Seattle - driver shoots protestor. Crime or Justified?

originally posted by: KnoxMSP

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: KnoxMSP

wonder why he had double mags in the in the weapon. was he expecting sh@@ or just a ese gang banger.

makes me wonder now.

Pointed that out to my wife first watch through. Was the first thing I noticed when I saw him go to move through the crowd. Very questionable, but he could be ex-mil, and I know some guys that like to be fully locked and stocked everywhere they go. Then there is the weapon handling, he doesn't look as trained as the dude who took the two police ARs, but he is practicing safe trigger finger placement, and holding his weapon in CRP.

I think if he wanted to create chaos he would have done it a lot better. He had the vehicle, and a lot more rounds if the mag was full.

First thing i noticed as well. Ex-mil was my first thoughts when i saw that. Would see people doing that to their mags in POG units. Fairly rare within the Infantry as a proper mag change is significantly more efficient. Any Infantryman worth his salt has practiced mag changes to the point theu can perform one in less than half a second while comatose lol. Although in a civilian situation i could see a double mag being useful when you dont want to carry around a bunch of mags everywhere you go but still want to be at least a bit prepared in case SHTF. Like you said, if he really wanted to create chaos he couldve done a lot more and i am certain he would’ve been more prepared to do so.

a reply to: Antipathy17

Self defense. I hope the driver sues the city for allowing that to happen and any damages he may have incurred. The thug reaching into the car needs to be charged with assault and attempted manslaughter( he was shot while in the commission of a crime and should be charged as such). I guess the driver wasn't white so thats why the story didn't get much attention.

100% self defense. The numbers of people being pulled from their car and beaten is. Being silenced.

Liberal judges are throwing everything at the drivers and going soft on the attackers.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
I think in the end he will get manslaughter. Not murder.

Who died? LMAO

Oh ? he didn't die?

Well ether way he will have to prove that he was defending himself from fear for his life.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

my bad I assumed the guy died because the range of the shot was so close.

So yeah unless he can prove that his life was in danger then manslaughter.

He was probably very scared in that moment I don't wont to assume he went looking for a reason to shot someone.
One moment of fear can change your life.

a reply to: YouSir

In america your not allowed to kill someone just because your getting beat up.

People today are nothing but punks. So quick to pick up a gun. Scared to take an ass whopping.

Wow this thread... pedestrians DON'T have the right of way apparently. Why the driver didn't slam on the breaks in the first frame of the Twitter clip is not up for debate in this thread I guess. LOL

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
my bad I assumed the guy died because the range of the shot was so close.

Understandable. As Anthony Stabile said to Tommy DeVito in Goodfellas after the latter shot Spider dead from across the card table and claimed he was a good shot, 'How do you miss at that range?'.

This neighborhood becomes chaos when you get a highly organized riot underway, streets are blocked and the damn cop station 1 block away was abandoned! It looked like self defense to me as well, he appeared to be fleeing being attacked by an angry mob, he got trapped in a street with no way out and that HUGE guy tries to rip him out of the window?

The extended clip is curious, but could be he was just a well armed drug dealer, that IS the type of neighborhood capitol hill is folks, I wouldn't walk the streets there at night even with no riots/protests.

more gas for the fire thats for sure

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: AutomateThis1

Glad you're laughing at autonomus zone because it was made by artist/hipsters who are not violent, unlike the SPD. It's supposed to be tongue and cheek. This is Seattle, birthplace of grunge.

Looks like the "CHAZ" is really working out huh? Real peaceful.

originally posted by: Hypntick
...
Edit: And correct me if I'm wrong, but the gentleman in the video is not white, but I'm sure he's white enough.

He looks hispanic, or Middle Eastern, and he was right. The only problem is that if it happened in a democrat hell hole, he will be the one charged, while those whom attacked him, and tried to stop him and get him out of his car will NEVER face justice in democrat hell holes...

originally posted by: scraedtosleep


In america your not allowed to kill someone just because your getting beat up.

People today are nothing but punks. So quick to pick up a gun. Scared to take an ass whopping.

what an asinine claim... One man cannot defend himself against 5-10 people or more at the same time just with his/her fists... Most people are not Bruce Lee... The only jackasses and punks are people like you pretending that those violent protestors are peaceful...

That man was right in shooting that punk leftist... It's called "SELF DEFENSE..." But only to left-wingers is self defense a bad thing...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yeah, it's apparent he hasn't had 5-10 people jump him and beat him near death. He probably thinks fights are like what you see in movies where everyone waits their turn.

a reply to: AutomateThis1
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I was beat up badly by 7 guys when i was 17.

Been in many fights.

The person in that car was not being beaten on by a bunch of people.
He shot because he was afraid that he was going to be.

He will have to prove that his life was in fact in danger. Or I guess his lawyers will have to prove it.

I imagine the protesters can argue that they were defending themselves from his deadly weapon, his car.

Both sides are innocent until proven guilty.
But what I said in that reply is a general feeling I have about people in america today.
People here are more quick to use a gun then to take a few hits.

I had a knife in my pocket when those 7 guys jumped me. If I'd been to scared to get hurt and pulled, my life could have been ruined. One of them I was told later had a gun so I might have been killed.

Every fight I've been in has been a random event that no one knew how it was going to end.
A lot of them ending with peace or at least with no further valance. A few ended with me getting very hurt but no one ever died.

Your talking to someone that lived on the streets for a large part of his life starting at 16 years old.

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Just because you don’t have a problem getting your ass kicked doesn’t mean anybody else is responsible for trusting that the person kicking their ass is going to stop before they get killed.

His defense will rest entirely on the castle doctrine. The prosecution will try to prove that he was the first aggressor and the castle doctrine doesn’t apply. End of story.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

my bad I assumed the guy died because the range of the shot was so close.

The distance you get shot at doesn't have a lot of bearing on the lethality of the wound in most cases. All it really affects is your chances of getting hit.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep


He will have to prove that his life was in fact in danger.

That's not true at all, actually.

His defense team only has to convince the jury that he thought he was in danger of death or serious physical harm, and that that perception was reasonable. He doesn't have to prove anything. And in reality, he only has to convince 1 juror out of the 12, since all 12 have to agree to convict him.

The prosecution has to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that he didn't think he was in danger of death or serious physical harm, OR that his perception was unreasonable given the circumstances. The defendant is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

Given that there's been plenty of news coverage of these violent riots, I don't think it'll be very hard for his defense team to convince at least 1 juror that he could've had reasonable fear for his safety while someone is assaulting him through his car window while a mob of other people were closing in on his car and throwing things at it.

The prosecution's only hope, in my opinion, is if they can prove he instigated the incident. Driving slowly down a crowded street--which is all we've seen the guy do in the various videos--isn't enough to justify the assault the man appears to be a victim of here. Now, when they decided to charge him, their statement said they were doing it based on evidence, so maybe they have access to video we haven't seen where the guy did something to provoke the crowd into attacking him in their own defense. We don't know.

ETA: Sharmrock brought up the Castle Doctrine. That introduces another element to his defense, but that's certainly not the only angle his defense can take. It is still going to be based on the defendant's perception that he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury from the assault.

a reply to: face23785

It is still going to be based on the defendant's perception that he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury from the assault.

That’s kind of exactly what the castle doctrine is.

But the Castle doctrines negates that duty to retreat when that individual is assaulted in a place where he/she has a right to be, such as within one's own home. Deadly force may be justified and a defense of justifiable homicide applicable, in cases "when the actor reasonably fears, imminent peril of death or serious bodily harmto him or herself or another".

Washington castle doctrine

You essentially said the same thing I said, just with way more words.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Not exactly. The difference is the way I was explaining it applies anywhere you can legally carry. Castle Doctrine only applies in your home, car, etc. His defense could try to apply Castle Doctine, but they don't need to. If he wasn't the instigator of the incident, and he was in reasonable fear for his life, the fact that he was in his car is irrelevant.

a reply to: face23785

Ok. I mean the case law is all the same in Washington but if you want to split that hair, go for it.