The one you can answer now (supposedly) is actually what led to my half-smartassed post above concerning using enough gun for the first shot. It seems that one of the things that started all this was the autopsy reporting stating that the head wound was not fatal.

Now, whether there was a bias to that report...I dunno.

-Mark

Looks pretty bad in the video. I'd say this fellow is in some serious trouble.

Those two questions are probably the best chance he has at a legal defense. But I'm with what appears to be the consensus here, he's toast. We'd make about as sympathetic of a jury (without endorsing vigilantism) as you could find for the guy and still the decision seems to be guilty.

This guy and his mouthpiece were on O'reilly tonight. Missed almost all of it. They are emphasizing his fear that the guy had a gun and that the whole incident only took 45 secs

This inccident started as clear self defense. No "reluctant participant" issues, and a holdup, not a bar fight or anything like that.

The phamacist shows no fear or reluctance, he seemed to enjoy the opportunity. It's hard to identify with his reation. Of course, he is a lieutenant colonel, by definition, not a wimp, and not a complete idiot. I would argue "taking care of business" in his defense.

Because the initial self defense position is solid, and the whole incident took less than a minute a jury may well identify with the defendant, if he did not destroy his credibility by his statements later.

A jury who accepts the initial self defense may not expect a person who is attacked to defend himself in a perfect manner. My own reaction? I tend to just be glad he "won". The "victim" was lovable only to his Mom, I think.

He's probably pretty good with his gun. A head shot with a carry gun at one of two assailants who have the drop on you? Either stupid and lucky or really good. I think he's good.

I like this one "Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 343 (1921) (published May 16, 1921).

Link:



He further went on to explain: "Neener, neener, neener."

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-new ... 0936.story

So, let me get this straight:

Prosecutor and Defendant parties both agree to something, where there is no point of contention whatsoever, and the judge says, "Screw you! You're both going to do what I want!"??

WTF!?

On the nosie.

He appeared, with his attorney, on the "Bill O'Reilly Show" last night. He had a somewhat plausible explanation of the encounter and why the last shots were taken. Might just be enough.

I don't know why he is going so public with the encounter. Only his lawyer knows that.

For me, the last shots are questionable. (So is chasing the other thug out the door and shooting at him.)

They may be just trying to do damage control. He already put himself out there, so at this point shutting up may appear even worse. At least now the lawyer is guiding what he says.

-Mark

From: http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/46733292.html

David Gross said it when I took my first class, Joel said it when I took my refresher: <I>Don't talk too much!</i> "My name is Bruce Krafft. I'm at the corner of First and Second, please send an ambulance and police." <I><B>Then hang up</i></b> and call your lawyer. (You <I>do</i> have a lawyer on speed dial, right?)

Maybe it wasn't such a bad idea for him to tell the dispatcher that he was the homeowner and he had a gun on the perp.

If it was me, I wouldn't want to police to react to "a man with a gun" negatively.

Regardless, adding the "...this guy's going to die" isn't a good idea.

-Mark