[martin14]

Thanos Thanos:

This might have more to do with the original judge suppressing information during the about the invader's previous behaviours and crimes in the community. From outside it looks like the judge came down unfairly on the side of the prosecution, who would have had a vested interest in making the invaders look like saints and placed all the badness onto the shooter.

Never understood that "victim's behaviour/background has nothing to do with the crime being judged" nonsense. Known criminals invading a home to attack someone should be relevant to any trial where their own actions are directly responsible for them getting shot.

Maybe the judge was worried that if he didn't suppress, Chris might just take a walk
from all of it.

[martin14]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Benn Benn:

Shooting the wounded guy laying on the ground and killing him then shooting fleeing people outside his home, regardless of their history, is wrong and he should be charged with something that nets jail time.

Shoot them as they walk in the front door, awesome, be my guest. But this was not the case here.

That said I'm not shedding any tears for the guys who got shot either.

Agreed. The incidents outside the home were done when the threat had ended and the suspects were fleeing. The use of proportional force went from appropriate in the home to excessive outside the home. Anyone killed during that part of the incident should be considered a victim of murder and charges should be levelled.

It's a 'what if'..


What if they were fleeing to a vehicle to get a gun for themselves.

Has the threat ended, or is it now rising ?

If Chris felt they were going for a gun, shouldn't he have the right
to use proportional force first ?

How could he know either way ?

If someone is fleeing a scene, what's to stop them from changing their minds again
and coming back ?



Gets very messy very quickly.

[Gunnair]

martin14 martin14:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Benn Benn:

Shooting the wounded guy laying on the ground and killing him then shooting fleeing people outside his home, regardless of their history, is wrong and he should be charged with something that nets jail time.

Shoot them as they walk in the front door, awesome, be my guest. But this was not the case here.

That said I'm not shedding any tears for the guys who got shot either.

Agreed. The incidents outside the home were done when the threat had ended and the suspects were fleeing. The use of proportional force went from appropriate in the home to excessive outside the home. Anyone killed during that part of the incident should be considered a victim of murder and charges should be levelled.

It's a 'what if'..


What if they were fleeing to a vehicle to get a gun for themselves.

Has the threat ended, or is it now rising ?

If Chris felt they were going for a gun, shouldn't he have the right
to use proportional force first ?

How could he know either way ?

If someone is fleeing a scene, what's to stop them from changing their minds again
and coming back ?



Gets very messy very quickly.

It's not 'what if' when the perps are fleeing the scene. Threat has ended and shooting stops. Not much more complicated than that. If perp comes back then threat resumes and if there is a threat to life then shooting resumes.

One cannot employ deadly proportional force based on a 'feeling'. There has to be very strong evidence that there is a threat to life and limb, otherwise it's murder.

[Xort]

Two points good job on loading the magazine with more than a 5 round legal limit. Better judged by 12 then carried by 6.

I assume gun grabbers will explain why you only need 5 rounds, when facing 5 armed intruders.

Second "Police arrived, not in time to help but in time to arrest Mr. Bishop." Nice job police. Don't show in up time to protect someone but do arrest them for taking action to protect themself.

Which is it legal system are the police going to protect people all the time so I don't need laws to protect me from legal action after using self defense? Or are people basicly responsible for their own protection and all the police are good for is handing out tickets?

I'd like to see Mr. Bishop given a reward for taking effective action that lowered the crime rate of his region.

I hope his new trial goes well for him. I also hope the judge of his first trial is dismissed from service.

Oh and the two people that lived should both be charged with all the expected crime for breaking into a home (which can carry a life sentance) as well as attempted murdered. I think breaking into a home with a weapon with the goal of attacking the resident should always count as an attempted murder.

$1:

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Brian O’Ferrall wrote that “the real issue before the jury was whether the appellant used more force than necessary,” and the other factors had no impact.

Oh and O'Ferrall should also be released from service for being a fucktard.

[Gunnair]

Xort Xort:

Two points good job on loading the magazine with more than a 5 round legal limit. Better judged by 12 then carried by 6.

I assume gun grabbers will explain why you only need 5 rounds, when facing 5 armed intruders.

There are gun grabbers here? Are they the ones that are the polar opposite of the kid-killings-are-okay-and-don't-touch-my-AR-15 gtoup?

[andyt]

Actually those guys assured us there's no point banning large magazines because the time needed to bang in a new one is so short anyway - now he's arguing the other side of the coin. I guess we'd better keep those large mag sizes legal for all the times somebody's home is attacked by 5 or more attackers. The few times some nutbar shoots up a school is a small price to pay.

Actually, if he had a smaller clip, maybe taking the time to put in a new one would have given him a second or two to think if he really needed to shoot those two guys in the back or kill the guy lying wounded on the floor and he wouldn't be facing legal troubles now.

[Xort]

andyt andyt:

Actually those guys assured us there's no point banning large magazines because the time needed to bang in a new one is so short anyway - now he's arguing the other side of the coin. I guess we'd better keep those large mag sizes legal for all the times somebody's home is attacked by 5 or more attackers. The few times some nutbar shoots up a school is a small price to pay.

My point is that mag size limits are easy to get around, so that they offer no protection from criminals wanting to use extra rounds without reloading. The law only ends up hurting regular citizens who are either defending themself or want to do some shooting.

$1:

Actually, if he had a smaller clip, maybe taking the time to put in a new one would have given him a second or two to think if he really needed to shoot those two guys in the back or kill the guy lying wounded on the floor and he wouldn't be facing legal troubles now.

The rifle he used doesn't load from stripper clips, it loads from magazines.

I have no problem shooting people that broke into my home, then broke into my locked bedroom, while armed with the intent to murder me.

I also doubt that having to reload would have changed anything in his actions, other than maybe causing his death once the home invaders saw he was out of ammo.