Dang this sucks... Hoping for the best!
Printable View
Dang this sucks... Hoping for the best!
sI don't want to hijack the thread or pry into your life, but if you don't mind me asking, what ended up happening? I've got a pretty extensive firearms collection, I shoot a lot, I'm working on my CCW, and now I'm training BJJ, so your case is basically my worst nightmare if I ever had to use deadly force to defend myself.
Glad you're alive, though. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six, as they say.
Indeed better judged by 12. The whole thing took a little over a year in court and I was eventually acquitted of all charges but it was hell. The police actually testified on my behalf but warned me I should have shot center mass to kill. Afterwards the guy who did it went on a shooting spree killing six people. It's been a source of guilt for me ever since it happened.
self defense is being able to articulate the threat, assess whether the assailant has the means to follow through on it, describe how you used the right amount of force, and explain how retreat to a safer place wasn't a safer option (unless in a stand your ground state).
From the little I see about this case, Gerald may have a tough time with number 2.
I hate to say it but it's not good for Gerald. Anything can happen in court but at the end of the day he shot a man in the face with an AR15 because of a traffic accident and verbal threat by a 53 year old man. That's not self defense. The person has to have the means, opportunity, and intent on going through with the threat. Gerald would have to be in "imminent danger"
There are many reasons for this in Oregon.
1. Disparity of Force. You can't shoot an unarmed person unless there are circumstances like more than 1 attacker, man vs women, big man vs little man, healthy person vs elderly, etc... Basically there has to be a huge disadvantage for the person to shoot in self defense. Which Gerald should have had every advantage in a physical altercation given his background. They will use his background against him. That he was never in "imminent danger", or in "fear for his life".
2. Escalation of force. This is when 2 apparently unarmed individuals are in a confrontation and one of them produces a firearm. In this case it was Gerald who escalated the situation by producing a firearm when he should have had every advantage in a confrontation and the other man was unarmed.
3. In Oregon you have to retreat if possible which he also had every opportunity to do. Unless he had an injury I'm unaware of. We don't have a "stand your ground" law.
I'm sure he's a great guy, and it's unfortunate he made that decision, but many good people make mistakes and have to pay for them. A man lost his life. It's sad for everyone involved.
I don't know enough information about the case, but what I read mentioned that the other party claimed to have a weapon and threatened his life. I pictured the scenario going down with the other individual saying something like "I've got a gun and I'm gonna kill you!" while reaching into a pocket or waistband. If that was the case, the shoot was justified, IMO (for whatever that's worth). I REALLY hope it wasn't just a verbal threat. If so, Gerald is most likely screwed. You can't shoot a guy for merely saying he's going to kill you if, as you mentioned, there was no physical threat.
I think we really need more info on how the shooting went down to make a better judgement.
Murder is killing someone knowingly. The 911 call is public record.
Gerald has been great to all of us at the gym and we pray for him. Our moon is still thriving and I love every day I have in the gym. Keep praying for Gerald and Shelby.
Whose Shelby? Shelby Connelly ?