This reminds me of the case of the Oklahoma City pharmacist that shot to death one of the three black kids that tried to rob him. There was a lot of back and forth on FR on whether or not he should be given a medal or if he should be in jail. From the facts of the case, I predicted he would lose every penny he ever owned and spend the rest of his life in jail.
One person on FR in particular blasted me for that. Just like you are doing. Anyway, I was right. I PMed that guy after the pharmacist was convicted and sent to jail. He never answered. I believe that the shooter in this case will also end up in jail. I will be right here, too.
He could very well go to jail. That’s what a trial is for. I don’t see an issue with arresting him, the facts of the case are iffy at best, and we have a small picture.
But I can see him getting off. THis is hardly a slam-dunk case of murder, or even manslaughter. The fact that the arguments against him always include prior acts, and the suggestion he was some vigilante, show that those who think he’ll be convicted are banking on “state of mind” and “intent” to overcome his assertion that he was assaulted and feared for his life when he pulled the trigger.
In his favor is that nobody has suggested he did anything untoward against the woman, that there is a video showing him being blindsided and assaulted, that at the time he pulled the gun the victim was approaching him, and that he only took a single shot.
Against him is that once he started pulling the gun, it took him two seconds to aim and shoot, and during that time the victim stopped moving forward, and began to turn; and that he had approached the woman to complain about her parking, which some jurors will see as provoking the attack; and the current hearsay evidence is that he did this before.
In my opinion, a guy who has just been blindsided, who while on the ground, facing a much larger, younger, more physical opponent, takes 2 seconds to pull his gun, take careful aim because he feels he’s only got one chance at this, and fires a single shot to stop the assault, sounds reasonable to me, even if during that 2 second window the victim goes from approaching him to backing off.
Because, once you are pulling the gun, you have already decided you are in danger, and your first thought it to aim well, and you may not be trying to assess whether there is a change in the situation. Maybe you should be, but you might well not be. And a single shot can clearly kill, but even officers are taught that if you are shooting, take multiple shots, this guy clearly took a single shot, and then felt like the danger was over.
If he was in a rage and just wanted to kill the guy, he’d take multiple shots. That’s what his lawyer is going to argue, and it is a reasonable argument. Not many people are good enough with a gun to assure a kill with a single body shot. In this case, the victim didn’t die immediately, but he did die.