Submitted by [deleted] t3_10pilux in newhampshire
[deleted]
Comments
[deleted] OP t1_j6kvzey wrote
Thanks for this👍🏻
Reddit_in_her_voice t1_j6knp8s wrote
I also think there's a fair case for self defense just in the two videos. Repeated blows to the head immediately following a brain injury are without question potentially deadly.
Of course we'll wait and see what happens when more evidence comes out. But notable that the reaction to this event on Reddit is virtually identical to the reaction to the Rittenhouse case and he walked away with five not guilty verdicts and zero guilty verdicts.
I've also seen a lot of ignorance about both firearms and the law. Such as people claiming a one second draw is not possible unless one's hand is already on the gun and that there is some legal duty to retreat in this state.
Edit ignorance even in this very thread where a now deleted comment argues that size is a conclusive factor and that there is some kind of legal duty to engage in fisticuffs when attacked.
Boats_are_fun t1_j6kpf3e wrote
I’m not taking sides n anything that happened but I believe I could walk around with my hand on my gun in my own pocket at all times, nothing illegal about that
TaintedAzazel t1_j6koxd1 wrote
Excessive force
[deleted] OP t1_j6kpny4 wrote
[deleted]
Reddit_in_her_voice t1_j6kqkfx wrote
If the mag holds 16, 8 can be presented as restraint. Will need more information. Also if he was knocked out remember, he was suffering from a brain injury. Counting rounds is hard.
[deleted] OP t1_j6kvwa6 wrote
It was a small Glock that held 7 in the mag and 1 in the chamber so a total of 8 and he dumped it because he’s a pussy and can’t defend himself and talked shit from inside to outside and killed someone this isn’t an angry reply to you this just needs to be said and known by someone on the inside of it. The fact that he had the loaded concealed carry in the Goat in his front jacket pocket originally makes it weird he had it ready to fire and not in his front pocket anymore but in his hand in his front pocket like a hoodie pocket and was ready to be even slightly pushed and gun down the kid half his size. Facts wether you hate guns or love them. Facts wether you like it or not.
Reddit_in_her_voice t1_j6kx84u wrote
Which model? I haven't seen any info.
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6kqvlm wrote
"Excessive force refers to force in excess of what a police officer reasonably believes is necessary. A police officer may be held liable for using excessive force in an arrest, an investigatory stop, or other seizures."
He's not a cop.
TaintedAzazel t1_j6l11eu wrote
Self-defense laws in the US typically justify a person’s use of lethal force in public in situations where lethal force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to themselves or another person. Traditionally, these laws have been clear that taking human life is not necessary, and is therefore not justified, if the person could have avoided using lethal violence by retreating, or simply stepping away from a confrontation. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a conflict before using force in their home, however (known as the Castle Doctrine).1
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6l5dxe wrote
Wasn't he surrounded? Which way should he have retreated?
TaintedAzazel t1_j6l9ovr wrote
Oh I don’t know if those people were on a certain side or just wanted to watch a fight It doesn’t really matter anyways there was no need to shoot the dude in the face like five times
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6lsdxv wrote
the story at the moment is that they were friends of napoleon and looking to jump him
Hot-Specialist-6824 t1_j6ktnvg wrote
Punches are generally non deadly force. In this case The roundhouse thrown certainly was non deadly force. You cannot respond to non deadly force with deadly force. As a retired attorney who practiced in both Mass and New Hampshire I can tell you that the arguments regarding the defendant thinking he may have received life-threatening damage from the knockout which would then permit him to use lethal force is not going to fly in front of a jury. This is because of two reasons, the first is a reasonable person would not think that and that is the standard. The second is when you're not in your home, and you are confronted by deadly force you have a duty to retreat if you can. And these hold true in both civil and criminal law. Last, somebody said something about John's size. Well it's not definitive, again, go to the reasonable person. What a reasonable person of John's size be more or less fearful of someone much smaller? (Yes, someone's always going to bring up what if John thought the smaller guy might be a karate expert or something. Again, go to the reasonable person standard, would someone thinking the smaller guy is a martial arts expert be a reasonable assumption? No. That would be a big leap of faith). The ONLY a thing that might possibly make him guilty of a charge lesser than second degree murder is having received a blow to the head minutes earlier. That would be the battle of the expert witnesses. Second degree murder is not what they call a specific intent crime it is a crime of malice, therefore voluntary intoxication, which is a defense against specific intent crimes, is not a defense here in any way to lessen the charges.
Live_FreeorDie603 t1_j6kvqtn wrote
You were an attorney in NH? NH is a stand your ground state? Second, I'm a reasonable person who multiple head injuries who would say that a punch to the head has potential to belife threatening.
Azr431 t1_j6kpjgr wrote
It’s a shame everyone in the vicinity wasn’t armed to the teeth so we coulda had a huge gunslinging shootout with good guys everywhere!
Reddit_in_her_voice t1_j6kqnw3 wrote
How do you know they weren't?
Azr431 t1_j6kr4a9 wrote
Well obvs because there weren’t 20 dead bad guys
Reddit_in_her_voice t1_j6krkom wrote
What if there was only one bad guy?
Azr431 t1_j6kvy4d wrote
There’s never just one bad guy. Every red blooded Murican knows this
[deleted] OP t1_j6kqv8n wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] OP t1_j6ksdek wrote
It’s not might be ignorant thought, it is an ignorant thought. I carry everywhere, and I purposely avoid confrontation at all cost. I don’t look for confrontation in hopes I get to kill somebody. Psycho
TechPriestPratt t1_j6kql3c wrote
You should not find it significant at all that his defense attorney feels confident that he will be found not guilty. It's literally his job to say things like that. The guy could be guilty as sin and his defense attorney will (and should) go out there and say that he believes he will be found not guilty. Don't be so gullible.
*note I'm not saying he is or isn't guilty just commenting on taking anything an attorney with interest in the case says at face value.
[deleted] OP t1_j6knl80 wrote
[deleted]
bwamike t1_j6kosae wrote
Where is the video of inside??
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6kp7cr wrote
You can't force someone to punch you. Regardless of what happened before, as soon as that dude threw the punch he was at fault. Seems pretty simple, don't act like an animal, don't throw a punch over words, then this doesn't happen. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a different agenda. I feel bad for the guy whose going to get shit because some little napoleon threw what appears to be two sucker punches.
[deleted] OP t1_j6kpze4 wrote
[deleted]
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6kqjw2 wrote
Clearly not, this is obviously stand your ground.
"Residents have a right to defend themselves from attack anywhere. A citizen should not be required to retreat from a place they have a legal right to be. "
https://www.citizenscount.org/issues/stand-your-ground-castle-doctrine
Like I said, don't throw the punch, this never happens.
[deleted] OP t1_j6krb44 wrote
[deleted]
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6kskzr wrote
Smartalum t1_j6krt69 wrote
Read idiot.
Where is the evidence that the person was in fear of death?
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6kt6xx wrote
what would you consider evidence?
Smartalum t1_j6kv0k1 wrote
It is an affirmative defense, which means the defendant has the burden of proof.
I see none here that suggests the defendant was in fear for his life.
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6kvkyi wrote
I don't know, being surrounded by 3-4 people and getting suckered punched in the face would seem to present an issue yo your claim. You also didn't answer the question. Was he supposed to cry in fear?
RondaArousedMe t1_j6ksizg wrote
I understand the law and the reasoning for it but your calling the guy who allegedly threw two sucker punches an animal and not the guy who based on his own words, left the bar looking for retaliation of some kind and immediately drew his firearm firing 8 rounds an animal?
They both seem like giant cowards to me.
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6kt5rb wrote
why would I blame someone responding to head trauma? let alone a second head trauma.
RondaArousedMe t1_j6kuwlc wrote
A.) You don't know whether either punch was provoked or not
B.) While a punch to the face can technically be lethal, it seems that it is a far stretch from "deadly force" under the NH law. (If you get into a fist fight it's considered assault not attempted murder in the vast majority of cases)
C.) I would assume that if you follow someone out of an establishment to confront them with implied confrontation/violence that is not defending yourself. That person is looking for a confrontation and they responded with deadly force
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6kvlzz wrote
> You don't know whether either punch was provoked or not
Did you watch the video? Hard to say a sucker punch is provoked.
> I would assume that if you follow someone out of an establishment to confront them with implied confrontation/violence that is not defending yourself. That person is looking for a confrontation and they responded with deadly force
The dude got escorted out of the bar by security. How are you going to argue he followed someone out?
RondaArousedMe t1_j6kzf2y wrote
It was more of a sucker punch than I originally thought, didn't realize which way his face was turned when he got hit.
Sure followed is the wrong word, they both got escorted out of the bar, and the shooter is on camera threatening violence (seemingly in response to a prior altercation) and then they end up face to face in the parking lot across the street? It seems like there was intent for an altercation regardless.
Smartalum t1_j6krlku wrote
Yea - this is bullshit.
The fact that someone punches you does not give you the right to execute him.
The fucking guy is dead because a wanna-be Clint Eastwood want to kill someone.
[deleted] OP t1_j6ktwp9 wrote
[removed]
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6ktbmc wrote
the guy is dead because he got physical. why did he have to get physical?
BarelyDead36 t1_j6kum69 wrote
Yikes dude. Yikes.
Hot-Specialist-6824 t1_j6ku0yl wrote
In both civil and criminal law there's always been a big distinction between deadly and non deadly force. It's one thing to have people going home with broken noses, it's another to have people leaving in body bags. You generally cannot respond to non deadly force with deadly force.
Downtown-Motor9525 t1_j6kxsv6 wrote
If someone cuts you off in traffic do you have the right to shoot and kill them? Cutting someone off could lead to an accident and that could potentially be deadly
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6l5vht wrote
I've never been cutoff so hard it causes immediate bodily damage. Maybe that's just me.
Downtown-Motor9525 t1_j6lattd wrote
If someone causes you bodily damage you don’t get to kill them you Neanderthal.
Longjumping_Ask_4911 t1_j6lsb6a wrote
you do if you have reason to think they're going to do it again. in your example if the car then turns around and tries to ram you.
Smartalum t1_j6krcgo wrote
Former prosecutor here.
The initial pleading will always be not guilty. It is damn near malpractice for a defense lawyer to say anything differently than the lawyer did here.
So the OP is completely wrong about the significance here.
And no OP - I don't think you give a DAMN about the loss of life here. And you absolutely are trying to justify the result.