Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Self defense or murder?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 2685156" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>Legally, the question of whether or not it was self defense would hinge on whether the homeowner was reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury. He states that the cop pointed a gun at him. The police chief who responded said the dead cop was waving a stun gun in the air before he was shot, while the chief was shouting "shoot him!" (apparently in reference to the dogs). I'd say a person could easily mistake a stun gun for a firearm, especially if If this was indeed ever pointed at the homeowner, I'd say he could be reasonably in fear of death or SBI. At a trial, the legal issue is whether there is reasonable doubt that he was in such fear. Based on what I've heard, I'd say there is room for reasonable doubt.</p><p></p><p>Another issue is what the cop should have done when the homeowner told him to get off his property. The only justification for continuing to intrude on the property at that point without a warrant would be one of the exigency exceptions to the warrant requirement. The "immediate danger to life" exigency would be the only one that would be close, I would say. Was it reasonable to believe that life would be in immediate danger without the intrusion? I don't think so -- this was a call over a friggin argument between neighbors, and this particular guy was back inside his house and not threatening anyone when the cop showed up. </p><p></p><p>The cop should have stopped and turned his ass around as soon as he was told to leave. He could investigate the incident by interviewing the neighbor who called, and if probable cause of a crime was discovered, go apply for an arrest warrant for the homeowner. Instead, he chose to trespass on the guy's property and threaten to harm his dogs. While that doesn't legally justify deadly force in and of itself, it is definitely illegal, stupid, and needlessly risky behavior that led directly to his death. I bet if you gave the cop the chance, he would sure as hell wish he'd done things "by the book" instead of letting ego get in the way, and refusing to back down to the property owner. Ego and machismo almost certainly played a part on the property owner's part, too. I bet if you gave him the choice after that jury verdict, he would wish he had done things differently too.</p><p></p><p>Stupidity at play on both sides... but ultimately the homeowner is the one accused of a crime and entitled to the presumption of innocence, so he deserves the benefit of any reasonable doubt... plus he is the witness in the best position to see what happened. If he were being tried based on what's in the articles, I'd be voting "not guilty."</p><p></p><p>FYI, the attitude a few of you expressed about "the cops always deserve the benefit of the doubt," which is pretty common in Oklahoma, is why I don't like to take very many cases to trial, and why many people don't think they can get a fair trial. If you follow the Constitution, the defendant ALWAYS deserves the benefit of the doubt! Not a lot of people are willing to give it to them though, when there is a uniformed gov't employee sitting on the witness stand. It is quite a contradiction to the usual Oklahoma attitude of distrust for the government.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 2685156, member: 4235"] Legally, the question of whether or not it was self defense would hinge on whether the homeowner was reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury. He states that the cop pointed a gun at him. The police chief who responded said the dead cop was waving a stun gun in the air before he was shot, while the chief was shouting "shoot him!" (apparently in reference to the dogs). I'd say a person could easily mistake a stun gun for a firearm, especially if If this was indeed ever pointed at the homeowner, I'd say he could be reasonably in fear of death or SBI. At a trial, the legal issue is whether there is reasonable doubt that he was in such fear. Based on what I've heard, I'd say there is room for reasonable doubt. Another issue is what the cop should have done when the homeowner told him to get off his property. The only justification for continuing to intrude on the property at that point without a warrant would be one of the exigency exceptions to the warrant requirement. The "immediate danger to life" exigency would be the only one that would be close, I would say. Was it reasonable to believe that life would be in immediate danger without the intrusion? I don't think so -- this was a call over a friggin argument between neighbors, and this particular guy was back inside his house and not threatening anyone when the cop showed up. The cop should have stopped and turned his ass around as soon as he was told to leave. He could investigate the incident by interviewing the neighbor who called, and if probable cause of a crime was discovered, go apply for an arrest warrant for the homeowner. Instead, he chose to trespass on the guy's property and threaten to harm his dogs. While that doesn't legally justify deadly force in and of itself, it is definitely illegal, stupid, and needlessly risky behavior that led directly to his death. I bet if you gave the cop the chance, he would sure as hell wish he'd done things "by the book" instead of letting ego get in the way, and refusing to back down to the property owner. Ego and machismo almost certainly played a part on the property owner's part, too. I bet if you gave him the choice after that jury verdict, he would wish he had done things differently too. Stupidity at play on both sides... but ultimately the homeowner is the one accused of a crime and entitled to the presumption of innocence, so he deserves the benefit of any reasonable doubt... plus he is the witness in the best position to see what happened. If he were being tried based on what's in the articles, I'd be voting "not guilty." FYI, the attitude a few of you expressed about "the cops always deserve the benefit of the doubt," which is pretty common in Oklahoma, is why I don't like to take very many cases to trial, and why many people don't think they can get a fair trial. If you follow the Constitution, the defendant ALWAYS deserves the benefit of the doubt! Not a lot of people are willing to give it to them though, when there is a uniformed gov't employee sitting on the witness stand. It is quite a contradiction to the usual Oklahoma attitude of distrust for the government. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Self defense or murder?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
