West Norman shooting yesterday; shooter was CLEET instructor

[T. MIKE SMITH]

So, you mean all them cowboy shows I've been watching for about 65 years now are not a good place to learn about justice. I've often felt that dirty no good needed gunned down, in tv land anyway. Now I just hope I'm fast enough if I have no choice, and that my choice is correct.

 

[Snattlerake]

So, you mean all them cowboy shows I've been watching for about 65 years now are not a good place to learn about justice. I've often felt that dirty no good needed gunned down, in tv land anyway. Now I just hope I'm fast enough if I have no choice, and that my choice is correct.

Usually in the shoulder and they still used the arm to fight back and the ending is the guy in a sling perfectly normal with no pain whatsoever. Oh, and they are back in form for the next week's shoulder shooting.

 

[Dumpstick]

Generally speaking, no. The jurors are not allowed to do any outside research; they’re only supposed to be evaluating the facts presented to them during the trial.

I was seated on a jury around 2005 for a Federal trial. Multiple felonies, but no murder or physical violence.

The judge gave us these instructions almost verbatim.

 

[dennishoddy]

FWIW, if you've been shot in the chest by a predator, you get a free pass from me to shoot till you're out of ammo, so long as you don't shoot an innocent bystander.

In the video, it appeared he was one handing the pistol out of the drivers side window shooting at the car as it was driving away in traffic. I'm betting he wasn't in full control of the firearm and wasn't aiming, just spraying.

 

[tiasman]

I find it interesting that the court is bringing up escape possibility as a factor in negating self defense, right after acknowledging there is no duty to retreat in state law.

Seems contradictory, and is definitely interesting.

Escape and retreat seem like really similar terms to me.

 

[Shadowrider]

I find it interesting that the court is bringing up escape possibility as a factor in negating self defense, right after acknowledging there is no duty to retreat in state law.

Seems contradictory, and is definitely interesting.

Escape and retreat seem like really similar terms to me.

It's almost as if "Stand your ground" only means "in the case you can't possibly run".
The case cited in the Motion to Dismiss was Allen v. State: 1994
That case was an entirely different scenario where the charge of murder was clearly laid on the aggressor of the event. This case is in the reverse. I don't think this one was 1st degree murder, but a lesser charge was probably appropriate. It's going to depend on what actually happened outside the car and we don't know what occurred yet. If there were fisticuffs going on I just don't see murder in light of the fact that the defendant didn't start it, and he was 20 years older and far less capable than the decedent.

https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/court-of-appeals-criminal/1994/11496.html

But then again, nobody cares what I think and I suspect that Mr. Kottke's goose is cooked.

I found this. Emphasis mine:

Notes on Use

This Instruction is a type of self-defense instruction, but it includes justification for the use of deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to another or the commission of a forcible felony. See also the self-defense instructions in OUJI-CR 8-45 to 8-56, infra. It should be used only if the attack occurred outside of a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle. For instructions if the attack occurred inside a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, see OUJI-CR 8-14 and 8-15, supra.
Committee Comments

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals discussed the "stand your ground" law in Dawkins v. State, 2011 OK CR 1, ¶ 11, 252 P.3d 214, 218. The Court decided that the Legislature intended the law to exclude from the law’s benefit persons who were actively committing a crime, but not persons who had or may have committed a crime in the past. The Court of Criminal Appeals gave the following examples as crimes where the perpetrators would not be allowed to rely on this defense while they were engaged in committing them:"use of an illegal weapon in commission of the homicide, possession of illegal drugs on the premises, or an ongoing assault by the defendant against another person in the residence." Id. The Court of Criminal Appeals also ruled that the Legislature did not intend to prohibit persons who may have committed minor infractions of the law from using the benefit of the right of defense. It gave the following examples of such minor infractions: "persons who are illegally parked or have outdated vehicle registration, have outstanding warrants for minor offenses, or are in arrears with child support payments. We give these examples as a guide to trial courts in exercising their discretion, and are confident that this interpretation of the law implements the Legislature's stated intent." Id.
(2017 SUPP.)

http://okcca.net/ouji-cr/8-15A

 

[Method]

It's almost as if "Stand your ground" only means "in the case you can't possibly run".

To me in this case 'stand your ground' more or less means 'Don't get out of your vehicle unnecessarily' especially when you're packing heat.

 

[PBramble]

To me in this case 'stand your ground' more or less means 'Don't get out of your vehicle unnecessarily' especially when you're packing heat.

Do you actually know how hard it is to shoot from the confines of a car? That's the last place you want to be inf the other guy gets out and has a firearm too.

And if half those zipper heads out there would put down their phone and actually drive their cars, this wouldn't even be a thing. And for Christ's sake people learn how to merge and learn what use the entire merge lane means.

While I'm on that, when you see an emergency vehicle (not a toyota with it's flashers on), you move over OR slow down. Not both.

 

[bigfug]

To me in this case 'stand your ground' more or less means 'Don't get out of your vehicle unnecessarily' especially when you're packing heat.

If you are in your car, its an occupied vehicle, and falls under Castle Doctrine. That changed several years ago to include an occupied vehicle. Previously, it did fall under stand your ground, but the verbiage changed probably 6-8 years ago if not longer. Stand Your Ground would fall cover anything not in home, business, or occupied vehicle. OK is somewhat unique in the fact that both 'laws' are defined under the same statute, rather than separately. So once you remove your self from your vehicle, a whole different set of rules apply. So yes, from a legal standpoint, stay in your car, you've got more protection legally. From a tactical standpoint, its gonna suck.

 

[Method]

If you are in your car, its an occupied vehicle, and falls under Castle Doctrine. That changed several years ago to include an occupied vehicle. Previously, it did fall under stand your ground, but the verbiage changed probably 6-8 years ago if not longer. Stand Your Ground would fall cover anything not in home, business, or occupied vehicle. OK is somewhat unique in the fact that both 'laws' are defined under the same statute, rather than separately. So once you remove your self from your vehicle, a whole different set of rules apply. So yes, from a legal standpoint, stay in your car, you've got more protection legally. From a tactical standpoint, its gonna suck.

Yeah, I can agree that if you are in your car, the castle doctrine part applies. Also agree that once you remove yourself from the vehicle, things change as far as 'stand your ground'. Luckily, in a car, you are also likely to be mobile, which was the case here.