Ron Paul supporter attacked and then charged with murder!!

[Kade]

Interesting that the police draw their guns as warnings all the time, and rarely are they taken from them.

Are you sure your brain's working?

Pete

By the definition of what constitutes a government, they have the inherent power to use deadly force. You do not, except in extreme circumstances. You do not have the RIGHT to take life.

Police cannot violate the fourth amendment. Your argument is wrapped in insane vigilante mental retardation. I hate the police, probably more than many would want to know, but I would still trust a trained officer over an idiot with a righteous fixation on weapons.

No court in the world would consider this a case of justifiable homicide. None.

 

[phixion]

I didn't anything about large and drunk... and it is still not a defense to use deadly force.

Then why don't you look at the image of the guy he shot?

Of course it's a defense to use deadly force if you are under attack.

The shooter defended himself and his partner quite well, it seems.

Pete

 

[Kade]

Try this experiment:

Get drunk, and walk up to a police car, and start yelling that Ron Paul sucks. Then reach into the window and try grabbing the policeman, while at the same time yelling and threatening.

After the policman shoots you, check and see if he is charged with murder.

You are out of your god damn minds. You are equating this man with a police officer?!

 

[Kade]

Then why don't you look at the image of the guy he shot?

Of course it's a defense to use deadly force if you are under attack.

The shooter defended himself and his partner quite well, it seems.

Pete

You guys are clearly batshit. Scary batshit.

You are using an emotional appeal to argue that normal everyday citizens have the right to use deadly force at will if they feel threatened, without any punishment.

Pakistan has similar laws. Bravo, we are truly the enlightened country of this world.

 

[Time for Change]

Interesting that the police draw their guns as warnings all the time, and rarely are they taken from them.

Are you sure your brain's working?

Pete

LEO's train in defensive tactics regularly. They will not lose their weapon easily.
They are constantly under duress, tired, and trained to believe that each and every interaction with the civilian population is a potential life threat.
They draw out of caution, and at least in my part of the world (where they have recently been openly targeted) they are justified to be at the ready, given proper circumstances and location.

now take into consideration the person who purchased a firearm, ran 25 rounds through it and thinks they are proficient...
No training at all, just a weapon.
They draw as a warning...they freeze, or make a mistake, they get disarmed and die.
Sorry, but that is the way it will likely play out.

Some LEO's are complete asses, true, but give credit where it is due, they volunteer to place themselves in harms way to attempt to maintain order.
They have to be ready at all times or may die trying to make a slight dent in this screwed up world.
You cannot compare that level of constant stress (and training) with an average joe.

 

[phixion]

You guys are clearly batshit. Scary batshit.

You are using an emotional appeal to argue that normal everyday citizens have the right to use deadly force at will if they feel threatened, without any punishment.

Pakistan has similar laws. Bravo, we are truly the enlightened country of this world.

OK - time for your reality check.

13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force pursuant to this section.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.

2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons or property.

The partner of the shooter stated clearly in the video there are witnesses that saw all of this take place. Him being attacked.

Source: http://www.azleg.state.az.us Document

Ok,

Pete

 

[Galileo Galilei]

You are out of your god damn minds. You are equating this man with a police officer?!

police officers are people, too.

How much you wanna bet they just charged him with murder and threw him in the stink tank, in an attempt to force a plea bargain?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

OK - time for your reality check.

13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force pursuant to this section.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.

2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons or property.

The partner of the shooter stated clearly in the video there are witnesses that saw all of this take place. Him being attacked.

Source: http://www.azleg.state.az.us Document

Ok,

Pete

good post.

The wife and the accussed man are witnesses, too.

Since they were nearest the incident, they would be the best witnesses to see what happened.

 

[airborne373]

By the definition of what constitutes a government, they have the inherent power to use deadly force. You do not, except in extreme circumstances. You do not have the RIGHT to take life.

Police cannot violate the fourth amendment. Your argument is wrapped in insane vigilante mental retardation. I hate the police, probably more than many would want to know, but I would still trust a trained officer over an idiot with a righteous fixation on weapons.

No court in the world would consider this a case of justifiable homicide. None.

Kade says, "By the definition of what constitutes a government, they have the inherent power to use deadly force. You do not, except in extreme circumstances. You do not have the RIGHT to take life."

In These United State the sovereign is the individual NOT the state. All the states power is granted by the individual. This is fundamental to the entire Ron Paul movement. Frankly if you do not believe that the individual is sovereign over the state you are backing the wrong presidential candidate.

 

[brandon]

OK - time for your reality check.

13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force pursuant to this section.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.

2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons or property.

The partner of the shooter stated clearly in the video there are witnesses that saw all of this take place. Him being attacked.

Source: http://www.azleg.state.az.us Document

Ok,

Pete

Good post. This should end the thread. There is nothing left to discuss until more evidence is available.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Good post. This should end the thread. There is nothing left to discuss until more evidence is available.

There is a lot to discuss.

The wife has read the above legal code. She indicates that what she saw is clearly legal self defense. What she says is evidence. She also indicates her fiancee can corroborate her testimony.

So now the man rots in jail. Even if another witness contradicts what these witnessess say, the worst case scenerio is a case of witnesses contradicting each other. In other words, either the man is clearly innocent, or nobody knows what the hell happened. And if no one knows what the hell happened, then there is no reasonable proof that he's guilty.

This whole case astinks to high heaven.

Moral of the story: Don't get drunk, drive around town, pick fights and attack people. This case make it seem the police in AZ condone this behaviour.

 

[slamhead]

By the definition of what constitutes a government, they have the inherent power to use deadly force. You do not, except in extreme circumstances. You do not have the RIGHT to take life.

Police cannot violate the fourth amendment. Your argument is wrapped in insane vigilante mental retardation. I hate the police, probably more than many would want to know, but I would still trust a trained officer over an idiot with a righteous fixation on weapons.

No court in the world would consider this a case of justifiable homicide. None.

In Texas you have the right to protect your property with deadly force. A man got off after shooting a guy that was repo'ing his car as he thought someone was steeling it. Arguing that the government has an inherent right you do not have is insane.

This has nothing to do with guns or violence. It is Darwinism at its finest. The belligerent fool that goes around threatening violence on others does not get to reproduce.

 

[slamhead]

You are out of your god damn minds. You are equating this man with a police officer?!

A citizen has the same rights as a police officer to self defense. If I was to go up to a cop and get in a fight with him. I start getting the best of him. At some point I will get shot...simple as that. A private citizen is actually held to a lessor standard of when to apply deadly force. Do I feel my life is in danger. I don't know all the facts but if I am at a light and a guy gets out of his car and starts to drag me out of mine, I have no idea what his intentions are. At that moment I would fear for my life...bang!!!!

 

[slamhead]

OK - time for your reality check.

13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force pursuant to this section.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.

2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons or property.

The partner of the shooter stated clearly in the video there are witnesses that saw all of this take place. Him being attacked.

Source: http://www.azleg.state.az.us Document

Ok,

Pete

Good find...pretty much spells it out right there.

 

[kyleAF]

Life should never be taken lightly... only taken upon threat of force.

THREAT of force CONSTITUTES real force. It's the legal definition. They are legally equivalent (at least here in TX). That's why if you point your gun at someone, you'd better already be justified in shooting them dead, because the law considers you to have done the same thing through the threat.

Aiming at a particular target or trying to wound instead of kill is irrelevant, since the process of pointing the gun ends the legal debate. You're guilty or innocent just the same, independent of where you shot them.

If you steal something from someone without saying or doing anything else (just a snatch and grab), that's a petty theft offense. If you lift up your shirt to reveal a gun, and then take it from them while they are looking (with no altercation), you have committed a robbery and can get 20+ years in prison. The difference? THREAT of force... enough to constitute a major felony, as if you shot them. The same is true if you just say: "I'll kick your ass if you try to stop me". 20+ years.

A person is not legally jusitified in shooting a petty thief, but a robber? Every time, in all circumstances.

That said, I would never take a life to defend simple property, but to defend a life? Absolutely, and without regret. If someone were to threaten my family, I'd try to de-escalate if possible, but if not, I won't wait around to live with the regret of having hesitated and watched my family get harmed in some way. That's the antithesis to a life-based approach, Kade.
....................
Interesting / disturbing point: Here in TX, it's actually legal to shoot a kid 30 minutes before dusk (the only legal definition of "night") if they are caught spraypainting your garage (even without a weapon), which falls under something called "criminal mischief". Does that make it right to shoot the kid? Absolutely not. So I agree that a great deal of discretion is needed beyond the "law" on the books. Those who carry ought to know this and abide by it, and by far and away, most do.

Take comfort in the fact that--statistically speaking--you probably interact or come near a person legally carrying a concealed gun on a regular basis in your daily life (as long as you don't live in Chicago or Cali), and that you haven't gotten shot. There are nearly 300,000 people who legally carry in Texas, and most probably wouldn't fit your typical stereotype of a "carrier" either. We aren't militia men in cutoff T-shirts with rebel flags

.................
The AZ law linked above is pretty clear, and I agree: I hope for a fair, NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED trial.

 

[Knightskye]

Here's a snippet for you guys.

FIANCEE: "We had our normal life going. We were out hanging signs for Ron Paul one evening, in January. After hanging signs, we were heading home, and we were at a traffic light when, unfortunately, we were attacked by who they're calling the "victim" in this case. And it's just been an absolutely horrifying year for us ever since."

REPORTER: "But to be fair, another man was killed in front of his wife."

FIANCEE:"That's an absolute tragedy and I feel for her. I absolutely feel terrible for what she must be going through. But when the truth comes out about this whole incident, I think what you'll find is this is a terrible, terrible tragedy, but no crime has been committed. No crime was committed by John."

REPORTER: "So you would say John Stuart (sp?) is not guilty?

FIANCEE: "Not at all, no."

REPORTER: "Why?"

FIANCEE:"He's absolutely, absolutely innocent. Because we were in our car - actually truck. We never left. We were just there in traffic like everybody else, and this person attacked us. I wish I could tell you more, I just have to be careful. We have a great law firm that is handling this case - the law firm of David Cantor (sp?). I just can't go into specific details."

 

[Kalifornia]

So instead of aiming for the arm, shoulder or chest......you point blank the guy in the face?

Doesn't add up.

perhaps you haven't been in a fight in a awhile. I have been in hundreds. in the middle of prying someone off of your face, there really isn't time to think about WHERE You hit them. you just hit them in every target that presents itself until they back up and give you some thinking room. in that situation the head is the biggest and most obvious target.

 

[Time for Change]

http://www.kpho.com/news/15179045/detail.html

Is this the story?
Where are the updates?

Here's another article, er... a series of articles compiled together relating to the events.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=033114

It seems that many of the details are unclear, widly varied witness recollection, and strange variances in police apprehension stories are intended to deliberately cloud the series of events.
Typical media? " Lets report even though we don't know what actually happened."
Sounds about right.

Two people know clearly what transpired, one is dead.
One passenger knows 100% of the story,
the other one was with the drunken guy...was she also impaired?

Add to that a witness claiming that the "Victim" was backing away, hands in the air...yet none of the other people around back that up.
Something's fishy...

 

[Kalifornia]

You are out of your god damn minds. You are equating this man with a police officer?!

actually, when it comes to police, they have a higher duty to protect life than a private citizen does.

YOU are a whackjob. this wasn't just an argument. it was an aggravated assault and battery in progress. the man came after the shooter THROUGH THE WINDOW OF HIS CAR!!! someone trapped in their car has no place to flee to. they are trapped.

an argument is an argument. the person who chooses to escalate that into a violent assault puts his life in the hands of the other. in this case, based even on what little I know, as a juror I would acquit.

when you attack someone, you pay your dollar and get your dance.

 

[Kade]

Good post. This should end the thread. There is nothing left to discuss until more evidence is available.

I agree. I'd like to avoid this philosophical aspects of this for now.