Just finished re-reading the article. This guy is in it DEEP. I wasn’t there and am just going by what the article says. There could very well be MUCH more to this than we know. Read the Zimmerman case as an example of that.
“It is clear from the video that the suspect (Combs) was retreating away from Trotter as Trotter fired his handgun,” the complaint said.
Shots in the back CAN happen and be legal, but with video showing a RETREAT? We don’t shoot to kill, we shoot to STOP, and this guy had voluntarily stopped by retreating.
He spoke openly to police at the scene, saying, “I pull up and he’s by my door.” He added, “I told him, ‘Don’t move,’ he moves, and I let three or four rounds go. I see blood, so I think I hit him. I tried to hit him.”
Comply: Follow all police instructions.
Explain: “I was attacked, feared for my life & had to defend myself.”
Identify: Point out evidence, witnesses, and attacker.
Medical: Request medical attention, if necessary
Silence: “I will cooperate 100%, but first I need my attorney.”
(Do not talk further without your lawyer present.)
This is also not Trotter’s first case of using a firearm. In 2013, he shot and wounded a would-be robber. And while no charges were filed in that case, and it cannot be introduced at trial, there is no doubt a jury will be aware of it.
This older case may very well be re-opened, depending upon the outcome of this case.
Two of Trotter’s shots hit the house across the street.
Know what is in front of and behind your target. Again, I wasn’t there, but he owns the bullets.
Finally, as if all that weren’t enough, a sign by Trotter’s front door reads, “NO TRESPASSING! VIOLATORS WILL BE SHOT. SURVIVORS WILL BE SHOT AGAIN!” If you think that will have no effect on a jury, you are deluding yourself.
You cannot shoot someone just for simple trespassing. And he is plainly saying (meaning it that way or not) that he shoots to KILL, not to stop.