Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by jjs07, Jul 24, 2014.
Rest of Article in Link
It's going to be real interesting to see how this plays out.
Shouldn't have been breaking into someones house.................... pregnant........................
I agree with the catch
But also they shouldn't be breaking into people's homes
Not exactly what the law says. The rationale, you never know if she was going to get a gun or get help or whatever, so, in most jurisdictions, if a person is on your property, the burden is on them (their survivors) to show he was in no imminent danger. Laws are generally homeowner friendly.
That being said, why are you robbing people while you are pregnant? There are much better hustles pregnant women can do that don't involve as high a possibility of getting shot.
Not saying he was right, but not saying he was wrong. Living in the midwest, I learned a long time ago, if you don't know the house, don't darken the owners doorstep, for any reason.
he went out into an alley and killed her after he had already pretty much handled the threat at hand
he wanted to kill somebody
lock his old *** up
The privilege will allow him to walk.
Shame on OP for not posting the most important part of the story.
The only person I feel bad for is the baby.
The burden isn't necessarily on the survivors . . .if he's charged, he'll assert self-defense as an affirmative defense to the charge, so the burden is on him. Depending on the state and the exact text/precedent concerning self-defense, once the threat was over, he can't respond with disproportionate force (shooting retreating intruders). But if they were coming at him armed, or the two of them were approaching him in an aggressive manner, he could successfully argue self-defense. IT doesn't have anything to do with "not knowing what they'll do next;" it't the immenent and immediate fear of death or substantial bodily harm. You can't conjecture possible harm and respond with overwhelming force.
He had options...wasn't wrong either way imo
I'm not law expert but this sounds about right. He has to prove his case, but after trayvon Martin I just don't know.
All three are idiots, mainly the girl that's pregnant and robbing a house.
At least it wasn't Florida this time. Sad all around though.
you don't do this and think it's all sweet if it goes downhill for you
what does that have to do with murdering a woman you already shot once who was no longer a threat to you?
**** is cray
killing her was uneccessary. 1 or 2 shots to the lower body woulda been cool
inb4 nas vs jay z
Word...he should have aimed to graze her ankle.
In all seriousness, you assume the risk when you do something as moronic as burglarize a home. Makes it even more moronic that this dummy was out there doing these things while pregnant. The baby obviously doesn't choose who it's parents are, but for someone to be this negligent to participate in something like this while carrying a child, I mean...damn. It can only make you wonder about the careless decisions this mother would make when the baby was actually here.
Might sound bad, but don't break into my house and expect not to lose your life. She coulda had twins for all I care, she gotta go.
She coulda repented and asked for forgiveness in my face and still caught a shot, don't break into my property.
This is part where he is or should have a hard time trying to prove self-defense. The real victim in all of this is the dead baby.