Was he in his house? No. He was outside? It's murder.

This is the way it works in Kansas.

The dead guy's should be pretty easy to determine.

Other than that pretty much any part of either story would be hard to determine.

The only thing I know is when some crazy bastard with a gun tells you to get off their property you do it. Right or wrong - leave...

On 2nd degree murder? Seems to me you have to acquit him.

But if the jury believes the testimony of the others in the group, then you have proved that he wasn't being attacked by a bunch of drunks, in which case you can convict.

Witness testimony is sufficient proof. Well, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The key for the prosecution is to establish that the parties that are testifying on behalf of the prosecution have no legal motive to lie; they're not on trial here. Meanwhile, the guy that shot someone in the face certainly has a motive to fabricate the events. And frankly, it's a whole of witnesses vs. 1 here.

Though I feel like the media's screwed up the Castle Doctrine again (and I'm convinced they'll never get 'stand your ground' right). The defense here isn't going to be a Castle Doctrine defense; at least it shouldn't be. Rather, the defense should be simple old self defense. His story is that they were throwing softball sized rocks at him and converging on him after he told them to leave. Well if it's a dozen vs 1 and that dozen is throwing big rocks at you, you're probably in 'justifiable fear of grievous bodily harm' - at which time lethal force is authorized.

This isn't a Castle Doctrine case. Once the defense centered around a drunken mob angrily throwing rocks at an old man, it became good ol' fashion self defense.

But that doesn't get people to think about Trayvon and buy your newspaper, so it's not nearly as sexy.

I don't want anyone pissing on my property but me. Don't know that I'd shoot them over it.

Gun play was out of line, period.

He was not threatened in his house, but just tired of all of the disrespect for his property. That doesn't justify murder, and that is what I would call it.

He could have had some fun by ****ing with these groups, in many ways. String barbed wire across the lake almost submerged? Stumps just barely under water? Dog feces all over the sand bar?

But shooting into them deserves severe punishment for the murder that it is.

I call bullshit. A dude gets blasted with a 9mm and you pick up a rock and chuck it at the crazy motherfcucker with the gun? YOU RUN LIKE **** and take cover.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

Sorry pal, the rocks were thrown 1st, just admit it.

That's the thing: is that how it happened?

Do you have a right to carry a gun on your property?

Do you have a right to ask people to leave your property?

Do you have a right to defend yourself if they respond with violence?

Rashomon effect. Good luck to all having to determine exactly what happened...

bonus points for a Kirosawa reference

Aren't the other witnesses viewed as biased since they're part of the dead guy's tribe? And depending on who you believe, active rock chuckers of the dead guy's tribe? If I was on a jury I'd discount them pretty heavily.

as crazy as it gets down in that area w/floaters, I can't believe this hasn't happened before.

I've sat on the river bank and watched floaters pull up to a gravel bar and be so ****in drunk they fell on their face after crawling out of their canoes. watched one father and his 3 grown sons get in a fist fight while the rental dude is loading up their shit on a trailer. cops came and took the whole bunch off. I went over and asked the rental guy what the deal was and he said they were regulars...they'd get released the next morning then be back the next week and do the whole thing over again.

i get tired of people trashing the river and banks as it is, and I don't own any property down there. if I was an owner, i'd really be pissed. but, that's one of the communities main sources of income(floaters), so they're not going to put an end to it.

I vote idiots on both sides.
sec

I don't disagree with any of that, except that I don't like the idea of someone "protecting" their property from being pissed on with a gun.
If the guy's safety was threatened, well yes, by all means.

Pawnmower's reasoning does make some sense, that the rocks were probably thrown first, thus the gun play may be justified.

If you own a gun and hear people on your property do you take it when you go to see what's going on?

Eerily similar conceptually to the Trayvon Martin case....

Two morons who meet up and both do stupid shit.

No one HAD to die....but neither one backed off.

Shit keeps escalating......

Is it "murder" when both parties choose to escalate stuff to a violent level and then one party suddenly finds themselves defending their life?


In the TM vs. GZ case, the Jury said no, it is not murder.

Unless there is some sort of proof or evidence that this man came down to his sand bar looking to kill someone, it shouldnt be murder either. Maybe negligent homocide or manslaughter....MAYBE.

Uh, yeah.


Let's face it, everyone knew he was going to shoot someone in the face eventually.