Was Greenacres man justified for killing gunman after the shooting stopped? A jury decides.

I think I owe you a more detailed response beyond your attempt to diminish mine.

that he judge and the jury do not care one bit for your opinion.

Nor yours. Neither of us is arguing before the court. It's all speculation, both yours and mine.

The prosecutor will push for strict compliance with the law and your defense attorney will try to show that you did follow the law. Or had life threatening extenuating circumstances.

I'm not on trial here. Who is "your?" Why did you personalize this to me? I didn't kill anyone.

To the point you tried to make, it's not about whether someone "followed the law," because the lay person doesn't understand the law (that's what lawyers are for after the fact). It's about whether "the law" (or what law?) applies in this case. That's a different argument to make.

I remind everyone reading these comments to remember the name Nifong. He is not the only bloodthirsty prosecutor. At the time he was being exposed there were two other prosecutors at opposite ends of the state who were aso investigated for illegal tactics.

I don't understand how you can say "The prosecutor will push for strict compliance with the law" and then cite Mike Nifong in the same argument.

To avoid losing your case to prosecutors who are more interested in convictions than justice, you need to go to court with every detail of the law on your side.

Are we still talking about the prosecutor in your in your second paragraph who seeks "strict compliance with the law" or Mike Nifong who was "more interested in convictions than justice?" You're confusing me with your argument. If it's the former, then the defense just has to show that the law is vague in this situation. If it's the latter, then there is nothing the defense can do to stop an unlawful prosecutor in the trial of fact. They have to wait for the appeal for justice, just like the Duke Lacrosse team did.

In this case the accused had no business leaving his property in pursuit. Pursuits are difficult, dangerous and even experienced cops get hurt while pursuing. That fact alone will make it very difficult for his lawyer to keep him out of jail.

It depends on the definition of "pursuit." Did the defendant intend to attack the shooter with the car or was he just trying to follow him to aid the police when they arrive, and then hit him accidentally in the dark?

I'm not saying this is what happened, but I am saying that it was argued that way in court. Maybe he was speeding down the road to find the shooter and then overtook him too fast and lost control of the car. He jumped out of the car to confront the shooter, apparently unaware that he was dead. Is that homicide or manslaughter? Is it manslaughter or reckless endangerment? That's the vagueness in the law for the lawyers to argue.

Another case in point is Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Zimmerman was on citizen patrol when he observed Martin walking suspiciously through an apartment complex in the rain. Zimmerman called 911, and yes, the 911 operator told Zimmerman to stop following Martin. Zimmerman was slow to comply, but apparently Martin circled back and confronted Zimmerman.

Did Zimmerman "pursue" Martin? Should Zimmerman have retreated, given that he was a citizen patrolling his neighborhood and had a relationship with the local police? Did Zimmerman have a right to be where he was or did Martin's right to be where he was invalidate Zimmerman's right to right to the same?

Back to the driver...

Someone on the street starts shooting at the neighbors. Someone else gets in a car to chase the shooter. The driver was unarmed, that it, he wasn't chasing the shooter to shoot back. You say "the accused had no business leaving his property in pursuit." Why?

It's still a free public road. The accused has every right to get in his car and drive on that road. Did the shooter take the accused's right away because of the act of shooting? Do criminals have that much power over their victims that the act of criminality strips away all the constitutional rights of their victims?

Running him down was an unfortunate traffic accident, but I can't immediately make the leap to murder. There are too many constitutional questions along the way to make that my first and only conclusion.

-PJ

A very interesting post.

Written words are almost as good as body language.
When one party turns the discussion into a university level lesson in English and writing methodology rather than presenting facts or logical scenarios....it means he has neither.

As for the rest of your comments, they are totally wiped out by one sentence the prosecutor would utter, which is: “Had you not chased this man with your car, you would not have wrecked and you would not have killed him”.

There are many examples but the recent case in Georgia is a very good example of how law enforcement and prosecutors look at similar cases.

And I would also point out that any good prosecutor would cast a lot of doubt on the story that he ran over the guy accidentally.

Incidentally, I am armed everyday all day as much as 16 hours a day. And I am not a cop. My concern is that too many people have no idea what the laws are,how many traps are in the laws concerning self defense and/or defense of property and others, They read all these “what should be” statements and think they are acceptable in a defense event and they are not. I read of one almost every day.

In fact this one is a really good example. Guy thinks he is helping and ends up in jail because he does not know the law. He probably knows what he knows from reading posts by would be Rambos.

Posters should stick to the facts, not Hollywood movie scripts. My statements are based on North Carolina state law.

Today has been a 22 hour day, so this is my last post on this topic.

Good discussion here. Just a few comments...

"Is that homicide or manslaughter? Is it manslaughter or reckless endangerment? That's the vagueness in the law for the lawyers to argue."

I wonder... First, police charged him with 1st degree murder. The jury convicted him for 2nd degree murder. If he'd been charged with 2nd degree murder, would he have been found guilty of manslaughter? Prosecutors always seem to go for the maximum charge.

"Another case in point is Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman."

I was thinking of Daniel Penny when I started this thread:

-Neely was threatening people, but he hadn't hurt anyone, yet.
-Esquivel shot at people but didn't hit anyone.

-Penny restrained Neely who presented a danger to others.
-Cowins chased after Esquivel who presented a danger to others.

-Both Neely and Esquivel died.

The cases are different in other ways, but those are the similarities.

The Zimmerman case was different, except that it happened in Florida, too. Zimmerman hadn't witnessed Martin do anything wrong when he started following him. He was acquitted because the jury believed he acted in self-defense after he got out of his vehicle.

But, there was a case in Florida involving drivers chasing someone down (Sara Morales) after a road rage incident. They followed her to her house down a dead end road/shared driveway. She called 911, stepped outside waving a gun and yelling at them to leave, and one man shot her dead on her property. The police said the shooting was justified under Stand Your Ground. That man was not charged.

But, now, here's a guy (Cowins) who chased after a man who'd just SHOT at people a minute beforehand. He crashed, which killed the guy, and he was convicted of murder.

Now, Cowins' only hope is that the judge goes easy on him with the sentencing.

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.