quote:

Sorry I thought that was a given but you are right makes to much sense for most people, better to try to beat him to death and see how high we can make the body count.
I should have mentioned calling in my post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Sorry I thought that was a given but you are right makes to much sense for most people, better to try to beat him to death and see how high we can make the body count.
I should have mentioned calling in my post.

Should have mentioned the gun owner should have called the police himself.

Nope. Cant have them "getting away".

Hmmm.. seems to be a common theme.

quote:

A battery is any physical contact with another person, to which that person has not consented. An assault is basically an attempt at a battery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Guy without rock stepping toward angry guy with gun who has already fired shots equates to terminally stupid.

1 You do not approach an angry person pointing a firearm he has already fired, you back away from him, minimizing your threat to his person.
2 You do not try to use rocks against an angry person who has already discharged a firearm.

Except that the one who got shot was the one who stepped in between man with gun and man with rock, protecting both from the other.

Even with the strictest evaluation of "moved to the arm" he moved toward Crocker Darwin award applies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Look, we already know there was not a whole lot of logic on that river that day.... regardless of what side you come down on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Look, we already know there was not a whole lot of logic on that river that day.... regardless of what side you come down on.

Then what the hell is the argument?

The fact he shot an unarmed person trying to defuse the situation, that begs the question, did he know the guy he shot was not going to attempt to disarm him in any way, therefore constituting a threat, in the broadest possible terms.

Considering he had already fired shots, he was in the wrong from that point on, self defense does not apply.

I dont see how any attorney can turn that little fact around to show him in a lily white so innocent butter wouldnt melt in his mouth light.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Then quit trying to push this all on to the rafters. Its known they drink. Call the cops them go protect your property. Dealing with a bunch of drunks isnt that hard. You settle back and wait, watch. Hell, record the incident. Iron clad in a court if your sole interest is in protecting your property. Not so much if your sole interest is being a hot head with a gun who "By god, they arent going to get away with it again!" attitude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Look, we already know there was not a whole lot of logic on that river that day.... regardless of what side you come down on.

Then what the hell is the argument?

The fact he shot an unarmed person trying to defuse the situation, that begs the question, did he know the guy he shot was not going to attempt to disarm him in any way, therefore constituting a threat, in the broadest possible terms.

Considering he had already fired shots, he was in the wrong from that point on, self defense does not apply.

I dont see how any attorney can turn that little fact around to show him in a lily white so innocent butter wouldnt melt in his mouth light.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Im not. And I have posted the code to you for 2nd degree murder. You have yet to explain how you see that filing as wrong.... under the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Alright then again, what is the argument?

Does SYG apply, no the guy fired the first shots, thus eliminating his right to claim self defense.

After that the argument becomes who was the most stupid.

Or the argument is "was there a chance to prevent this?" yes on both sides, as you pointed out.

The fact that this topic has dragged out for 25 pages lends credence to some who assert there are members of these boards that just cant stop beating a dead horse.

I have followed this from day one, and all I see is people on both sides using the same argument over and over again.

The only thing that can save this guys ass is if there is a definitive ruling on the property line, and even that is questionable since the shores of the river are a public right of way. So it has to come down to where the public right of way ends.

Since I have yet to see a state with clearly defined terms for what is a public right of way, a property line where a non navigable river is concerned and the property line where a navigable river is in question, this is a mess all around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Alright then again, what is the argument?

Does SYG apply, no the guy fired the first shots, thus eliminating his right to claim self defense.

After that the argument becomes who was the most stupid.

Or the argument is "was there a chance to prevent this?" yes on both sides, as you pointed out.

The fact that this topic has dragged out for 25 pages lends credence to some who assert there are members of these boards that just cant stop beating a dead horse.

I have followed this from day one, and all I see is people on both sides using the same argument over and over again.

The only thing that can save this guys ass is if there is a definitive ruling on the property line, and even that is questionable since the shores of the river are a public right of way. So it has to come down to where the public right of way ends.

Since I have yet to see a state with clearly defined terms for what is a public right of way, a property line where a non navigable river is concerned and the property line where a navigable river is in question, this is a mess all around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Alright then again, what is the argument?

Does SYG apply, no the guy fired the first shots, thus eliminating his right to claim self defense.

After that the argument becomes who was the most stupid.

Or the argument is "was there a chance to prevent this?" yes on both sides, as you pointed out.

The fact that this topic has dragged out for 25 pages lends credence to some who assert there are members of these boards that just cant stop beating a dead horse.

I have followed this from day one, and all I see is people on both sides using the same argument over and over again.

The only thing that can save this guys ass is if there is a definitive ruling on the property line, and even that is questionable since the shores of the river are a public right of way. So it has to come down to where the public right of way ends.

Since I have yet to see a state with clearly defined terms for what is a public right of way, a property line where a non navigable river is concerned and the property line where a navigable river is in question, this is a mess all around.

MY argument with Bama is the assertion he made about it not being 2nd degree murder and how the killer wouldnt last that long.

Its almost like he feels it isnt "fair" to punish al old man.

quote:

And since the "expert" the Post Dispatch said that these things are decided on a case by case basis it is entirely possible that he had been told that this was all his property. If so it will provide him with yet another mitigating circumstance.
And still not justifying his actions.

A mess all the way around is a mild way of putting it.

quote:

Wrong again.
Figured that as long as he dies in prison you would be happy.
I have a fixation with considering all the facts, and of course showing up a numbskull like kendom is always fun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

And since the "expert" the Post Dispatch said that these things are decided on a case by case basis it is entirely possible that he had been told that this was all his property. If so it will provide him with yet another mitigating circumstance.
And still not justifying his actions.

A mess all the way around is a mild way of putting it.

Another Conservation Department employee, a spokesman for the department, said it is a complicated aspect of Missouri law and that, typically, the question is answered on a case-by-case basis by county prosecutors.

“This is an area of Missouri law still up in the air,” he added.

A lawyer from Ozark, Mo., Harry Styron, has researched extensively the topic of property rights along streams and rivers.

“These cases are really very confusing. They are difficult to interpret,” Styron said. “You are on private property, but you have a right to be there if it’s a navigable stream and as long as you are on a gravel bar that is submerged during parts of the year, because it’s part of the stream bed.”

The property issues can be hard to sort out, he said. But either way, he said, “it obviously doesn’t have anything to do with people shooting people. We don’t have a stand-your-gravel-bar law yet.”