Oh, so you mean there was still a barrier between them? Maybe the guy should have shot him when he was first walking up the driveway, huh?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Chilling Ring camera video shows man shoot and kill his daughter's ex-boyfriend, 22, after he tried to break into their home through the front door
- Thread starter Reptile
- Start date
Father seen LAUGHING with cops after shooting dead his daughters ex
Mitchell Duckro, 52, shot his daughter Allyson's former boyfriend James Rayl 22, three times after he showed up unannounced to their home in Sidney, Ohio, on July 31.
It's interesting that the article itself makes the case that the title of the article was a journalistic sh*t move, but anyway, the soon-to-be-dead guy had breached the door, having broken the door jamb, but the door had not swung clear. The shots were fired through lites in the broken door, as I understand it, hence there was some visibility but probably limited. The last shot would not be lawful if taken deliberately with full knowledge of that the guy was fleeing at that time, but as has been previously pointed out for more than one reason, there is reasonable doubt that the shot was taken with the requisite knowledge to make it unlawful.
Would you convict the father? The next day he could come home to find her raped and dead. Good riddance. Raise your boys right so I won't have to shoot them.
pastera
NES Member
Video doesn't tell the whole story.
I read that the door frame was splintering or had failed so the guy was gaining or had gained access. If that was true then the door was no longer a barrier and the home owner had ZERO requirement to wait until harm had occurred to protect the occupants from a threat of death/serious bodily injury.
Anyone disputing this should get Andrew Branca's book and listen to some of his podcasts.
Given the split times the guy likely made the determination to fire half a second before the shot broke so the perp was still bladed towards the door making him a danger.
The third shot is going to look suspicious to non-shooters but if I were on the jury I would find a reasonable person acting prudently in the same situation would very likely fired the third shot due to fear biasing the analysis of the instantaneous danger presented when the decision to fire was made.
I read that the door frame was splintering or had failed so the guy was gaining or had gained access. If that was true then the door was no longer a barrier and the home owner had ZERO requirement to wait until harm had occurred to protect the occupants from a threat of death/serious bodily injury.
Anyone disputing this should get Andrew Branca's book and listen to some of his podcasts.
Given the split times the guy likely made the determination to fire half a second before the shot broke so the perp was still bladed towards the door making him a danger.
The third shot is going to look suspicious to non-shooters but if I were on the jury I would find a reasonable person acting prudently in the same situation would very likely fired the third shot due to fear biasing the analysis of the instantaneous danger presented when the decision to fire was made.
Similar threads
