Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #44206
    chester
    chester
    Survivalist
    member7

    Friend passed on this story. Best to think through legal side of things in your state. I’m a member at US Concealed Carry Association and good to have extra financial support in case of incident.

    This guy should have known about Castle Law in his state!

    “Homeowner charged in fatal Akron home invasion shooting”

    http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/akron-canton-news/homeowner-charged-in-fatal-akron-home-invasion-shooting?utm_content=buffer1b76e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    #44208
    Profile photo of GeorgiaSaint
    GeorgiaSaint
    Veteran
    member9

    Anyone not familiar with the Fully Informed Jury Association should be. I would love to sit on that jury! This (once all the facts come out), could end up being a perfect place to invoke jury nullification. “[Police] said Hillis was held at gunpoint until he turned the tables by grabbing his own gun, which caused the suspects to run out of the home.” In other words, there was zero question the perps had a lethal weapon, which they held on the homeowner (Hillis). And now he’s charged in the death of one of the perps because he wasn’t inside his house when he shot said perp? Such a pity (NOT!). So after being terrorized with a gun held on him, wondering if he’d be alive another moment, and managing to get his own gun to “turn the tables” on the perps, he needs to pay for the natural consequence of what was done to him for the rest of his life (and permanently lose the ability to further defend himself)? I don’t think so!

    They also charged the other perp “with aggravated burglary and murder. Lt. Rick Edwards said [living perp] is facing a murder count because he was a co-conspirator in a home invasion that led to the death of another person.”

    Well, if co-perp is guilty of murder, that’s logical and clear evidence that death can be a natural consequence of what they did. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t have charged co-perp. But since they did, they therefore shouldn’t have even considered charging Mr. Hillis. The perps rolled the dice and lost this time. Simple. I just hope the jury is “fully informed.”

    GS
    "Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."

    #44209
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    The legal problem occurs when the suspect is no longer an immediate threat.
    Like it or not, once they are out of the house and running, you are not legally justified in plugging them.

    Had he shot them inside, he would have been justified.

    Can the jury see it from Hillis’ s side and find him not guilty, that would be great.
    But by the letter of the law, he’s stuck.

    #44211
    Profile photo of GeorgiaSaint
    GeorgiaSaint
    Veteran
    member9

    Oh, I fully understand that he’s guilty according to the law that was written. And one could argue that there may not be moral justification for having shot at him after he ran outside. But the law leaves little choice unless a DA wants to decide not to prosecute the case. And the flip side of the “no longer a threat” argument is the fact that this young man was just held at gun point, and as his father (a former sheriff’s deputy in that same county) said, “David was in fear for his life. These guys could have come back at any given time for the next six months when he was sleeping in the house.” In the emotion of the moment, one could also argue that he had a moral right to make sure the person that just threatened his life never had the chance to do so again – to him or anyone else. The next time might have resulted in the death of the wrong person.

    If the homeowner merely heard noises, grabbed his gun, went downstairs and chased two unarmed perps out of the house, I agree that then firing at them would probably be far more unjustified. But the very worst circumstances existed in this case (absolute threat to life).

    As I said, regardless of the legal technicalities, the perps put themselves in a position where they rolled the dice on quite real natural consequences that could have included death. And they were clearly willing to kill the homeowner, by virtue of the fact that they came packing and USED a gun in the commission of the crime. Fortunately, as far as I’m concerned, one of them is no longer in the gene pool. It is illogical to charge the remaining co-perp with murder, if the death of his buddy couldn’t be reasonably foreseen as a natural consequence of their crime. Thus, the charge against the homeowner can’t also make sense if the co-perp was charged (regardless of how the law was crafted).

    As Ken Hamblin used to lead each of his stories about such events, ♫ “Another one bites the dust!” ♫ I still wish I’d be able to serve on that jury. Thank goodness for the FIJA.

    GS
    "Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."

    #44212
    Robin
    Robin
    Survivalist
    member8

    As a friend told me: Drag them back inside!!!!!!
    Robin

    #44213
    Profile photo of GeorgiaSaint
    GeorgiaSaint
    Veteran
    member9

    Good advice, of course. Unfortunately, this clown didn’t cooperate. He managed to get two doors down from the scene of the crime, where his body was found in the back yard – a bit too far for dragging, sadly.

    GS
    "Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."

    #44216
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    As a friend told me: Drag them back inside!!!!!!
    Robin

    Tampering with evidence/crime scene, bad choice.
    In many places its a high misdemeanor itself.
    And when its noticed, and it will be, it now makes it look like you’re concealing some wrong-doing.

    All it takes is one drop of blood in the wrong place and you’re the suspect not the victim.

    Leave em where they fall.

    #44219
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    The legal problem occurs when the suspect is no longer an immediate threat.
    Like it or not, once they are out of the house and running,
    you are not legally justified in plugging them.

    This statement: once they are out of the house and running is no longer an immediate threat, is a falsehood. Just because the perpetrators were outside doesn’t mean the victim was safe. His house offers very little protection against gunfire. It can’t be considered a safe haven. If the person running still has a gun in their possession they are a threat. They could turn and fire in a fraction of a second. They could be running to obtain cover achieving a stronger tactical position to return fire. In fact how would a person know if they did or did not have other more powerful weapons like rifles stashed they intended to retrieve with the intent to fire back? The fact is his immediate threat was not over until his attackers were disarmed or dispatched. That is what the jury will have to consider and decide how those factors will be applied to a verdict.

    #44230
    Profile photo of MountainBiker
    MountainBiker
    Survivalist
    member10

    Hopefully someone on the jury finds him innocent so at a minimum there is a hung jury.

    #44242
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    The legal problem occurs when the suspect is no longer an immediate threat.
    Like it or not, once they are out of the house and running,
    you are not legally justified in plugging them.

    This statement: once they are out of the house and running is no longer an immediate threat, is a falsehood. Just because the perpetrators were outside doesn’t mean the victim was safe. His house offers very little protection against gunfire. It can’t be considered a safe haven. If the person running still has a gun in their possession they are a threat. They could turn and fire in a fraction of a second. They could be running to obtain cover achieving a stronger tactical position to return fire. In fact how would a person know if they did or did not have other more powerful weapons like rifles stashed they intended to retrieve with the intent to fire back? The fact is his immediate threat was not over until his attackers were disarmed or dispatched. That is what the jury will have to consider and decide how those factors will be applied to a verdict.

    That wouldn’t fly in court.
    Very simply, the “crime” ended when they fked.
    Had they come back, that’s another story.

    When the homeowner became the aggressor going after them, that’s when he became the criminal .

    The jury won’t hear could haves, or might have happened.
    No defense lawyer worth a penny would try that.
    He might as well just say his client is guilty.

    No, the defense will concentrate on the threats and what had just happened.
    They will play up the mental stress, the physical and mental abuse.
    If they can convince one or more jury members of this, he’s home free.

    Not a threat until Disarmed or dispatched? Really.
    Not in any statute or law book I ever saw.
    Thinking like that will get you jailed, sued or killed.
    Because they might come back?

    The might argument goes something like this:
    The tooth fairy might leave a dollar under my daughters pillow, but I’m pretty certain that I beat her to it.
    They might have been heading to church to get right with the Lord also, but I doubt it.

    Facts and evidence.
    Letter of the law (loopholes also).
    Sometimes blatant emotions.
    That is what’s taken to court by the winning side.

    Might have, should have, could be, that’s the realm of the side trying to lesson their losses, to attempt to put forth an excuse for an action.

    I could put forth a decent defense.
    Same for the prosecution.
    The defense is harder and will rely on emotion, physical and mental state to counter the legal facts the prosecution is armed with.

    I feel for the guy.
    But without a jury that is sympathetic, he’s stuck.

    There’s a reason this part of my CCW classes is one of the longest.
    The legal part is the part that will exonerate or doom you.

    #44244
    Profile photo of GeorgiaSaint
    GeorgiaSaint
    Veteran
    member9

    Nobody here is gonna “win” this argument. We’re talking apples and oranges that just happen to be in the same crate. The laws are poorly crafted, knee-jerk reactions in some cases, and in others they’re carefully crafted in order to achieve a specific (often selfish or “unwanted agenda”) outcome. It’s the moral issues involved, and the “feel good” crowd that says thugs and perps need to be coddled and given second chances (and third, and fourth, ad nauseum), while the victims remain motionless 6 feet under, and their loved ones grieve for the rest of their lives. You’re right, Whirlibird, that the laws just don’t allow some of the things mentioned here. It’s just that our guts tell us, “Tango Sierra” (tough “stuff” for those that aren’t conversant with the good old phonetic alphabet abbreviations that allow public discussion of impolite speech in polite circles – LOL!). In other words, when the situation is FUBAR, the discussion becomes less inclined toward the rational and legal, because in some respects people know what’s “rational” and legal, they just don’t care anymore when things have gone too far.

    Me? I know enough not to try to move a body, and not expect evidence to show what really happened. But the inner DESIRE, and resulting fantasy doesn’t change! And on larger property with neighbors living further away, a backhoe could do wonders for “covering up” a problem that suddenly never existed. Most of us here are smart enough to know we can’t really do what we’d like to in such cases. So, we probably wouldn’t…. <grin>

    GS
    "Ye hear of wars in far countries, and you say that there will soon be great wars in far countries, but ye know not the hearts of men in your own land."

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.