Posted on 02/01/2019 6:53:24 PM PST by aimhigh
In the first judicial test of Wyoming’s new “stand your ground” law, a Natrona County judge on Friday dismissed a first-degree murder case, but implored prosecutors to appeal to the state’s highest court.
Judge Catherine Wilking handed down the ruling following a two-and-a-half-hour hearing, the bulk of which she ruled was required by the new law. . . . .
John shot Willow nine times with an AR-15, Stedellie said, after exchanging cell phone messages with a woman who had dated John before taking up again with Willow. Multiple rounds hit Willow in the back, the detective said, and John fired one into the back of Willow’s head. Stedellie said a medical examiner ruled that John had likely fired the gun into Willow as he lay face down on the ground.
(Excerpt) Read more at trib.com ...
Paywall
Need summary
The guy entered the home to do the home owner damage after threatening him. This is a great ruling. One should always have the right to defend themselves in their own home at the very least.
Shoot first, shoot most, and shoot best, then walk away to live another day.
This story has a good ending so far.
Shooting someone in the back and while they are on the ground isn’t exactly defensive.
I wonder if all the details are reported. I have a feeling the deceased did not go to this guy’s home to watch TV and have a few beers /s/.
Nine shots from an AR, WOW! Looks like Willow was doing his level best to kill the defendant.
Maybe, maybe not.
1. I am not a lawyer, but if the first shot, while the guy was coming at him was fatal, then the rest would at most be something like "desecrating a corpse".
2. The medical examiner only said "most likely" that is a far cry from beyond a reasonable doubt. And, the shooter is entitled to a defense. He could very well claim that the man was still in his house and just got turned around and shot in the back during the fight. Or, even more likely since the dead guy had two friends with him, the shooter was shooting at them and just happened to hit the dead guy.
It just seems reasonable that if three guys come to your house and one of them breaks in with the intention to do harm you have the right to shoot as much and as often as you can until the threat is neutralized, which in this case is all 3 of them.
If he had shot all 3 and then executed them as they lay on on the ground he might be in trouble, but with two still standing he ought to be able to keep shooting...
so what is the judge’s beef against the defendant?
“John warned Willow to stay back but Willow still came into John’s home. Willow instigated the violence...”
That points to what’s missing in the article that I’m certain the judge had to consider. What’s missing is what Willow said and his physical demeanor when charging into John’s home. What is the physical size of both men and ability to kick a$$.
If someone was physically superior to me, charging into my home in anger making threats I’d defend myself with whatever happened to be at hand also. And if this person was perceived to come back later with a rifle would I want to wait to get ambushed later?
No one has ever gotten off the ground to return to the fight.
/S/
I’ve never been in a gun fight, but I’ve always imagined the “off switch” is little hard to engage in the heat of the battle, especially if you really believe the person is going to kill you. A sudden, massive overload of adrenaline is probably going to make you do things you wouldn’t otherwise do.
It can be difficult to turn off, and sometimes take a conscious effort. "Ammo discipline" can be a hard concept to teach - particularly the first couple of times on the two-way shooting range. Then you realize if you run through all your ammo on target #1.....you have less for targets #2, #3, and so on.....
You sometimes also have to overcome tunnel vision on the initial target - you become focused on the first target, and miss the others. It's something that requires training for professionals......for the average person it can be akin to on the job training.
I think her beef is against the law itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.