« An item prob. not to be reported in the MSM | Main | Marion Barry walks again »
Test for "no retreat" laws
The article describes it as a test of "Castle Doctrine," but it's actually of the "no retreat" law.
What is a bit annoying is that I've seen plenty of cases on these facts (attacker, with evidence of aggressive intent, defender testifying that he fired because the car was coming at him. All involved law enforcement, and no charges were brought. Here, the guy was out walking a dog, the survivor agrees that they were coming back to get the defender, and had rounded up another guy, a gang leader, to help in the work. Whether the defenders were LEOs or civilians, I think a murder charge is outa line. Of course, as with any trial, you have to wait for the evidence to come out.
Sounds like the guy was a pretty good shot if he managed to get the driver in the face seven times while the vehicle was moving. Also sounds to me like his actions might be justified - you have several guys driving by you, yelling at you, then making a u-turn and going back, only to return with more guys - you know they're not there to have a chat - they're coming to kick your butt and who knows how far they're going to take it. Sounds like a reasonable fear of a threat of imminent physical harm or death to me.
Too bad the guy had to say something like "you guys think you're so bad." Just like Bernie Goetz in the NY subway shootings, to the average juror, that might sound like you were trying to hurt them rather than just trying to stop a legitimate threat to your own well-being. Best thing is to not say anything.