Daniel Adkins case

[Cylinder]

What we need to accept is that "Self defense" is a defense against the accusation of the crime of murder. What's not disputed is that one guy is dead, and the other killed him. If that were the only question at law to be decided, the guy would be guilty and in jail in no time. The real question to be decided is, was the shooter justified in shooting under those conditions?

No one is questioning that. What I am questioning is the idea that police should go around arresting people and jailing for years before a determination is made that a crime was actually committed. No matter the circumstance, the police need a threshold of actual evidence that a crime has occurred before making an arrest. Full stop.

How are we to determine, other that by actual evidence, that a crime has been committed?

Do you really think that police and DAs are less likely to withhold charges from a person whose guilt is apparent by evidence or more likely to charge someone who is innocent with less than conclusive evidence?

 

[Horatius]

No matter the circumstance, the police need a threshold of actual evidence that a crime has occurred before making an arrest. Full stop.

How are we to determine, other that by actual evidence, that a crime has been committed?

In what way is one guy being dead as an admitted result of being shot by the other guy not "actual evidence"? It's not absolute proof, but it is "actual evidence" by any reasonable standard. That some people can't seem to see that is beyond my capability to understand.

In cases like this, the distinction between a "crime" and "justified" is entirely in how we interpret the situation they were in. And with this case, where it is clear who did the shooting, where it is clear the person who was shot did not have a weapon, and did not approach the shooter in any manner, but only shouted at him under circumstances that should be expected to produce some shouting, it's not unreasonable to say it should be put in front of a jury to decide.

With you assertion that "the police need a threshold of actual evidence that a crime has occurred before making an arrest", and your apparent disdain for the dead body lying there as being such "actual evidence", how would you ever convict a person for murder, if they were the only witness to the shooting?

If I shot a guy in my basement, then went to the police and said, "Yeah, I shot him, but believe me, he was totally about to attack and kill me", are you really suggesting that I should just walk free, just because the police can't prove he wasn't about to attack me?

If cases like this aren't even taken to trial, what's to stop me from just shooting everyone I get into an argument with? "He was yelling and waving his arms, I thought he was going to attack me!" BOOM!

If you can't see how ridiculous this is, then there's no help for you.

 

[Cylinder]

In what way is one guy being dead as an admitted result of being shot by the other guy not "actual evidence"? It's not absolute proof, but it is "actual evidence" by any reasonable standard. That some people can't seem to see that is beyond my capability to understand.

So what is your theory as to why the police haven't made an arrest?

 

[Horatius]

So what is your theory as to why the police haven't made an arrest?

The US is ********** in the head.



I thought that much was obvious.

 

[Xulld]

In what way is one guy being dead as an admitted result of being shot by the other guy not "actual evidence"? It's not absolute proof, but it is "actual evidence" by any reasonable standard. That some people can't seem to see that is beyond my capability to understand.

What is it evidence of?
Murder?
Manslaughter?
Self defense?

How does one know?

During that time of investigation is it proper to arrest anyone?
What if it was a granny who shot someone in her home? Should she be arrested while they determine if this was her luring someone to their death vs her killing an intruder? What if it was you, and arresting you causes you to loose your job, and even tho they prove it was self defense your life is now even more damaged for being the victim of the system?

Should the rules apply the same to everyone?

How is this different is Canada?

 

[Horatius]

What is it evidence of?
Murder?
Manslaughter?
Self defense?

How does one know?

During that time of investigation is it proper to arrest anyone?

Yes, thank you for realizing that there are different situations, which is my whole point.


There are some cases which are so plainly self-defense that no one in their right mind would dispute them. There are also some cases that are so clearly murder that no one would dispute that.

It's the middle ground that causes problems.

These "Stand your ground" laws seem to be a reaction against certain laws or court decisions that imposed a positive duty to retreat in any confrontations. This "Duty to retreat" created situations in which people who were engaging in what most reasonable people considered to be self defense were charged with criminal offenses. Such situations created an outcry that lead to these "Stand your ground" laws.

My position is simply that, while imposing a "Duty to retreat" may have created a ridiculously high barrier to claims of self defense, these new laws constitute an over-reaction in the opposite way, and have, either by design or poor implementation, created a ridiculously low barrier to claims of self defense.

You've got a situation in which an innocent man was gunned down with no warning, for doing nothing more than yelling at a guy who almost hit him with an SUV, and people are actually defending the shooter, and worrying about how "His life might be ruined".

If you can't see how ridiculous that is, and the danger it places everyone else in if such a low barrier to self defense claims are widely accepted, well, I hope you never get into an argument with anyone. You just might scare them enough to get shot, and have them walk away from it.



Seriously: If yelling "Watch where you're *********** going" is sufficient reason to justify deadly force, what's there to stop me from just shooting anyone who yells at me? How about if he's just "Eyeballing" me? There are people out there who think being looked at is a challenge or threat; why should their "fear" be taken any less seriously than that of a little old lady in her house when a crackhead breaks in?

Answer: It should be taken less seriously because that's *********** ridiculous.

But enjoy your pendulum swing while it lasts, gunslingers.

 

[crimresearch]

The only thing that is clear, is that the media claims this incident occured a certain way.

The same media that assured us that Richard Jewell was the Olympic bomber, that the Duke lacrosse team raped someone, that Thomas Dewey was the president of the USA, and that Milli Vanilli were great musicians.

Based on what has been reported, there is no logical reason for an arrest not occurring.

Which means that some other factor is very likely in play.
It could be a secret conspiracy among US officials to cover this up, it could be that the shooter was Obama's long lost twin brother from Nigeria...

Or it could be that what the media is telling us isn't accurate.

 

[Dancing David]

So, a guy in an SUV almost hits him, then shoots him for yelling to "watch where the **** [he's] going."? Anyone who thinks that's reasonable isn't.

Being told to "watch where the **** you're going" is the absolute minimum any driver should expect under these circumstances. If you can't handle that, you shouldn't be driving.

Edited by Locknar: 

Moderated content removed.

Kinda what I thought.

 

[ehcks]

No one is questioning that. What I am questioning is the idea that police should go around arresting people and jailing for years before a determination is made that a crime was actually committed. No matter the circumstance, the police need a threshold of actual evidence that a crime has occurred before making an arrest. Full stop.

When one person shoots and kills another person and there isn't enough immediate evidence at the moment the police arrive, yes, you should arrest them first. Then you figure out what happened to make the decision of whether it was justified.

Someone had just been killed. One has a gun and admits to shooting the other, who is dead. Arrest them for homicide, then determine if they were in the right. Unless, of course, it's obvious from the scene or you have many witnesses who saw what led up to it.

 

[Horatius]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide

Vehicular homicide (also known as vehicular manslaughter) in most states in the United States, is a crime. In general, it involves death that results from the negligent operation of a vehicle, or more so a result from driving while committing an unlawful act that does not amount to a felony.

We've got a situation here where, in a lot of jurisdictions, if he had killed the guy by just running him over, he'd be more likely to face charges than he is for deliberately choosing to shoot him.


If you can't see how ridiculous that is, you're hopeless.

 

[ponderingturtle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide




We've got a situation here where, in a lot of jurisdictions, if he had killed the guy by just running him over, he'd be more likely to face charges than he is for deliberately choosing to shoot him.


If you can't see how ridiculous that is, you're hopeless.

Well it is much less manly that godly standing your ground and killing him.

 

[pgwenthold]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide




We've got a situation here where, in a lot of jurisdictions, if he had killed the guy by just running him over, he'd be more likely to face charges than he is for deliberately choosing to shoot him.


If you can't see how ridiculous that is, you're hopeless.

As I noted above, it is claimed he couldn't pull away because the dog was in the way. So he shot the owner.

 

[Xulld]

You've got a situation in which an innocent man was gunned down with no warning, for doing nothing more than yelling at a guy who almost hit him with an SUV, and people are actually defending the shooter, and worrying about how "His life might be ruined".

Ok so I am assuming this first part, which is your conclusion follows from the second part.

Seriously: If yelling "Watch where you're *********** going" is sufficient reason to justify deadly force, what's there to stop me from just shooting anyone who yells at me? How about if he's just "Eyeballing" me? There are people out there who think being looked at is a challenge or threat; why should their "fear" be taken any less seriously than that of a little old lady in her house when a crackhead breaks in?

Answer: It should be taken less seriously because that's *********** ridiculous.

But enjoy your pendulum swing while it lasts, gunslingers.

^ this being the second part which should demonstrate that the conclusion is correct right?

Are you sure your narrative is 100% accurate?
Is the investigation for this event complete?
Is is possible the person in question will end up being prosecuted?
If yes and he is convicted does that mean your conclusion is invalid?
If details are discovered which changes the narrative will you hold your conclusion suspended?

I personally try to go out of my way to withhold conclusions until I can be sure of such questions. I feel this is a key facet to critical thinking.

 

[Horatius]

As I noted above, it is claimed he couldn't pull away because the dog was in the way. So he shot the owner.

No, I meant accidentally running him over, in the original incident that lead to Adkins yelling at him. Running over a pedestrian is usually classed as "negligent", which opens him to the vehicular homicide charges.

But, shooting a guy because you thought he had a weapon, even when he didn't? Apparently, perfectly fine in some people's minds.

And that highlights the absurdity of some of these situations. We all know that we accept a high level of responsibility when we drive a car, and expect to be charged with criminal offenses if we screw up and injure or kill someone. But those same rules don't seem to apply to people who choose to use guns.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

In my state, if you're driving drunk and you hit someone, you'll get lesser penalties if you flee the scene than if you stick around for the cops. It's not right.

 

[Horatius]

Are you sure your narrative is 100% accurate?

The point is, if we assume that this narrative is 100% accurate, there are people who are seriously suggesting that shooting in this situation is acceptable, and the shooter should face no consequences.

That speaks to a scary mindset, even if this particular case turns out differently.

 

[Xulld]

The point is, if we assume that this narrative is 100% accurate, there are people who are seriously suggesting that shooting in this situation is acceptable, and the shooter should face no consequences.

That speaks to a scary mindset, even if this particular case turns out differently.

Who? I must have missed it.

Edit:
Reread this thread, and I can find no one who thinks it reasonable to kill over the details we have received about this case so far. Which to me means that if we selected people from this thread as jurors, and this goes to trial based on what we know of the case now, he would be prosecuted for at least manslaughter.

 

[crimresearch]

The point is, if we assume that this narrative is 100% accurate, there are people who are seriously suggesting that shooting in this situation is acceptable, and the shooter should face no consequences.

That speaks to a scary mindset, even if this particular case turns out differently.

So after it has been pointed out that we cannot assume this story is 100% accurate, you decide to assume it anyway, in order to make up a strawman argument that other people have claimed it is OK to kill unarmed people.

 

[Xulld]

So after it has been pointed out that we cannot assume this story is 100% accurate, you decide to assume it anyway, in order to make up a strawman argument that other people have claimed it is OK to kill unarmed people.

Fairly common variable here on these forums lately? Whatca tink?

 

[crimresearch]

Fairly common variable here on these forums lately? Whatca tink?

I'm amazed that anyone is left alive...