Life imprisonment for Self Defense

[Ratman95]

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/1499581.html

Okay, what the hell.

Lets take a look at this. First the charges. Brooks is charged with FIRST DEGREE MURDER (for those who don't know what that means, it means he had planed on killing before hand). And there are more charges for using a gun(because it totally matters HOW you killed the guy) and 3 charges of attempted murder.

Now these 4 guys harass this kid because there looking for a stolen PS 3(which the kid didn't have). Now it also says they were shot IN Brook's apartment(and I doubt Brooks let them in) so this means they were trespassing, making threats and harassing him. Brooks FIRES OFF A WARNING SHOT and the 4 kept advancing on him.

Can someone explain how this makes any sense at all?

 

[Skuffyshootster]

It's America; our legal system is as fucked as a Vegas prostitute.

 

[WinkyTheGreat]

Technically, killing in self defense is only legal if you are going to be killed as well. In other words, if they didn't have guns, he shouldn't have shot them with a gun. Also,
"But he also said Brooks sealed his fate long before the shooting. Brooks liked to flash a gun, deal drugs and act like "a wannabe gangster," Francis said."
Any kind of action like that can be used as character evidence. The evidence was very stacked against him. Had he shot in the leg, then he probably would not be spending life in prison.

 

[TheLastCylon]

Well, I frown on the taking of human life, under any circumstances.

With this case I think Brooks shouldn't be charged with first degree murder since it wasn't premeditated. He should, however, IMO be charged with manslaughter.

 

[Zayren]

Francis was also later quoted as saying,"I hate Brooks."


...Sorry.


It seems like there is something missing from the story... it doesn't seem like it was purely in self-defense.

 

[Zer_]

I read the article and to be honest that sentence is way too harsh. I say manslaughter at the most.

 

[reaper_2k9]

My question is if it was four against one why didn't they just beat the crap out him when they first came into the apartment? I think there is more to the story then whats being told.

 

[Ratman95]

@ WinkyTheGreat
1. Just because they didn't have guns doesn't mean they couldn't kill him not to mention he was outnumbered by 4 people.

2.Theres a difference in how people act and how they really are. Just because he acted like he wanted to be a gangster doesn't mean he was. I mean...the guy was in COLLEGE studying LAW.

3. You can still kill someone by shooting them in the legs. You can hit arteries or major blood vessels or maybe cripple them for life.

 

[captainwalrus]

I honestly don't see how they could prove that the incident was premeditated in any fashion. Maybe there's a shit ton of evidence that the article leaves out, but as is, there doesn't seem to be any proof of premeditation.

 

[Aries_Split]

Castle law. this kids fine.

 

[Ratman95]

California doesn't have castle laws because there "foreword thinking"

 

[cleverlymadeup]

that's not self defense that IS murder one

see he went into his room and got a gun and brought it out and then shot them cause he THOUGHT they were going to attack him not that they WERE attacking him

 

[jackknife402]

Yeah, generally US law says that you can only apply certain forces in self defense. Say, someone beats you, you beat back, but nothing lethal then it's legal. Now if they apply a lethal force to you, but you counter the same way, you can still go to jail if there was an easily attainable action to stop the attacker, if not and manslaughter was the only way to defend yourself, then it is viewed as legal.

As to my take on this story, first degree murder is thrown around quite a bit these days, many charges that the death is spontaneous with no intent to murder beforehand still are tried for first degree. I think the kid should have personally gotten 2nd degree, manslaughter wouldn't work because he intended to fire at the attackers; emptying the gun into them. As to the extra charges; if the gun was illegal then yes, he should have gotten that one(though not for 25 years, god that's crazy) and probably the attempted murder charges as well just because of the way he fired at the attackers.

I would have just gone for a foot/shoulder shot which would probably had spooked them enough.

 

[fulano]

Man, that's messed up, really messed up. But on second thought, I'm sure he can get the sentence reduced after there is an appeal, I mean, there has to be because teh situation was just weird, and he said he feared for his life. I think they are basing the veredict based on the lifestyle leanings the kid had, a little bit on his race, and the fact that he shot the other guys for no reason at all(a good lawyer could have found a way of spinning that one).

He should definitely be convicted for the murders and do some serious time, but not as much.

In that context, some 30 to 40 years doesn't sound so insane a proposition but, then again, I'm no judge.

 

[Ratman95]

@ cleverlymadeup
Thats not premeditated murder and he fired a warning shot, which was ignored.

@jackknife402
can you tell me a way one person can counter 4 people? Not to mention the reason fired like that was because he was scared thAT FOUR PEOPLE BROKE INTO HIS HOUSE WITH THE INTENT TO DO HARM.

 

[Ratman95]

unabomberman
what do you mean "no reason"? He fired a warning shot(the universal message of LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE) which the 4 had chosen to ignore. He had every right to shoot at them.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

@ cleverlymadeup
Thats not premeditated murder and he fired a warning shot, which was ignored.

@jackknife402
can you tell me a way one person can counter 4 people? Not to mention the reason fired like that was because he was scared thAT FOUR PEOPLE BROKE INTO HIS HOUSE WITH THE INTENT TO DO HARM.

Quote them or discussion won't happen between you unless they click on this again.

And I'm on the fence for this, I will post my opinion soon.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Castle law. this kids fine.

Yeah if only that state had it. Personally if someone is in my house that I don't want to be and they are in any way threating why is it my duty to retreat and hope they don't hurt me? I don't see how you can get charged with 1st degree murder (+25 years for using a gun(like a knife would be better) for killing someone who is harrasing you?

I bet if I went to a cops house and demanded my ps2 back and was menecing with 3 other guys that he would shoot and it would be "justified".

I know this kid was a "gangster" but that doesn't change what happened.

 

[TMAN10112]

That's not self defense that IS murder one.

See [how] he went into his room, got a gun, brought it out, and then shot them, because he THOUGHT they were going to attack him, not that they WERE attacking him.

He was outnumbered and afraid that he was in harm's way. He fired a warning shot, and yet they still advanced towards him.

People do irrational things while under stress like that, and he felt that his life could be in danger.

Why should you wait until you're under attak (possibly too late to stop whoever is attaking you) to do something about it?

 

[ElephantGuts]

Besides that he obviously doesn't deserve this sentence considering the circumstances surrounding the shooting, as the OP sort of said what he did doesn't even meet the criteria for first degree murder. He was given a complete bullshit charge. Who decided this?