Daniel Adkins case

[Cylinder]

Which doesn't mean he isn't under investigation, and won't be arrested at some future date. In fact, from your article: "Police turned over their findings to the district attorney's office. Prosecutors have sent it back for further investigation."

Are you claiming that police should have to provide some actual evidence of a crime before someone is arrested?

Can you possibly provide some evidence for that claim, please?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, unless CNN raises a fuss, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's times like these that make me reflect on Blackstone. "Better ten innocent rot in prison, thean Anderson Cooper get his manties in a wad."

Gotta love election years.

 

[Horatius]

He said witnesses at the scene told him that Adkins "went beserk" on his son, raising his hands and yelling: "What the hell, you almost hit me" and to "watch where the **** you're going."

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 Cleon: 

Masking fixed.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

There's signs at the McDs drivethrough near where I work, saying to watch for pedestrians crossing to the door on that side of the building. They should have something on him for that if nothing else.

 

[Xulld]

Are you claiming that police should have to provide some actual evidence of a crime before someone is arrested?

Can you possibly provide some evidence for that claim, please?



It's times like these that make me reflect on Blackstone. "Better ten innocent rot in prison, thean Anderson Cooper get his manties in a wad."

Gotta love election years.

Laughed so hard I spit salad out of my mouth.

 

[Psi Baba]

Based on this and the Martin case, what I don't understand is why people with guns who claim to feel threatened (and you notice how all these people walking around with guns are the ones who feel sooo threatened?), don't first just point the gun at the other person. Most people will back off when a gun is pointed at them. And if the gun wielder thinks the other person has a hand weapon, the gun wielder clearly has the advantage and no shots need be fired. Too many gun owners seem to be just itching to use their guns and are looking for the slightest excuse.

That guy in Norway who killed 77 people is claiming self-defense. Just to show how absurd this all is, I'm taking his side.

 

[WildCat]

That guy in Norway who killed 77 people is claiming self-defense.

They were "coming right at him"?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Based on this and the Martin case, what I don't understand is why people with guns who claim to feel threatened (and you notice how all these people walking around with guns are the ones who feel sooo threatened?), don't first just point the gun at the other person. Most people will back off when a gun is pointed at them. And if the gun wielder thinks the other person has a hand weapon, the gun wielder clearly has the advantage and no shots need be fired. Too many gun owners seem to be just itching to use their guns and are looking for the slightest excuse.

That guy in Norway who killed 77 people is claiming self-defense. Just to show how absurd this all is, I'm taking his side.

It could well be easier to get away with it if they kill the other guy than brandish their gun. See pulling your gun when you don't need it to intimidate someone is a crime.

 

[pgwenthold]

Let's see, he couldn't pull off in the SUV because the dog was in the way, and he certainly didn't want to hurt the dog, right? So shoot his owner instead.

Second, these types of laws are not going to work if people can confuse a dog leash for a 3 ft pipe and get away with it as an excuse. No. You can't just pull your gun on someone because you thought he had a weapon. You needed to know he had a weapon. If you thought he had a weapon and he didn't, and killed him as a result, I don't care, you thought wrong, and therefore you are guilty. If you want to claim self-defense, your life better have actually been in danger, none of this "I thought it might be" crap.

 

[crimresearch]

Let's see, he couldn't pull off in the SUV because the dog was in the way, and he certainly didn't want to hurt the dog, right? So shoot his owner instead.

Second, these types of laws are not going to work if people can confuse a dog leash for a 3 ft pipe and get away with it as an excuse. No. You can't just pull your gun on someone because you thought he had a weapon. You needed to know he had a weapon. If you thought he had a weapon and he didn't, and killed him as a result, I don't care, you thought wrong, and therefore you are guilty. If you want to claim self-defense, your life better have actually been in danger, none of this "I thought it might be" crap.

So would you require mind reading capabilities, or X-ray vision for those situations where a replica, or an unloaded gun is presented?

The reality is that the writing of law is bound to err on the side of locking up innocent people, or it is going to err on the side of letting dishonest people take advantage through their dishonesty.

 

[Horatius]

So would you require mind reading capabilities, or X-ray vision for those situations where a replica, or an unloaded gun is presented?

The reality is that the writing of law is bound to err on the side of locking up innocent people, or it is going to err on the side of letting dishonest people take advantage through their dishonesty.

See, this is where taking it to court and establishing a "reasonable person" standard comes into it.

I support the right to self defense, but with rights come responsibilities. And in these sorts of cases, if you want the right to carry a gun, and use it in self defense, you have a greater burden of responsibility to ensure you don't use it incorrectly.

And in this case, the guy really screwed up, because even if he did really believe that Adkins had a pipe or something, a person with a pipe in front of your SUV isn't a shoot first and ask questions later kind of threat.

Add in the fact that he had just almost run over Adkins, and he should have had a reasonable expectation that he would be yelled at. Instead of going for his gun, he should have been apologizing, and admitting he was an asshat driver.

With this "Oh, I thought I was threatened!" excuse, where there seems to be no standard of reasonableness applied, I can't see how you would ever convict someone for shooting an unarmed person. If just yelling at a bad driver is sufficient cause to be labelled a Deadly Threat, then any trigger happy moron with a gun can shoot people for interactions that we've all seen, and probably been a part of. They're creating a situation in which anyone who isn't willing to be an obsequious milquetoast whenever some asshat does something stupid risks being shot because "Oh, I felt threatened!"


And that's complete ********.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I wonder if he ordered the new Doritos Locos Tacos?

 

[Cylinder]

I wonder if he ordered the new Doritos Locos Tacos?

Oh, you'll burn for that.

 

[crimresearch]

See, this is where taking it to court and establishing a "reasonable person" standard comes into it.

I support the right to self defense, but with rights come responsibilities. And in these sorts of cases, if you want the right to carry a gun, and use it in self defense, you have a greater burden of responsibility to ensure you don't use it incorrectly.

And in this case, the guy really screwed up, because even if he did really believe that Adkins had a pipe or something, a person with a pipe in front of your SUV isn't a shoot first and ask questions later kind of threat.

Add in the fact that he had just almost run over Adkins, and he should have had a reasonable expectation that he would be yelled at. Instead of going for his gun, he should have been apologizing, and admitting he was an asshat driver.

With this "Oh, I thought I was threatened!" excuse, where there seems to be no standard of reasonableness applied, I can't see how you would ever convict someone for shooting an unarmed person. If just yelling at a bad driver is sufficient cause to be labelled a Deadly Threat, then any trigger happy moron with a gun can shoot people for interactions that we've all seen, and probably been a part of. They're creating a situation in which anyone who isn't willing to be an obsequious milquetoast whenever some asshat does something stupid risks being shot because "Oh, I felt threatened!"


And that's complete ********.

The reasonableness that I already brought up in post #13?

 

[rwguinn]

See, this is where taking it to court and establishing a "reasonable person" standard comes into it.

I support the right to self defense, but with rights come responsibilities. And in these sorts of cases, if you want the right to carry a gun, and use it in self defense, you have a greater burden of responsibility to ensure you don't use it incorrectly.

And in this case, the guy really screwed up, because even if he did really believe that Adkins had a pipe or something, a person with a pipe in front of your SUV isn't a shoot first and ask questions later kind of threat.

Add in the fact that he had just almost run over Adkins, and he should have had a reasonable expectation that he would be yelled at. Instead of going for his gun, he should have been apologizing, and admitting he was an asshat driver.

With this "Oh, I thought I was threatened!" excuse, where there seems to be no standard of reasonableness applied, I can't see how you would ever convict someone for shooting an unarmed person. If just yelling at a bad driver is sufficient cause to be labelled a Deadly Threat, then any trigger happy moron with a gun can shoot people for interactions that we've all seen, and probably been a part of. They're creating a situation in which anyone who isn't willing to be an obsequious milquetoast whenever some asshat does something stupid risks being shot because "Oh, I felt threatened!"


And that's complete ********.

I said the same damn thing and got ridiculed...

 

[Freddy]

Daniel Adkins - shot dead at Taco Bell

Trigger-happy shooter not arrested yet

From the story, it certainly does not sound like a reasonable use of deadly force. But is it really a great injustice for the law to require evidence to be gathered before an arrest is made, rather than arresting on the spot? What is the ultimate significance of spending a few weeks building the case before making an arrest, when the likely charge carries a lengthy prison sentence? Any trial is going to take far longer than that to play out, and I doubt the guy would be remanded without bail in the meantime anyway. Also, by not arresting him immediately, police actually have fewer impediments to questioning the shooter and gathering evidence.

If an announcement is made that no charges are being sought, then it will be time for outrage.

 

[Freddy]

Let's see, he couldn't pull off in the SUV because the dog was in the way, and he certainly didn't want to hurt the dog, right? So shoot his owner instead.

Second, these types of laws are not going to work if people can confuse a dog leash for a 3 ft pipe and get away with it as an excuse. No. You can't just pull your gun on someone because you thought he had a weapon. You needed to know he had a weapon. If you thought he had a weapon and he didn't, and killed him as a result, I don't care, you thought wrong, and therefore you are guilty. If you want to claim self-defense, your life better have actually been in danger, none of this "I thought it might be" crap.

I wouldn't go that far. It has to depend on the complete circumstances. But "I thought I might be" in danger certainly isn't good enough. You have to believe it actually is, and the circumstances must be such that a reasonable person would feel that way.

That said, this case does not seem reasonable at all. If the article is reasonably accurate in describing what happened and in characterizing the statements it relates, then this guy is going to be charged at least with manslaughter. If the arm-swinging (while he was in the relative safety of his SUV, no less!) is the extent of the "threatening" behavior, then I don't see a jury finding that reasonable. He didn't even think he saw a gun, and the guy didn't make any unambiguously aggressive move. I think most people, and most jurors, would think that no reasonable person would have felt it necessary to resort to force so quickly.

 

[geni]

Based on this and the Martin case, what I don't understand is why people with guns who claim to feel threatened (and you notice how all these people walking around with guns are the ones who feel sooo threatened?), don't first just point the gun at the other person.

Because then the other person has a fairly good legal defence for shooting you. Its also generaly considered unwise to point a gun at someone without the full intention of using it.

Also we are dealing with a very small number of cases so I doubt there is any statisticaly significant reasoning.

 

[ponderingturtle]

See, this is where taking it to court and establishing a "reasonable person" standard comes into it.

I support the right to self defense, but with rights come responsibilities. And in these sorts of cases, if you want the right to carry a gun, and use it in self defense, you have a greater burden of responsibility to ensure you don't use it incorrectly.

And in this case, the guy really screwed up, because even if he did really believe that Adkins had a pipe or something, a person with a pipe in front of your SUV isn't a shoot first and ask questions later kind of threat.

Add in the fact that he had just almost run over Adkins, and he should have had a reasonable expectation that he would be yelled at. Instead of going for his gun, he should have been apologizing, and admitting he was an asshat driver.

With this "Oh, I thought I was threatened!" excuse, where there seems to be no standard of reasonableness applied, I can't see how you would ever convict someone for shooting an unarmed person. If just yelling at a bad driver is sufficient cause to be labelled a Deadly Threat, then any trigger happy moron with a gun can shoot people for interactions that we've all seen, and probably been a part of. They're creating a situation in which anyone who isn't willing to be an obsequious milquetoast whenever some asshat does something stupid risks being shot because "Oh, I felt threatened!"


And that's complete ********.

The thing is how high should the standard be to claim self defense. Can you initiate a confrontation, escalate it and still claim self defense or should you have a legal obligation to avoid violence? These laws get rid of that and so if the dead guy had a walking stick he would probably get away with it.

 

[quadraginta]

The thing is how high should the standard be to claim self defense. Can you initiate a confrontation, escalate it and still claim self defense or should you have a legal obligation to avoid violence? These laws get rid of that and so if the dead guy had a walking stick he would probably get away with it.

The dead guy was armed with a leash that had a dog attached to it.

It's an obscure Asian fighting technique, similar to nunchaku, except that you can have the dog for dinner if it doesn't survive the encounter.

The guy could have swung the dog on the SUV at any moment. If he had gone for the gas tank the entire Taco Bell might have been immolated in seconds. (You know how easy those things blow. We see it on TV all the time.)

That driver probably saved dozens of lives. Maybe hundreds if the place was really busy.

 

[Horatius]

The thing is how high should the standard be to claim self defense. Can you initiate a confrontation, escalate it and still claim self defense or should you have a legal obligation to avoid violence? These laws get rid of that and so if the dead guy had a walking stick he would probably get away with it.

And that's where investigating things, and taking them to court when they're not cut and dried, comes into it.

There are some things that are clearly self-defense. If the cops find two known car jackers lying dead next to your car, at an intersection they've been known to jack cars, and they both have weapons lying close to hand, it's incredibly unlikely that you set them up in some deranged vigilante plot.

But there's a whole spectrum of possibilities that start there, and range down to things so ridiculous that even these laws couldn't get you off. At least, I hope everyone will agree that "He was looking at me funny so I shot him!" isn't an acceptable defense.

What's reasonable will depend on the entire context of the altercation. You mention "if the dead guy had a walking stick he would probably get away with it", but as I said before, even that isn't reasonable. A guy with a walking stick who is in front of your SUV isn't a threat, at least not to anything more than your paint job. If he moves around to the side of the SUV? That's starting to become a threat, as now he could in theory be close enough to smash a window and brain someone in the vehicle. If he really starts smashing at the window, that's pretty clearly a threat, but it might not be a "deadly threat", as car windows are actually harder to smash than most people think. See, it's these kinds of things that need to be sorted out. A blanket "I felt threatened!" Get Out of Jail Free card is ridiculous.

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?

What level of "threat" we decide to agree is reasonable to justify the shooting can be discussed. And it's possible to have a standard that is too ridiculously high as well as too ridiculously low. Compare some of the cases in the UK, where people have been charged with murder or attempted murder when dealing with actual criminals who were actually engaging in crime at the time, with a case like this. I suggest that these are the two ridiculous extremes, and that we need to avoid both of them.