This thread provides an interesting contrast to the '4 years for murder' one that was up a couple of days ago. But the sentence was way too harsh. I'd say even 20 years would be quite heavy handed under the circumstances.
Life imprisonment for Self Defense
- Thread starter Ratman95
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not as bad as Australia at least, if someone has stomped on your head causing you to almost die, and they later die from a stab wound that you caused, it's murder, because he didn't stab you. Also, if they stab you to the point you almost die, and you stab them in the heart and they DO die, it's still murder, why? In Australia, self-defense is only proportional force, if they shoot you in the shin, you must shoot them in the shin, not stomach or anything, it has to be the same place with the same force.
Not technically self defense in the legal system if you're life isn't in danger. Now had it been a state with castle laws (FUCK YEAH MICHIGAN!) he could have simply been quoted as defending his property. Though he should NOT have been charged with first degree murder, seeing as how that is pre-meditated and this clearly wasn't so 2nd degree murder at worst charge, manslaughter...maaaayyybe but that's a bit of a stretch. Don't despair too much over it though, in time he will most likely get out on parole, granted that may be a while but it's better than life. Yes. I am going to become a Lawyer.
Peace, War, Love, Hate, Chaos, and Greed
-Unstoppable Wall
Peace, War, Love, Hate, Chaos, and Greed
-Unstoppable Wall
I'm on the fence. Yeah, the first degree was too much, but the guy could have sat in his room with the gun and only shot them if they came at him again. But, from his perspective, he could possibly be dead or crippled from these people, so he could be better off this way than if he hadn't of acted. I'm glad king of the castle is law here...
Having studied Australian criminal law, not American, I don't know how valid my opinion is here. However that's never stopped me before!
Firstly, he shot four people, but claims he did not intend to shoot anyone. In law we are not to assume that because someone did something that they intended it, but the circumstances do give some indication... for example multiple stabwounds would indicate an intention to kill, multiple shots may indicate an intention to shoot.
Secondly, reasonable proportionality, (an Australian legal concept for dealing with self defence mentioned by ViolentlyHappy91 but slightly wrong) would dictate that his use of a weapon was over zealous.
Thirdly, he went to his bedroom to get the gun, he did not grab the closest item and throw it/baff someone with it. So an argument of provocation would probably not hold up.
Finally it all depends on how sympathetic the jury felt toward the parties.
Long and short: he took a life when it was not necessary for him to do so, that equates to murder, or constructive murder at the least. While i sympathise with him, i believe the judgement is correct.
Firstly, he shot four people, but claims he did not intend to shoot anyone. In law we are not to assume that because someone did something that they intended it, but the circumstances do give some indication... for example multiple stabwounds would indicate an intention to kill, multiple shots may indicate an intention to shoot.
Secondly, reasonable proportionality, (an Australian legal concept for dealing with self defence mentioned by ViolentlyHappy91 but slightly wrong) would dictate that his use of a weapon was over zealous.
Thirdly, he went to his bedroom to get the gun, he did not grab the closest item and throw it/baff someone with it. So an argument of provocation would probably not hold up.
Finally it all depends on how sympathetic the jury felt toward the parties.
Long and short: he took a life when it was not necessary for him to do so, that equates to murder, or constructive murder at the least. While i sympathise with him, i believe the judgement is correct.
Except Murder One means premeditation. Which is not possible from what I have read from the case that would only be possible to prove if he called them over to the apartment claiming he had the PS3 then gunning them down when they showed up. No this is complete overkill and was not rational. He did run away from the scene and ditch the gun which is a bad sign no matter if you are guilty or not.The Blue Mongoose said:
- Apr 1, 2009
- 16,480
- 5,079
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
you wanna hear someting more fucked up, there was a case in elpaso with a guy who shot 3 teens in teh back of the head execution style and he got off with self defense, I forget the facts of the case and Im too lazy to look it up tho but Ill bet someone who cares will
Ah yes, in Aus we don't have degrees of murder, we just have murder and manslaughter.Rajin Cajun said:
Could not the fact that he left the room and grabbed his gun be seen as premeditation though? As said he didn't just grab the closest thing to him.
There are plenty of loopholes in this story. There is no evident prove available whether he did fire a warning shot, if he really had to push them away a single shot would have been enough but he went on with straight 5 bullets in Brant's body. "He should have locked his door and called the police" comment makes a lot of sense, having said that if Brant and his friend had called in the polce and let them handle it. It would have saved 2 lives! However from what I've heard in this story so far--these guys were friends, imagine how ugly things can turn even between friends.
Murder 1 usually indicates that there's been a great deal of planning involved in the murder, ie choice of location, where to hide the body, etc. There's also usually some kind of motivating factor involved like revenge, money, or in worst case scenarios the murderer is a serial killer.The Blue Mongoose said:
Murder 2 would seem more likely in this case because it covers 'crimes of passion' - homicides committed in fits of rage. It seems like the guys wouldn't leave, he got angry and stupid, grabbed his gun, and came out of the bedroom shooting.
EDIT: Either way, it wouldn't matter. Homicide sentencing is very steep, and given that he killed 4 people he's likely up the creek unless Jesus is his lawyer.
