Ron Paul supporter attacked and then charged with murder!!

[hopeforamerica]

In AZ, one of our faithful supporters was out hanging sings in January. A drunk driver tried to drag him out of his car and attacked him. The rest of the details have not come out, but the attacker was killed. Now our supporter has been charged with murder! Please see this video interview of his fiance:

http://www.azfamily.com/video/3tvextra-index.html?nvid=242351

[belian78]

is there a written story about this? cant view the vid at work.

[MelissaWV]

I can't view the vid either... a drunk driver tried to pull a man out of his car huh? Then he wasn't driving, or...? I'm confused at the scenario. How was the supporter hanging signs when he was in his car, and how was someone a drunk driver when they weren't in their car, and who was killed and.... what happened again? :confused:

[yongrel]

Until we know the whole story, I'm reserving judgment.

[slamhead]

It is legal to carry a firearm in your car in AZ given it is in plain sight. I venture a guess that this man protected his 1st with his 2nd.

[rprprs]

I can't view the vid either... a drunk driver tried to pull a man out of his car huh? Then he wasn't driving, or...? I'm confused at the scenario. How was the supporter hanging signs when he was in his car, and how was someone a drunk driver when they weren't in their car, and who was killed and.... what happened again? :confused:

Melissa,

Per the vid, the supporter and his girlfriend HAD been out hanging signs and were driving home when they were attacked by the drunk driver. The vid gives no reason WHY they were attacked. A LOT more info is needed.

[zadrock]

This happened back in January. Whether the attack is related to him being a Ron Paul supporter is unclear.

the fiancee spoke a lot about the torture that the inmates undergo at the hands of the guards. Apparently, the inmates are made to suffer from oxygen deprivation before court appearances. If true, this is completely outrageous!

Z

[RonPaulGuyEastWA]

I can't view the vid either... a drunk driver tried to pull a man out of his car huh? Then he wasn't driving, or...? I'm confused at the scenario. How was the supporter hanging signs when he was in his car, and how was someone a drunk driver when they weren't in their car, and who was killed and.... what happened again? :confused:

I watched the video. They were out hanging Ron Paul signs. After they were done, they were driving home and stopped at a stop light. At that light, a road-raged drunk driver got out of his car and tried to attack the guy and drag him out of his car. At that point, deadly force was used by the man to protect himself from the drunk attacker.

Of course we don't know all the facts, but it sounds justified to me. Self-defense should never be a crime.

The most interesting part of the video is the lady describing how in the jail they put 90+ inmates in a small sealed room and don't open the door until they start running out of oxygen. Apparently this is a tactic before suspects appear in court. The lack of oxygen for extended periods of time makes them confused and makes them appear "not all there" in court.

[Primbs]

Some have said it is better to be tried by a jury of your peers than to be carried to your grave by six friends.

We still have the right of self defense.

[JMann]

In AZ, one of our faithful supporters was out hanging sings in January. A drunk driver tried to drag him out of his car and attacked him. The rest of the details have not come out, but the attacker was killed. Now our supporter has been charged with murder! Please see this video interview of his fiance:

http://www.azfamily.com/video/3tvextra-index.html?nvid=242351

this summary is written by a public school grad.

[hopeforamerica]

this summary is written by a public school grad.

Gee, thanks for your support. Do you think that I may be a little outraged that one of my fellow supporters is going through this? This is why I posted the video link for your reference.

[JMann]

I'm 100% supporter of the second amendment. With that said, if you are actually stupid enough to carry a gun you better damn well not use it unless someone else pulls a gun on you.

If someone is threating to kick your ass this does not give you the right to use deadly force. We don't know the facts of this case but it appears like this guy is the reason the gun control people have an argument that people listen to.

[hillertexas]

I'm 100% supporter of the second amendment. With that said, if you are actually stupid enough to carry a gun you better damn well not use it unless someone else pulls a gun on you.

If someone is threating to kick your ass this does not give you the right to use deadly force. We don't know the facts of this case but it appears like this guy is the reason the gun control people have an argument that people listen to.

Granted we don't know the facts, but I doubt the drunk driver was like "I'm gonna kick your ass". The RP supporter might have truly thought the lives of himself and his girlfriend were at risk. For example, let's say the girlfriend was alone in their house at night and an unarmed intruder enters. He busts is the bedroom door where she is. She has a gun and shoots the intruder. Can she be charged with murder if his intention was just to rape her? How is the attackee supposed to know the intention of the attacker? How is the attackee supposed to know if the attacker has a gun or not? It seems to me that if the attackee believes his/her life is in danger, any force (deadly included) is justified as self defense.

Maybe I'm not getting it because I live in Texas ... different laws?

[RonPaulGuyEastWA]

I think I'll reserve further judgement until more facts come out. Appearances aren't everything but this video has a picture of the suspect and he doesn't look like an angel to me.

http://www.abc15.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=5a6cde3f-3314-4ce5-873d-204d9cb4db81

According to that story (the dead man's wife's side), both men got out of their cars after an altercation and one guy shot the other in the face then fled in his car. He was followed by witnesses and apprehended quickly.

The story at http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2008/04/10/20080410stuart0410.html gives some more clarification. Witnesses said the drunk driver reached into Stuart's car to grab him prior to being shot. The drunk driver had a BAC of .19. This story also says Stuart was re-arrested after filing "false documents" but it appears he filed a document that he prepared himself instead of his attorney and that means it's "false." I had trouble following the logic but that's what I got out of it.

Narrative from his meetup group is at http://ronpaul.meetup.com/7/calendar/7883084/ .

[dannno]

Maybe I'm not getting it because I live in Texas ... different laws?


:D

[pinkmandy]

this summary is written by a public school grad.

Be that as it may, what good comes of criticizing the education of other RP supporters? None. Not many kids were given a choice in how or where they were educated. Some of us have been out of public school long enough to educate ourselves. Others have not. Year by year the schools have gotten worse. The lack of education hole I had to dig myself out of wasn't as deep as some more recent graduates. That isn't their fault so give them some time. Kindly suggesting some reading material would be more productive than making fun.

In the end, we are all at different places on our own paths. We're ALL a work in progress.

[Kade]

this summary is written by a public school grad.

Reading a home school friendly newspaper?

Reading into the articles, including this (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/15/20080415stuart0415.html)and this (http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/Phoenix_local_news_050508_road-rage-supporters.d171acab.html), I'm going to take the John Adams route here and proclaim this as inane manslaughter, bordering on outright murder.

"Stuart shot Beasley once in the forehead, fled the scene and was arrested shortly afterward."

Innocent men don't run. Right. I'm not supporting this clown.

[LibertyOfOne]

The man should not have initiated force against someone. When someone does that they give up all their rights. Going by the video it was not a mere threat of force, but actual force.

[JMann]

Granted we don't know the facts, but I doubt the drunk driver was like "I'm gonna kick your ass". The RP supporter might have truly thought the lives of himself and his girlfriend were at risk. For example, let's say the girlfriend was alone in their house at night and an unarmed intruder enters. He busts is the bedroom door where she is. She has a gun and shoots the intruder. Can she be charged with murder if his intention was just to rape her? How is the attackee supposed to know the intention of the attacker? How is the attackee supposed to know if the attacker has a gun or not? It seems to me that if the attackee believes his/her life is in danger, any force (deadly included) is justified as self defense.

Maybe I'm not getting it because I live in Texas ... different laws?

These are all things you think about PRIOR to deciding to carry a gun. You best be damn well justified in using deadly force. The government uses the death penalty in very rare cases and if you as an individual decide to carry out the death penalty you better make sure the t's are crossed and the i's dotted.

In my part of the country we had a guy shoot a kid after the kid broke into the garage. When the homeowner confronted the guy the criminal ran. The man shot the intruder in the back as he was running away. This isn't self defense.

I support anyone that wants to carry a gun but the right to carry a gun means that you should fully understand that you should never use it unless you life is in immediate danger.

The kid in this story may be found to be justified in using his weapon. He may also be the kind of people that joke about not ever f'ing with him cause bust a cap in your ass.

Sad case I'm sure for everyone. The shooter's life will never be the same and the drunk guy that got the death penalty for public intoxication isn't around no more.

[Dave39168]

More info is needed. Could have been self defense. I know in Mississippi we have a "castle doctrine" and it applies to one's home as well as their vehicles. If you are attacked in your "castle" deadly force is justified. Why would the guy flee the scene though, that is not a good sign. If he felt he had broke no laws he should have waited on the law to arrive instead of driving home. A BAC of .19 shows the other guy was pretty trashed though and I bet his wife was too since he was driving her. So wife's account could lack credibility based on that. More info is definately needed here.

[JMann]

The RP supporter might have truly thought the lives of himself and his girlfriend were at risk.

Maybe I'm not getting it because I live in Texas ... different laws?

Sorry about the public school comment- The summary didn't make any sense, just a little fun...

Much of my family is from Texas and these are the very people I would last want to be carrying a gun and most do.

If you take someone's life you better KNOW you life is at risk not THINK your life is a risk. If we all went around killing people that we think may be a danger to us there would be a piles of dead people all over the place.

[LibertyOfOne]

Sorry about the public school comment- The summary didn't make any sense, just a little fun...

Much of my family is from Texas and these are the very people I would last want to be carrying a gun and most do.

If you take someone's life you better KNOW you life is at risk not THINK your life is a risk. If we all went around killing people that we think may be a danger to us there would be a piles of dead people all over the place.

When someone puts their arms on another with the intent to harm they shouldn't expect to live through the altercation. Any action taken to resolve the situation is justifiable.

[RonPaulVolunteer]

Personally I have no pity on drunk drivers. I am 34 and have NEVER driven drunk, period. And I am no teetotaler. There is no excuse. A drunk behind the wheel IS a loaded gun. If he was drunk driving and then got out of his car to pick a fight, then it sounds like the sort of a-hole that got everything he deserved.

[hillertexas]

When someone puts their arms on another with the intent to harm they shouldn't expect to live through the altercation. Any action taken to resolve the situation is justifiable.

+1

The fact that the person you are trying to mug might have a gun is a BIG deterrent. If the criminal knows that he is risking his life for that purse, maybe less people would be mugged. I moved to Texas from St. Louis. In St. Louis, the population at large was not armed and crime thrived. I feel much safer in Texas where my fellow citizens are armed as well as the criminals.

Do you think this guy's house got looted during Katrina?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/2470675789_fe433d98e8.jpg?v=0

[hopeforamerica]

+1

The fact that the person you are trying to mug might have a gun is a BIG deterrent. If the criminal knows that he is risking his life for that purse, maybe less people would be mugged. I moved to Texas from St. Louis. In St. Louis, the population at large was not armed and crime thrived. I feel much safer in Texas where my fellow citizens are armed as well as the criminals.

Do you think this guy's house got looted during Katrina?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3253/2470675789_fe433d98e8.jpg?v=0

That picture is priceless!

[qh4dotcom]

Looks like this wouldn't have happened if the guy who was attacked would have kept his car door locked. I really feel sorry for the guy and his wife.

Since I have Ron Paul bumper stickers on my car, I am going to be extra cautious from now on.

[Ninja Homer]

Reading a home school friendly newspaper?

Reading into the articles, including this (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/04/15/20080415stuart0415.html)and this (http://www.azfamily.com/news/local/stories/Phoenix_local_news_050508_road-rage-supporters.d171acab.html), I'm going to take the John Adams route here and proclaim this as inane manslaughter, bordering on outright murder.

"Stuart shot Beasley once in the forehead, fled the scene and was arrested shortly afterward."

Innocent men don't run. Right. I'm not supporting this clown.

Just because he left the scene doesn't mean he's guilty. Personally, I would have left the scene as well. You don't know who else is in the vehicle, or if they have a gun. Granted, I wouldn't have driven home... that's just stupid. Drive a block or 2 and call the police on a cell phone, or drive to the nearest pay phone.

You know gun laws have gone too far when you no longer have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. YOU are the first line of defense of your life, liberty, and property... police and laws are second to that. If every thief expected the home owner had a gun and expected they'd get shot during their crime, there'd be a lot less crime.

I heard of a case a couple years ago where a thief broke into somebody's home, grabbed a stack of electronics, and was on his way out when he was confronted by the homeowner with a pointed gun. The homeowner shot the thief in the leg, called 911, and the police and an ambulance carried him away. The thief was sentenced with some jail time.

In a just country, that'd be the end of the story. Well, the thief then filed a lawsuit against the homeowner that shot him in the leg. The thief won his case, and the homeowner was ordered to pay him half a million dollars. Moral of the story; if somebody breaks into your home, and you want to practice your right to defend your life, liberty, and property, you better unload your weapon in their chest.

[Kalifornia]

I'm 100% supporter of the second amendment. With that said, if you are actually stupid enough to carry a gun you better damn well not use it unless someone else pulls a gun on you.

If someone is threating to kick your ass this does not give you the right to use deadly force. We don't know the facts of this case but it appears like this guy is the reason the gun control people have an argument that people listen to.


You have the right to use your weapon to defend yourself any time a reasonable person would fear for their life or grave bodily injury. When threats escalate into a physical assault, thats when I, as a reasonable person, consider myself to be at risk of grave bodily injury. You seem to think that unarmed assaults are not dangerous?

[pinkmandy]

You have the right to use your weapon to defend yourself any time a reasonable person would fear for their life or grave bodily injury. When threats escalate into a physical assault, thats when I, as a reasonable person, consider myself to be at risk of grave bodily injury. You seem to think that unarmed assaults are not dangerous?


I agree with that. Speaking from a female perspective, a penis can be a weapon. And damn straight someone who uses it as such deserves a bullet.

I know that's going off on a tangent a bit but not really...if someone is bigger and stronger than you then a gun may be needed.

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

These are all things you think about PRIOR to deciding to carry a gun. You best be damn well justified in using deadly force. The government uses the death penalty in very rare cases and if you as an individual decide to carry out the death penalty you better make sure the t's are crossed and the i's dotted.

In my part of the country we had a guy shoot a kid after the kid broke into the garage. When the homeowner confronted the guy the criminal ran. The man shot the intruder in the back as he was running away. This isn't self defense.

I support anyone that wants to carry a gun but the right to carry a gun means that you should fully understand that you should never use it unless you life is in immediate danger.

The kid in this story may be found to be justified in using his weapon. He may also be the kind of people that joke about not ever f'ing with him cause bust a cap in your ass.

Sad case I'm sure for everyone. The shooter's life will never be the same and the drunk guy that got the death penalty for public intoxication isn't around no more.

as my CPL instructer put it, "You can't pull out your gun and blast someone just because you're afraid of getting a black eye in a fight."

[phixion]

Plenty of people die from being punched once and hitting their head on the ground. It's happened a few times in my city in the last year. Others have escaped with brain damage.

Personally I might spray a would-be attacker in the face with a legal substance and then kick them in the testicles until they're unable to continue an attack on me, cannot move and are crunched up in sheer agony. With any hope they would be rendered infertile and will experience pain each and every days for months in their sensitive region.

Frankly I would rather not give the police a chance to pin a crime on me at all (that's their only job nowadays - they don't care who the real victim is, they've got targets to reach) therfore it's likely I would just leave the scene if I had the oppertunity.

Pete

[Ninja Homer]

Plenty of people die from being punched once and hitting their head on the ground. It's happened a few times in my city in the last year. Others have escaped with brain damage.

Personally I might spray a would-be attacker in the face with a legal substance and then kick them in the testicles until they're unable to continue an attack on me, cannot move and are crunched up in sheer agony. With any hope they would be rendered infertile and will experience pain each and every days for months in their sensitive region.

Frankly I would rather not give the police a chance to pin a crime on me at all (that's their only job nowadays - they don't care who the real victim is, they've got targets to reach) therfore it's likely I would just leave the scene if I had the oppertunity.

Pete

Depending on where you live, you could be sued for the awful thing you did to the poor innocent person who attacked you, and become an indentured servant to them for the rest of your life.

[JMann]

When someone puts their arms on another with the intent to harm they shouldn't expect to live through the altercation. Any action taken to resolve the situation is justifiable.

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of the value of life. You actually said that if someone puts a hand on me I'll kill them. I'm afraid this is the kind of attitude the guy in the story had and if he had predetermined that he would kill anyone that bothered him he should be charged with murder.

I hope for his sake and his families this was a case of self-defense.

[Oyate]

First of all, congratulations to all of you who didn't "rush to judgment" in this case. Just because he's a Paul supporter doesn't get him (or anyone) blanket defense.

But it so happens I know this guy. I've talked to him on the phone a number of times, exchanged emails and I've met him and his lovely fiancee in person. I know what I've read in the papers and I know John's side of the story. I'm personally inclined to believe John, but it's kind of irrelevant what I believe.

The important thing here is to try and see that he gets a fair trial. Let the truth be told and let the court act accordingly. I encourage you to follow this story and if it looks like he's getting rail-roaded, that's an affront to all Americans regardless.

[RonPaulFever]

How do you shoot someone in the forehead in self-defense? :rolleyes:

I hope to god the national media doesn't run with this....

[ThomasJ]

If you break into my house, I will end your life.
If you attempt to assault my loved ones in my car, I will end your life.
If you attempt to steal my car with no one in it I will call the police.

When it comes to my family or myself there is no second chances, you will die before I let anyone harm my family legal or illegal. End of story.

[pinkmandy]

If you break into my house, I will end your life.
If you attempt to assault my loved ones in my car, I will end your life.
If you attempt to steal my car with no one in it I will call the police.

When it comes to my family or myself there is no second chances, you will die before I let anyone harm my family legal or illegal. End of story.


^^^^^

I agree. This guy wasn't just fighting off a drunk. He was also fighting to protect his fiancee. Should said drunk have beat up the guy and the guy couldn't get off the ground...what may have happened to the fiancee?

I'm just raising questions, not passing judgment either way.

[rathskeller]

Some have said it is better to be tried by a jury of your peers than to be carried to your grave by six friends.

We still have the right of self defense.


I don't know what happened here, as no one here does, so I can't say specifically...however, what people always leave out is that people have a right to REASONABLE self defense. Just becuase someone attacks you, or hits you or whatever does NOT give you free reign to kill them. The defense must match the offense. So if someone is punching you, you can hit him back.

You have the right to protect yourself from further harm. That is all.

[angelatc]

I don't know what happened here, as no one here does, so I can't say specifically...however, what people always leave out is that people have a right to REASONABLE self defense. Just becuase someone attacks you, or hits you or whatever does NOT give you free reign to kill them. The defense must match the offense. So if someone is punching you, you can hit him back.

You have the right to protect yourself from further harm. That is all.

So you're saying that if someone shoots you, only then can you can return fire?

[phixion]

I don't know what happened here, as no one here does, so I can't say specifically...however, what people always leave out is that people have a right to REASONABLE self defense. Just becuase someone attacks you, or hits you or whatever does NOT give you free reign to kill them. The defense must match the offense. So if someone is punching you, you can hit him back.

You have the right to protect yourself from further harm. That is all.

And what if they posess far superior strength, are un-hinged or are simply more capabable of harming you than you are of fending against them?

This man may of been right to draw his gun and tell the would-be attacker to "STOP/RETREAT OR I WILL SHOOT YOU" - the man may of carried on trying to attack him and thus took a bullet in his head AFTER he was warned or KNEW of the consequences of continuing to advance toward him.

Please. Physical confrontations are so unpredictable you cannot simply say 'If he's using his fists you should only use yours' - that's a crock. Use whatever means you have available to fend the guy off you. If you have a gun, draw it and warn him to back off. If he doesn't back off, what's wrong with putting a slug in him, exactly?

Pete

[Kalifornia]

Plenty of people die from being punched once and hitting their head on the ground.

My best friend in college killed somone in self defense in just this manner. Of course it didnt help that the ambulance took 4 hours to get there.

[Kalifornia]

I agree with that. Speaking from a female perspective, a penis can be a weapon. And damn straight someone who uses it as such deserves a bullet.

I know that's going off on a tangent a bit but not really...if someone is bigger and stronger than you then a gun may be needed.

Even if they *arent* bigger or stronger than you, you should probably draw to keep them from drawing it for you. If you are carrying, they can take your gun. If you arent carrying, you dont know what kind of weapon they have. Many people have been stabbed to death in a fight you otherwise would think is just wrestling around.

[Kalifornia]

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of the value of life. You actually said that if someone puts a hand on me I'll kill them. I'm afraid this is the kind of attitude the guy in the story had and if he had predetermined that he would kill anyone that bothered him he should be charged with murder.

I hope for his sake and his families this was a case of self-defense.

Note, he said 'with the intent to do harm'. I think a society where any assault could be met with deadly force would be a much more polite society.

Although in most states the standard for deadly force is if a reasonable person would be in fear of their life or grievous injury. This is fair, and represents a respect for life that a dumbass attacker doesnt even have for himself.

[Kalifornia]

How do you shoot someone in the forehead in self-defense? :rolleyes:

I hope to god the national media doesn't run with this....

they reach in through your car window and try to pull you out rhough it?

[RonPaulFever]

they reach in through your car window and try to pull you out rhough it?

So instead of aiming for the arm, shoulder or chest......you point blank the guy in the face?

Doesn't add up.

[hopeforamerica]

So instead of aiming for the arm, shoulder or chest......you point blank the guy in the face?

Doesn't add up.

There was a struggle. Hard to aim? We don't know all the facts, but bottom line is, this guy deserves a fair trail.

[Ninja Homer]

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of the value of life. You actually said that if someone puts a hand on me I'll kill them. I'm afraid this is the kind of attitude the guy in the story had and if he had predetermined that he would kill anyone that bothered him he should be charged with murder.

I hope for his sake and his families this was a case of self-defense.

Seriously, think about this for a minute. This is real life, not the movies. I'm a pro-linebacker sized guy. If I landed a solid punch to your head or your neck, I don't care how big you are, there's a chance you could die. If you didn't die from that one punch, there's a very good chance you'd be knocked out, not able to breathe, or incapacitated in some other way.

There you are, hardly able to think, let alone grab your gun, with your fiancee in the seat next to you. You should have pulled out your gun before I punched you.

A gun is the great equalizer. Once you pull out a gun, if the other person is in the right state of mind, they'll back off, and that's the end of the conflict.

Obviously, we don't have all the facts yet, so this is just a complete guess at one possible scenario. They are arguing, and the drunk guy gets out of his vehicle and starts to approach the other guy's truck. The guy in the truck pulls out his gun. The drunk guy doesn't stop, and tries to open the door of the truck and pull the guy with the gun out. The guy with the gun shoots the drunk guy.

If that's what happened, I'd definitely call it self-defense.

A blood alcohol level of .19 is huge. I have a breathalyzer, and I've tested it thoroughly. At .19, I wouldn't recommend trying to climb a flight of stairs, let alone driving. His eyesight may have been so blurry that he didn't see the gun, or he just wasn't in the right state of mind to have the sense to leave the guy with the gun alone.

In my state (MN) whoever served him that much alcohol and let him drive would probably be found at fault and get a huge fine for something like this (not that I agree with that law).

We won't know what happened until the facts are out, but it kind of already looks like they are trying to railroad him.

[benny215]

I'm 100% supporter of the second amendment. With that said, if you are actually stupid enough to carry a gun you better damn well not use it unless someone else pulls a gun on you.

If someone is threating to kick your ass this does not give you the right to use deadly force. We don't know the facts of this case but it appears like this guy is the reason the gun control people have an argument that people listen to.


once a guy puts his hands on you, there's no way to tell what he's capable of and where he will stop. when you attack someone else you lose all sympathy from me for what happens to you.

maybe he should have thought about the consequences before he got out of his car and assaulted the other guy.

[hopeforamerica]

For anyone that wants to help this guy defend himself in court with a good attorney:

http://johnstuartselfdefensefund.chipin.com/john-stuart-self-defense-fund

[Ninja Homer]

I don't know what happened here, as no one here does, so I can't say specifically...however, what people always leave out is that people have a right to REASONABLE self defense. Just becuase someone attacks you, or hits you or whatever does NOT give you free reign to kill them. The defense must match the offense. So if someone is punching you, you can hit him back.

You have the right to protect yourself from further harm. That is all.

OK, a very angry, 6' 6", 300 lb ninja, who may or may not have a gun, knife, crowbar, or sword behind his back, is about 10' away coming towards you and wants nothing more than to make your face look like a pile of bloody cream-of-wheat. You are in your car with the window down, fiancee sitting next to you, pretty much defenseless to this over-sized, over-skilled ninja except you have a gun in the glove compartment.

Do you pull out your gun?

If not, game over, you lose.

If you do pull out your gun, and the giant ninja keeps coming at you anyway, do you shoot?

If not, game over, you lose.

[frdmrdr]

Speaking from a female perspective, a penis can be a weapon. And damn straight someone who uses it as such deserves a bullet.




Use a penis, go to jail.

Is there a concealed penis law in Arizona?

[BarryDonegan]

I'm 100% supporter of the second amendment. With that said, if you are actually stupid enough to carry a gun you better damn well not use it unless someone else pulls a gun on you.

If someone is threating to kick your ass this does not give you the right to use deadly force. We don't know the facts of this case but it appears like this guy is the reason the gun control people have an argument that people listen to.

This is not necessarily true. it depends on what level of threatening is going on and who is saying it.

If someone the size of jesse ventura is threatening a 90 pound woman with death by beating, it would be quite reasonable for her to apply deadly force.

[pinkmandy]

Use a penis, go to jail.

Is there a concealed penis law in Arizona?

Are you saying that a woman being threatened w/rape should not use a gun to defend herself? She should just wait until the assault is over (and hope worse than rape doesn't happen) and call the police so the rapist can go to jail? Seriously, is that what you are advocating?

Oh, and welcome to the forums.

[frdmrdr]

Are you saying that a woman being threatened w/rape should not use a gun to defend herself? She should just wait until the assault is over (and hope worse than rape doesn't happen) and call the police so the rapist can go to jail? Seriously, is that what you are advocating?

Oh, and welcome to the forums.

Thanks. I was just joking.

But it seems to me that if you feel threatened and pull a gun, that should serve as a warning to the person that you want to be left alone.

If the person continues toward you, I would think that deadly force is justified, because the person might be trying to grab your weapon and use it against you.

[constituent]

When someone puts their arms on another with the intent to harm they shouldn't expect to live through the altercation. Any action taken to resolve the situation is justifiable.

+1

[pinkmandy]

Thanks. I was just joking.

But it seems to me that if you feel threatened and pull a gun, that should serve as a warning to the person that you want to be left alone.

If the person continues toward you, I would think that deadly force is justified, because the person might be trying to grab your weapon and use it against you.

Okay. That I agree with. Sometimes jokes and sarcasm can be missed when reading typed words. :D

[constituent]

And what if they posess far superior strength, are un-hinged or are simply more capabable of harming you than you are of fending against them?


that excuse only works if you're a cop.

[Paulitical Correctness]

You can really tell by the responses who has and who hasn't encountered trouble with the laws and their faulty enforcers.

The law is against you whether or not you're innocent. They just want to bust folks, end of story.

Problem with it these days is that those involved assume they are the law, rather than being instruments of carrying it out.

As far as questioning his decision to run? I don't blame him.

[Oyate]

The court will try to determine if a "reasonable person" would have felt their life threatened in this circumstance. The burden of proof still rests with prosecution.

I've read a degree of the eyewitness testimony, and as is typical of eyewitness testimony, much of it might seem contradictory. Much of what I read seemed exculpatory (meaning it backs up John) but some is not as conclusive. It's going to be a classic courtroom battle with each side using the same facts to arrive at 100% opposite conclusions. On the surface, prosecution has a tough job with this one but you can never tell how a case like this will wash in court.

I do know that various government agencies have characterized John as a lunatic fringer in the media. They labeled him part of the "dangerous Montana Freemen" which sounded odd because I seem to remember the Montana Freemen being completely destroyed by the state years ago. And besides, that was Montana. What does that have to do with Arizona?

They said John had an "arsenal" in his car. Every time I hear about a citizen with more than a couple of firearms around all the sudden it's an "arsenal". Everybody who has more than 20 rounds of ammunition is "stockpiling". Heck man, I know guys that will blow off a few thousand rounds in one afternoon at the range.

Meanwhile, and this is from the deceased man's own posts, in his own words, the guy that got shot not only bragged about getting into drunken bar fights and doing drugs but the guy was drunk and driving at the time of the incident. Where's the media vilification of that?

Starting to see a pattern here? I know a smear campaign when I see one. No matter if John is guilty or innocent, what happened here is a tragedy. My deepest condolences to out to the fincee of the deceased. But if John doesn't get a fair trial we have two tragedies here.

There's nothing we can do about the first tragedy. Let's just make sure another one doesn't happen in the form of perverted justice.

[TXcarlosTX]

The People can carry GUNS!!!! (no license)

US Citizens are subject to the jurisdiction thereof and for that they need to ask permission from the state.

[Luft97]

So instead of aiming for the arm, shoulder or chest......you point blank the guy in the face?

Doesn't add up.

I got news for you if I pull my weapon it is shoot to kill. Head shot will do it. I don't want to wound the guy then have him come back and file a law suit. I have been told several times by LE that if you shoot, aim high for that very reason. Dead men tell no tales. ;)

[runningdiz]

I remember a similar post months ago I am pretty sure it was the same incident. I think it was the actual person who posted it asking about a lawyer. (not sure maybe someone can find it searching I have had no luck)

Hope jusice is served either way.

[Razmear]

So instead of aiming for the arm, shoulder or chest......you point blank the guy in the face?

Doesn't add up.

If you are going to shoot someone, you shoot to kill, so aiming for the head is logical. Shooting to wound is telling the jury that you were not really in that much danger, which is why I load buckshot instead of birdshot in my 18inch Mossberg.

If the shooter had not fled the scene, he might not have even been arrested, and if he felt threatened by the other witnesses, then he should have driven towards the local PD while calling 911 on his cell. The fact that the cops had to show up at his house after the shooting to arrest him is what is going to do the most damage to his case. Did the shooter even notify the cops of the shooting prior to the arrest? If not he is likely going down for manslaughter at the least.

eb

[soapmistress]

if you are actually stupid enough to carry a gun

whoa :eek:

[LibertyOfOne]

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of the value of life. You actually said that if someone puts a hand on me I'll kill them. I'm afraid this is the kind of attitude the guy in the story had and if he had predetermined that he would kill anyone that bothered him he should be charged with murder.

I hope for his sake and his families this was a case of self-defense.

1) I didn't say that. You are the one suggesting I said that.
2) It's a simple law of nature. If you inflect force on someone don't be shocked if they return with equal or greater force.
3) If someone can't control their compulsion to attack someone physically, than what is to stop them from going all the way and committing murder?
4) Hands can be as deadly as a firearm - People can die from punches to the forehead.

[brandon]

What do you think about this hypothetical situation....

One day you come home from work and find a strange man having consensual sex with your wife. You respond on gut instinct, and punch the man in the head. This man was not threatening you at all. As you prepare to punch him again, he defends himself by shooting you. You die.

Is this man innocent?

[LibertyOfOne]

What do you think about this hypothetical situation....

One day you come home from work and find a strange man having consensual sex with your wife. You respond on gut instinct, and punch the man in the head. This man was not threatening you at all. As you prepare to punch him again, he defends himself by shooting you. You die.

Is this man innocent?

I would have called the police and had him arrested for trespassing. After that I would called my lawyer and ditch the bitch.

[brandon]

I would have called the police and had him arrested for trespassing. After that I would called my lawyer and ditch the bitch.

He is not trespassing if your wife invited him into the house.

[LibertyOfOne]

He is not trespassing if your wife invited him into the house.

If I own the house he is if I say he is.

[westmich4paul]

I'm 100% supporter of the second amendment. With that said, if you are actually stupid enough to carry a gun you better damn well not use it unless someone else pulls a gun on you.

If someone is threating to kick your ass this does not give you the right to use deadly force. We don't know the facts of this case but it appears like this guy is the reason the gun control people have an argument that people listen to.

We just had a case here in Grand Rapids, MI WHERE A MAN WAS ATTACKED AT A GAS STATION WHILE PUMPING GAS BY A WORKER AT THE GAS STATION. The worker and the man apparently knew each other and there was apparently a personal motive that created the attack but the worker grabbed a trash can lid and tried using it as a weapon and the man shot him dead right there. He had a ccw permit(concealed weopons permit) and he was released and no charges filed because they determined it was self defense. If you believe you are in danger at least in Grand Rapids, MI it is lawful to use your weapon to kill. You need not be attacked with a gun or a knife but you must believe your life is in danger. Thats the law here anyways.

[Kade]

Just because he left the scene doesn't mean he's guilty. Personally, I would have left the scene as well. You don't know who else is in the vehicle, or if they have a gun. Granted, I wouldn't have driven home... that's just stupid. Drive a block or 2 and call the police on a cell phone, or drive to the nearest pay phone.


His wife was in the car. Saw her husband get his brains knocked out.

You're a true sicko.

[Kade]

Just because he left the scene doesn't mean he's guilty. Personally, I would have left the scene as well. You don't know who else is in the vehicle, or if they have a gun. Granted, I wouldn't have driven home... that's just stupid. Drive a block or 2 and call the police on a cell phone, or drive to the nearest pay phone.

You know gun laws have gone too far when you no longer have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. YOU are the first line of defense of your life, liberty, and property... police and laws are second to that. If every thief expected the home owner had a gun and expected they'd get shot during their crime, there'd be a lot less crime.

I heard of a case a couple years ago where a thief broke into somebody's home, grabbed a stack of electronics, and was on his way out when he was confronted by the homeowner with a pointed gun. The homeowner shot the thief in the leg, called 911, and the police and an ambulance carried him away. The thief was sentenced with some jail time.

In a just country, that'd be the end of the story. Well, the thief then filed a lawsuit against the homeowner that shot him in the leg. The thief won his case, and the homeowner was ordered to pay him half a million dollars. Moral of the story; if somebody breaks into your home, and you want to practice your right to defend your life, liberty, and property, you better unload your weapon in their chest.

I just can't get over this dribble...

This wasn't self defense. A man does not deserve to be shot because he argues with someone. That none of you seem to understand that point, only illustrates the dire and rampant stupidity prevailing in this country.

I posted the details, they are all over online. This man took your insane logic to the extreme and destroyed another life, without even thinking twice. This guy didn't break into his home, or rape his wife, or pull his own gun. He argued with him and approached him...

This is beyond messed up. If someone pulled a gun on me like this, they better kill me in one shot, because I will take it from them, and beat them the old fashioned way, with my nature-given fists of fury. This man was an idiot, and he deserves to be punished, not for carrying a weapon, for using it on an obviously unarmed man.

Life is not this worthless, and the whole lot of you dare approach me about the abortion issue ever again will be linked to this inane horse manure of a thread.

[phixion]

His wife was in the car. Saw her husband get his brains knocked out.

Yes - and that's EXACTLY why it's best to DRIVE AWAY.

Pete

[Kade]

Yes - and that's EXACTLY why it's best to DRIVE AWAY.

Pete

So, confrontation and arguing = death ?

Where have I seen that before...

[Time for Change]

Thanks. I was just joking.

But it seems to me that if you feel threatened and pull a gun, that should serve as a warning to the person that you want to be left alone.

If the person continues toward you, I would think that deadly force is justified, because the person might be trying to grab your weapon and use it against you.

NO...You NEVER pull your weapon as a warning.
It will be taken from you if you intend to warn only.
A firearm is intended to be the last resort and only if your life is in absolute undeniable danger.

[Kade]

NO...You NEVER pull your weapon as a warning.
It will be taken from you if you intend to warn only.
A firearm is intended to be the last resort and only if your life is in absolute undeniable danger.

Yep. Well, we have one working brain in here.

[phixion]

Yep. Well, we have one working brain in here.

Interesting that the police draw their guns as warnings all the time, and rarely are they taken from them.

Are you sure your brain's working?

Pete

[phixion]

So, confrontation and arguing = death ?

Where have I seen that before...

Who says it was just a confrontation and argueing?

The large, drunk man clearly was about to instigate a violent assault on a man sitting in his car with his partner.

Unfortunately for this fist-happy drunk, his subject, or punch-bag-to-be owned a pistol and knew how to use it in defense.

Ok,

Pete

[Kade]

Who says it was just a confrontation and argueing?

The large, drunk man clearly was about to instigate a violent assault on a man sitting in his car with his partner.

Unfortunately for this fist-happy drunk, his subject, or punch-bag-to-be owned a pistol and knew how to use it in defense.

Ok,

Pete

I didn't anything about large and drunk... and it is still not a defense to use deadly force.

[Galileo Galilei]

Try this experiment:

Get drunk, and walk up to a police car, and start yelling that Ron Paul sucks. Then reach into the window and try grabbing the policeman, while at the same time yelling and threatening.

After the policman shoots you, check and see if he is charged with murder.

[Kade]

Interesting that the police draw their guns as warnings all the time, and rarely are they taken from them.

Are you sure your brain's working?

Pete


By the definition of what constitutes a government, they have the inherent power to use deadly force. You do not, except in extreme circumstances. You do not have the RIGHT to take life.

Police cannot violate the fourth amendment. Your argument is wrapped in insane vigilante mental retardation. I hate the police, probably more than many would want to know, but I would still trust a trained officer over an idiot with a righteous fixation on weapons.

No court in the world would consider this a case of justifiable homicide. None.

[phixion]

I didn't anything about large and drunk... and it is still not a defense to use deadly force.

Then why don't you look at the image of the guy he shot?

Of course it's a defense to use deadly force if you are under attack.

The shooter defended himself and his partner quite well, it seems.

Pete

[Kade]

Try this experiment:

Get drunk, and walk up to a police car, and start yelling that Ron Paul sucks. Then reach into the window and try grabbing the policeman, while at the same time yelling and threatening.

After the policman shoots you, check and see if he is charged with murder.

You are out of your god damn minds. You are equating this man with a police officer?!

[Kade]

Then why don't you look at the image of the guy he shot?

Of course it's a defense to use deadly force if you are under attack.

The shooter defended himself and his partner quite well, it seems.

Pete

You guys are clearly batshit. Scary batshit.

You are using an emotional appeal to argue that normal everyday citizens have the right to use deadly force at will if they feel threatened, without any punishment.

Pakistan has similar laws. Bravo, we are truly the enlightened country of this world.

[Time for Change]

Interesting that the police draw their guns as warnings all the time, and rarely are they taken from them.

Are you sure your brain's working?

Pete

LEO's train in defensive tactics regularly. They will not lose their weapon easily.
They are constantly under duress, tired, and trained to believe that each and every interaction with the civilian population is a potential life threat.
They draw out of caution, and at least in my part of the world (where they have recently been openly targeted) they are justified to be at the ready, given proper circumstances and location.

now take into consideration the person who purchased a firearm, ran 25 rounds through it and thinks they are proficient...
No training at all, just a weapon.
They draw as a warning...they freeze, or make a mistake, they get disarmed and die.
Sorry, but that is the way it will likely play out.

Some LEO's are complete asses, true, but give credit where it is due, they volunteer to place themselves in harms way to attempt to maintain order.
They have to be ready at all times or may die trying to make a slight dent in this screwed up world.
You cannot compare that level of constant stress (and training) with an average joe.

[phixion]

You guys are clearly batshit. Scary batshit.

You are using an emotional appeal to argue that normal everyday citizens have the right to use deadly force at will if they feel threatened, without any punishment.

Pakistan has similar laws. Bravo, we are truly the enlightened country of this world.

OK - time for your reality check.

13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force pursuant to this section.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.

2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons or property.

The partner of the shooter stated clearly in the video there are witnesses that saw all of this take place. Him being attacked.

Source: http://www.azleg.state.az.us Document (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00418.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS)

Ok,

Pete

[Galileo Galilei]

You are out of your god damn minds. You are equating this man with a police officer?!

police officers are people, too.

How much you wanna bet they just charged him with murder and threw him in the stink tank, in an attempt to force a plea bargain?

[Galileo Galilei]

OK - time for your reality check.

13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force pursuant to this section.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.

2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons or property.

The partner of the shooter stated clearly in the video there are witnesses that saw all of this take place. Him being attacked.

Source: http://www.azleg.state.az.us Document (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00418.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS)

Ok,

Pete

good post.

The wife and the accussed man are witnesses, too.

Since they were nearest the incident, they would be the best witnesses to see what happened.

[airborne373]

By the definition of what constitutes a government, they have the inherent power to use deadly force. You do not, except in extreme circumstances. You do not have the RIGHT to take life.

Police cannot violate the fourth amendment. Your argument is wrapped in insane vigilante mental retardation. I hate the police, probably more than many would want to know, but I would still trust a trained officer over an idiot with a righteous fixation on weapons.

No court in the world would consider this a case of justifiable homicide. None.

Kade says, "By the definition of what constitutes a government, they have the inherent power to use deadly force. You do not, except in extreme circumstances. You do not have the RIGHT to take life."

In These United State the sovereign is the individual NOT the state. All the states power is granted by the individual. This is fundamental to the entire Ron Paul movement. Frankly if you do not believe that the individual is sovereign over the state you are backing the wrong presidential candidate.

[brandon]

OK - time for your reality check.

13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force pursuant to this section.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.

2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons or property.

The partner of the shooter stated clearly in the video there are witnesses that saw all of this take place. Him being attacked.

Source: http://www.azleg.state.az.us Document (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00418.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS)

Ok,

Pete

Good post. This should end the thread. There is nothing left to discuss until more evidence is available.

[Galileo Galilei]

Good post. This should end the thread. There is nothing left to discuss until more evidence is available.

There is a lot to discuss.

The wife has read the above legal code. She indicates that what she saw is clearly legal self defense. What she says is evidence. She also indicates her fiancee can corroborate her testimony.

So now the man rots in jail. Even if another witness contradicts what these witnessess say, the worst case scenerio is a case of witnesses contradicting each other. In other words, either the man is clearly innocent, or nobody knows what the hell happened. And if no one knows what the hell happened, then there is no reasonable proof that he's guilty.

This whole case astinks to high heaven.

Moral of the story: Don't get drunk, drive around town, pick fights and attack people. This case make it seem the police in AZ condone this behaviour.

[slamhead]

By the definition of what constitutes a government, they have the inherent power to use deadly force. You do not, except in extreme circumstances. You do not have the RIGHT to take life.

Police cannot violate the fourth amendment. Your argument is wrapped in insane vigilante mental retardation. I hate the police, probably more than many would want to know, but I would still trust a trained officer over an idiot with a righteous fixation on weapons.

No court in the world would consider this a case of justifiable homicide. None.

In Texas you have the right to protect your property with deadly force. A man got off after shooting a guy that was repo'ing his car as he thought someone was steeling it. Arguing that the government has an inherent right you do not have is insane.

This has nothing to do with guns or violence. It is Darwinism at its finest. The belligerent fool that goes around threatening violence on others does not get to reproduce.

[slamhead]

You are out of your god damn minds. You are equating this man with a police officer?!

A citizen has the same rights as a police officer to self defense. If I was to go up to a cop and get in a fight with him. I start getting the best of him. At some point I will get shot...simple as that. A private citizen is actually held to a lessor standard of when to apply deadly force. Do I feel my life is in danger. I don't know all the facts but if I am at a light and a guy gets out of his car and starts to drag me out of mine, I have no idea what his intentions are. At that moment I would fear for my life...bang!!!!

[slamhead]

OK - time for your reality check.

13-418. Justification; use of force in defense of residential structure or occupied vehicles; definitions

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a person is justified in threatening to use or using physical force or deadly physical force against another person if the person reasonably believes himself or another person to be in imminent peril of death or serious physical injury and the person against whom the physical force or deadly physical force is threatened or used was in the process of unlawfully or forcefully entering, or had unlawfully or forcefully entered, a residential structure or occupied vehicle, or had removed or was attempting to remove another person against the other person's will from the residential structure or occupied vehicle.

B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force pursuant to this section.

C. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Residential structure" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1501.

2. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport persons or property.

The partner of the shooter stated clearly in the video there are witnesses that saw all of this take place. Him being attacked.

Source: http://www.azleg.state.az.us Document (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/00418.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS)

Ok,

Pete

Good find...pretty much spells it out right there.

[kyleAF]

Life should never be taken lightly... only taken upon threat of force.

THREAT of force CONSTITUTES real force. It's the legal definition. They are legally equivalent (at least here in TX). That's why if you point your gun at someone, you'd better already be justified in shooting them dead, because the law considers you to have done the same thing through the threat.

Aiming at a particular target or trying to wound instead of kill is irrelevant, since the process of pointing the gun ends the legal debate. You're guilty or innocent just the same, independent of where you shot them.

If you steal something from someone without saying or doing anything else (just a snatch and grab), that's a petty theft offense. If you lift up your shirt to reveal a gun, and then take it from them while they are looking (with no altercation), you have committed a robbery and can get 20+ years in prison. The difference? THREAT of force... enough to constitute a major felony, as if you shot them. The same is true if you just say: "I'll kick your ass if you try to stop me". 20+ years.

A person is not legally jusitified in shooting a petty thief, but a robber? Every time, in all circumstances.

That said, I would never take a life to defend simple property, but to defend a life? Absolutely, and without regret. If someone were to threaten my family, I'd try to de-escalate if possible, but if not, I won't wait around to live with the regret of having hesitated and watched my family get harmed in some way. That's the antithesis to a life-based approach, Kade.
....................
Interesting / disturbing point: Here in TX, it's actually legal to shoot a kid 30 minutes before dusk (the only legal definition of "night") if they are caught spraypainting your garage (even without a weapon), which falls under something called "criminal mischief". Does that make it right to shoot the kid? Absolutely not. So I agree that a great deal of discretion is needed beyond the "law" on the books. Those who carry ought to know this and abide by it, and by far and away, most do.

Take comfort in the fact that--statistically speaking--you probably interact or come near a person legally carrying a concealed gun on a regular basis in your daily life (as long as you don't live in Chicago or Cali), and that you haven't gotten shot. There are nearly 300,000 people who legally carry in Texas, and most probably wouldn't fit your typical stereotype of a "carrier" either. We aren't militia men in cutoff T-shirts with rebel flags :)

.................
The AZ law linked above is pretty clear, and I agree: I hope for a fair, NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED trial.

[Knightskye]

Here's a snippet for you guys.

FIANCEE: "We had our normal life going. We were out hanging signs for Ron Paul one evening, in January. After hanging signs, we were heading home, and we were at a traffic light when, unfortunately, we were attacked by who they're calling the "victim" in this case. And it's just been an absolutely horrifying year for us ever since."

REPORTER: "But to be fair, another man was killed in front of his wife."

FIANCEE:"That's an absolute tragedy and I feel for her. I absolutely feel terrible for what she must be going through. But when the truth comes out about this whole incident, I think what you'll find is this is a terrible, terrible tragedy, but no crime has been committed. No crime was committed by John."

REPORTER: "So you would say John Stuart (sp?) is not guilty?

FIANCEE: "Not at all, no."

REPORTER: "Why?"

FIANCEE:"He's absolutely, absolutely innocent. Because we were in our car - actually truck. We never left. We were just there in traffic like everybody else, and this person attacked us. I wish I could tell you more, I just have to be careful. We have a great law firm that is handling this case - the law firm of David Cantor (sp?). I just can't go into specific details."

[Kalifornia]

So instead of aiming for the arm, shoulder or chest......you point blank the guy in the face?

Doesn't add up.
perhaps you haven't been in a fight in a awhile. I have been in hundreds. in the middle of prying someone off of your face, there really isn't time to think about WHERE You hit them. you just hit them in every target that presents itself until they back up and give you some thinking room. in that situation the head is the biggest and most obvious target.

[Time for Change]

http://www.kpho.com/news/15179045/detail.html

Is this the story?
Where are the updates?

Here's another article, er... a series of articles compiled together relating to the events.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Feature-Article.htm?InfoNo=033114

It seems that many of the details are unclear, widly varied witness recollection, and strange variances in police apprehension stories are intended to deliberately cloud the series of events.
Typical media? " Lets report even though we don't know what actually happened."
Sounds about right.

Two people know clearly what transpired, one is dead.
One passenger knows 100% of the story,
the other one was with the drunken guy...was she also impaired?

Add to that a witness claiming that the "Victim" was backing away, hands in the air...yet none of the other people around back that up.
Something's fishy...

[Kalifornia]

You are out of your god damn minds. You are equating this man with a police officer?!

actually, when it comes to police, they have a higher duty to protect life than a private citizen does.

YOU are a whackjob. this wasn't just an argument. it was an aggravated assault and battery in progress. the man came after the shooter THROUGH THE WINDOW OF HIS CAR!!! someone trapped in their car has no place to flee to. they are trapped.

an argument is an argument. the person who chooses to escalate that into a violent assault puts his life in the hands of the other. in this case, based even on what little I know, as a juror I would acquit.

when you attack someone, you pay your dollar and get your dance.

[Kade]

Good post. This should end the thread. There is nothing left to discuss until more evidence is available.

I agree. I'd like to avoid this philosophical aspects of this for now.

[ThomasJ]

What a lot of people on the side of equal use of force fail to realize is that it is extremely easy to kill a person with no weapon.

There are thousands of ways to do so.
Just because the attacker does not have a gun does not mean that they cannot kill you.
If someone attacks your vehicle opens the door and attempts to drag you out of the car, that in and of itself is enough threat of force from the attacker that deadly force SHOULD be used. Especially if there is loved ones in the vehicle.

You have know idea the intentions of an attacker. You cannot count on them only wanting to beat the crap out of you. They could crush your windpipe in a single blow meaning you suffer a slow agonizing drowning in your own blood.

The laws in Arizona are written for just that reason.

According to the law that was quoted earlier this man was well within his rights as a citizen of Arizona to use deadly force against the attacker.

The irony is that the police should have never pressed charges against this man as he was clearly within the law.