Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun-totin' property owner kills a guy trying to defend his cousin, who urinated on a gravel bar (374 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If I Made the Laws (35+ / 0-)

    I'm in favor of a very simple approach.  If you pull the trigger than you have an absolute obligation to be correct.  If you're wrong then you go to prison no matter what your intent was.  If you thought the other guy had a gun in his pocket but it was really a bag of Skittles then off to prison you go, no matter how much a bag of Skittles in a pocket might look like a gun.  No excuses.

    When you can bring the guy you shot back to life because you made a well-meaning mistake then you can get a break for making a mistake.  Not until.

    •  The other aspect of the problem is relying on (19+ / 0-)

      a gun owner to know what is a felony, without any requirement that they study the law, or demonstrate through proficiency testing that they understand the laws governing defensive gun use.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:10:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good thing you don't make the laws. (0+ / 0-)

      That would be outrageous.  Imagine if a guy was clearly going for a gun, but it turns out the gun wasn't loaded.  I can't use my weapon, even though I have a gun pointed at me?

      •  That Happen a Lot? (8+ / 0-)

        I don't remember any stories at all about people pulling unloaded guns.

        If you want to tinker around the edges I'm fine with talking about close cases, but if you thought it was a burglar and in fact it was your neighbor going home then off to prison you go, no matter whether you can convince a jury that it was "reasonable" to think your neighbor was a burglar or not.

        •  Doesn't have to happen a lot. Just once. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GoGoGoEverton

          Now get yourself a song to sing, and sing it till you're done.

          by JayFromPA on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 04:01:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Funny... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          ...I've heard a lot of stories over the years about someone being robbed by someone with a gun, or someone being shot by the cops because they had a gun, only it turns out later that the gun is a replica, or unloaded, or a pellet gun.

          If you point something that looks like a gun at someone, or is a gun but is not operational, even in non-stand-your-ground states, it would generally be considered self-defense if you pulled your own weapon and shot them dead, no matter what the actual status of the item as a weapon is upon closer examination.

          •  But (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            88kathy, gardoglee, congenitalefty, caul

            Out of 30,000 gun deaths per year only about 300 or less are justifiable homicides by civilians.  Out of that very small number were any of the people shot holding unloaded guns?  If there were one or two that would be a lot, but that hardly balances out the other 30,000 deaths.

            I'm willing to consider recognizing cases where the person shot pulled a gun first, without provocation, and it turns out the gun was unloaded, as an exception, but that is a very tiny fraction of the cases where someone thought they were justified in taking another human life, but they were wrong.

            •  Obama Commissioned CDC to Study Gun Self Defense (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              karlschneider, erratic

              On the low side almost twice as many people defended themselves successfully with a gun than people that used guns illegally.  On the high side 10 times as many people successfully defended themselves.  And the following comes directly out of the CDC report:

              Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

              The explanation of the entire study is here with links to the complete study (which is long and boring).

              http://www.slate.com/...

              See #7

              Also see this perspective:  http://www.canadafreepress.com/...

              The point is -- if I have a gun for defense and know how to use it, I will be safer if attacked.  Period.  And I am more likely to defend myself than be harmed in an attack.

              There is a reason Obama commissioned this report.  He had commissioned a DOJ report to give him an idea of the effectiveness of his various proposals.  The DOJ report said that none of Obama's proposals would work.  And yes you can find it without the yellow highlights added by NRA -- but it is a faster read and they do get credit for using Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of another buried report.

              http://www.nraila.org/...

              I am not a huge conspiracy nut -- but both of these reports are buried, hard to find, only public due to Freedom of Information Act (thank goodness for the 1st amendment), not reported in mainstream media ... and absolutely prove that control laws being proposed won't work and that citizens use guns a lot defensively with better outcomes compared to those without guns.

              I don't know the facts of the MO dispute.  I can say that it seems we have three idiots.  The second that gun came out and two warning shots were fire the prudent thing to do would be to get off that gravel bar and back into the boat and go someplace else (and report the guy).  Not to pick up a rock or rocks and move to grab the guys arm.  If you put three idiots together it is not hard to see someone getting hurt or dead, gun or no gun.

              Since the results were the polar opposite of what Obama wanted it to say, this report has been suppressed (or under reported anyway) in the main stream news and has not been mentioned by Obama in his gun control speeches.  

              •  Kleck's Work is Problematic to Say the Least (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                erratic, Tod

                As has been pointed out repeatedly over the years (and if you look at the report it relies largely on Kleck's work) the estimates by Kleck are based on several problematic assumptions:

                1) People are accurate in their account of what a defensive gun use is.  People tend to present themselves in a more positive light than reality when asked about themselves.  This might mean that they think they actually had a legitimate gun use, but actually didn't.  Cases such as the clown who shot some young men who turned around in his driveway is a recent example--if you asked him he was simply defending himself.  In reality, he was the criminal.  

                2)  People have an accurate view of time.  People don't have accurate time horizons.  When you ask someone about whether something has happened in the recent past, highly emotional events often seem more recent.  I do this all of the time as do most people.  So when Kleck asks about the last year, the events could be any number of years.

                3)  A small sample of rare events leads to an accurate extrapolation of the phenomenon.  The problem being that while he had a sample size of 5,000 for the entire survey, the actual sample of people reporting DGUs was still tiny and especially subject to false positives.  Extrapolating from them ignores that the tiny subsample would have far greater margin of errors.  

                The problem is that there is very little reliable research on DGUs, but by using the numbers as Kleck has, just in reports of actual hitting the perpetrator we would see thousands more perpetrators wounded or killed that simply don't exist in reports by police.  

                The survey of current research relies on what research there is even though that research is clearly flawed.

            •  Seperate (0+ / 0-)

              Of the 30,000 fireearm deaths, about 19,000 of those are suicides (about 10,000 people commit suicide with plastic bags every year)

              That leaves us with a combined (roughly) 11,000 deaths per year combined from police shootings, self defense, criminal activity, and accidents.

              The CDC determined that firearms stopped 498,000 burgleries in 1994. FBI Averages show that firearms are used about 300 justafiable homicides per year.  The NCVS estimates that firearms are used 100,000 times per year for self defense (Save Life, Limb, or prevent rape/assault).
              Based off of the justafiable homicide number, that means simply showing a gun causes the violent offender to run away 99.7% of the time.

              •  Cheating (0+ / 0-)

                If you count the times guns were used in a "good way", but nobody died, and compare them to all the times guns were used in a "bad way", but only count the times where somebody did die, you are cooking the books.

                Putting aside the fact that the statistics relied upon are questionable on their own, and haven't been replicated by anybody else, to get an "apples to apples" comparison you would have to count all the times that guns were used in a "bad way", but nobody died - all the domestic abuse cases where a wife beater waived a gun around but didn't actually kill anybody, all the cases where somebody was shot, but survived, all the robberies, all the rapes, and on and on.  Those obviously add up to a very large number.

                I expect that people only count fatalities, both justified and not, because that's a reasonably large number to extrapolate from and they are better investigated and understood than non-fatalities.  There is certainly no reason to think that non-fatal gun threats skew significantly in favor of "good" threats.

                •  Update (0+ / 0-)

                  Tod, didn't think about that one. Did a bit more research

                  About 11,000 deaths outside of suicide occur each year About 300 of those 11,000 deaths are from justifiable homicide where people defend themselves.
                  Another 350 of those 11,000 deaths are police justifiable homicides.  
                  That means that about 10,350 combined criminal homicides, negligent discharge murders occur each year.
                  Additionally firearms are used in about 456,971 additional crimes (this includes instances where the person had the firearm on/close to them, but did not present it.

                  If we total this, we find the below.
                  We have a total of about 467,321 used in crimes, resulting in about 10,350 murder victims.
                  We have a conservative total of 598,000 times a firearm was used to prevent a crime, resulting in about 300 justifiable homicides.

                  The statistics in the first post are from government institutions. The CDC, and the NCVS by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. I did not use the numbers by Kleck

                  The statistics in the second post are from government institutions. The CDC, the NCVS by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the National Institute of Justice.

                   

                  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                    The report you linked to is not by the CDC.  It's the Institute of Medicine only requested by the CDC.  Per its website:

                    The Institute of Medicine (IOM) is an independent, nonprofit organization that works outside of government to provide unbiased and authoritative advice to decision makers and the public.
                    There's still an "apples/oranges" problem when the report compares reported gun crimes on one side with estimated self defense on the other side.  Limited the gun crimes counted to those reported will understate them, while relying on estimated self defense can lead to overstatement, (the shooter in the case that started this thread would no doubt report the shooting as just such a prevention of other crime as would Zimmerman), or at the very least relying on such estimates and surveys presents a much greater margin of error.

                    If one accepted the data for the sake of argument, I suppose it would be for the proposition that gun possession prevents other crimes.  If that were the case then one would expect that other countries where civilians aren't armed to the teeth would have much higher robbery rates, etc. but that's not the case.  We have higher gun death rates than everybody else, but don't have correspondingly lower robbery rates, or lower rates for any other type of crime supposedly prevented by all those privately owned guns.

                    I also take issue with dismissing all the gun suicides.  One of the problems is that attempted suicides by gun have a dramatically higher "success" rate than other forms of suicide.  Yes, people kill themselves in other ways, but much more often they survive the attempts made other ways and get the help they need.  

                    •  Difficult (0+ / 0-)

                      A simple straight comparison between cultures is difficult.  Suicide for example. about 20,000 people in the US commit suicide each year with handguns (over 50% of suicides are with a firearm). Japan has almost no firearms in civilian hand, yet they have a suicide rate of 22 compared to 12 for America.  UK's Suicide rate, with handguns outlawed, is tied with that of the U.S.

                      UK has twice the contact crime victomization rate as the US
                      http://t2.gstatic.com/...

                      Brazil and Mexico have strict gun control and extreme limits on firearms ownership, yet they have much higher crime and murder rates.

                      Switzerland is well armed, and has among the lowest crime rates in Europe or the world.

                      Here is an interesting link
                      http://www.nationmaster.com/...

                      U.S. Assault rate is less than half of the UK
                      U.S. Rape rate is less than half of the UK(9 W. European countries have a higher rate than the U.S.)

                      Interesting article
                      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

                      Final thought, we should compare homicide rates, not only homicides commited by firearm.

          •  But no one had a gun except Crocker (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SilentBrook

            So, what's the point of the comments about having a gun pointed at you?

            I really think anyone who gets so cranked up over someone peeing is nutso anyhow.

            •  He was nutso, I agree (0+ / 0-)

              the point is that if you meet someone nutso -- with a gun, knife, baseball bat, whatever ... it is prudent to leave and avoid confrontation.  Even if you have a gun, pissing on a sandbar is no reason to shoot someone -- it is prudent to leave.  Many of these cases where a nut job shoots someone also involves someone without the commons sense to de-escalate and leave ... does not make shooting them right, it makes them kind of nutso as well.  If I see someone with a gun protecting his sandbar I'm leaving.  Even though I normally carry a gun for self defense (and have a permit to do so).  

              •  BAC (0+ / 0-)

                of the cousins is lurking in my mind. Pissing is a clue. Picking up rock(s) to defend against a gun waving idiot adds to my suspicions Getting back into the boat would be normal behavior. Another clue. But wait... It is all speculation. That's right, we, none of us, have a clue about what really took place there. None of us were there. None of us have seen a video of it.  None of us will be called for this jury.

                Speculation is accusation.

                Don't do it.

                There is nothing more exciting than the truth. - Richard P. Feynman

                by pastol on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 05:58:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  I know of one such case from my hometown. (0+ / 0-)

          A mentally handicapped man held up a convenience store with a very convincing prop gun (back before they had to have orange tips). He made off with a pastry. When police caught up with him they ordered him to drop the gun and come out from under the porch he was hiding beneath; he did not comply, or not quickly enough, and so they shot him dead. Only then did anyone realize that his gun was a toy.

          "But there's one thing that gives every Marine the willies, and anyone saying otherwise is a liar. Drop pods. That shit is terrifying, son."

          by Shaviv on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 07:58:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Cops (0+ / 0-)

            We were talking about shootings by civilians. Shootings by cops are also a concern, but they are a different issue because cops are hired by the public to carry a gun and intervene in situations like that, screened, trained, and supervised. Contrast that with a civilian like Zimmerman who just decides he wants to be able to kill somebody if it seems like a good idea to him at the time, not hired by the public, with no screening, no training, and no supervision.

            •  Not sure cops are so different in that regard. nnt (0+ / 0-)

              "But there's one thing that gives every Marine the willies, and anyone saying otherwise is a liar. Drop pods. That shit is terrifying, son."

              by Shaviv on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:26:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Cops and gun training (0+ / 0-)

              Most cops have virtually zero training in the use of their firearms...I was an instructor in a fairly large city's police academy, the syllabus on this subject covered one afternoon at the range and a bit of target practice.  Zimmerman did NOT 'decide' to kill someone...if you know he did, you are an accessory to murder for not letting the State know about it...otherwise you have just pulled that opinion out of your ass.

              •  Sure He Did (0+ / 0-)

                Zimmerman didn't drop the gun.  It didn't accidentally go off. Zimmerman wasn't aiming at a paper target and missed.  Zimmerman wasn't cleaning the gun thinking it was unloaded.

                Zimmerman loaded his gun with dum dum bullets, pointed his gun directly at Martin's heart from a few inches away, and pulled the trigger on purpose.  The only question was whether the intentional killing was justified or not, or whether there was at least a reasonable doubt about whether the intentional killing was justified or not.

            •  The only difference between a cop and a civilian (0+ / 0-)

              in that situation is that the cops will have more paperwork to do, but will probably fire slightly sooner.

              If you shoot a guy trying to rob you and he had a 'gun' in his hand, even if that gun turns out upon further investigation to not be a gun, or an inoperable gun, it's pretty much an open-and-shut self-defense case, to the point where you may not even be detained for more than a few hours by the police, even in a duty-to-retreat state, depending on how much evidence there is to back up your story.

              The whole needing-to-be-omniscient thing for a 'good' use of lethal force in self-defense is just bullshit.  "The guy pulled out a gun so I shot him!" "Aah, but he forgot to replace the firing pin when he was cleaning it!  It never would have gone off, even though the guy thought it would have!  MURDERER!"

          •  Seriously? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shaharazade, caul, splashy

            He wouldn't come out so they killed him?  Where was that so I can avoid that state.  Jeebus, you have to look up every friggin' law for every town, municipality, state etc. just to know if it's safe to walk down the street.

            The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

            by Back In Blue on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:11:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  A nice college town in NJ... (0+ / 0-)

              Literally across the river from Rutgers.

              Keep in mind that the cops believed he was armed. It's still a problem but you can understand a bit more  Ofof their motivation.

              "But there's one thing that gives every Marine the willies, and anyone saying otherwise is a liar. Drop pods. That shit is terrifying, son."

              by Shaviv on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:24:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, I can't. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                shaharazade, caul

                They could keep themselves protected, keep the area clear and just wait the dude out while they try to figure out what's really going on with the guy.  Even if he was armed, what would he do?  He'd be killed as soon as he tried anything.  Even the Boston PD managed not to kill that fucker in the boat after all that he did, including actually being involved in a gun/bomb fight with police.

                This is simply fucking lazy, can't be bothered, shoot the asshole with the nerve to question our authority bullshit.

                Unfortunately, I still have to go to NJ because my mother-in-law lives there.  

                The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                by Back In Blue on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 10:03:27 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Because he had a gun... (0+ / 0-)

              ...or at least something that they had to assume was a live, loaded, and ready firearm, because it looked like one.  Plus, the commenter's comment isn't clear on whether he didn't come out or attempted to come out without dropping the weapon.  

        •  Slightly Different (0+ / 0-)

          Slightly Different, but Harrold Fish (from AZ) went to jail for self defense when he defended himself against a crazy guy was running at him with a screwdriver saying he was going to kill Mr. Fish.

          He lost his first trial (and spent 3 years in jail) because the history of insanity of the crazy guy was not admissible, and the screwdriver was not allowed as evidence.

    •  Florida has the reverse (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mark Mywurtz, Praxical, Tamar, caul

      " If you pull the trigger than you have an absolute obligation to be correct.  If you're wrong then you go to prison no matter what your intent was."
      If you're a prosecutor and you prosecute a shooter who claims Stand Your Ground, you have an obligation to be correct. If the shooter's claim is affirmed, you owe the shooter defense/court costs. And the shooter is immune from civil court.
      What constitutes Standing your Ground? It's in the mind/emotional state of the shooter.

      The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

      by deebee on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 03:36:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  which was the benefit of the reasonable retreat (8+ / 0-)

      standard.

      if you were retreating, it became obvious who was the aggressor.

    •  But those skittles are hard! If you had a giant (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tod, shaharazade, a2nite

      one, you could bash someone with it!  And even if you just had little ones....think of all the damage they can do to an hapless gunowner's teeth!

    •  So some idiot decides to do a classroom demo with (0+ / 0-)

      a guy shooting the professor with a starter's pistol.  (Don't laugh - people have done things this stupid in criminal law classes.)

      One of the students kills the fake shooter.

      He should go to jail?

      Does it matter if the killer is an off duty cop?

      Does it matter if he uses a gun, a knife, a chair, or his bare hands?

      •  Has That Happened a Lot? (0+ / 0-)

        You can invent weird scenarios that never happen to make any law look bad, but if a law fairly addresses the facts that really happen 99% of the time that's doing pretty well.

        The point is that if you aren't hired, trained, screened, and supervised, and instead you just appoint yourself as a volunteer who gets to decide who lives and who dies no matter whether anybody else likes it or not then you should at the very least accept a particularly high obligation to be right. If you don't like it then don't appoint ourself as the guy who gets to decide who lives and who dies.

        •  How do you make our current rape laws look bad? (0+ / 0-)

          In general, the law goes wrong when it focuses just on what happened, not what was in the mind of the perp.

          For example, if you have a law against rape it has to be against knowing rape... so if you have something whacky like someone impersonating your girl friend and telling you that she wants you to grab her and rough f--k her while she fights back and screams rape that you prosecute the impersonator but not the guy who thought he was fulfilling his girl friend's fantasy.

          •  Sorry, but that's weak. (0+ / 0-)

            A guy just complies and doesn't know for sure it's his girlfriend?     What would you charge either of them of, complete stupidity?

            The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

            by Back In Blue on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:19:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Shrug... look at the Anthony Weiner texts (0+ / 0-)

              http://thedirty.com/...

              Ask yourself if they had set up a meeting in a hotel room and if he had another session with her where she told him she wanted it hard and rough and that she was going to fight and yell rape but he should just do it whether it would have been reasonable for him to believe it.

              •  Still weak. (0+ / 0-)

                The odds of that scenario happening?  I mean, someone in the room where his actual girlfriend and he set-up a meeting?  Someone would actually have to plan that.  Not sure what point you're trying to make.

                The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                by Back In Blue on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 09:56:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It has happened (0+ / 0-)

                  http://articles.latimes.com/...

                  McDowell later told authorities that he and the woman exchanged instant messages, and she described what she wanted -- "humiliation, physical abuse, sexual abuse," according to investigators -- and gave him her home address.

                  In fact, authorities say, McDowell was communicating with Stipe.

                  On Dec. 11, McDowell allegedly went to the woman's home and forced his way inside. He bound, blindfolded and gagged the 25-year-old woman, then raped her as he pressed a knife to her throat, the affidavit said.

                  Detectives said he told them he thought he was fulfilling her rape fantasy.

                  McDowell was arrested and charged with first-degree sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. Stipe was also arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree sexual assault.

                  ...

                  But as for the alleged rapist, Blonigen said his state of mind would be central to the case. Though jurors must weigh what McDowell believed to be true, they also must consider how a reasonable, objective person would view the situation, he said.

                  •  OK, now you're talking about two different things. (0+ / 0-)

                    First you hypo'd a situation involving a girlfriend, then in the next situation you have a text-loving guy with a problem (and yes, Weiner has a problem) who "knowingly" had sex with a woman without her consent.  The "consent" came from a third-party, not the woman.  That's rape.

                    I don't actually have a real issue with state of mind being considered, but in FL's SYG law the threshold is only the word of the shooter.  In GZ's case (and many others) the jury or judge believed the shooter.  In Alexander's case, the prosecutor did not believe Alexander and she was not allowed to use SYG as a defense.   Entirely subjective, entirely unjust, entirely crappy law.

                    In your scenario's, there's little question who's at fault.

                    The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                    by Back In Blue on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 02:18:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't think you read the case carefully (0+ / 0-)
                      then in the next situation you have a text-loving guy with a problem (and yes, Weiner has a problem) who "knowingly" had sex with a woman without her consent.  The "consent" came from a third-party, not the woman.  That's rape.
                      Obviously knowingly having sex with a woman without her consent is rape.  But in the cases I'm presenting there is at least a reasonable claim by the man who had the sex that he thought he had consent.  If you believe that claim I don't think you can say that he committed rape.  Whether or not the faker who tricked that man can be accused and convicted of rape would depend on the exact wording of the rape statute in the law books.  
                      I don't actually have a real issue with state of mind being considered, but in FL's SYG law the threshold is only the word of the shooter.
                      No.  It is what the shooter could reasonably believe.  It's basically the same as most SYG states, including blue California.
                  •  Not at all surprised (0+ / 0-)

                    the accused rapist would make such a claim.  "I thought it was her fantasy" is just another form of "she was asking for it."  Yeah, OK, some people are into sex that's rougher than the average.  But imitating actual rape...I think a woman would have to be off her rocker to actually desire that.  Oh but wait, right--there's no such thing as rape and women lie about it to get attention, money, etc., because they all actually "want it", all the time.  Silly me, I forgot.

          •  Uh (0+ / 0-)

            Do "but I thought you were Gail" rapes happen more often than "student kills guy doing classroom demonstration" killings, or less?

            You're really reaching with the far-fetched hypotheticals here.

          •  Think you've been watching too much porn. (0+ / 0-)

            For heaven's sake, what a ridiculous example.

            This health care system is a moral atrocity. Dr. Ralphdog

            by AllisonInSeattle on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 11:18:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It has happened (0+ / 0-)

              http://articles.latimes.com/...

              McDowell later told authorities that he and the woman exchanged instant messages, and she described what she wanted -- "humiliation, physical abuse, sexual abuse," according to investigators -- and gave him her home address.
              In fact, authorities say, McDowell was communicating with Stipe.

              On Dec. 11, McDowell allegedly went to the woman's home and forced his way inside. He bound, blindfolded and gagged the 25-year-old woman, then raped her as he pressed a knife to her throat, the affidavit said.

              Detectives said he told them he thought he was fulfilling her rape fantasy.

              McDowell was arrested and charged with first-degree sexual assault, aggravated kidnapping and aggravated burglary. Stipe was also arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree sexual assault.

              ...

              But as for the alleged rapist, Blonigen said his state of mind would be central to the case. Though jurors must weigh what McDowell believed to be true, they also must consider how a reasonable, objective person would view the situation, he said.

    •  Uh (0+ / 0-)

      I am guessing that the skittles is a reference to the Mr. M Mr. Z case.  Did you read the court transcript or the findings?  Here is what was presented in that case. Dispatch asked Mr. Z if he knew where Mr. M was. Mr. Z got out of his car and said he was checking. Dispatch said you don't need to do that, so Mr. Z turned around and walked back toward his car. Mr. M hit Mr. Z in the back of his head. Mr. Z then fell to the ground, and Mr. M mounted Mr. Z.  Mr. M proceeded to hit Mr. Z and slam his head into the concrete. Mr Z then pulled his gun and shot Mr. M.

      This is why the Jury acquitted Mr. Z.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site