Man who defended himself with licensed gun may still face charges

[tRidiot]

 

[Norman681]

Screw the little ***** that's what happens when you think you're a badass....sometimes the other guy is more of a badass than you.....

 

[Gabriel42]

If he had avoided the danger area, he would not been attacked by this trio and would not have shot and killed the 17 year old girl.

Sorry but is the real issue you have with this is that he shot a 17yo female? You repeatedly mention her but make no mention of the dead male and I find that slightly curious.

 

[tRidiot]

When you have a legal right to be where you are... you also have a legal right not to be assaulted by three individuals with a basball bat.

They played stupid games... 2 of them won stupid prizes. I don't feel sorry for them. Situational awareness always applies... but then, it's not like the guy walked into a gang of red-bandanna'd guys down on the streetcorner while wearing a blue ballcap.

 

[RugersGR8]

A smart fellow who would be smarter still, not to ever put himself intentionally into a dangerous environment like that again. Had he not gone there, a teenage girl would still be alive.

WHAT IF?----What if you were a cabbie, a pizza delivery person, a janitor(as in this article), etc. and you were sent to an area of a city with a bad reputation for violence? Before you leave, you tell your boss that you won't go because of the reputation of the area(QUOTE--not to ever put himself intentionally into a dangerous environment like that again). Your boss then says that you go or you are fired. I know that a lot will say to leave the job and find another one. But just where do you draw the line at being able to defend yourself/your life against those who could care less whether or not you live or die? Even if you work in an area that doesn't have a violence reputation, it doesn't make you totally immune from some point in time of having to defend yourself against people who would do you harm/kill you(without even a second thought). If you get beaten to death/shot to death by a fifteen year old, a twenty year old, a twenty-five year old, a thirty-five year old ,etc.---DEAD IS DEAD AND IT'S YOU THAT WILL BE SIX FOOT UNDER. If a juvenile kills you, it won't be too many years till they are out of jail.

 

[Arin Morris]

I assert that he voluntarily went into an area he knew was dangerous, and was attacked. If he had avoided the danger area, he would not been attacked by this trio and would not have shot and killed the 17 year old girl.

So you're using the "she was raped because of what she was wearing so let's blame the victim" argument? Sure, it's sad that a 17 year old mother of two just made her children orphans, but I can't really blame the guy who was defending himself. I'm waiting for the video to be released to determine what really happened, but with the information we have now, I can't see how it's this guys fault regardless if the job took him to a location you feel he shouldn't have been.

 

[Coded-Dude]

The maintenance worker had every right to be there, but it was an area known to be dangerous. I'll select a few paragraphs to try to emphasize what I mean.

"On Wednesday afternoon, the currently unidentified maintenance worker was accosted by three young individuals while he was changing the locks at an apartment located in a rough area of Milwaukee. According to Fox6 News, the three assailants mistook the janitor for the building manager and attacked him over the fact that one of their friends was put on notice for eviction."

The paragraph above states that the apartment was located in a rough area of Milwaukee.

"His lawyer told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that his client has a permit to carry a handgun and feels it is an “occupational necessity” to carry a firearm with him."

The paragraph above states that the maintenance worker has a permit to carry because occupational necessity.

"A friend of the assault victim says that he is a “peaceful” man who has worked many years in an area that others would refuse to work in."

In the sentence above, the article states he has worked for many years in an area that others refuse to work in. I assert that he voluntarily went into an area he knew was dangerous, and was attacked. If he had avoided the danger area, he would not been attacked by this trio and would not have shot and killed the 17 year old girl.

so.....you'd be okay if someone without a permit took the job and was beaten to death instead of defending themselves? /confused

 

[Razur]

I don't get how the 3rd attacker is already free.
If people died during the crime, doesn't that increase the charge?

 

[Gabriel42]

If he had avoided the danger area, he would not been attacked by this trio and would not have shot and killed the 17 year old girl.

Sorry but is the real issue you have with this is that he shot a 17yo female? You repeatedly mention her but make no mention of the dead male and I find that slightly curious.

 

[0311]

Sorry but is the real issue you have with this is that he shot a 17yo female? You repeatedly mention her but make no mention of the dead male and I find that slightly curious.

I tried unsuccessfully to show that he knowingly went into a dangerous area, that others in his profession avoid.

He had every right to be there.

He shot three attackers and killed two of them, rightfully so.

One of them was a girl, yes, it bothered me he killed a girl, but he had no choice.

He was completely justified in doing this. Completely, it was three against one.

He knowingly went into an area plagued with high crime and violence.

If he had not gone there, he would not have had to shoot the girl.

I don't mean to get anyone mad.

I hope I am understood when I say going into known areas of high crime can lead to life threatening situations.



Edit: I'm waiiiiiiiitinnnnnnnnggggggg..........