunLawyer001]

"Stand Your Ground" is not the same as coming to the fight. Owning a gun is not a ticket to winning every fistfight.

I'd guess that an objective observer would say that the melee was unlikely to kill anyone, and that the shooter was not the target of a sustained physical attack. He wasn't even shooting to protect his friends.

Drunken frat boys punching anyone in sight are not the same as drunken frat boys chasing down a specific individual who's trying to get away, as the "Old City Shooting" in Philadelphia was.

There are certainly times when it's lawful to use a gun against an attacker (or attackers) using fists and feet. This was not one of them.

That being said, I despise mandatory minimums, as much as I hate "zero tolerance" policies that frothing anti-gun school employees use to justify absurd punishments against little boys who act like little boys.

Where a man was punched without provocation, and his response was unlawful, I can't see justice in him serving a day over 1 year. This 25 year sentence is harsher than typical murder sentences, harsher than career criminals get for selling drugs. It's a hoplophobic, knee-jerk version of "getting tough on crime".

If the same theories were used by racists, it would be obvious; "black teens are out of control, so any crime of violence committed by a black teen gets a mandatory 25 years." That logic is no worse than tossing people in jail for 25 years because a gun was involved, because guns are about as much a part of urban crime as black teenagers are. So are stolen cars; where's the 25 year minimum for stealing cars, which are used in most drive-by shootings and kidnappings?

Punish the deed, not the hot button aspects that jump out at you.

[SouthHillsNinja]

He's in the wrong. The moment he left the area and the threat, he lost all grounds for self defense.

[HKusp 45]

"Stand Your Ground" is not the same as coming to the fight. Owning a gun is not a ticket to winning every fistfight.

I'd guess that an objective observer would say that the melee was unlikely to kill anyone, and that the shooter was not the target of a sustained physical attack. He wasn't even shooting to protect his friends.

Drunken frat boys punching anyone in sight are not the same as drunken frat boys chasing down a specific individual who's trying to get away, as the "Old City Shooting" in Philadelphia was.

There are certainly times when it's lawful to use a gun against an attacker (or attackers) using fists and feet. This was not one of them.

That being said, I despise mandatory minimums, as much as I hate "zero tolerance" policies that frothing anti-gun school employees use to justify absurd punishments against little boys who act like little boys.

Where a man was punched without provocation, and his response was unlawful, I can't see justice in him serving a day over 1 year. This 25 year sentence is harsher than typical murder sentences, harsher than career criminals get for selling drugs. It's a hoplophobic, knee-jerk version of "getting tough on crime".

If the same theories were used by racists, it would be obvious; "black teens are out of control, so any crime of violence committed by a black teen gets a mandatory 25 years." That logic is no worse than tossing people in jail for 25 years because a gun was involved, because guns are about as much a part of urban crime as black teenagers are. So are stolen cars; where's the 25 year minimum for stealing cars, which are used in most drive-by shootings and kidnappings?

Punish the deed, not the hot button aspects that jump out at you.

That pretty much sums it up and then some

[GeneCC]

Giles says he pulled out the gun and fired one shot into the leg of his alleged attacker.

Three men were injured, wounded by bullet fragments. Giles was immediately arrested and charged with second-degree attempted murder.

Unless the femoral artery is damaged or septic gangrene sets in it's probably damn tough to kill someone with a leg shot. So "attempted murder" is over kill" as charges go. Mayhem, aggravated assault? Maybe, but not "attempted murder".

Giles reportedly was not involved in the melee but, separated from his friends, went outside to the car where he had a gun, for which he had a concealed carry permit.

Giles put the weapon in his pants pocket and searched the crowd for his friends. Suddenly, he says, someone from the crowd punched him.

Except he was not intervening in the fight. He was attacked by someone while seeking his friends.

Are we obligated to leave our friends in their time of need or do we need to be disarmed before we do so?

[GeneCC]

"Stand Your Ground" is not the same as coming to the fight. Owning a gun is not a ticket to winning every fistfight.

I'd guess that an objective observer would say that the melee was unlikely to kill anyone, and that the shooter was not the target of a sustained physical attack. He wasn't even shooting to protect his friends.[quote]

People are beaten to death all of the time, especially if they are struck and fall, causing head injuries. Some of the more famous "Knockout Game" deaths occurred precisely this way.

This 25 year sentence is harsher than typical murder sentences, harsher than career criminals get for selling drugs. It's a hoplophobic, knee-jerk version of "getting tough on crime".

Meant to "send a message to vigilantes".

Our man wasn't being a vigilante. He was trying to get his friends out of mess.

Again - are we obligated to leave our friends and loved ones in the midst of melees because some Jury might want to "send a message to Society"?

[GunLawyer001]

(edited because the quoted formatting is confusing)

[GunLawyer001]

Unless the femoral artery is damaged or septic gangrene sets in it's probably damn tough to kill someone with a leg shot. So "attempted murder" is over kill" as charges go. Mayhem, aggravated assault? Maybe, but not "attempted murder".

Except he was not intervening in the fight. He was attacked by someone while seeking his friends.

Are we obligated to leave our friends in their time of need or do we need to be disarmed before we do so?

People are beaten to death all of the time, especially if they are struck and fall, causing head injuries. Some of the more famous "Knockout Game" deaths occurred precisely this way.

Meant to "send a message to vigilantes".

Our man wasn't being a vigilante. He was trying to get his friends out of mess.

Again - are we obligated to leave our friends and loved ones in the midst of melees because some Jury might want to "send a message to Society"?

You've probably summarized the argument that was made to the cops, to the DA, and to the jury. Make a note of the fact that it was a losing argument. If even a single juror had been persuaded, he'd have hung the jury. Instead, it was a unanimous verdict, refusing to accept this spin.

[GeneCC]

You've probably summarized the argument that was made to the cops, to the DA, and to the jury. Make a note of the fact that it was a losing argument. If even a single juror had been persuaded, he'd have hung the jury. Instead, it was a unanimous verdict, refusing to accept this spin.

The fact that a Jury "rejected" it does not make it wrong. The term "Spin" is annoying - it implies that I am lying. I am not lying.

The Jury was mislead by a series of narratives - "drunk frat boys", "fist fighting" and "need to flee".

What exactly is the difference between a "melee" of "Drunk Frat boys" and the "knockout game"? Intention? Probable race of the participants?


Bears noting - I would have avoided the fight. I would have been much more aware of who was around me.

That being said, I am comfortable that there was a reasonable doubt of malicious intent because this young man was rescuing his friends.

[ray h]

He shouldn't be charged for shooting the attacker but he should be charged with some form of negligence for wounding the other people.
He didn't retrieve the firearm for the purpose of shooting anyone, he retrieved it for self defense just as anyone who carries. The article says he was not involved in the scuffle until he was punched, this makes the scuffle irrelevant until he was punched.
What would he be charged with if he wasn't armed and he went into the establishment to get his friend and someone attacked him and he injured that person while fighting back? The fact that he used a gun to defend himself shouldn't determine whether he should be there or not.
I equate this to "I know I'm going through a bad part of town at 2 AM, I had better arm myself."