So if a stranger walks up pointing a gun at me, I must comply or die?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thats not the point, although you would like it to be.
The question is whether the accused in his own mind perceived the victim to exhibit the ability to use deadly force.That is the test. It is subjective, not objective.
Given that is the fact, the accused was unable to form the
necessary intent to prove mens rea for murder.
THe worst he can get is “manslaughter.” With a well selected jury, the accused woud be found Not Guilty.
One should never walk around in public with any object that looks like a real firearm. Bad things happen. Witness what happend with Alex Baldwin on the set of Rust.
There is a lot of ignorance about how forearms and pseudo forearms must be handled. The victim shared in that ignorance.Baldwin is now under indictment in New Mexico because of that ignorance.
Same here in this case. Who was ignorant? The victim or the accused? THere are a lot of juvenile gansters runing around with guns in Seattle. In Chicago, Wasington DC,and NYC too.We likely will be seeing more of these tragedies.
The ignorance question is a nice question that will never be asked in a criminal trial.The law should be applied, even if we do not like the outcome.
When a person puts you under the gun, comply. Its a great way to avoid being shot.
Ignorance.Its happening all over the pace.
Details will matter, and we don’t have them all here. Everything you said about ignorance on the part of the victim is true. Who carries an airsoft pistol around town in their waste band? That’s stupid. That said, Mr Myer injected himself into a situation where no threat yet existed and a death resulted. I think that’s what will be his undoing, again based solely on what’s been included in this article. If he’d witnessed the teens actually committing a robbery with the fake gun, the situation would be different.
You presume the shooter had a reason to confront the airsoft owner in the first place. All I read was the shooter thought he saw “the beginning if an armed robbery.” If that can be proved the case, that there was an ongoing crime, then the shooter is not guilty. If the shooter mistook the situation then he is likely guilty of manslaughter.
Your theory is based on the idea that the shooter is telling the truth. My point is I’m not believing him out of hand. More information and verification is needed.
Correct analysis. Not a good moment, but temporarily necessary.
Washington is an open carry state. Even if they were walking around holding a real gun, that would have been a perfectly legal thing to do, and people do it all the time. Now obviously you don’t want to walk into a bank or something like that, but they were walking to a sporting goods store that sells guns. I don’t see this guy avoiding a lengthy prison sentence.
Excellent post.
Since you like to think you know what I like, what would I like for dinner? Steak, pizza or pork chops?
This guy pulls a gun on an innocent 17 year old boy. He wasn’t at a liquor store or a bank, but at a sporting goods store. In a sporting goods store, you might encounter, I don’t know, people carrying sporting goods?
The perpetrator had zero situational awareness coupled with not just ignorance, but weapons grade stupidity. He isn’t an officer of the law, not even a security guard, just a Barney Fife wannabe.
He fires multiple rounds into an innocent victim who was just going about his business. Oh, I thought he was going to rob the store, hijack a plane and fly it into the space needle!
There is no way this is a good shoot because the victim was innocent. You call him ignorant, but he was only making a transaction with a business. He was only guilty of not obeying some prick who had no business confronting him at all.
Ignorance.Its happening all over the pace.
True. Take post 18 in this very thread as an example.