That dude ain't helping his credibility much by his recent and frequent antics.
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
THIS IS SOME BULL ****
- Thread starter WMSproject
- Start date
That dude ain't helping his credibility much by his recent and frequent antics.
"evidence of belief that force was necessary" has nothing to do with a state of fear. You have to have reasonable cause to believe your life is in danger. Simple fear is not enough. Fear is an emotion and emotion alone does not justify. If that fear does not make sense to others after the fact it is not a viable defense.
But none of that matters unless he was intoxicated or was out to get some payback. It would have been no different if he were just walking along the street, happened upon this mess, and was beaten down from behind. And being in fear that your life is in danger does matter. He was knocked down from behind and punched by a person who admitted in court that he wanted to seriously injure someone. Being knocked down in a mob of people is reason enough to fear your life is in danger, but then he was also being attacked.
He was brought to trial in a liberal city and deemed guilty by a liberal jury.
Your just parsing words now. In this thread you are talking about "taking action" against a bunch of guys spewing diarrhea from the mouth, or in other words engaging them and escalating the situation. And since I assume you carry, then any type of escalation of a situation where you are clearly outnumbered could possibly result in said carry piece making an appearance.
All this guy was doing, according to eyewitnesses, was standing on the side not doing anything. He was then attacked, knocked down, and punched from behind in a mob of people fighting and by a guy who admitted in court he wanted to badly injure someone. He said he was in fear for his life, not just fear, and he had a right to defend himself until the threat was stopped. Which is exactly what he did.
"Trying his best to avoid the crowd and the groups of men fighting"
If this was his testimony it clearly matters, as he did not "do his best to avoid"
If this was his testimony it clearly matters, as he did not "do his best to avoid"
I agree. What got him was when removed himself from the situation and then he came back with the gun. That's all the prosecutor needed to convict. He left and came back armed. Had he not come back, no one would've been shot. Had he not come back armed, no one would've been shot. But had he had it on him the entire time he was at the bar, it would've been a different story.
Being the armchair quarterback, I probably would've gone back armed if it was a family member or spouse. But I also would've gotten them out before I went to the car and we would've left from there. In the early 2000s in college down here in Savannah, there were a bunch of times I saw brawls in the clubs I frequented spill into the streets. And one of the first things I heard outside was "let me go pop my trunk". When that happened, my friends and I were heading to the car ASAP because we did not want to be on the news or an episode of ER: trauma on TLC (they filmed in savannah). When you leave a situation and return armed, you are rolling the dice with the law.
Sucks on that sentencing though. Maybe it will convince other people to leave and stay gone after **** goes downhill.
According to the url posted earlier, "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."
I'm not parsing words at all. I'm stating the way the judicial system defines these things. This isn't even my opinion, these are facts that I have learned from experts that clearly understand the law because they are the ones that prosecute offenders. Understanding existing law is your best defense against exactly the kind of prosecution this man has experienced. Not knowing or denying these laws exist because you think they are wrong or unreasonable is how people end up doing 25 years in prison, just like this guy did.
As for my statements in the other thread, think about it for a second. I'm actually describing a sequence of events that would create the very disparity of force I'm describing in this thread. That is assuming these "gentlemen" would not appreciate someone speaking to them the same way they are speaking to others. If these assholes think it would be OK to jump me en mass because they don't like these statements turned around on them, well it would be clear they also don't understand the laws concerning disparity of force.
See, understanding the law works both ways.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter. Michael could've been standing there hoola-hooping for all that matter. He admitted to leaving the situation and coming back armed. That was his downfall.
And that is not against the law!!! That is the issue.
