No @Scott52. Ex Parte communication is when side speaks to the judge without the side being present.
2 Likes
I believe you are referring to an instruction given to jurors during a trial. It does not apply here.
1 Like
Thank you for your input @Todd30.
1 Like
6 shots in total
either way still pursued un armed men after threat was over when they ran if he feared for his life why did he pursue they could have killed him and it would have been self defense at that time
That is the standard we are trained to not shoot to kill but to stop the threai. If your assailant goes down you stopped him. But if he is still alive and continuing to engage with what weapon he is using you can continue to try and stop the threat you can’t walk up and put 1 in the head for just in case. That would be excessive force.
4 Likes
@Arash Thank you for your reply, you’re right. I’ve been keeping up with all the input and there’s great input especially Todd30’s. Your client did pretty much everything right defending himself. HOWEVER, “I’m not a lawyer”, on the decision of the judge about the force used was excessive and beyond what was needed may have been the factor on the decision of voluntary manslaughter. I believe you mentioned there was video? Now, what it all boils down to is on 6 shots fired at the attacker. I don’t know what the video shows, BUT, when your client took the self-dense shot at WHAT POINT did the attacker start TO STEP BACK AWAY from your client to turn and move away as shots continued will determine WHEN the THREAT was in play by the attacker when the FIRST SHOTS were fired, and at the TIME FRAME WHEN the attacker started to RETREAT AWAY when the rest of shots were fired thereafter is what’s going to make or break the case. When a threat is delt with and that threat retreats and leaves, one SHOULD NEVER GO AFTER the retreating threat because the chaser becomes the aggressor. That’s how the law sees it. I don’t know, what can I say. Fight hard for your client. You have a tough case, and I’m HOPING the three attackers are charged for attempted assault especially the bottle thrower, and in addition, those 3 attackers SHOULD also take SOME KIND of BLAME for death of their PARTNER IN CRIME. I wish you and your client the best. Good Luck.
2 Likes
All 3 of them would be charged with Murder for the bad guy. Probably plea bargained down to Accessories.
For example 4 people attack someone, and one of the four is killed by Law Enforcement. The remaining 3 would face murder charges, plus whatever additional charges they add
3 Likes
Which is totally irrelevant, that is up to a jury or judge to decide, wherein you state:
Brandishing is illegal.
Another illegal act.
Possibly not, it depends on the circumstances. Once the threat has ended, no more shots are legally allowed - that means threat is neutralized, or has turned and is fleeing.
Poor argument for self defense. We do not attack people because they “might” do something.
These statements make it appear you are baiting us to give you answers that will make it appear we are defending criminal acts. We believe in self-defense, not shooting people because they “might” do something. The last thing we want to do is use our firearms. A firearm is a last resort to defend ourselves and our loved ones.
We do not seek danger, we seek to avoid it. We do not seek to escalate a confrontation, but to de-escalate it or get away. We use situational awareness to avoid situations that our guts are telling us are bad - trust your gut, get away.
Which is why I do not trust the OP and strongly suspect no good - trust your gut, avoid the situtation.
I certainly would not want my defense attorney to be discussing my case on an open forum that anyone on the internet can see and read. Bad attorney or as I have stated BS story to bait us.
[Edit] If he is a lawyer, he could easily have read all of our posts on other threads regarding shooting incidents and learned our opinions on self-defense. It’s not like we hide our views and values. I do not believe his story.
6 Likes
“Reasonable force” is always a subjective standard which, as SCOTUS would say, is dependent upon the “totality of the circumstances.” Kentucky self defense laws allow reads “such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person.” We call this “reasonable force,” although there is no statutory definition of reasonable force.
In the end, what is reasonable is determined by the 12 people, assumed to be reasonable people, who are sitting in the jury box.
Based upon the facts presented, I would not consider the shot count unreasonable. I do see a potential issue with running after and shooting a person who is retreating, although, I cannot per se say it was not reasonable without more information.
I understand the judge saying the force was excessive, but agree with appealing that decision. The fact that there were 4 assailants should also play into that decision, not just the one running away.
9 Likes
in defense to stop the threat once the threat is know longer pursuing is revenge, so if he had enough thought to chase them I don’t see fear for life if the scenario was fear for life once they ran he would have left. chasing unarmed men that’s retreating in any state is attempted manslaughter no if buts or maybes
5 Likes
No the entire scenario, not just the part one wants to see. Someone assaulted with deadly force, responds with deadly force, then doesn’t know when to quit… Just because the beginning of his actions were righteous, doesn’t make the entire event righteous. Once the threat was retreating, it was gone. If it returns, reevaluate and respond accordingly.
4 Likes
Dont forget the extent of the injury, pain, disorientation. Dont you have to factor this in the expectation of reasonable action.
3 Likes
Injury, pain, and disorientation aside…if one feels they are truly defending their life, as in "eye socket shattered, disoriented, visibility effected, other possible unknown injuries already incurred, outnumbered, etc.) Do you see yourself pursuing the suspects? All of the sudden you have all the confidence in the world that you will be the victor because they don’t have guns? That doesn’t seem like fearful of death or grievous bodily harm, that sounds like vengeance. That’s I have a gun and they don’t, so if I catch them, I’ll win. You messed up my pretty face, so I’m going to kill you…
5 Likes
Nope, because I am applying reason. My point was – in his injured condition, was the defendant still capable of reason, or did he revert to fight/flee/freeze reaction hardwired into our subconscience.
5 Likes
Without seeing the video or a getting a lot more details it would be impossible for me to make an informed decision in this case.
If I was a juror I would be carefully viewing the video. I would want to know if the video showed the entire incident from a clear enough angle. Am I sure the defendant wasn’t the instigator of the initial attack? When he started firing how exactly did the four attackers respond? Did they all instantly flee? Did the defendant see his only path of escape as having to go through his target to get away from the rest? How long did it take the defendant to fire those 6 shots? Was it a second or two or did he chase the “victim” for an extended period of time and distance?
As the defendant I would want my lawyer to explain the complexities of a self defense situation to the jury, preferably through some expert witnesses. The fact that even in an ideal defensive situation it takes over a second and more likely several seconds or longer to see and positively determine that the threat has actually ceased and then more time to command your body to stop defending itself. And this was likely not an ideal situation with multiple attackers continuing pursuit. A potentially deadly strike with the bottle that likely impacted vision due to the impact and bleeding not to mention the potential trauma to the brain.
Self defense situations are usually complex and not simple black and white events. Without seeing all the evidence laid out as clearly as possible and without at least a basic understanding of the physical and psychological factors involved in responding to a violent attack it will be tough for the jury to come to an informed and reasonable conclusion.
3 Likes
My definition of reasonable force is using force until I question myself if I have to use force.
Because most states use the standard of “…force necessary to stop the threat” . If they were running away and he’s still shooting then you client is going to spend some time behind bars!
4 Likes
Welcome to the family @Arash and glad to have you here. IMHO reasonable force is the force which any reasonable person would use to end a threat given the same situation or scenario. Any time a prosecutor tries a self defense case he would always ask a jury this question. “Is this what a reasonable person would have done?” Then the person would have to articulate why he used the force which was used. The definition provided by law is the amount of force necessary to defend oneself or one’s property.
5 Likes
@Arash, good luck with your case. Please be careful, as this is a public forum. I wouldn’t want your case compromised.
6 Likes