Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey guys.

I would like to present a scenario and get some of your opinions.

It is given that in court, three things are required to satisfy self defense/defense of another.

1) the defendant MUST believe that himself or someone else is in imminent danger of death or injury, (it is irrelevant whether or not the danger really exists so long as he believes it does.)

2) The defendant MUST reasonably believe that in order to prevent that harm, he has no choice but to immediately use force.

3) The defendant MUST NOT use any more force than is reasonably necessary to avert or end the threat of harm to himself/someone else.

All three of these conditions must be met to find someone not guilty because of self defense. If only ONE condition is not met, self defense is NOT a valid excuse.

As stated, this is a given. And now I present the scenario.

Johndoe cheated on his girlfriend (well call her Jane) with another girl (well call this one Jill). They went to school together so they know each other. Jane hates them both with a passion, and has sent Jill multiple nasty messages expressing a desire and intent to beat her up if presented with the opportunity.

One night, Jane spots Jill driving on the road and proceeds to follow her in her own car. They meet eyes and Jill picks up her phone and calls John. Some five minutes later, with both cars side by side, and Jane screaming filthy names at Jill through the window of her own vehicle, they reach the gas station John works at. When they get within 30 feet, John runs out from the foodmart building at the gas station, pulls out a 9mm smith and wesson and fires at least 4 rounds at Jane's car. Jill pulls into the gas station and parks, while Jane, having just been shot at multiple times, speeds off and runs the red light at the nearby intersection.


John's guilt of the actions have already been proven with bullet casings, bullet holes, and witness testimony. You need only determine whether or not he is vindicated by a claim of self defense (Which, by the way, showed up only in the last 10 minutes of the trial, during the defenses closing argument, which went something like, "Jane was jealous and made the whole story up, none of the witnesses were credible and John didnt do anything wrong. Infact Jill never even SAW Jane that night. But... if you DO feel compelled to believe these lies... John did it in defense of Jill...")

Keeping in mind that you have already stipulated that he is guilty of the actions mentioned, do you guys feel that, under the circumstances...

1) John honestly BELIEVED Jill was in imminent danger of death or injury?

2) A reasonable person would conclude that the only way to prevent that harm was through the use of force, immediately

3) The force that John chose to use did not exceed the force that would have been necessary to avert or end the threat of danger to Jill?

1) No. Unless she was actively trying to injure the other woman, Jane was not a threat to Jill. As she was still in her car, and not using the car in a threatening manner, one cannot infer imminent harm.

2) No. If the only way to break up a screaming match between two people is gunplay, I'd go broke just playing 40K from ammo costs.

3) No. As there was no imminent threat, force was not necessary at all, and certainly not gunfire.

1. Yes... reason may dictate that he shouldn't have been scared but he probably wasn't thinking.

2. There could have been other ways to prevent harm.

3. John was excessive.

If there was nothing going on but a screaming match, then gunfire was certainly not necessary.

No, no, no.

The test on point one isn't whether the defendant believed in imminent danger, but whether a reasonable member of the public, put into the same situation, would have believed it. Otherwise a nutter defence is too easily constructed.

From that example I would have to say that John didn't see enough of what was going on during the events of the situation. And given that both cars seem to still have been driving or on the road, John would have not only been putting Jill and Jane in danger, but any passing motorist or pedestrian as well. Shooting not justified.

Without the presence of a deadly weapon this situation is hopeless for John. The car itself isn't a weapon until intent to use it as such is demonstrated. He had no justification to use his firearm.

As an aside, has it occurred to anybody that John was firing a pistol at a car that was being driven by an extremely angry person in the general direction of a gas station? Ka-mutherfething-boom! It's a stupidity storm, plain and simple.

This is quite possibly the stupidest scenario I've ever read.

warpcrafter wrote:As an aside, has it occurred to anybody that John was firing a pistol at a car that was being driven by an extremely angry person in the general direction of a gas station? Ka-mutherfething-boom! It's a stupidity storm, plain and simple.

I don't recall it being said that, that was her intention but John could try to argue that. It wouldn't get far, unless he could prove that she had a history of wanting to blow up a gas station, or of lighting things on fire or blowing them up when angry. If he can't then it wouldn't get very far.

BrotherStynier wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:As an aside, has it occurred to anybody that John was firing a pistol at a car that was being driven by an extremely angry person in the general direction of a gas station? Ka-mutherfething-boom! It's a stupidity storm, plain and simple.

I don't recall it being said that, that was her intention but John could try to argue that. It wouldn't get far, unless he could prove that she had a history of wanting to blow up a gas station, or of lighting things on fire or blowing them up when angry. If he can't then it wouldn't get very far.

He was implying that if John had shot Jane, and she lost control she could potentially hit the gas station and cause an explosion.

Oh sorry, I had Defense attorney mode switched on. The is one flaw with her hitting the gas station and causing an explosion.

There would be no case, how do you convict a charred corpse?

OT

I once to my local petrol station and found they were setting up a barbecue for a summer staff party.

I called the fire brigade, who sent someone round to tell them to stop.

It is a stupid scenario shooting at a petrol station but he cannot claim Self Defence. He created the only threat to evryone by shooting in the petrol station. He should have just let the girls got on with it, no excuse to draw a firearm.

The OC-D

Everybody loves a catfight.

They should have gotten a room.

John is banging Jane and Jill? Enjoy the ride baby!

"The test on point one isn't whether the defendant believed in imminent danger, but whether a reasonable member of the public, put into the same situation, would have believed it."

The standard in several American states is what the defendant thought, not what a reasonable member of the public would have thought, strange as that sounds.....

It has led to some interesting court cases.

We have one about to start here in Kentucky that is testing Kentucky's "Shoot First" law. The law makes it really hard to prosecute people who shoot others in their own home.

http://www.thenewsenterprise.com/cgi-bin/c2.cgi?053+article+News.Local+20090407152422053003


For those who do not follow the link the married woman had a boyfriend who fathered 3 of the 4 children in the home over a 5 year affair. The husband knew of one but not that two more of the kids were not his or that the affair had kept going after the wife said she broke it off after the first kid. Boyfriend and guys wife are in her home when the husband is not around and the woman pulls out a gun and pumps lead into him until he is seriously dead and thus ending the relationship.

It took many many grand juries over a 6 month period before the proscutor could find one that would authorize charges to be filed.

The trail begins in a few weeks and nobody is betting on her going to jail, her husband is still sticking with her.

You can not make this stuff up....

In the OP's scenario, the first element is certainly a possibility. However, it would be extremely farfetched with the facts given to conclude that the second and third elements have been met.

If we had more facts such as Jane was known to carry a loaded gun in her car, had stated she would shoot/kill Jill, and had a previous record indicating violent and/or pathological behaviors, then I think we might view John's actions as a little more reasonable.

Self Defense and Defense of Another are, IIRC, "affirmative defenses." They should have been brought up at the outset of the trial, and it is a little strange that they were not. I'm kind of surprised that bringing them up in closing arguments did not result in an objection. But a trial attorney would be a better person to ask regarding trial strategy, etc. Unless he is trying to set up a mistrial or a grounds for appeal.

Well, the trial is over. We ended up as a hung jury, 10guilty vs 2 not guilty.

As stated, it was obvious the guy did it, but two people were not willing to determine it was not self defense.

One juror AGREED that he used too much force but was not willing to convict John because he in doing so she believed he defended her. Apparently this one was too thick to realize that the rules stated above were RULES and not a GUIDE to determine IF he was within the realm of self defense. I believe this juror wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

The other juror that wouldn't convict John was a lawyer himself (albeit a civil attorney and not a criminal attorney.) This guy won the award for most words used with the least amount said. He was basically being an ass, and when asked IF he felt John did NOT use too much force, or IF he felt John believed he NEEDED to act with force, or IF he felt John was GENUINELY afraid for Jill's life, his responses were along the line of "I don't know, nobody does, blah blah blah words, fork in the road, blah blah, the bible says blah blah, defendant's mindset, blah blah" and would firmly end each of his ten minute answers to our yes or no questions by crossing his arms and stating, "I'm not changing my mind." In my opinion this dude should never have made it past jury selection. The rest of us wanted to choke him.

And for anyone who was curious, the self defense clause was not brought up until the closing arguments because there was a credible witness who saw the entire thing and TALKED to John ABOUT IT that gave testimony JUST before the closing arguments. The defense had conveniently "overlooked" this witness and when the prosecution found out about him they hustled him in. To be honest, if this witness hadn't been found, John would be walking around right now enjoying his new found freedom. Instead hes sitting in jail waiting another several months for the next case, where hopefully the trial will be conducted CORRECTLY and the prosecution with have sufficient time to build an argument against self defense. In this case, self defense was like a card hidden up the defense attorneys sleeve that he whipped out last second to save his ass, knowing the prosecution had no time left to tear it down.

Actually I'm shocked
1. an attorney made it onto a jury. THAT NEVER HAPPENS

2. You weren't on the intranets while this was giong on were you? Change that DO NOT ANSWR THAT QUESTION. Thats so many bad things its not funny if you did.

Falconlance wrote:And for anyone who was curious, the self defense clause was not brought up until the closing arguments because there was a credible witness who saw the entire thing and TALKED to John ABOUT IT that gave testimony JUST before the closing arguments. The defense had conveniently "overlooked" this witness and when the prosecution found out about him they hustled him in. To be honest, if this witness hadn't been found, John would be walking around right now enjoying his new found freedom. Instead hes sitting in jail waiting another several months for the next case, where hopefully the trial will be conducted CORRECTLY and the prosecution with have sufficient time to build an argument against self defense. In this case, self defense was like a card hidden up the defense attorneys sleeve that he whipped out last second to save his ass, knowing the prosecution had no time left to tear it down.

So because people on the jury formulated their own opinions, and the defense attorneys did what they are supposed to, be tricky sneaky bastards to provide the defendant with the best possible defense and chance to walk away or have a mistrial it wasn't done correctly? Learn how law works.

If I was the prosecutor I would be filing a complaint with the Bar against the defense attorney for withholding the witness. Any potential witnesses should have been turned over during discovery.

If you were on a jury you should not have been talking about the case on the internet. And if you are an attorney, you should have known better.

Although if the prosecution used "surprise" to bring in a later discovered witness, IIRC, affirmative defenses may then be raised in relation to the surprise witness.

Sounds like the prosecution is incompetent (or at least overworked and underfunded), the defense is unethical, and we have a tainted juror asking ex parte questions on the internet. Welcome to the American judicial system.

Hang on, this was an on-going case, and you were actually on the jury? That spiel at the beginning about your duties as a juror didn't mention not talking about the case?

I think this thread maybe needs to get locked, and buried in the deepest part of the internet.

Too late!

I'm so old this was never discussed in ethics (I know you're immediately laughing at the thought of lawyers-ethics me too). What if a jurist starts blah blahing on the intranets during a trial (after easy they can do what they want)?

Actually this would be a great query on the ethics portion of the Bar requirements (shout out to Polonius/Inquisitor Bob-No Mercy!).

Well let me say that, with what it is worth, The verdicts were decided before I made this post. I wasnt asking for others opinions on which to base my decision. I had already made up my mind. The purpose of the scenario above was to gauge whether or not me and the other 10 jurors were justified in thinking the attorney juror was a moron. I havent seen a single person post that they see his side of it, so mission accomplished.

So because people on the jury formulated their own opinions, and the defense attorneys did what they are supposed to, be tricky sneaky bastards to provide the defendant with the best possible defense and chance to walk away or have a mistrial it wasn't done correctly? Learn how law works.

Everybody, including the attorneys, admitted this was a dick move, and the trial was not conducted correctly. They moved for mistrial right then and there but the judge denied them.

Interesting. I wonder if you should be in jail.

I still wonder how a supposed attorney was let on the jury. That never happens. Someone slipped up with the preemptory challenges or whatever its called.

I still wonder how a supposed attorney was let on the jury. That never happens. Someone slipped up with the preemptory challenges or whatever its called.

Yep, the prosecution apologized to us yesterday. She admitted that she had one kick left and forgot to kick the guy. Apparently she knew he was going to be trouble

Falconlance wrote:

I still wonder how a supposed attorney was let on the jury. That never happens. Someone slipped up with the preemptory challenges or whatever its called.

Yep, the prosecution apologized to us yesterday. She admitted that she had one kick left and forgot to kick the guy. Apparently she knew he was going to be trouble

Well, duh.

He's trouble because he was supposed to have been kicked.

But it's good that, instead of billing $300+/hr, he's now doing his civil duty and serving for FREE!

That's awesome.

John should be in jail.

OT.
In college, a friend of a friend was called for jury duty. A man had come home, found his wife in bed with another man. The husband pulled out his six-shooter, shot the other man in the groin - five times, and used the last round to shot the only phone in the house. During jury selection, George (the friend of a friend) told the judge that he thought he should be excused, because, "If I came home to that, I'd probably do the same thing." George was dismissed.

I had a friend called for a big murder trial right after we graduated college. They called like 300 people for selection. Dave was excused before lunch on the first day, along with the other 20 or so people who answered "No" to "Would you always believe a police officer?" Dave's thought was simply that a police officer could make a mistake just like anyone.

I've never been called for jury duty (I'm now 37), nor has my mother, or her mother. And we all are registered to vote. My wife got out of jury duty a few years ago because she was breast-feeding.