Man Found Not Guilty Of Shooting After "Standing His Ground"

[tRidiot]

Not saying he should have been found guilty....from the beginning my point is he might have avoided the legal trouble if he had not been the first one to introduce a weapon. IF, IF he drew his weapon earlier in the event, before he was getting choked out, as the article states then it could be argued that he was the aggressor...and it's possible that the responding officers and the DA went with that....

Obviously it wasn't as cut and dried as a homeowner innocently being attacked in his own driveway or it wouldn't have played out so long as evidenced by the recent shooting in Chandler.

I see where you're coming from, but if I have 4-6 drunk, aggressive, loud, obnoxious and threatening males in my driveway, I am going to feel threatened. I am going to be in fear of my life or great bodily harm, or that of my family/friends. A single punch can physically kill, and when he took the crack on the head from being tackled, that could have been 'game over' for him.

Just my opinion. If he turned his head and got tackled, he let his guard down too long. I, too, would have been tempted in the situation described to possibly bring a weapon out. It is not a talisman, but it can be used to deter the possibility of physical violence, if it is being threatened.

IMO, he should have paid more attention and plugged the guy who was charging him if he had the chance. Anyone who aggressively charges you when they KNOW you have a deadly weapon at hand is obviously escalating the situation and knows they are risking their own death.

The pepper spray... I don't know where that came into play and what the circumstances were of its use in this instance. To me, pepper spray is more useful to help escape a dangerous situation (aka my wife being attacked in a parking lot) or to buy time to get to a more definitive weapon. Sort of like using a pistol to fight your way to the trunk for your long gun.

Either way, from the sound of it, I am glad this fella made it out eventually, but he certainly didn't come out unscathed.

 

[Shadowrider]

The article does not state his neighbor was being physically attacked at the time he drew his weapon....only that later, when he himself was being attacked, he drew it again and fired. And I did catch the jury rendered a verdict...and I'm convinced he was acting in self defense...but also saying that this could have played out differently, perhaps, if the DA was not able to put a kernel of a doubt into people's heads that he was the aggressor.

Using it as a lessons-learned that fits into the frequent discussion we have on this board about when to draw your weapon...to me this is an example of how things can go wrong if you draw your weapon in an attempt to prevent a fist fight, stop a fist fight, or get yourself out of a fist fight.

Okay point taken. But this brings me back to the comment I made in the other thread. The one about the DA being a retard. Firearms prevent crime in this country every single day without having to be discharged.

I'll give you the fact that in a legal sense, it might not be the most brilliant thing to draw and not fire, but I still don't think you should have to fire. And I agree with you on the fist fight in general, but with 6 guys? He was justified in my mind. Maybe some legislation for restitution to be paid by the county for those falsely prosecuted and/or found not guilty? In SDA and SYG cases?

That is all, carry on......

 

[prdator]

I know the use of Mace was part of a proper escalation of force. I just have to wander if that could have been part of the reason he was arrested?

Also failing the attitude test during the police interview.

In retrospect I’m fairly sure he wished he would have call 911 and reported the vehicles going to fast, and the just being a good witness. Lord knows I’ve had to call a few times and it really makes me feel like handing in my man card!!!

 

[Stephen Cue]

... be in fear of my life or great bodily harm ...

These words right there are very important to concealed carry and I stress them in every class to where its ingrained into their thoughts, but....

This was private property, his dwelling, and the law states that he can use ANY force necessary up to deadly to protect himself and family if someone attacks him no matter how slight the force was used by the agressor.

There has to be more to the story...

 

[Kid Glock]

There's another good thread on this same topic in self defense & ccw.

http://www.okshooters.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75352

 

[SMS]

Okay point taken. But this brings me back to the comment I made in the other thread. The one about the DA being a retard. Firearms prevent crime in this country every single day without having to be discharged.

I'll give you the fact that in a legal sense, it might not be the most brilliant thing to draw and not fire, but I still don't think you should have to fire. And I agree with you on the fist fight in general, but with 6 guys? He was justified in my mind. Maybe some legislation for restitution to be paid by the county for those falsely prosecuted and/or found not guilty? In SDA and SYG cases?

That is all, carry on......

Indeed, retard DAs are part of the landscape and we have no choice but to be mindful of that before we start skinning the smoke wagon...this guy learned that the hard way.

Once the fight was on...I agree, 6 on 1, is a deadly force situation. Just sad it all had to play out like this.

 

[338Shooter]

.....

Hey its their FFL, I understand if they dont want to sell it, but an 18 y/o is allowed to own a handgun, he just cant buy one, transport it, or buy ammo.

.....

IIRC, an 18 year old has every right that a 21 year old does with their handguns. You can take it to the range and whatnot. True you can't buy ammo for it, but I don't remember seeing anything that says an 18 year old can own it but can't transport it.

 

[Stephen Cue]

IIRC, an 18 year old has every right that a 21 year old does with their handguns. You can take it to the range and whatnot. True you can't buy ammo for it, but I don't remember seeing anything that says an 18 year old can own it but can't transport it.

You may recall correctly Dustin in the transport thing, but from what I gather, they cannot. The main point I was stating is that an 18 y/o is legally allowed to own one contrary to what "The donger LEO" believes

Maybe one of our resident LEO's can verify the legality of an 18 y/o transporting one.

 

[338Shooter]

You may recall correctly Dustin in the transport thing, but from what I gather, they cannot. The main point I was stating is that an 18 y/o is legally allowed to own one contrary to what "The donger LEO" believes

Maybe one of our resident LEO's can verify the legality of an 18 y/o transporting one.

I'm not completely sure on it since I'm not in that age group anymore, but I always transported mine when I was there. I was pretty sure I was within the law.

 

[338Shooter]

No code listed, but I found this: http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/a/gunlaws_ok.htm


NRA: http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/OKSL.pdf

§21-1289.7. Firearms in vehicles.
FIREARMS IN VEHICLES
Any person, except a convicted felon, may transport in a motor vehicle a rifle, shotgun or pistol, open and unloaded, at any time. For purposes of this section "open" means the firearm is transported in plain view, in a case designed for carrying firearms, which case is wholly or partially visible, in a gun rack mounted in the vehicle, in an exterior locked compartment or a trunk of a vehicle.
Any person, except a convicted felon, may transport in a motor vehicle a rifle or shotgun concealed behind a seat of the vehicle or within the interior of the vehicle provided the rifle or shotgun is not clip, magazine or chamber loaded. The authority to transport a clip or magazine loaded rifle or shotgun shall be pursuant to Section 1289.13 of this title.
Any person who is the operator of a vehicle or is a passenger in any vehicle wherein another person who is licensed pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1290.1 through 1290.25 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes, to carry a concealed handgun and is carrying a concealed handgun or has concealed the handgun in such vehicle, shall not be deemed in violation of the provisions of this section provided the licensee is in or near the vehicle.