Man gets sucker punched, pulls out weapons and kills the perp… You Decide…

[Junior314]

Probably not a justifiable shot. The sucker puncher got what he deserved. No guilty vote from me if I were on the jury.

 

[pastera]

Probably not a justifiable shot. The sucker puncher got what he deserved. No guilty vote from me if I were on the jury.

No question that it wasn't a legally justifiable shot.
However when the government doesn't do its job of policing society then we must allow for individuals to act to keep the peace. While a sucker punch shouldn't be a death penalty, it will only take a couple of victim selection fails before people think twice about taking that swing.
If the crowd had reacted by beating the guy the instant he suckered punched a random person then moral justice would have been fully satisfied, that didn't happen so the wronged person used the level of force he possessed to persuade the guy not to attack random people.

 

[Junior314]

No question that it wasn't a legally justifiable shot.
However when the government doesn't do its job of policing society then we must allow for individuals to act to keep the peace. While a sucker punch shouldn't be a death penalty, it will only take a couple of victim selection fails before people think twice about taking that swing.
If the crowd had reacted by beating the guy the instant he suckered punched a random person then moral justice would have been fully satisfied, that didn't happen so the wronged person used the level of force he possessed to persuade the guy not to attack random people.

I think society is better off with the sucker puncher in the ground.

An armed society is a polite society.

 

[Picton]

No question that it wasn't a legally justifiable shot.
However when the government doesn't do its job of policing society then we must allow for individuals to act to keep the peace. While a sucker punch shouldn't be a death penalty, it will only take a couple of victim selection fails before people think twice about taking that swing.
If the crowd had reacted by beating the guy the instant he suckered punched a random person then moral justice would have been fully satisfied, that didn't happen so the wronged person used the level of force he possessed to persuade the guy not to attack random people.

As I said before, I'm shedding no tears over the sucker-puncher getting offed. But now that we're getting into philosophy? What moral-justice imperative says it's okay to respond to a closed fist with two rounds to the chest?

If the shooter had gone after the puncher with his fists, my view of this would be entirely different. Because that would be meeting force with force, battery against battery with only the "sneak-attack" nature of the initial punch to differentiate them. It's not so easy for me to justify the disparate levels of force, especially considering that the shooter declined to stand up for himself right away. The initial retreat is very damning, I think, both legally and morally.

 

[Junior314]

As I said before, I'm shedding no tears over the sucker-puncher getting offed. But now that we're getting into philosophy? What moral-justice imperative says it's okay to respond to a closed fist with two rounds to the chest?

If the shooter had gone after the puncher with his fists, my view of this would be entirely different. Because that would be meeting force with force, battery against battery with only the "sneak-attack" nature of the initial punch to differentiate them. It's not so easy for me to justify the disparate levels of force, especially considering that the shooter declined to stand up for himself right away. The initial retreat is very damning, I think, both legally and morally.

A punch to the back of the head can kill.

This specific incident the guy left and came back to finish the job. Probably not a justifiable shoot, but that doesn't matter to me.

 

[Coyote33]

persuade the guy not to attack random people

But was it random? Seemed like maybe they had something more involved going on.

 

[MAGA99]

Two things can be true: What he did was unlawful but I wouldn’t vote to convict.

When you instigate, the law goes out the window in real life. You mess with the bull, you get the horns. PSGWSP. Zero sympathy. This needs to happen more often.....it likely does in chiraq it’s just rarely on video.

 

[Junior314]

But was it random? Seemed like maybe they had something more involved going on.

Probably not, it did happen near Chicago right? If that is the case one scumbag is dead and another is going to jail.

 

[Picton]

A punch to the back of the head can kill.

Sure it can. Absolutely it can.

But in this case? It didn’t. Hell, it didn’t even put the guy out. He just bounced up, stepped away, burrowed around for the gun in his bag, secured his escape, then gave him a parting shot before scampering.

I’m not sure why anyone here is defending that sort of conduct. I view it as cowardly. He took zero responsibility for his response. If it was justifiable, he sure didn’t act like it.

ETA: I'm rethinking the word "cowardly." I don't think the shooter was any more cowardly than the puncher. But he certainly wasn't courageous.

 

[DecOFlaherty]

I bet that guy was just starting to turn his life around, too.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

I don't want jurors who apply their own biases. I want jurors who apply the law.

Jury nullification. I’m my own person. I’m not a robot. I expect any jurors for me to act similarly.

That’s why it’s a jury of peers and not of cops or lawyers or judges.

 

[Garys]

I hope he has a lawyer who is an expert on the law of self defense, not real estate law.

I hope this in-duh-vidual is has sufficient medical knowledge to explain exactly what the medical consequences of a single punch to the head can be, and why another punch could easily have left him dead or organ donor material.

 

[Bt74]

Sure it can. Absolutely it can.

But in this case? It didn’t. Hell, it didn’t even put the guy out. He just bounced up, stepped away, burrowed around for the gun in his bag, secured his escape, then gave him a parting shot before scampering.

I’m not sure why anyone here is defending that sort of conduct. I view it as cowardly. He took zero responsibility for his response. If it was justifiable, he sure didn’t act like it.

ETA: I'm rethinking the word "cowardly." I don't think the shooter was any more cowardly than the puncher. But he certainly wasn't courageous.

Don't sucker punch people and you won't have anything to worry about. If you read the link I posted, the victim refused treatment, and then went home and died. Suckerpunchers need to be exterminated. Sorry you have so much empathy for them.

 

[Rat187]

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard, and I want jurors who take that to heart, truly believe people are innocent unless proven otherwise, and apply meaning to what laws are meant. If there’s any biases, and it’s in favor of the individual and not the state, yes, I want jurors with biases. I want jurors that can think for themselves and don’t need to be told what to think.

Are you living in the material world...?

 

[Rat187]

Jury nullification. I’m my own person. I’m not a robot. I expect any jurors for me to act similarly.

That’s why it’s a jury of peers and not of cops or lawyers or judges.

The problem is the judge tells the jury what the rules are....lol Jesus

 

[Junior314]

Sure it can. Absolutely it can.

But in this case? It didn’t. Hell, it didn’t even put the guy out. He just bounced up, stepped away, burrowed around for the gun in his bag, secured his escape, then gave him a parting shot before scampering.

I’m not sure why anyone here is defending that sort of conduct. I view it as cowardly. He took zero responsibility for his response. If it was justifiable, he sure didn’t act like it.

ETA: I'm rethinking the word "cowardly." I don't think the shooter was any more cowardly than the puncher. But he certainly wasn't courageous.

I'm not a believer that you need to use equal force to defend yourself. I'm not arguing that he is a hero for putting the guy down, he certainly isn't a coward. PSGWSP all around for everyone.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

The problem is the judge tells the jury what the rules are....lol Jesus

Jury nullification my friend.

 

[Buck F]

I don't want jurors who apply their own biases. I want jurors who apply the law. Which kind of juror would you prefer if you were the defendant, for anything? You want a fair trial. You won't get that if jurors are disregarding the law.

@M1911 is entirely correct, up in post 93: if you're going to carry, it's on you to know the law. The law as it IS, not the law as you want it to be. You don't get to kill people in revenge. You just don't.

I don't disagree with a word you said, I'm still a no vote on convicting the guy IF it were up to me.

 

[Tim_McD]

Shooter just had poor timing…doing that after 01-Jan-2023 is a whole other thing

Illinois 'Safe-T' Act Non-Detainable Offenses​

1. Aggravated Battery
2. Aggravated DUI
3. Aggravated Fleeing
4. Arson
5. Burglary
6. Drug-Induced Homicide
7. Intimidation
8. Kidnapping
9. Robbery
10. 2nd-Degree Murder
11. Threatening a Public Official

Read More: Illinois Safe-T Act | Be Charged With These Crimes in 2023 and Illinois Won't Detain You

 

[MAGA99]

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the legal standard, and I want jurors who take that to heart, truly believe people are innocent unless proven otherwise, and apply meaning to what laws are meant. If there’s any biases, and it’s in favor of the individual and not the state, yes, I want jurors with biases. I want jurors that can think for themselves and don’t need to be told what to think.

Me too. Unfortunately, I’ve been on a jury before....

 

[MAGA99]

Uh huh.

And in this case? Based on the video? Given whatever understanding of SD, manslaughter, and murder you have? What would you say the shooter here is likely to be found guilty of?

Reminder: he was halfway out a door and could have just kept right on walking...

I hear you....but chiraq.

Has the hero been arrested yet??

 

[Picton]

Don't sucker punch people and you won't have anything to worry about. If you read the link I posted, the victim refused treatment, and then went home and died. Suckerpunchers need to be exterminated. Sorry you have so much empathy for them.

I think you missed the part where I TWICE said I'm not sorry the suckerpuncher is dead.

We're not talking about the suckerpuncher's conduct here, or at least I'm not. We're talking about the shooter's conduct. You know, like the thread title says...

 

[MAGA99]

As I said before, I'm shedding no tears over the sucker-puncher getting offed. But now that we're getting into philosophy? What moral-justice imperative says it's okay to respond to a closed fist with two rounds to the chest?

If the shooter had gone after the puncher with his fists, my view of this would be entirely different. Because that would be meeting force with force, battery against battery with only the "sneak-attack" nature of the initial punch to differentiate them. It's not so easy for me to justify the disparate levels of force, especially considering that the shooter declined to stand up for himself right away. The initial retreat is very damning, I think, both legally and morally.

Morally, you start shit, it’s your damn fault what happens.

Again people, this is chiraq. Normal logic doesn’t work there. Dead bad guys there are 100% of the time a win for society as a whole.

 

[MAGA99]

Probably not, it did happen near Chicago right? If that is the case one scumbag is dead and another is going to jail.

Nobody is going to jail over this!!!

 

[MAGA99]

I think you missed the part where I TWICE said I'm not sorry the suckerpuncher is dead.

We're not talking about the suckerpuncher's conduct here, or at least I'm not. We're talking about the shooter's conduct. You know, like the thread title says...

I’m 100% OK with the shooters conduct.

 

[Rat187]

Jury nullification my friend.

Welp:
In 2017, a jury was instructed: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[59]

 

[Picton]

I’m 100% OK with the shooters conduct.

Do you think you'd have done it?

Maybe you'll say "I don't know," and that's fine by me. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just curious whether your endorsement of this kid's actions goes so far as to say you'd do the same thing.

 

[Buck F]

Do you think you'd have done it?

Maybe you'll say "I don't know," and that's fine by me. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just curious whether your endorsement of this kid's actions goes so far as to say you'd do the same thing.

I imagine that I would not...

 

[Junior314]

I imagine that I would not...

I’m guessing most of us wouldn’t because I highly doubt this is a random attack.

 

[Buck F]

Welp:
In 2017, a jury was instructed: "You cannot substitute your sense of justice, whatever that means, for your duty to follow the law, whether you agree with it or not. It is not for you to determine whether the law is just or whether the law is unjust. That cannot be your task. There is no such thing as valid jury nullification. You would violate your oath and the law if you willfully brought a verdict contrary to the law given to you in this case." The Ninth Circuit upheld the first three sentences of the jury's instruction and overruled the remainder but deemed that instruction a harmless error and affirmed the conviction.[59]

Your honor, the Defendant said he was reasonably in fear of imminent loss of life/severe injury. I believe him.