Posted on 01/15/2005 6:50:11 AM PST by Mad Dawg
I'm sure you're right about precedent but I'm not so sure about today or the future. When I was young and where I came from catching your wife in bed with another man was grounds for justifiable homicide. That hasn't been the case for over 40 years now. I don't think this man could successfully argue self defense but I could well be wrong.
Anything but a Smith. Sellout bunch of cowards who want to take your money with one hand and pet Sarah Brady with the other.
Get a Glock. Get a Beretta. Get a freakin' Crosman. But don't waste your money on a Smith.
You can go through life relying in your spell checker if you want. Care to learn something? Look in a dictionary. "Defence" or Defense" -your choice genius.
That's not what the story said. It says that he observed the man, who fit the description of the rapist/woman beater (long haired red headed men being a not all that common, except in certain circles) running into a nearby house, probably around the corner by the address and location given. He didn't know if the man lived there or not and he didn't know who the red headed stranger was. He then observed the man exiting the house and moving away. He asked him to stop and wait for the police. He did not pull his weapon until the man began fumbling in his pockets for something, which indeed turned out to be a pistol.
So the only thing that might constitute "overstepping his bounds" was trying not let the thug who beats up on women get away, by observing him, and asking him to wait for the police to arrive. The thug is the one who went for his gun first, although he botched it pretty badly, and won't be beating up any more women. His girlfriend *probably* will be beaten again, as most women who pick one violent loser will likely pick another one. But lets pray she doesn't.
Sounds as if the "stranger" wasn't quite a stranger after all. I'm sure that the DA will want to know what type of "interactions" these two had previously.
She said she saw the man run into the house at 2020 W. 13th Ave.
He did not say that he observed the man do anything other than look out a window which he interpreted as suspicious behavior.
I don't know about that. The woman wasn't being raped, the man acted as a policeman without said authority.... something's not quite right about this story....
Good question. What constitutes "approved citizen's arrests?" Any legal eagles out there that know?
He drew down on the guy without witnessing an assault in progress.
OMG! This actually happened to me!
Maybe this will help, Paulus:
http://www.allsands.com/HowTo/citizensarrest_wsg_gn.htm
I carry a S&W CS9 and I live in Eugene, too. :)
You're missing that he didn't draw his weapon until the "dearly departed" started fumbling in his pockets, for what turned out to be a gun. Prior to that time he'd merely asked him stay and wait for the police.
Only because he was more practiced. The reason the CCW holder drew was because he thought the other guy was "fumbling" for a weapon, which, as it turned out, he was. Prior to that time he had only asked the guy to remain until the police came.
Lots of scumbags don't carry in nice holsters, pager pals, "Thunderwear" or the like. They carry in their pockets, and the gun may well hang up if one attempts to draw it under pressure.
The woman wasn't being raped
He shot him because he feared for his own safety. He didn't draw his gun until the other guy went for his. He didn't shoot until he actually saw the other guy's weapon.
Reading the article, we find that the shooter knew the man he shot lived in the general area, but not which house he lived in. It was far enough away that another neighbor gave him a ride to the area, rather than him just walking over, although he had apparently walked in the shootee's area on other occasions. He had no way of knowing that was the other guys property, if indeed it was his.
The information was not hearsay from his point of view, he got it directly from the witness, his daughter, thus it was first person reporting. If the man he shot was on trial for rape or assault, the shooter's daughters testimony would not be hearsay. The shooter's testimony about what his daughter told him, would be.
He drew down on the guy because he thought the guy was going for a weapon, which he was.
I'm stealing that for my tagline.
Just getting the tar beat out her. That's so much less serious I guess?
You're missing that he didn't draw his weapon until the "dearly departed" started fumbling in his pockets, for what turned out to be a gun.
Yeah. Good point. EXCEPT, I'm wondering what happens if you draw, as the "good guy" did, and it turns out the bad guy was reaching for dental floss (or his cell phone, to call 911)?
I realize I'm getting all theoretical and everything. But my worry is that here in Virginia the good guy could be nailed for "brandishing".
The more I think of it, the more it seems to problem is not with the shoot itself -- bad guy drew in an obviously threatening manner, good guy shot him. But it's still not clear to me if the good guy was justified to try to keep the bad guy from leaving the scene.
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.