Jury Acquits Army Green Beret

[NickS]

Score one for the good guys...

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/27/colorado-jury-acquits-army-green-beret-who-killed-intruder.html

[voodoo_man]

Good.

But let's not make a habit of shooting people in the back.

[txdpd]

Dr Lewinsky at Force Science Research has done quite a bit to show how action and reaction times can very easily lead to someone taking a very aggressive action, turning 180 degrees and getting shot in the back, in the time span that it takes a person to react to that aggressive action. I don't know what happened there, but there could be a reasonable explanation where the good guy is telling the truth and the bad guy got shot in the back.

[NickS]

Good.

But let's not make a habit of shooting people in the back.


Intruders don't get to pick where they get shot.

[voodoo_man]

Intruders don't get to pick where they get shot.

DA's do, however, get to pick who they prosecute.

[NickS]

DA's do, however, get to pick who they prosecute.

Have you ever been involved in a situation where you had to shoot somebody who was a threat to your family?

[fixer]

lol...

[voodoo_man]

Have you ever been involved in a situation where you had to shoot somebody who was a threat to your family?

Yep.

You?

[NickS]

Yep.

You?

Yup and funny, but I just did not have the time to ask them to stand properly to allow me to take a shot that would put me in the least jeopardy of DA action against me. But then again, this is why the Castle Doctrines and Stand Your Ground Laws are so important, as this case in CO makes clear.

Maybe familiarize yourself with the facts of this case and don't dish out lousy advice to people about where they should/can shoot a person who is threatening the lives of your family.

MMMk?

[voodoo_man]

Yup and funny, but I just did not have the time to ask them to stand properly to allow me to take a shot that would put me in the least jeopardy of DA action against me. But then again, this is why the Castle Doctrines and Stand Your Ground Laws are so important, as this case in CO makes clear.

Maybe familiarize yourself with the facts of this case and don't dish out lousy advice to people about where they should/can shoot a person who is threatening the lives of your family.

MMMk?

Lawl, spare me, please.

Your assumptions based off two sentences is very telling of your state of mind on this subject.

It would do you well to look at things more critically and not assume anything.

[NickS]

Good response....

[voodoo_man]

Good response....

Wasn't meant as a good or bad response, I can post a thorough explanation, one which massad ayood even testified to partially. Most here probably know what I'm talking about dealing with people getting shot in the back while turning, which is perfectly legit. Hell I've made that argument to IA on a few occasions.

Issue is, guy was unarmed, shot in the back. Castle doctrine, stand your ground, or not, shooting unarmed people in the back may get you arrested and prosecuted.

The jury did the right thing here, issue is that even though that green beret may have legally been justified in doing so, should he have done so? That particular DA did not believe so.

Do you want to go through that type of situation? I do not, no one here does either I am sure. So shooting unarmed people in the back is a no go, especially when all they are guilty of was burglary at that point. When that person assaults someone, goes for a weapon and or has a weapon then we have a different conversation.

Officer yanez shot Castile because he didn't have patience and even though he could legally did he have to? That officer who shot the the guy running away should not have done so.

The examples start to pile up when you look critically of situations where legal gun owners citizens or LEOs shoot people in the back when they are unarmed and get locked up. However in contrast there are numerous cases where people had weapons and were shot in the back legally, no prosecution.

So less assumptions, less knee jerk nonsense, more critical thinking.

[breakingtime91]

Wasn't meant as a good or bad response, I can post a thorough explanation, one which massad ayood even testified to partially. Most here probably know what I'm talking about dealing with people getting shot in the back while turning, which is perfectly legit. Hell I've made that argument to IA on a few occasions.

Issue is, guy was unarmed, shot in the back. Castle doctrine, stand your ground, or not, shooting unarmed people in the back may get you arrested and prosecuted.

The jury did the right thing here, issue is that even though that green beret may have legally been justified in doing so, should he have done so? That particular DA did not believe so.

Do you want to go through that type of situation? I do not, no one here does either I am sure. So shooting unarmed people in the back is a no go, especially when all they are guilty of was burglary at that point. When that person assaults someone, goes for a weapon and or has a weapon then we have a different conversation.

Officer yanez shot Castile because he didn't have patience and even though he could legally did he have to? That officer who shot the the guy running away should not have done so.

The examples start to pile up when you look critically of situations where legal gun owners citizens or LEOs shoot people in the back when they are unarmed and get locked up. However in contrast there are numerous cases where people had weapons and were shot in the back legally, no prosecution.

So less assumptions, less knee jerk nonsense, more critical thinking.

Ya, I kind of thought the same thing reviewing this case. I am glad the green beret got acquitted but I bet if you asked him he would wish that he didn't have to go through this at all. Even if you have the right to shoot someone, does it really mean you should? A question that all gun owners/self defense orientated people should ask themselves.

[voodoo_man]

Ya, I kind of thought the same thing reviewing this case. I am glad the green beret got acquitted but I bet if you asked him he would wish that he didn't have to go through this at all. Even if you have the right to shoot someone, does it really mean you should? A question that all gun owners/self defense orientated people should ask themselves.

Of course, and we as the small subset of those who train daily should hold ourselves to a higher standard. A much higher standard.

[Ndbbm]

Why, if the use is legal then what difference does it make.

[voodoo_man]

Why, if the use is legal then what difference does it make.

Someone posted a link to an article there differentiated between should and could. Might be worth searching.

[Mitch]

Why, if the use is legal then what difference does it make.

You may beat the rap, but not the ride. Zimmerman's use of force was deemed legal, would you have traded places with him for the last few years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[breakingtime91]

Why, if the use is legal then what difference does it make.

Is taking a life not a big deal to you? Regardless of who any of us are or what we have done I hope all of us take shooting someone and possibly killing them as a big deal. If I can go my whole life never shooting at anyone else again I consider that a good thing.

[voodoo_man]

Is taking a life not a big deal to you? Regardless of who any of us are or what we have done I hope all of us take shooting someone and possibly killing them as a big deal. If I can go my whole life never shooting at anyone else again I consider that a good thing.

Amen.

We train so that we when we need the skill we have it on demand, looking for an excuse to use force is weak.

What's the quote about the samurai gardener?

[NEPAKevin]

What's the quote about the samurai gardener?

?17622
17623

[voodoo_man]

?17622
17623

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-D1jMOPRB7ps/Vn7ta_3I0QI/AAAAAAAAcEA/byBQShjv8IM/s1600/peacefulwarrior.jpg

On phone so hard to do stuff.

Edit: yeah the second one, phone didn't load it until I quoted.

[walker2713]

I think BT91 and VDM have covered it well, but just wanted to add the observation that from the article, the shooting happened in a "detached garage," i.e. not in the shooters home.

In different places with different DA's and jury, the fact that the "decedent" was unarmed, this could have gone really badly for the soldier.

Glad it worked out like it did.

[hufnagel]

I think BT91 and VDM have covered it well, but just wanted to add the observation that from the article, the shooting happened in a "detached garage," i.e. not in the shooters home.

In different places with different DA's and jury, the fact that the "decedent" was unarmed, this could have gone really badly for the soldier.

Glad it worked out like it did.

I would question why that hair would need to be split, if both are owned by the same individual.

[breakingtime91]

I would question why that hair would need to be split, if both are owned by the same individual.

I think the language for most of these laws says commonly occupied structures.

[NickS]

Yes, yes, yes...we can qualify this and second-guess this scenario all day long, as gun forum gurus like to do.

Bottom line:

The guy protected his family from a trespasser and intruder who was caught skulking about, then the guy went for his gun. He eliminated the thread, period. Good shooting. Three shots in the back? Fine. Whatever it takes.

Just another example of Colorado libtards trying to deprive free man of their God-given right to protect themselves and their families.

[voodoo_man]

Yes, yes, yes...we can qualify this and second-guess this scenario all day long, as gun forum gurus like to do.

Bottom line:

The guy protected his family from a trespasser and intruder who was caught skulking about, then the guy went for his gun. He eliminated the thread, period. Good shooting. Three shots in the back? Fine. Whatever it takes.

Just another example of Colorado libtards trying to deprive free man of their God-given right to protect themselves and their families.

A good shoot would have been him not getting charged.

He did get charged. Likely sued civilly as well.

As for whatever it takes, well, doesn't take a gun forum guru to know how to apply logic to basic right of self defense.

Or maybe it does?

What would I know...

[breakingtime91]

Yes, yes, yes...we can qualify this and second-guess this scenario all day long, as gun forum gurus like to do.

Bottom line:

The guy protected his family from a trespasser and intruder who was caught skulking about, then the guy went for his gun. He eliminated the thread, period. Good shooting. Three shots in the back? Fine. Whatever it takes.

Just another example of Colorado libtards trying to deprive free man of their God-given right to protect themselves and their families.

Unarmed man in a garage? Sounds like the same case in Montana that got a guy slapped with a murder charge. Albeit, the man in Montana let it be known to the entire town it was his land, his garage, and any intruder would be killed on sight. He killed a German foreign exchange student that was looking for beer in his garage, kid was unarmed.. The man is now in jail after trying to say he was protected by the castle doctrine, which the jury disagreed with. I wouldn't call Montana liberal and I wouldn't personally kill a teenager over a beer. But hey, what do I know, I'm a gun forum guru.

[voodoo_man]

Why beat around the bush...

Shooting an unarmed person who poses no immediate deadly force threat or threat of serious bodily injury is weak and cowardly.

It is also against the law and unethical.

This is why we train. Train to be better and have the ability to take action outside of strong words and trigger pulling. If you lack in the middle, get training. A lack of training is no excuse for murder.

[critter]

A good shoot would have been him not getting charged.

He did get charged. Likely sued civilly as well.
...


That would be my primary concern as 'beyond reasonable doubt' transforms to 'preponderance of the evidence' and really can go on a jury's whim. Well, the criminal case could as well, but usually jurors take criminal cases very seriously - as least all the panels on which I've been involved.

Attempting to justify that I shouldn't be held liable for the shooting of an unarmed individual in a garage, young or old, who posed no immediate threat is not a situation I'd want to be in.

[Cypher]

I would question why that hair would need to be split, if both are owned by the same individual.

Because it would be pretty hard to prove that you were threatened if you left your house and went into another building looking after the guy

[Cypher]

Here's a copy of the Colorado Statute with some annotations

Previous Next
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
(5) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, "dwelling" does not include any place of habitation in a detention facility, as defined in section 18-8-211 (4).
Source: L. 85: Entire section added, p. 662, 1, effective June 6. L. 2016: (5) added, (HB 16-1190), ch. 87, p. 245, 1, effective August 10.
Cross references: For limitations on civil suits against persons using physical force in defense of a person or to prevent the commission of a felony, see 13-80-119.

ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For article, "Self-Defense in Colorado", see 24 Colo. Law. 2717 (1995). For article, "POWPO and Gun Rights After Carbajal", see 44 Colo. Law. 31 (Sept. 2015).
Prerequisite for immunity under this section is an unlawful entry into the dwelling, meaning a knowing, criminal entry. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).
To be immune from prosecution under this section a defendant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she had a reasonable belief that the intruder was committing or intended to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry. This inquiry focuses on the reasonable belief of the occupant, not on the actual conduct of the intruder. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).
Sufficient evidence existed to support trial court's denial of defendant's pre-trial motion to dismiss on the basis defendant had not met his burden as established by the supreme court. People v. Janes, 962 P.2d 315 (Colo. App. 1998).
Trial court is authorized to dismiss criminal prosecution at pretrial stage when conditions of statute are satisfied, and this does not infringe upon prosecution's discretion to file charges. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987); Young v. District Court, 740 P.2d 982 (Colo. 1987).
Defendant bears burden of establishing right to immunity by preponderance of evidence when issue of immunity is raised at pre-trial stage. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987); People v. Eckert, 919 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1996).
Fact that a homicide victim was on the defendant's porch does not permit the defendant to claim immunity from prosecution for unlawful entry to defendant's dwelling unless the court finds that defendant believed that the victim intended to commit a crime or use physical force against the defendant. People v. Young, 825 P.2d 1004 (Colo. App. 1991).
Defendant may still raise immunity as defense at trial when pretrial motion to dismiss is denied. People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987).
For purposes of this section, the common areas of an apartment building do not constitute a dwelling. People v. Cushinberry, 855 P.2d 18 (Colo. App. 1993).
Where pretrial motion to dismiss on grounds of statutory immunity provided in this section is denied, defendant may raise it as an affirmative defense at trial. In such case, the burden of proof which is generally applicable to affirmative defenses would apply. People v. Malczewski, 744 P.2d 62 (Colo. 1987).
Section does not authorize an appeal from a pretrial order denying immunity. An order denying defendant's pretrial motion to dismiss under the "make-my-day" statute is not a final judgment and therefore not subject to appeal. In general, the jury's verdict subsumes the trial court's pretrial ruling. A defendant may, however, seek review prior to trial under C.A.R. 21. Wood v. People, 255 P.3d 1136 (Colo. 2011).
Because this section creates an immunity defense as well as an affirmative defense, and because the burden of proof for each defense is different, when raised at trial, this section poses special problems when instructing a jury. In such a case, instruction based on language from People v. McNeese, which dealt with pretrial immunity, must be put into context so as not to confuse or mislead the jury about the burden of proof with respect to an affirmative defense raised at trial. People v. Janes, 982 P.2d 300 (Colo. 1999).
Defendant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to immunity under this section where he could not show the struggle and wounding of the victim took place in defendant's bedroom of the house he shared with the victim. People v. Eckert, 919 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1996).
Trial court did not commit reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that it need only determine whether the victim made an unlawful entry into a part of a dwelling that was occupied by defendant, as defendant failed to show that the bedroom was exclusively his province and that the victim's entry into the bedroom was unlawful. People v. Eckert, 919 P.2d 962 (Colo. App. 1996).
Instruction requiring jury to find that defendant had a reasonable belief that victim "had committed" a crime and omitting "was committing or intended to commit" a crime was erroneous but did not constitute plain error. There was no evidence that the victim's entry into defendant's house was unlawful and, therefore, no basis on which a reasonable jury could have otherwise acquitted defendant under this section. People v. Phillips, 91 P.3d 476 (Colo. App. 2004).
Jury instructions in error. Jury instruction that states that entry into a dwelling "must have been made in knowing violation of the law" could mislead the jury and thus is in error. Language is misleading in that it could be taken to mean that an intruder must know his or her conduct violates a criminal statute rather than that the intruder must not have a reasonable belief that his or her entry is licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged. People v. Zukowski, 260 P.3d 339 (Colo. App. 2010).
Jury instruction that states "[a]n entry made in the good faith belief that it is lawful, is not an entry made in knowing violation of the criminal law" allows an interpretation that the entry would not be unlawful under the make-my-day statute, and, thus, the instruction is also in error. An intruder may act under a mistaken belief of fact that he or she was lawfully on the premises and that this type of entry would not be unlawful under the make-my-day statute. A mistaken belief that an entry, although uninvited, is lawful does not make it lawful. People v. Zukowski, 260 P.3d 339 (Colo. App. 2010).
Trial court erred in interpreting subsection (2) as including the concept of "remain lawfully" within the statutory phrase "unlawful entry". Defendant failed to establish the legal elements of this section to bar prosecution where the victim was initially invited into defendant's residence and, after arguing, was later asked to leave. People v. Drennon, 860 P.2d 589 (Colo. App. 1993).
The reference to "uninvited entry" in subsection (2) refers back to the term "unlawful entry" used in the same subsection. People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995).
Victim's entry was unlawful and uninvited for the purposes of statute providing immunity for use of force where wife of murder victim did not have authority to invite the decedent into defendant's apartment and was staying with the defendant on the condition that she not invite the victim into defendant's apartment. People v. McNeese, 865 P.2d 881 (Colo. App. 1993).
When this section is being used as an affirmative defense, it is error for a jury instruction to place the burden on the defendant to prove the affirmative defense. People v. Janes, 962 P.2d 315 (Colo. App. 1998).
Applied in People v. Arellano, 743 P.2d 431 (Colo. 1987).

[Cypher]

Ok. I live in Colorado Springs approximately 5 miles from where this happened. That doesn't make me a expert but I do have some input.

First of all Colorado is not a "Libtard" State. Boulder and Denver are pretty blue but the rest of the state, especially El Paso County which is home to 5 military installations, is pretty damn red.

Second our make my day law is (IMO)pretty fair. The intruder has to have entered your home illegally. They have to be in the commission of a second crime (such as burglary). If they offer you any threat however slight you are authorized to use deadly force to defend yourself.

Having said all that, I don't want to shoot anyone ever. In my house is one thing but if you're out in an outbuilding I'm not going looking for you. I WILL call the police. I MIGHT yell out to the garage and let you know that I called the police but there's nothing in that garage worth the hassle. I bet the guy spent more on his legal fees than he would have lost in the garage

[Ed L]

Shooting an unarmed person who poses no immediate deadly force threat or threat of serious bodily injury is weak and cowardly.

It is also against the law and unethical.

The Castle doctrine does not require the intruder to be armed.

The premise of it is that the presence of a homebreaker puts the homeowner in fear of his life.

The homeowner has no idea who the intruder is, whether he is armed or not, or what his unarmed capabilities may be.

The intruder could be unarmed and 21 feet away and still be on top of the homeowner in less than 2 seconds.

The premise is that if you wait to find out it may be too late.

Having said all of the above, in the case being discussed there were two significant factors:

1. The guy did not shoot him in his home but in a detached garage.

2, The guy shot him in the back three times. His story is that he when the guy was lunging at him, but if the story is accurate, the attacker rapidly turned and by the time the defender realized it he had shot him three times in the back.

[hufnagel]

Disclosure: I have never shot a person, I have never even drawn down on someone, and I sincerely hope to never add either of those to my Bucket List.

If all we're going off of is the military.com article, it's pretty lacking on details. I'll agree if he went looking for trouble in the garage it's paints with a darker color than if he was in there turning spindles when some guy wanders in to rob the place. That kind of detail isn't in that article though, and given my jaded nature towards the state of reporting I'm skeptical of the use of the word "confronted" and its intended connotation. That being said, am I supposed to call the police for every bump in the night then, to have them investigate to find raccoons trying to get into my garbage cans?

As for giving the now-dead guy getting 3 new vents in his back, I'd be curious as to the FAST splits of some of our members on the second half of that drill. I don't have raw numbers here but after seeing some of the fine gentlemen here shoot I'd be willing to wager some can put 3 down range right around normal human reaction time.

[NickS]

Disclosure: I have never shot a person, I have never even drawn down on someone, and I sincerely hope to never add either of those to my Bucket List.

If all we're going off of is the military.com article, it's pretty lacking on details. I'll agree if he went looking for trouble in the garage it's paints with a darker color than if he was in there turning spindles when some guy wanders in to rob the place. That kind of detail isn't in that article though, and given my jaded nature towards the state of reporting I'm skeptical of the use of the word "confronted" and its intended connotation. That being said, am I supposed to call the police for every bump in the night then, to have them investigate to find raccoons trying to get into my garbage cans?

As for giving the now-dead guy getting 3 new vents in his back, I'd be curious as to the FAST splits of some of our members on the second half of that drill. I don't have raw numbers here but after seeing some of the fine gentlemen here shoot I'd be willing to wager some can put 3 down range right around normal human reaction time.

I want to pause this thread to recognize a fine bit of old-school turn of phrase: "than if he was in there turning spindles"

Kudos, sir.

Now back to our regular programming!

[voodoo_man]

The Castle doctrine does not require the intruder to be armed.

The premise of it is that the presence of a homebreaker puts the homeowner in fear of his life.

The homeowner has no idea who the intruder is, whether he is armed or not, or what his unarmed capabilities may be.

The intruder could be unarmed and 21 feet away and still be on top of the homeowner in less than 2 seconds.

The premise is that if you wait to find out it may be too late.

Having said all of the above, in the case being discussed there were two significant factors:

1. The guy did not shoot him in his home but in a detached garage.

2, The guy shot him in the back three times. His story is that he when the guy was lunging at him, but if the story is accurate, the attacker rapidly turned and by the time the defender realized it he had shot him three times in the back.

I am familiar with what castle doctrine is and I agree that is what the reasoning behind it is

The point of contention is shooting an unarmed guy in the back. In your house or not, shooting someone in the back when they do not pose a deadly force threat to you is weak and wrong.

This comes back to the argument of could vs should.

[Robinson]

That Colorado statute looks pretty fair and well written to me. That said, I don't think I would have shot the guy based on the article. I just wonder if it contains all the relevant details.

[NickS]

More details on the event, and as usual, we read of a young man cut down in the prime of life who was "just starting to turn his life around."

During trial, Galvin's attorneys highlighted Galvin's military training in arguing that he knew how to identify a deadly threat. They argued that evidence showed Carrigan "lunged" for Galvin's pistol in the dark, forcing the homeowner to defend himself. They also accused the prosecution of mischaracterizing autopsy findings to support their theory that Carrigan was shot in the back.

The encounter happened in a garage set back 25 feet from Galvin's house after he saw his bicycle lying in the backyard and went back to investigate.

The negligent homicide count alleged that he was guilty of a "gross deviation" from what a reasonable person would do in his place. Prosecutors said he should have waited in his house and called police, or else used his pistol to hold the intruder at bay.

A former member of the 10th Special Forces Group at Fort Carson who now serves in the Colorado Army National Guard, Galvin could have faced up to three years in prison if convicted.

Several jurors declined to comment on their way out of court. At least four women on the jury stopped in a courtroom hallway to embrace Galvin's wife, Ariel, including a juror who showed up for closing arguments on Friday wearing a shirt that read "ARMY." As Galvin's relatives and supporters quietly celebrated in the courtroom, members of Carrigan's family exchanged embraces with the prosecution team. Carrigan, who lived in the neighborhood where he died, was described at trial as a troubled man who had turned his life around in recent years only to relapse into drug addiction, causing him to lose his house and live on the streets.

"We believed in our case, we still believe in our case, and we respectfully disagree with the jury's decision," said prosecutor Sam Burney.

Prosecutors previously acknowledged that the case could hinge on interpretations of Colorado's so-called "make my day" law, which provides legal protections to homeowners who use deadly force against intruders.

But those protections are limited to dwellings, defined by state law as buildings "used, intended to be used, or usually used by a person for habitation" - raising the issue of whether a detached garage qualifies.

Under make my day, Colorado residents are permitted to use force against intruders, including deadly force, if they reasonably believe intruders intend to use "any degree" of force against them.

The state's self-defense statutes provide a somewhat higher threshold. To lawfully use deadly force, a person must have reasonable ground to believe that he or someone else is at risk of being killed or seriously injured, and that a lesser degree of force is inadequate.

[txdpd]

I am familiar with what castle doctrine is and I agree that is what the reasoning behind it is

The point of contention is shooting an unarmed guy in the back. In your house or not, shooting someone in the back when they do not pose a deadly force threat to you is weak and wrong.

This comes back to the argument of could vs should.

Since all I can find about this case is what's in the news, can you fill us in on the evidence that was presented in court that the unarmed individual was a not threat?

[voodoo_man]

Since all I can find about this case is what's in the news, can you fill us in on the evidence that was presented in court that the unarmed individual was a not threat?

Unarmed people can be threats, especially those which can cause death or serious bodily injury.

I do not have any information other than what is posted online.

This conversation and the concept of not shooting people in the back is a general one and while this particular situation happened to bring it up, I was not speaking directly about this particular situation as I did not reference it other than posting in this thread.

If you want to talk specifics, by all means, find the court testimony and we can go from there.

[TAZ]

Once again a prime example of the law defining what you can and can't do not what you should or shouldn't. Kind of like that dildo on your head to church thing

No idea what happened, but apparently the jury decided that what the guy did did not break the law. They weren't there to decide what the homeowner should have done, but rather to decide if what he did was illegal.

I'm sure there are a many explanations as to why the guy got hit in the back.