Woman Shoots Armed Robber After Beating, Charged With Murder

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

We have - that is why you are not allowed to kill people except in self-defence.

From my perspective, it looks like you've progressed yourselves out of being able to defend your self.

[Botellines 0]

I don´t know what your point is. You think it was self defence, i think not. Someone who have all the facts should decide wat it was and see who was right.
Well, that is what will be happening next month. If it was self defence she will declared inocent, if not, she will not be declared inocent. It is the LAW.

[Ron 7]

Quote

We have - that is why you are not allowed to kill people except in self-defence

then why did you have a guy beating the snot out of a person for money?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

So far I've heard the story change from one side of the equation to the other. First my minds eye sees her lying on the ground struggling with an armed assailant when her gun goes off. Next I see her calmly walk up to a guy in a truck who is in the process of escaping, aim at his head and blow his brains out.

Ok - to go back to the “versions” of this story that I highlighted earlier...

Does everyone agree that the first scenario would be a pretty clear-cut account of self-defence for which the woman should not be chastised?

Does everyone agree that the second scenario requires further investigation, not necessarily punishment at this point, but at least a deeper look to see exactly what happened and when and under what circumstances?

IF those two are agreed by all, (I don’t pretend for a minute that they will be) the only thing that is really being argued about is exactly what happened – whether it’s scenario A or scenario B.

Now we here do not know exactly what happened that day.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Does everyone agree that the second scenario requires further investigation, not necessarily punishment at this point, but at least a deeper look to see exactly what happened and when and under what circumstances?

No.

[juanesky 0]

Because apparently after the use of cheap psychology, (or some of the liberal PC crap)you are only allow to "assess" the situation after your skull has been fractured and your face smashed. It is your obligation to keep it cool and not think you might still be endangered.

No, we must respect the right of the scumbag to do as he pleases just to keep these people satisfied. To hell with self defence....

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[kallend 1,683]

Arguments like this are a wonderful endorsement of the jury system.

Some scumbag was killed. Even scumbags have rights. A jury, using its collective common sense, will decide if the killer was justfied or not.

NO-ONE here has access to anything except hearsay. And hearsay is disallowed in court for a very good reason.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Ron 7]

Quote

Arguments like this are a wonderful endorsement of the jury system.

Some scumbag was killed. Even scumbags have rights. A jury, using its collective common sense, will decide if the killer was justfied or not.

NO-ONE here has access to anything except hearsay. And hearsay is disallowed in court for a very good reason.

Well if he didn't attack her than it would be a different story...

But Criminals in the act don't have the same rights as someone defending themselves.

If he did it...I am glad he is dead.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

A jury, using its collective common sense, will decide if the killer was justfied or not.

And in the meantime, this "killer" (I'll refer to her as victim if you don't mind)...this victim is going through further ordeal and being put in jeopardy of losing her freedom, all due to the premeditated choice of her attacker. She reacted to a violent attack that she had no control over, and I don't think she should be put through further suffering for it.

[opurt 0]

The woman was smart and prudent in deciding to effectively incapacitate her assailant after a lull in the assault.

The assailant had demonstrated he was clearly willing and able to brutalize the woman by assaulting her without provocation. Whether he was walking away or not matters not - he was still a threat. Who knows whether he would resume his attack or not.

Few, other than cougar-enthusiasts, would consider a cougar walking away from a freshly-attacked, seriously injured man to be harmless.

Similarly, few, other than defense attorneys, would consider an unprovoked assailant walking away from a freshly-attacked, seriously injured victim, to be harmless.

The woman, in order to protect herself, was prudent in fully incapacitating the assailant. Just as an injured man would be prudent to fully incapacitate the cougar, if he could.

She likely saved others when she rendered the assailant harmless.

Should she have taken the chance that he might continue the assault on her or others? I think that would have been foolish and selfish. Permanently incapacitating the assailant in this case was the safe and smart thing to do.


- opurt

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I think she should be charged, and if condemned pay either a very lenient sentence or not any at all. But she shouldn´t be working again with guns.
No pity for him, none at all, but shouldn´t she be helping the police intstead of making quick money on TV?

I think that she should be working again with guns. Why? Because if what she did was wrong, there is no better way to have learned the lesson in your heart than to have made the actual mistake. She should technically now be more familiar with how to, and how not to, handle such a situation. More so than someone who has never been near that sort of event.

If a person cuts a hook turn too low, augers in, and survives with only a couple of broken bones but can still return to skydiving, he has a more intimate knowledge of the dangers of low turns than someone who has only learned of them in theory. I think he would be a better skydiver than someone who's never had that close call.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

The women (who had a cracked skull and brain damage due to his attack on her) walked up to the car he was in the process of starting

Do you think maybe she might have legitimately believed he was still a threat because she was in shock and had brain damage as a direct result of his actions? If he actually was attempting to flee, it's not good that she shot him. But was she capable of making that determination or did she think she was still fighting for her life? How can you honestly say that you think she deserves to be charged with murder?

Ahh... I see where you're going with this. HE brought on HER mindset, HER inability to decipher the fact that he was leaving and no longer threatening her, and through the injuries HE caused to her, she erred in her judgment and killed him -- therefore HE is responsible for his own death at her hands. I have to say, I like it. Had HE not beaten her senseless, she would have had the sense to let him flee, and not shoot him.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Had HE not beaten her senseless, she would have had the sense to let him flee, and not shoot him."

Now that's irony.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

I leave it to the proper authorities to establish the facts. If she walked up and shot the guys head off after the fact, then there is no choice then to charge her with murder. If she is convicted depends on what the investigation shows.

You have it backward. You do not put a person on trial for murder in order TO have an investigation as to whether she committed murder or not.

You have an investigation into the crime. If the police believe there is proof of murder taking place, THEN AFTER the investigation that has collected evidence of murder, you have a trial to weigh the facts.

The trial is not the fact-finding investigation. The trial is where the judge and jury put together any and all facts that have been gathered BY the investigation.

This supports PhillyKev's (why can't I read that name without getting hungry for a cheesesteak?!) assertion that putting a person on trial for murder is NOT a benign action that is just interested in getting the facts out. You put the person on trial for murder only when you already have so many facts that support a theory of murder that you believe you can prove it was committed, beyond a reasonable doubt.

It troubles me that so many people do not understand the way the system is supposed to work, and then they are from whom the jury gets selected.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

You know all this - that once the jury has heard both partisan sides they then decide which facts they believe the most and give their verdict accordingly.

That is, itself, a very problematic view.
By definition, FACTS do not invite one to either "believe them or not." A fact, if it is true to the definition of "fact," is not OPEN to not being believed.

A jury gets instructed by the judge as to what the FACTS that have been established in the trial are. They are not told that they can take them as fact or reject them as conjecture or open claims.

You cannot allow a jury to "believe some facts more than others." CLAIMS made by adversarial lawyers, yes. CLAIMS made by defendants, like, "I'm telling you, I wasn't even there," yes. But FACTS, no.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Investigators are this afternoon questioning Brown at an undisclosed police station.

She had previously given her account of the shooting to two media outlets but not to investigators.

She was an idiot for speaking about this case with anyone but her attorney.

That said, my question is, DOES she or does she NOT have a right to remain silent and refuse questioning by the police?

I am under the impression that in the U.K., at least, Tony Blair has been attempting to DO AWAY with the right to remain silent. How are things in Australia in this regard?

If I were a witness to this, I think I would say whatever I had to say to absolve the woman. I am glad she killed a sick fuck criminal shitbag. I think more people should do the same and so we could be rid of many more of them, then settle back down to life as usual. People who say, "Violence begets violence" don't consider the fact that when PEACEFUL people kill violent criminals, the peaceful people stop their violence when the evildoer is dead and gone. That's a huge difference.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

A judge will take into consideration that the person she killed was not innocent at all.
NOTE: I am not talking wether he deserveed it or not.

No. The "law-and-order" argument going on here is that it should not MATTER that he was moments before guilty of a heinous crime against her, because the law says you can kill only in direct defense, and not in retribution after the fact.

So a judge taking into consideration whether the person she killed was not innocent at all is NOT how the system works.

And yes, the fucker did deserve it. If you are not saying that, then you're saying that he didn't deserve it.

Quote

You forfeit your right to remain silent the very moment that you speak about it for money on a TV. By the way, if you remain silent you don´t get charged?

WHAT? Are you saying that you literally forfeit your legal right to remain silent when you speak about it for money on t.v.?

You can surely be charged even if you remain silent, but by keeping your mouth shut, you make it that much more difficult for them to prove the case against you without the help of your making self-incriminating statements.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[crwmike 0]

Quote

What part of fractured skull, eye socket, nose, and hand, makes you wonder how badly she was injured?

I don't have a call on the shooting (me? I'd have shot him as soon as I saw his shoulder dip and he appeared to be reaching for a weapon). I have some experience with traumatic injuries and the description "fractured skull, eye socket, nose and hand" doesn't even come close to giving me a good picture of the severity of her injuries. My guess is that the "fractured skull, eye socket and nose" are the media's/attorney's description of one injury ..with the hand fracture as defensive wound.

All in all, the injuries could be very light with minimal physical impairment.

Michael

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

My guess is that the "fractured skull, eye socket and nose" are the media's/attorney's description of one injury ..with the hand fracture as defensive wound.

All in all, the injuries could be very light with minimal physical impairment.

I wasn't talking about physical impaiment. I was talking about mental state. I've had a couple of concussions but never fractured a bone in my life. My guess is it takes a pretty traumatic blow to break one. If you get hit in the head hard enough for that, it's pretty reasonable that you're out of it for a couple minutes.

Has anyone here questioning that ever been knocked unconscious or received a concussion? I have, and I remember vividly the couple of minutes after as feeling like an acid trip in terms of confusion and disassociation from your surroundings.

It is completely reasonable and expected to think that someone who was just beaten in the head might not make the best decisions due to NO FAULT OF HER OWN.

Someone on here said that deciding if your life were threatened is much easier than logic puzzles. Maybe when deciding for someone else, after the fact, sitting safe at home, it's an easy decision. Try it in their shoes, though. Let me know how easy it is to decide if you are in such a threatened state that it justifies taking another human life. No philosophising over the internet. No links to proof and opinions and speculation. No time to ask other people how they feel about it.

CHOOSE NOW OR DIE!!!

Granted, she may not have had the best judgment, she may have made a wrong choice. But that was the question she was FORCED to answer by her attacker. His death lies 100% on his own hands. There's no reason to do any more to this woman who is probably putting herself through her own personal hell right now.

[Botellines 0]

Quote

I wasn't talking about physical impaiment. I was talking about mental state. I've had a couple of concussions but never fractured a bone in my life. My guess is it takes a pretty traumatic blow to break one. If you get hit in the head hard enough for that, it's pretty reasonable that you're out of it for a couple minutes.

Has anyone here questioning that ever been knocked unconscious or received a concussion? I have, and I remember vividly the couple of minutes after as feeling like an acid trip in terms of confusion and disassociation from your surroundings.

Yes, i have. I received a hit in my head that rendered me unconscious for a short while. When i woke up i was totally confuse, that is why I find a bit suspicious (at least worth of investigation) that someone who received such blow can stand up, walk to the agressor, get the gun out, and fire.
By the way, about your analogy with the acid trip... Man, ask your dealer for a refund, you shouldn´t feel that way at all.

Quote

It is completely reasonable and expected to think that someone who was just beaten in the head might not make the best decisions due to NO FAULT OF HER OWN.

WRONG, you are taking a possibility as a fact. It is possible that she was so confused that she truly believed she was in danger. However, it is also a good posibility that she was searching for revenge after being beaten up.
You absolutely have no clue what happened (neither do I) so although for the info we have it looks like she was conscious of what she was doing, I will concede both posibilities are 50% possible and will require further investigation.

Quote

Someone on here said that deciding if your life were threatened is much easier than logic puzzles.

I did, and i still think so.

Quote

Maybe when deciding for someone else, after the fact, sitting safe at home, it's an easy decision. Try it in their shoes, though. Let me know how easy it is to decide if you are in such a threatened state that it justifies taking another human life. No philosophising over the internet. No links to proof and opinions and speculation. No time to ask other people how they feel about it.

CHOOSE NOW OR DIE!!!

Been there, done that. Only happened to me once, but i was capable (after some kicks on my head) to asses the situation as best as i could and take a decision. Had I had a gun, if i had shooted the guy trying to hit me with the chain or the guy getting a knife out, i may have had to give some explanations to the authorities. Luckily, if chased i run pretty fast.

Quote

Granted, she may not have had the best judgment, she may have made a wrong choice. But that was the question she was FORCED to answer by her attacker. His death lies 100% on his own hands. There's no reason to do any more to this woman who is probably putting herself through her own personal hell right now.

WRONG AGAIN. It may has not been the wrong choice, maybe it was the right thing to do (we DON´T know), that, a judge will decide. But for sure she was NOT FORCED to shoot the gun. Plenty of options.

[JohnMitchell 14]

Quote

I don't know about you, but if some guy weighing 150-250% of my body weight smacks me with a bat for no reason, then keeps coming, I'd feel justified in shooting him.

I don't care if he's smaller than me. A baseball bat is a deadly weapon. If I fear for my life, I'm shooting.

[Botellines 0]

yes, but is has a range of let´s say 3 meters, a knife maybe 2, and a gun 100 meters (of the last i have no clue), out of that range, regardless of size you shouldn´t feel so threatened that you feel you have to use deadly force on the attacker.

Totally agree about the size. You don´t want to have a very short guy too close, he can jump and bite your balls.

[crwmike 0]

Quote

Quote

My guess is that the "fractured skull, eye socket and nose" are the media's/attorney's description of one injury ..with the hand fracture as defensive wound.

All in all, the injuries could be very light with minimal physical impairment.

I wasn't talking about physical impaiment. I was talking about mental state. I've had a couple of concussions but never fractured a bone in my life. My guess is it takes a pretty traumatic blow to break one. If you get hit in the head hard enough for that, it's pretty reasonable that you're out of it for a couple minutes.

Has anyone here questioning that ever been knocked unconscious or received a concussion? I have, and I remember vividly the couple of minutes after as feeling like an acid trip in terms of confusion and disassociation from your surroundings.

It is completely reasonable and expected to think that someone who was just beaten in the head might not make the best decisions due to NO FAULT OF HER OWN.

Someone on here said that deciding if your life were threatened is much easier than logic puzzles. Maybe when deciding for someone else, after the fact, sitting safe at home, it's an easy decision. Try it in their shoes, though. Let me know how easy it is to decide if you are in such a threatened state that it justifies taking another human life. No philosophising over the internet. No links to proof and opinions and speculation. No time to ask other people how they feel about it.

CHOOSE NOW OR DIE!!!

Granted, she may not have had the best judgment, she may have made a wrong choice. But that was the question she was FORCED to answer by her attacker. His death lies 100% on his own hands. There's no reason to do any more to this woman who is probably putting herself through her own personal hell right now.

Wow! And you deduced all that from a newspaper article. I'm thinking my reading comprehension skills need work.

I've seen dozens of people with "skull fractures". They come in to get sewn up or are just freaked out by the profuse bleeding characteristic of scalp/facial wounds. The fractures were just additional findings found on routine x-rays. I even remember one open skull fracture who drove himself to the ER and walked up to the desk, looked at me and said, "Dude, I think that asshol crushed my skull" (he was correct) Awake, Alert and Oriented x4 with no loss of consciousness. Majorly pissed!

What I'm saying is, don't go getting all emotional and hanging your argument on the words "skull fracture"

Personally, I think she needs either Anger Managment classes or a a thorough briefing on how to write up a report. Like I said earlier, I'd have shot him when I saw his shoulder dip and I feared he was reaching for another weapon.


YMMV,

Michael

[Kennedy 0]

That is incorrect.

For a knife, the "hard deck" is 21 feet (seven yards, just under 7 meters) for decisions.

The reason for that distance is that the FBI found that an attacker can cover it in less time than it take to raise, aim, and fire a pistol.

I don't know of any official findings for bats and clubs, but I imagine it would be the same distance.

For a firearm, any distance is unacceptable. Pistols can hit mansize tagets hundreds of yards away. Rifles of many calibers can be that accurate out past one thousand yards.

And yeah, short guys are dangerous too.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

yes, but is has a range of let´s say 3 meters, a knife maybe 2, and a gun 100 meters (of the last i have no clue), o
????'??regardless of size you shouldn´t feel so threatened that you feel you have to use deadly force on the attacker.

Totally agree about the size. You don´t want to have a very short guy too close, he can jump and bite your balls.

I have to say that you seem to be utterly clueless about what you're talking about, in a manner that suggests you have never read up on the subject of self defense, never been forced to act in self defense, and think of this type of scenario in very static and unrealistic terms.

It has been demonstrated that an attacker armed with a dummy knife can lie on the ground face down, and on a start signal can leap up and run at a defender, "tag" him with what would be a lethal stab with the knife, before the defender can unholster a handgun and bring it to aim, from 20 feet away.

This blows your theory of how a gun with a claimed range of 100 meters (yeah, like you can accurately fire your handgun at that distance, especially under stress!) is not justified for use against a weapon with a 3 meter range. Your claim is false. You can be in GRAVE danger from a bat or knife wielder even if he is 7 yards away, or even more, since unlike in the tests he is already standing. Think of how short a time is needed for you to sprint at someone from a standing position and reach him from a scant 20 feet away. 20 feet is nothing.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"