Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Reddit_in_her_voice t1_j6knp8s wrote

I also think there's a fair case for self defense just in the two videos. Repeated blows to the head immediately following a brain injury are without question potentially deadly.

Of course we'll wait and see what happens when more evidence comes out. But notable that the reaction to this event on Reddit is virtually identical to the reaction to the Rittenhouse case and he walked away with five not guilty verdicts and zero guilty verdicts.

I've also seen a lot of ignorance about both firearms and the law. Such as people claiming a one second draw is not possible unless one's hand is already on the gun and that there is some legal duty to retreat in this state.

Edit ignorance even in this very thread where a now deleted comment argues that size is a conclusive factor and that there is some kind of legal duty to engage in fisticuffs when attacked.

5

Boats_are_fun t1_j6kpf3e wrote

I’m not taking sides n anything that happened but I believe I could walk around with my hand on my gun in my own pocket at all times, nothing illegal about that

2

TaintedAzazel t1_j6koxd1 wrote

Excessive force

0

[deleted] OP t1_j6kpny4 wrote

[deleted]

2

Reddit_in_her_voice t1_j6kqkfx wrote

If the mag holds 16, 8 can be presented as restraint. Will need more information. Also if he was knocked out remember, he was suffering from a brain injury. Counting rounds is hard.

1

[deleted] OP t1_j6kvwa6 wrote

It was a small Glock that held 7 in the mag and 1 in the chamber so a total of 8 and he dumped it because he’s a pussy and can’t defend himself and talked shit from inside to outside and killed someone this isn’t an angry reply to you this just needs to be said and known by someone on the inside of it. The fact that he had the loaded concealed carry in the Goat in his front jacket pocket originally makes it weird he had it ready to fire and not in his front pocket anymore but in his hand in his front pocket like a hoodie pocket and was ready to be even slightly pushed and gun down the kid half his size. Facts wether you hate guns or love them. Facts wether you like it or not.

2

Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6kqvlm wrote

"Excessive force refers to force in excess of what a police officer reasonably believes is necessary. A police officer may be held liable for using excessive force in an arrest, an investigatory stop, or other seizures."

He's not a cop.

1

TaintedAzazel t1_j6l11eu wrote

Self-defense laws in the US typically justify a person’s use of lethal force in public in situations where lethal force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to themselves or another person. Traditionally, these laws have been clear that taking human life is not necessary, and is therefore not justified, if the person could have avoided using lethal violence by retreating, or simply stepping away from a confrontation. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a conflict before using force in their home, however (known as the Castle Doctrine).1

1

Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6l5dxe wrote

Wasn't he surrounded? Which way should he have retreated?

1

TaintedAzazel t1_j6l9ovr wrote

Oh I don’t know if those people were on a certain side or just wanted to watch a fight It doesn’t really matter anyways there was no need to shoot the dude in the face like five times

0

Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6lsdxv wrote

the story at the moment is that they were friends of napoleon and looking to jump him

1

Hot-Specialist-6824 t1_j6ktnvg wrote

Punches are generally non deadly force. In this case The roundhouse thrown certainly was non deadly force. You cannot respond to non deadly force with deadly force. As a retired attorney who practiced in both Mass and New Hampshire I can tell you that the arguments regarding the defendant thinking he may have received life-threatening damage from the knockout which would then permit him to use lethal force is not going to fly in front of a jury. This is because of two reasons, the first is a reasonable person would not think that and that is the standard. The second is when you're not in your home, and you are confronted by deadly force you have a duty to retreat if you can. And these hold true in both civil and criminal law. Last, somebody said something about John's size. Well it's not definitive, again, go to the reasonable person. What a reasonable person of John's size be more or less fearful of someone much smaller? (Yes, someone's always going to bring up what if John thought the smaller guy might be a karate expert or something. Again, go to the reasonable person standard, would someone thinking the smaller guy is a martial arts expert be a reasonable assumption? No. That would be a big leap of faith). The ONLY a thing that might possibly make him guilty of a charge lesser than second degree murder is having received a blow to the head minutes earlier. That would be the battle of the expert witnesses. Second degree murder is not what they call a specific intent crime it is a crime of malice, therefore voluntary intoxication, which is a defense against specific intent crimes, is not a defense here in any way to lessen the charges.

0

Live_FreeorDie603 t1_j6kvqtn wrote

You were an attorney in NH? NH is a stand your ground state? Second, I'm a reasonable person who multiple head injuries who would say that a punch to the head has potential to belife threatening.

1