Disgruntled RJ Pilot Video

[81Horse]

... Only time its "open season" is in your house.

Make da*n sure the body "falls" inside the house. Also, say the intruder woke you from a deep sleep. And/or -- if possible, have a woman do the shooting (or say she did).

(These three helpful tips courtesy of Van Nuys' finest.)

 

[FN FAL]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/apr05/315458.asp

This 64 year-old man was released without charges for the self-defense shooting and was not charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

He had a CCW permit from his home state, however WI does not have CCW nor does it have a "reciprocal" agreement with any other state.

The correlation? Someone mentioned that states don't look at other state's laws when they think about prosecuting someone? I beg to differ, not only did they let this guy go without prosecuting the man for using a concealed weapon in WI, they did so in light of the fact that he was a CCW from another state. Which incidentally sets a precedent that out of stater's have more rights in WI.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=315458


Joyride ends in fatal shooting

Man claims he fired weapon in self-defense

By MARY ZAHN

Four juveniles could face homicide charges after a joyride in a family van ended in the fatal shooting of their cousin in a Milwaukee gas station parking lot, according to a hearing in Milwaukee County Children's Court Monday.

Kendell L. Moss, 20, of Racine died early Sunday, allegedly after trying to rob a 64-year-old man from Arkansas who had stopped at the gas station to ask directions, records show. After being punched and kicked, the man pulled a .44-caliber revolver from under the driver's seat of his car and shot Moss in the head, according to police reports.

"I don't have no money, I'm sick and just got out of the hospital," one of the juveniles quoted the elderly man as saying before he pulled out the gun.
The juveniles - three 16-year-olds and one aged 13, all of whom were unarmed - initially ran from the immediate area of the shooting but quickly returned to see if Moss was alive.

One of them gently picked up Moss' hand and started crying.
That same juvenile called 911 on his cell phone and then ran to another young man in the area who had witnessed the incident and yelled, "Hey, Hey! You got a cannon so I can air him out?"

The witness took that to mean that the juvenile was looking for a gun to shoot the motorist, who had fled into the gas station to wait for police, records show.

Drove to Milwaukee

According to police reports:

Moss and the juveniles drove to Milwaukee early Sunday and were looking for a place to purchase food. When the van they were in broke down near the gas station at N. 13th St. and W. North Ave., they hailed a cab driver in the area and were told a ride to Racine would cost $60.

All of the juveniles, at least three of whom have prior records, gave slightly different accounts of what happened after that, but all said they had no plans to rob anyone. They told police that Moss ended up in a confrontation with the elderly man who was seated in his van. However, one witness said he saw three of the juveniles running toward the man's van, with two others lagging behind.

The district attorney's office has until Wednesday to decide whether the juveniles will be charged with felony murder. Court Commissioner Julia Vosper ordered that they be held in secure detention. The 64-year-old man also was placed under arrest after the shooting, and his case was referred to the district attorney's office, Milwaukee Deputy Police Chief Brian O'Keefe said Monday morning during a news briefing.

 

[geojet707]

Its right here
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/crazyguy.html

Translation:

F*#%@ing crew planning!

 

[T-prop]

911 dispatcher- "You shot and killed a gang member? Oh, that's just a $15 fine, you can mail that in."

 

[NuGuy]

Actually, you are correct, in most states that would be a legal requirement. However, this is a perfect example of where the new Florida law would be used; the one where you don't have to retreat.

Oddly enough, the much anticipated (by the left and the gun control freaks) shoot-outs in Florida have yet to materialize. But I sure see A LOT fewer creepy people wandering around my neighborhood.

Same argument was used in Minnesota when they passed their CCW law (which still amazes me to this day...I swear that whole state is run by a politburo somewhere underground in St.Paul). Nothing bad seems to have happened there, either.

Yet you see complete criminal meltdowns in normally hospitiable places like Australia when draconian laws are passed. Paging Captain Obvious....

But what really torques me is when I see some phony baloney "celebrity" type railing for gun control when they have a 325lb side of beef shadowing their every move packing an Uzi. Hypocrites, every last one of them. A pox on them.

Nu

 

[FN FAL]

Im guessing "serious bodily harm" IS NOT in there.

you have to consider your life to be in danger.....and shooting from the inside of your car when you have not been struck by anything may just be a slam dunk for the most ametuer prosecutor.

Nope, you don't have to take a golf club to the head until your dead, before you can use deadly force. All you have to prove is that your attacker raised the golf club over their head and was intending to harm you with it.

If it truely was "justifiable homicide" there are many levels of discretion built into the criminal justice system. Those levels of discretion mean that you most likely wont even see a jury, if you were righteous in your actions in the first place. In the original video, there was evidence enough that a prosecutor wouldn't have pushed the case in front of judge.

Here's Wisconsin's take on "justifiable homicide" and other homicides as well...

Mays Law Office, LLC​

5944 Seminole Centre Court, Suite 200
Madison, Wisconsin 53711
Phone: (608) 257-0440
Toll-free: 1-866-257-0440
Fax: (608) 257-0441
Email: [email protected]

The law provides a distinct category for what are viewed as being 'serious crimes' by legal definition. A 'serious crime' carries a felony charge, with penalties that include imprisonment at a state or federal penitentiary; the crimes usually involve recklessness, malice, or negligence.
​

Homicide

Homicide charges are categorized as a serious crime because of the circumstances of the crime. Whenever one person causes the death of another person, a homicide has been committed.

A person is charged with Criminal Homicide when the facts apparent to the policing authorities indicate that the person killed another person with a criminal state of mind, meaning with intent, premeditation, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence.

A Deliberate Homicide charge indicates that the police believe the homicide to have been purposely or knowingly committed.

An Excusable Homicide charge indicates that the police believe that the homicide was committed by accident or misfortune by a person doing lawful acts by lawful means with usual and ordinary caution, but without any unlawful intent.

Justifiable Homicide indicates that the homicide was committed in self-defense, or in the defense of another person, especially a member of one's own family, or in the defense of the person's residence, or to prevent a felony, especially if the felony would have caused great bodily harm, or in performing a legal duty. Such charges are justified and excused under the law, with no criminal punishment imposed.

A Negligent Homicide charge indicates the belief that the homicide was committed by a person acting criminally negligent (i.e., Ordinary Negligence to a higher degree).

Reckless Homicide charges indicate that the person committing the homicide did so during reckless acts.

Vehicular Homicide is charged when it is believed that that the homicide was committed by the use of a motorized vehicle, such as a car, plane, or boat.

 

[satpak77]

Killing in self-defense is JUSTIFIED

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec200

NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:
1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and
2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.
[1911 C&P § 137; RL § 6402; NCL § 10084]

1) Is satisfied due to inability to flee the harm of the swinging sledgehammer/tool due to traffic conditions. This swinging sledgehammer could cause great bodily harm should it impact someone's head or critical areas.

2) Is satisfied because the person who should have been run-over was the assailant, period. The "or" criteria is not needed since the first condition is satisfied, however in this particular situation, the slayer (the PT Cruiser driver) had attempted to escape. Unknown are possible verbal commands to stop the attack. Nonetheless, this "or" criteria is not required by law since the first condition is met.

In addition, this individual possibly could be charged with violating the Federal Car Jacking statue, 18 USC 2119

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=2119&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002119----000-.html

 

[blzr]

I WOuld Rather Be Tried By 12 Than Carried By 6!!!!!

gangland-be AfrAid, Be Very Afraid

 

[fartknocker]

Here's what Texas law says:

PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person
in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in
using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate
the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the
property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable
property by another is justified in using force against the other when
and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately
necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor
uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession
and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right
when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force,
threat, or fraud against the actor.
PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime
from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by
any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial
risk of death or serious bodily injury.

 

[B-J-J Fighter]

What aaaa, I'm not even going to say it. I would have got out pepper sprayed (got it from my buddy thats a cop) him and then introduced him to my L'town Slugger.