Man Found Not Guilty Of Shooting After "Standing His Ground"

[Shadowrider]

"...sprayed pepper spray, pulled his gun and told them to leave".

I'm betting this action prior to the fight contributed to the long legal battle. Seems to me, just from the article, that he was the first one to bring deadly force to the table. The article mentions his neighbor being 'attacked' but doesn't cleary state the nature of that attack...verbal, physical?

His hardship after the shooting is yet another reason to not try to use your weapon as a talisman...stand your ground law doesn't mean you get to pick fights, start fights, participate in fights, hose people down with pepper spray, and then pull your gun when you don't like how things are going.

Glad it all worked out in the end for the shooter. Sorry that a neighborhood dispute resulted in so much financial and physical destruction to both parties.

Just so ya know. A verbal dressing down is not an attack. It causes no physical injury and poses no physical danger. And I'm sure the court records indicate that it was physical as posted in the article. In case you didn't catch it the jury rendered their verdict. So how much evidence do you need to convince yourself that he was acting in self defense?

 

[Michael Brown]

I don't know the facts for certain, but a couple points stand out that affect my belief as to what happened:

1) Several cars of people

2) In someone else's driveway

Having had to go to this type of call more times than I can count, my belief is that when groups of people feel they can infringe upon another individual on their own property, they are likely at fault.

I am probably one of the most likely members of this board to attempt to bring perspective to a police officer's actions in this type of situation, but I'm not sure what could have prompted the arrest in this situation.

I've found that many folks here and elsewhere don't understand why the plice do what they do based on snippets like news stories, but now I find myself in the same position.

I'd be very suprised if an experienced police officer could look at a similar situation and conclude that this was a crime, UNLESS there are some issues that have not come to light which is certainly possible.

The only aspect I can think of that can jack up the victim's situation here is mis-management of the police response. As you can see, it can be handled fairly easily IF you are informed and understand your rights AND your limitations.

Thus, again I suggest these guidelines:

http://www.okshooters.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12516

Michael Brown

 

[JSPANIER]

When Is Our Legisalture Going To Strengthen The Wording On The Stand Your Ground Law To Prevent All These Da's From Filing Needless Charges. If Your Dragging Me By My Throat After Threating Me With Burning My House Down And Killing My Family Your Going To Have A Big Problem.

 

[Glocktogo]

Thus, again I suggest these guidelines:

http://www.okshooters.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12516

Michael Brown

Especially #11. We've seen how post shooting interviews have been very damaging to the credibility of at least 2 people.

 

[mkivbb]

i dont see what the problem was?

they were threatening to kill him and his family, while attacking.

kill them first. period.

case closed.

glad the piece of trash is paralyzed.

 

[SMS]

Gosh SMS what's a guy supposed to do when he has a 4-6 anry drunk morons screaming and threatening him in his own drive way?
Bend over and take it? Is that what you would do?

Did you read he article? I would accept that the facts related in the story are pretty much what came out at trial and therefore probably pretty true to fact.
It is a major load of crap that this man ever went to trial.
Story states that two men were phyisicaly attacking him at the time of the shooting. How the hell would that not be self defense if the rest of the story is true?

Not saying he should have been found guilty....from the beginning my point is he might have avoided the legal trouble if he had not been the first one to introduce a weapon. IF, IF he drew his weapon earlier in the event, before he was getting choked out, as the article states then it could be argued that he was the aggressor...and it's possible that the responding officers and the DA went with that....

Obviously it wasn't as cut and dried as a homeowner innocently being attacked in his own driveway or it wouldn't have played out so long as evidenced by the recent shooting in Chandler.

 

[AKguy1985]

that sounds about right for rogers county.

 

[Kid Glock]

I'm not familiar with the Cedar Bluff area and was just curious. Who had jurisdiction, Rogers Co. SO or Claremore PD?

 

[SMS]

Just so ya know. A verbal dressing down is not an attack. It causes no physical injury and poses no physical danger. And I'm sure the court records indicate that it was physical as posted in the article. In case you didn't catch it the jury rendered their verdict. So how much evidence do you need to convince yourself that he was acting in self defense?

The article does not state his neighbor was being physically attacked at the time he drew his weapon....only that later, when he himself was being attacked, he drew it again and fired. And I did catch the jury rendered a verdict...and I'm convinced he was acting in self defense...but also saying that this could have played out differently, perhaps, if the DA was not able to put a kernel of a doubt into people's heads that he was the aggressor.

Using it as a lessons-learned that fits into the frequent discussion we have on this board about when to draw your weapon...to me this is an example of how things can go wrong if you draw your weapon in an attempt to prevent a fist fight, stop a fist fight, or get yourself out of a fist fight.

 

[Stephen Cue]

Thus, again I suggest these guidelines:

http://www.okshooters.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12516

Michael Brown

Michael, Thanks for these guidlines. I actually use these in my CC classes.

(I will cut you in for the use if necessary, LOL!)

As far as the above story is concearned, what bothers me is if those Roger's county LE's know the law to the same level as a Tulsa County deputy that also happens to be married into a long time Tulsa gun shop family.

I was in a store the other day, the name rhymes with WRONGS. and I heard a women trying to buy an overpriced XD for herself for self-defense while her son, that was with her at the time, was in boot camp. He picked it out for her and she stated that when he gets back, she will most likely give it to him. He will be 21 then. The old man there said they couldnt buy it because thats a straw purchase. I couldnt help myself so I chimed in and said she can buy it for herself and then give it to him later for a graduation gift.

The TCSO deputy in question then abruptly tells me that if I must know the law better than they do because thats a straw purchase and he cannot own a handgun until he is 21.

Hey its their FFL, I understand if they dont want to sell it, but an 18 y/o is allowed to own a handgun, he just cant buy one, transport it, or buy ammo.

I wanted to tell the lady and her son so bad to go down to OPS but what manners I had left overtook me


Sorry for the long way to say, I hope there was something else to this story to make the LE's arrest the guy and it was not due to ignorance.