Is this self-defense, or murder??? What do you think? Watch this vid...

[dirtylicious]

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

^that last one isn't right.
Connie should be charged with 1st degree murder.

How do you figure? This definition listed by manslaughter right here describes it perfectly:

such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed;

Obviously this wasn't premeditated - dude didn't wake up that morning thinking he was going to murder this kid he never met. It was a classic heat of the moment thing.


"that last one" -- meaning the last example posted.

Murder: First Degree
For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store, but as they are fleeing, Victor shoots and kills Dan. Under the felony murder rule, Connie Victor can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's death.

Victor should not be changed with 1st degree murder.
Connie s hould

 

[craftsy21]

My fault dirty.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

^that last one isn't right.
Connie should be charged with 1st degree murder.

How do you figure? This definition listed by manslaughter right here describes it perfectly:

such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed;

Obviously this wasn't premeditated - dude didn't wake up that morning thinking he was going to murder this kid he never met. It was a classic heat of the moment thing.

"that last one" -- meaning the last example posted.

Murder: First Degree
For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store, but as they are fleeing, Victor shoots and kills Dan. Under the felony murder rule, Connie Victor can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's death.

Victor should not be changed with 1st degree murder.
Connie s hould



accomplices are liable for any crime their co-felon commits.

under the felony murder rule, if victor kills dan, connie is as culpable for the crime as victor is.

 

[juju]

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by MR MONDAY NIIGHT

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Man that is why you don't get hair transplants, dude is milking it for all its worth.

All this could have been pretended if those two goons didn't try to rob someone. Their fault, he was gangsta enough to try to rob someone, he should be gangsta enough to die by the bullet. RIH.

Please..The tape clearly shows that he had time to walk outside in pursuit of the other robber, come back in, walk right by the guy on the floor go back behind the counter reload his gun/get another gun then walk over and execute him? that's murder...

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing about whether or not that white guy was right. I'm saying that this could all have been prevented if those two idiots didn't try to jack move the place. Once you make that decision to act stupid, you should be ready to suffer the consequences, no matter how bad they are or wrong.

SO WHAT WAS THAT LIL ROT IN HELL DEAL ABOUT? ONE STUPID MISTAKE MEANS HE SHOULD DIE AND BURN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY? YEA OKDIP****!

 

[dirtylicious]

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Murder: First Degree
For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store, but as they are fleeing, Victor shoots and kills Dan. Under the felony murder rule, Connie Victor can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's death.

Victor should not be changed with 1st degree murder.
Connie should



accomplices are liable for any crime their co-felon commits.

under the felony murder rule, if victor kills dan, connie is as culpable for the crime as victor is.


I know. that's why I said it was wrong...

see example.

For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store

Connie is the accomplice.. Victor is the store owner

Victor can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's

Which is wrong

 

[teymur85]

Originally Posted by JuJu

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by MR MONDAY NIIGHT

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Man that is why you don't get hair transplants, dude is milking it for all its worth.

All this could have been pretended if those two goons didn't try to rob someone. Their fault, he was gangsta enough to try to rob someone, he should be gangsta enough to die by the bullet. RIH.

Please..The tape clearly shows that he had time to walk outside in pursuit of the other robber, come back in, walk right by the guy on the floor go back behind the counter reload his gun/get another gun then walk over and execute him? that's murder...

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing about whether or not that white guy was right. I'm saying that this could all have been prevented if those two idiots didn't try to jack move the place. Once you make that decision to act stupid, you should be ready to suffer the consequences, no matter how bad they are or wrong.

SO WHAT WAS THAT LIL ROT IN HELL DEAL ABOUT? ONE STUPID MISTAKE MEANS HE SHOULD DIE AND BURN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY? YEA OK DIP****!

its not just 'one stupid mistake' when you attempt armed robbery.

 

[mr monday niight]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by Craftsy21

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

^that last one isn't right.
Connie should be charged with 1st degree murder.

How do you figure? This definition listed by manslaughter right here describes it perfectly:

such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed;

Obviously this wasn't premeditated - dude didn't wake up that morning thinking he was going to murder this kid he never met. It was a classic heat of the moment thing.

"that last one" -- meaning the last example posted.

Murder: First Degree
For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store, but as they are fleeing, Victor shoots and kills Dan. Under the felony murder rule, Connie Victor can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's death.

Victor should not be changed with 1st degree murder.
Connie s hould



Yes he should..the suspects are "fleeing"..they don't pose a threat anymore..

 

[dirtylicious]

^that's not felony murder though.
Victor was not the person committing the crime.

Connie would be charged with Felony Murder
If the prosecutor really wanted to...Victor would probably be charged with 2nd degree or possibly Manslaughter, as they were fleeing

edit.
JuJu - warned for cursing

 

[mr monday niight]

True. This guy is gonna get off just like Joe Horn did..

 

[jumpshot]

Originally Posted by MR MONDAY NIIGHT

True. This guy is gonna get off just like Joe Horn did..

And Bernard Goetz. If Bernard Goetz got off in NYC where you aren't even allowed to posses a gun, this dude will get off also.

 

[dendanskesimon]

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Originally Posted by DatZNasty

Originally Posted by cardizzle45

I am sure that defense will say that the employees mens rea was not in the right state of mind. When someone is put in a situation like that there are emotions that arise in a split second that throws common sense out the window. I am sure the defense will mention that the employee had no idea that the robber didn't have a weapon therefore he didn't know if the robber was NO longer a threat. I am pretty sure he won't be found guilty of murder.

You know in New York there was a case where a kid was threatening a young man and his father verbally as well as with racial epithets, the kid then approached them and breached their property, again while making threats and the father shot and killed him in what he thoug was self defense. He is now doing life in prison.

In another more publicized similar situation, a guy saw 2 men robbing the home of a neighbor whom he admittedly doesn't know, called 911 and then tauntingly told the 911 operator he was going to go out there and kill them himself despite the 911 operators many attempts to tell him not to. He is now a neighborhood hero and still at the house, scott free.

I left out the races of all the parties involved, but race and social class and political affiliations so affect the way things like this are judged, that you can easily figure it out.

so thats how it ended?

how is that possible? was there no other means to stop them? if you cant within your means why not let them go free and let the cops go in on them?

not how it happened. He was trying to defend his neighbors stuff, he didnt say it tauntingly, he was an old guy who staunchly believed indefending his neighborhood. He goes out there and tells the guys "stop or I will shoot you" perfectly warns them, they try to jet so he shoots themboth with the shotty. Im glad he did it and got off free, they were stealing, and he should be able to defend the area, especially since his neighbor wasnthome, is he just supposed to sit there and watch them loot and pillage indefensible possessions?

However, for this case, what do you think would be happening if he just shot the guy 5-6 times all at once and didnt wait?

 

[juju]

Originally Posted by Teymur85

Originally Posted by JuJu

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by MR MONDAY NIIGHT

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Man that is why you don't get hair transplants, dude is milking it for all its worth.

All this could have been pretended if those two goons didn't try to rob someone. Their fault, he was gangsta enough to try to rob someone, he should be gangsta enough to die by the bullet. RIH.

Please..The tape clearly shows that he had time to walk outside in pursuit of the other robber, come back in, walk right by the guy on the floor go back behind the counter reload his gun/get another gun then walk over and execute him? that's murder...

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing about whether or not that white guy was right. I'm saying that this could all have been prevented if those two idiots didn't try to jack move the place. Once you make that decision to act stupid, you should be ready to suffer the consequences, no matter how bad they are or wrong.

SO WHAT WAS THAT LIL ROT IN HELL DEAL ABOUT? ONE STUPID MISTAKE MEANS HE SHOULD DIE AND BURN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY? YEA OK DIP****!

its not just 'one stupid mistake' when you attempt armed robbery.

ok maybe mistake is the wrong word. one stupid decision to rob a store still doesnt justify being dumped on 6 times close range. im all forgetting what you deserve, but im pretty sure if the police found him they would have sent him to jail for a couple years and not arranged a closed casketfuneral. all you guys talking about its me or them tough talk are the guys im scared owning guns cause it feels like your hoping for a day you can"protect your family" i have a firearm in my home but ill tell you right now i would much rather give up the $%%%!*!@ ps3 or couple dollars than livewith killing someone over somehting that could be replaced by an insurance claim. im prolly just a +%+%* though and not man enough to "protect myfamily" cause my +*$$ doesnt get hard thinking about how i would take someone out if they broke in my house, and some of you are pathetic talking about"thieves deserve to die", last time i check when someone scams someone on NT the best you ******* can come up with is sending a bunch of pizzas totheir house? why dont yall badasses mount up and go shoot them in the face for your DMP or DS sb heineken dunks.

 

[mr monday niight]

Originally Posted by dendanskesimon

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Originally Posted by DatZNasty

Originally Posted by cardizzle45

I am sure that defense will say that the employees mens rea was not in the right state of mind. When someone is put in a situation like that there are emotions that arise in a split second that throws common sense out the window. I am sure the defense will mention that the employee had no idea that the robber didn't have a weapon therefore he didn't know if the robber was NO longer a threat. I am pretty sure he won't be found guilty of murder.

You know in New York there was a case where a kid was threatening a young man and his father verbally as well as with racial epithets, the kid then approached them and breached their property, again while making threats and the father shot and killed him in what he thoug was self defense. He is now doing life in prison.

In another more publicized similar situation, a guy saw 2 men robbing the home of a neighbor whom he admittedly doesn't know, called 911 and then tauntingly told the 911 operator he was going to go out there and kill them himself despite the 911 operators many attempts to tell him not to. He is now a neighborhood hero and still at the house, scott free.

I left out the races of all the parties involved, but race and social class and political affiliations so affect the way things like this are judged, that you can easily figure it out.

so thats how it ended?

how is that possible? was there no other means to stop them? if you cant within your means why not let them go free and let the cops go in on them?

not how it happened. He was trying to defend his neighbors stuff, he didnt say it tauntingly, he was an old guy who staunchly believed in defending his neighborhood. He goes out there and tells the guys "stop or I will shoot you" perfectly warns them, they try to jet so he shoots them both with the shotty. Im glad he did it and got off free, they were stealing, and he should be able to defend the area, especially since his neighbor wasnt home, is he just supposed to sit there and watch them loot and pillage indefensible possessions?

However, for this case, what do you think would be happening if he just shot the guy 5-6 times all at once and didnt wait?

That is how it happened. He got away with murder because people in Texas have a cowboy mentality that it's ok to shoot someone. The dispatcher repeatedlytold him to not go outside. He defied authority when he went outside... He also had the requisite intent to shoot to kill. Therefore.. he is culpable formurder.

 

[juju]

Originally Posted by dendanskesimon

Originally Posted by WallyHopp

Originally Posted by DatZNasty

Originally Posted by cardizzle45

I am sure that defense will say that the employees mens rea was not in the right state of mind. When someone is put in a situation like that there are emotions that arise in a split second that throws common sense out the window. I am sure the defense will mention that the employee had no idea that the robber didn't have a weapon therefore he didn't know if the robber was NO longer a threat. I am pretty sure he won't be found guilty of murder.

You know in New York there was a case where a kid was threatening a young man and his father verbally as well as with racial epithets, the kid then approached them and breached their property, again while making threats and the father shot and killed him in what he thoug was self defense. He is now doing life in prison.

In another more publicized similar situation, a guy saw 2 men robbing the home of a neighbor whom he admittedly doesn't know, called 911 and then tauntingly told the 911 operator he was going to go out there and kill them himself despite the 911 operators many attempts to tell him not to. He is now a neighborhood hero and still at the house, scott free.

I left out the races of all the parties involved, but race and social class and political affiliations so affect the way things like this are judged, that you can easily figure it out.

so thats how it ended?

how is that possible? was there no other means to stop them? if you cant within your means why not let them go free and let the cops go in on them?

not how it happened. He was trying to defend his neighbors stuff, he didnt say it tauntingly, he was an old guy who staunchly believed in defending his neighborhood. He goes out there and tells the guys "stop or I will shoot you" perfectly warns them, they try to jet so he shoots them both with the shotty. Im glad he did it and got off free, they were stealing, and he should be able to defend the area, especially since his neighbor wasnt home, is he just supposed to sit there and watch them loot and pillage indefensible possessions?

However, for this case, what do you think would be happening if he just shot the guy 5-6 times all at once and didnt wait?

forgive me if im wrong but when they stopped robbing the place to RUN away werent they doing exactly what he told them? yea they might not havegotten caught right that moment but he achieved what he wanted, which was them not robbing his neighbor he didnt even know. how the ##@% are you GLAD he killedtwo people and got off? i swear to god i can't go anywhere on the internet without being disgusted by people.

 

[teymur85]

Originally Posted by JuJu

Originally Posted by Teymur85

Originally Posted by JuJu

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by MR MONDAY NIIGHT

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Man that is why you don't get hair transplants, dude is milking it for all its worth.

All this could have been pretended if those two goons didn't try to rob someone. Their fault, he was gangsta enough to try to rob someone, he should be gangsta enough to die by the bullet. RIH.

Please..The tape clearly shows that he had time to walk outside in pursuit of the other robber, come back in, walk right by the guy on the floor go back behind the counter reload his gun/get another gun then walk over and execute him? that's murder...

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing about whether or not that white guy was right. I'm saying that this could all have been prevented if those two idiots didn't try to jack move the place. Once you make that decision to act stupid, you should be ready to suffer the consequences, no matter how bad they are or wrong.

SO WHAT WAS THAT LIL ROT IN HELL DEAL ABOUT? ONE STUPID MISTAKE MEANS HE SHOULD DIE AND BURN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY? YEA OK DIP****!

its not just 'one stupid mistake' when you attempt armed robbery.

ok maybe mistake is the wrong word. one stupid decision to rob a store still doesnt justify being dumped on 6 times close range. im all for getting what you deserve, but im pretty sure if the police found him they would have sent him to jail for a couple years and not arranged a closed casket funeral. all you guys talking about its me or them tough talk are the guys im scared owning guns cause it feels like your hoping for a day you can "protect your family" i have a firearm in my home but ill tell you right now i would much rather give up the $%%%!*!@ ps3 or couple dollars than live with killing someone over somehting that could be replaced by an insurance claim. im prolly just a +%+%* though and not man enough to "protect my family" cause my +*$$ doesnt get hard thinking about how i would take someone out if they broke in my house, and some of you are pathetic talking about "thieves deserve to die", last time i check when someone scams someone on NT the best you ******* can come up with is sending a bunch of pizzas to their house? why dont yall badasses mount up and go shoot them in the face for your DMP or DS sb heineken dunks.

God forbid if someone ever pulls a gun on you, then you will realize how quickly your way of thinking changes from what you just wrote. When yourlife is at mercy you will go extra lengths to protect yourself. Losing a pair of sneakers and getting a gun pulled on you are two very different things. Therobber deserved every bullet.

 

[jking0821]

Self Defense. Dude came in with a ski mask and his buddy had a gun drawn. I wouldn't trust that the guy on the ground was actually dead and wasn'tstrapped.

 

[jfmartimcdandruff]

self defense at first

i'm surprised he was conscious after the head shot, but the shots after weren't needed.

he seemed already dead if he got him in the head.

don't know

 

[juju]

Originally Posted by Teymur85

Originally Posted by JuJu

Originally Posted by Teymur85

Originally Posted by JuJu

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by MR MONDAY NIIGHT

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Man that is why you don't get hair transplants, dude is milking it for all its worth.

All this could have been pretended if those two goons didn't try to rob someone. Their fault, he was gangsta enough to try to rob someone, he should be gangsta enough to die by the bullet. RIH.

Please..The tape clearly shows that he had time to walk outside in pursuit of the other robber, come back in, walk right by the guy on the floor go back behind the counter reload his gun/get another gun then walk over and execute him? that's murder...

You're missing the point. I'm not arguing about whether or not that white guy was right. I'm saying that this could all have been prevented if those two idiots didn't try to jack move the place. Once you make that decision to act stupid, you should be ready to suffer the consequences, no matter how bad they are or wrong.

SO WHAT WAS THAT LIL ROT IN HELL DEAL ABOUT? ONE STUPID MISTAKE MEANS HE SHOULD DIE AND BURN IN THE FIRES OF HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY? YEA OK DIP****!

its not just 'one stupid mistake' when you attempt armed robbery.

ok maybe mistake is the wrong word. one stupid decision to rob a store still doesnt justify being dumped on 6 times close range. im all for getting what you deserve, but im pretty sure if the police found him they would have sent him to jail for a couple years and not arranged a closed casket funeral. all you guys talking about its me or them tough talk are the guys im scared owning guns cause it feels like your hoping for a day you can "protect your family" i have a firearm in my home but ill tell you right now i would much rather give up the $%%%!*!@ ps3 or couple dollars than live with killing someone over somehting that could be replaced by an insurance claim. im prolly just a +%+%* though and not man enough to "protect my family" cause my +*$$ doesnt get hard thinking about how i would take someone out if they broke in my house, and some of you are pathetic talking about "thieves deserve to die", last time i check when someone scams someone on NT the best you ******* can come up with is sending a bunch of pizzas to their house? why dont yall badasses mount up and go shoot them in the face for your DMP or DS sb heineken dunks.

God forbid if someone ever pulls a gun on you, then you will realize how quickly your way of thinking changes from what you just wrote. When your life is at mercy you will go extra lengths to protect yourself. Losing a pair of sneakers and getting a gun pulled on you are two very different things. The robber deserved every bullet.

actually no they aren't cause anyone who is from a city with real *%!$ popping off knows that guns being pulled on you WHILE ROBBING YOU FORSNEAKERS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. trust me i know it happend to my half brother in brooklyn and he gave up the shoes despite being strapped cause they were justshoes. according to you the moment duke turned his back he should have blasted and risked going to jail to prove a point. eye for an eye my friend leaves thewhole world blind.

 

[kimchee2go]

murder

 

[BANLEU]

Originally Posted by lakersmets49ers

Originally Posted by Mr Anleu

smh at you guys saying the kid deserved...maybe you guys haven't heard of the consitution but it states that nobody can have their life liberty or pursuit of happiness taken away from them without due process. yes, the kid would have been found guilty anyway but that was for a jury of his peers and for a judge to decide what his punishment should be.

if what this man did is justifiable than the kids family should be able to shoot him for having killed their son.

f the constitution. if you try and rob me its either my life or your life. the constitution also says we have the right to bear arms.

why should the kids family be able to shoot the guy??

at f the constitution..the family should be able toshoot him because he took the law into his own hands. he didnt have the right to kill him because even if the kid was convicted of robbing the store he wouldntget the death penalty. therefore, the punishment the guy gave this kid is cruel and unusual. furthermore the police can't even verify that they opened fireon the guy so u don't even know if their intent was to kill him..you're just assuming.

a better way the guy could've handled it is he could have taken the kids weapon once on the floor and if he got up then he could've pinned him downwith his weapon until the police arrived.

 

[nako xl]

Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

Originally Posted by Nako XL

Murder: First Degree
For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store, but as they are fleeing, Victor shoots and kills Dan. Under the felony murder rule, Connie Victor can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's death.

Victor should not be changed with 1st degree murder.
Connie should

accomplices are liable for any crime their co-felon commits.

under the felony murder rule, if victor kills dan, connie is as culpable for the crime as victor is.


I know. that's why I said it was wrong...

see example.

For example, Dan and Connie rob Victor's liquor store

Connie is the accomplice.. Victor is the store owner

Victor can be charged with first-degree murder for Dan's

Which is wrong


oh my bad, i didnt even read the example. i just read the article on page 1 and went to reply and saw your post and misread it.

yeah you're right, it's self-defense on victor's part (and not even felony murder for connie.) unless of course connie and dan were unarmed andthere was never any threat to victor's person (i still haven't read the example hahaa)

Originally Posted by Jumpshot

Originally Posted by MR MONDAY NIIGHT

True. This guy is gonna get off just like Joe Horn did..

And Bernard Goetz. If Bernard Goetz got off in NYC where you aren't even allowed to posses a gun, this dude will get off also.

meh... i analogized the goetz case, but in hindsight there was a lot more going on there (with the trial) and his particular situation.

 

[essential1]

Here's what I got from this.. 1 Bullet fine, 3-4 at the same time is still fine. But the minute he ran out of the store chasing the other robber, wentinside and inserted 5 shots that is no longer self defense. Self defense under the law is reasonable force to get yourself out of the situation.

Not only did the robber not have a gun he was on the floor shot in the abdomen.


Murder.. 20-25 years. Up for Parole in 15. He could've called the cops and kept the gun on the guy.

 

[mexicansoul]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Here's what I got from this.. 1 Bullet fine, 3-4 at the same time is still fine. But the minute he ran out of the store chasing the other robber, went inside and inserted 5 shots that is no longer self defense. Self defense under the law is reasonable force to get yourself out of the situation.

Not only did the robber not have a gun he was on the floor shot in the abdomen.


Murder.. 20-25 years. Up for Parole in 15. He could've called the cops and kept the gun on the guy.

/thread.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is seriously jaded, racist or has a chip on their shoulder.

 

[russ tha g]

^ Or thinks that criminals deserve to be killed... that is, we believe in taking out the trash. If you don't want to be put at risk of being legallykilled, you shouldn't lead a life of crime.

 

[jordanb1989]

murder