THIS IS SOME BULL ****

[Shemp]

Just goes to show the odds are stacked up against you. This should have never gone to court...well, at least not criminal court.

 

[Comanche]

So in other words....
Stand your ground laws don't mean jack.
So it's okay to punch people in the back of the head and not expect to get shot.
Got it.

 

[chucklenut]

I'd rather trust the public than the prosecutors.

The prosecutors get to choose the jury sorta anyhow , voir dire

 

[Comanche]

Ok so if this man was a cop would use of force be justified?

I just hope the jurors help this guy out.

 

[Ga.Boy]

I think he made poor choices. I also think he would do it differently given the chance to do it over, but he DID NOT break the law as I see it. I can't believe a cop would see it so differently. What transpired before he was attacked from behind, while standing to the side, is irrelevant. He was knocked to the ground from behind and fired to stop the threat. I think every cop in the world would do the same.

 

[Bear44]

Guys, it sucks that this man got such a harsh sentence, but this is also an example of how little people understand the laws surrounding the use of justifiable deadly force.

It does not matter what his intent was.
It does not matter what the intent of his attacker was.
It does not matter if he feared for his life.
None of that has anything to do with determining justifiable use of deadly force in the judicial system.

The one and only thing that would have justified it's use against unarmed attackers is if there was an obvious disparity of force, which means there were multiple attackers or the single attacker had a clear and overwhelming ability and intent to seriously injure or kill the victim. A one on one fight between two people that are even remotely evenly matched does not justify the use of deadly force in the eyes of the law unless one attacker has gained a clear advantage in the fight and has expressed in some way the intent to kill or seriously injure the other.

He was knocked to the ground. That doesn't justify firing a weapon.

The problem with this incident isn't that he was charged or convicted. It's the mandatory minimum sentence imposed for an act that probably should not have caused any jail time for him at all.

 

[Comanche]

I Know man, he should have just laid there and got darn near beat to deAth then shot with his own gun.
Seriously that's basically how the laws and courts are working these days.
You pretty much have to hand over your gun to the bad guys to make it look like you were not the aggressor.

I sure do miss common sense and good old American right vs wrong.

Now days zero tolerance
Trumps
Common sense.

 

[Ga.Boy]

Guys, it sucks that this man got such a harsh sentence, but this is also an example of how little people understand the laws surrounding the use of justifiable deadly force.

It does not matter what his intent was.
It does not matter what the intent of his attacker was.
It does not matter if he feared for his life.
None of that has anything to do with determining justifiable use of deadly force in the judicial system.

The one and only thing that would have justified it's use against unarmed attackers is if there was an obvious disparity of force, which means there were multiple attackers or the single attacker had a clear and overwhelming ability and intent to seriously injure or kill the victim. A one on one fight between two people that are even remotely evenly matched does not justify the use of deadly force in the eyes of the law unless one attacker has gained a clear advantage in the fight and has expressed in some way the intent to kill or seriously injure the other.

He was knocked to the ground. That doesn't justify firing a weapon.

The problem with this incident isn't that he was charged or convicted. It's the mandatory minimum sentence imposed for an act that probably should not have caused any jail time for him at all.

WRONG.
See here:
O.C.G.A. § 16-3-21 Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

 

[Bear44]

I Know man, he should have just laid there and got darn near beat to deAth then shot with his own gun.
Seriously that's basically how the laws and courts are working these days.
You pretty much have to hand over your gun to the bad guys to make it look like you were not the aggressor.

I sure do miss common sense and good old American right vs wrong.

Now days zero tolerance
Trumps
Common sense.

It's really not that bad. That's why Zimmerman walked.

 

[BHJ]

You should've quoted the rest of the page which, if true, shows he was clearly justified.

"Michael tried his best to avoid the crowd and the groups of men fighting when all of a sudden he was rushed by a crowd of people from the front. He tried to move but his unknown attacker struck him from behind, at which point he fell to the ground. With so many people fighting around him and his attacker close by, Michael fired his weapon to get away from the fighting.

Later during trial his attacker admitted to not knowing Michael. Several witnesses stated that Michael was just standing to the side not provoking anyone, or causing a commotion. They testified that his attacker had been acting erratically the entire night and was responsible for several of the fights that had broken out previously. A close friend of Michael's attacker even stated that she was worried he would seriously injure or kill someone if he did not stop. His attacker admitted in open court "I wanted to badly hurt the next person I saw". He admitted that Michael did nothing provoke him."

"Trying your best to avoid the crowd and the groups of men fighting" Doesn't mean returning from the relative safety of the automobile with a firearm to the site of the fracas. If he had truly tried to avoid the crowd he would never have returned and that is obvious.
These are the kind of things I'm sure the jury deliberated as well as "What would a reasonable person do?"
I believe that most who reviewed the evidence and had time to think about it, such as jurors and many level headed Monday morning quarterbacks, like to believe a "Reasonable Person" would stay away from the readily apparent danger once they had reached relative safety of the automobile.
"No duty to retreat" Does not mean arm yourself and wade right in to danger.
As for the sentence ......