Make My Day BS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck

if you dont consider a guy with his back turned a threat, I guess you never heard of el presidente drills.


im not saying that is the case here, what Im saying is just because someone reads something, it doesnt mean they know all the details. that person may have very well been a threat. And we know that 21 feet with a knife is a threat. the grand jury probably doesnt understand things like that.

---

You're right, I've not heard of el presidente drills. Cool name though, what are they? Also correct on the 21ft distance with a knife...inside that distance I would rather see a gun than a knife. Once offline of the barrel the the threat of being shot goes to 0, I like those odds a lot better than some crazy person with a knife slashing away again and again. We used to do knife fighting drills in krav with training knives that had red lipstick on the "cutting edge" and then we would put on white t-shirts and go to town. It was amazing, even the best of the guys in class couldn't get away unscathed.

And again (you're on fire HBAR) I also agree that I don't know all of the details. As a matter of fact I believe I said as much. I also love how you had to add a small jab at me in there.

I missed you buddy https://www.ar-15.co/images/smilies/anim_beer1.gif

I’m concerned that because it was in a detached garage that MMD may not apply. It looks like potentially if the door is open and a perp doesn’t have to break in to attack me somehow I don’t have a MMD defense. If I was in my garage on my property and was attacked, I would hope I have the law on my side as it pertains to self-defense.

I have seen a scenario of a perp coming at a person and at the moment the perp sees his victim raise a gun, turns instinctively to avoid the bullet thereby getting shot in the back. Therefore, being shot in the back does not exonerate the perp or necessarily mean he was leaving the scene.

The dead guys sister says he was a drug addict. It would interesting if the Gazette would publish the indictment.

http://gazette.com/make-my-day-law-c...rticle/1578715

Politically in the Front Range pretty much any prosecutor is going to ask for charges add on the fact that he shot was in the back which makes for good public opinion polling numbers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

It's not that it wouldn't, it's just an area where you start to get closer to "interpretation". In some cases it still would unarguably. This circumstance sounded like he warned and immediately shot. But say a bunch of bangers roll up to your garage, doors open, as your under a car working on it, they walk in and say, "Hey home-slice, how about you give us your wallet or I'm going to kick this jack out" you shoot them in the ankle and the nuts from under the vehicle, that would be an easier MMD application. Though doors are open, they knew it was an illegal entry (trespass). You also have a reasonable belief of bodily injury, no matter how slight (vehicle landing on you is actually serious bodily injury).

The issue here with Mr. Druggy is they are going to argue he thought he was a block from his house and didn't know where he was (accidental). Already looks like they are pushing that direction in the article. Even though Mr. Druggy was most likely looking for shit to support his habit (door open or close).

That make sense?

---

Something more to chew on. They say he used to own a house close by. The defendant had just purchased the house he lived in. Whats to say that when the druggie came looking for stuff to steal that the previous owner had a lot of nice things in the garage and said druggie had no idea that the place had been sold and the new owner had firearms and was not the old lady schoolteacher he remembered living there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

Politically in the Front Range pretty much any prosecutor is going to ask for charges add on the fact that he shot was in the back which makes for good public opinion polling numbers.

---

Would it be unreasonable to suggest that if any prosecutor can be proven to be actively persuing charges for political reasons, particularly when the evidence makes it clear that no charges should be filed, or where there is absolutely no possible way that beyond a resonable doubt of guilt can be obtained without lying or altering/witholding evidence, that said prosecutor should be hit with an ethics violation so hard that their license to practice law evaporates in a cloud of dust?

I've known a few attorneys that have stated that the law means whatever you can successfully argue it means, but given the power to destroy lives through malicious prosecution and the costs/impact likely associated, it just seems like it's something that should be an instant career ender for a prosecutor if it can be proven to be happening and that notches on their belt take precedence over impartial application of the law in the public interest.....

Just a thought.....

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk