You are only browsing one thread in the discussion! All comments are available on the post page.

Return

ram OP , (edited )
@ram@bookwormstory.social avatar

I’m glad he got off on the first two charges, but his lawyer argues that the third charge, “shooting into an occupied dwelling” shouldn’t be applicable since it was deemed self defence. The judge will be hearing arguments for this next month.^[newsio.com/…/alan-colie-man-who-shot-youtube-pran…]

Also, dude’s now spent 6 months in jail, only to be found not guilty of at least 2/3rds of the charges. Is there any compensation he’ll get for those missing months of his life? He’s already been punished, and yet he’s still presumed innocent.

jarfil , (edited )
@jarfil@beehaw.org avatar

his lawyer argues that the third charge, “use of firearm for aggravated malicious wounding” shouldn’t be applicable

It says he’s been found “not guilty” of that one. The charge he’s been found guilty of is “malicious discharge of a firearm within an occupied dwelling”, which… well, he did.

It’s like the laws against shooting bottles in your suburban home backyard: without the right precautions, those bullets can travel a long way, and what goes up ultimately comes down. There have been cases of stray bullets hitting someone totally unsuspecting a block or a few away.

MossyFeathers ,

My understanding is that the reason why it’s odd is because they found him not guilty on the other two charges on the grounds of self-defense. If I understand correctly, “self-defense” justifies discharging a firearm, regardless of who, what, when, where, why or how. If the jury rules self-defense in one instance, it should logically be applied to all charges related to that instance. Soooo… why were only two charges “self-defense”?

jarfil ,
@jarfil@beehaw.org avatar

“self-defense” justifies discharging a firearm, regardless of who, what, when, where, why or how.

This is the problem with American mentality…

No, “self-defense” does not give you a free pass, it only gives you the right to defend yourself against a single specific threat, and only that threat [in more civilized countries, it also requires “with the minimum amount of force necessary”].

You don’t get to mow the crowd with an assault rifle set on full auto, or to nuke the whole mall with all bystanders in it, just because of “self-defense” against a single guy.

Soooo… why were only two charges “self-defense”?

Because they were specified as “aggravated”, which is kind of like saying “without reason”. Self-defense was the reason there, so he wasn’t found guilty of the aggravated charges.

The “non-aggravated” one though, needs more justifying than just “I was afraid”… and I think it should stick, because he should have known better than to start shooting in a mall.

Daydreamy ,

mow the crowd with an assault rifle set on full auto

That’s a real jump there friend

nuke the whole mall with all bystanders in it

Now you’re just getting out of hand.

KairuByte ,
@KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Imagine taking obvious hyperbole at face value.

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

Imagine jumping straight to obvious hyperbole as a means of supporting one’s rather absurd position.

Imagine defending such.

jarfil ,
@jarfil@beehaw.org avatar

The jump was at “regardless”.

You can’t have even an appearance of civilization if you go “regardless” of everything.

“Everyone’s rights end, where everyone else’s begin”. Don’t they teach that in school anymore?

Omegamanthethird ,

The argument that it’s impossible to be liable for putting others in danger if you’re defending yourself is just crazy.

If you can understand why it would apply to those exaggerated examples, you can understand why it COULD apply to this situation.

Now, you can argue that they DIDN’T put others in danger by discharging their firearm. But that’s a separate argument.

fische_stix ,

That’s the logic that’s being used in the defense but it’s not necessarily true. If I were to engage a legitimate threat with a firearm but do so in a reckless manner, I would be justified in the shooting but not justified in the reckless Manor in which I discharge the weapon. That’s why carrying a firearm is such a responsibility and liability. In addition to having to determine what is and what is not a deadly threat you also have to know your surroundings and what is past your target. Generally, a bit more leeway is given once the shooting is justified, but in acquittal on criminal charges doesn’t justify the shooting. You acquittal on the other two charges just means there’s insufficient evidence to prove the crime. Having insufficient evidence to prove one crime does not mean that another cannot be proven. For those of you not in America who are trying to follow along, just don’t. It’s not worth the the headache.

ram OP ,
@ram@bookwormstory.social avatar

The crime is proven. He admitted to shooting Cook. The crime occurred and that is accepted legal fact. The acquittal was a result of a plea of self-defence.

enki ,

It absolutely does not justify that. You are not suddenly immune from the damage you cause because you were defending yourself. If you don’t pay attention to what’s down range and put a bullet through a kid’s head, your negligence caused a death and you will absolutely be charged with manslaughter at the very least. Most people don’t realize how loud firearms really are. Discharging a firearm inside an enclosed space without hearing protection can permanently damage hearing, so he could have easily permanently injured a lot of bystanders.

ram OP ,
@ram@bookwormstory.social avatar

If it’s self-defence to an extent where use of a firearm is “proportional force,” I fail to see how the venue comes into play.

jarfil , (edited )
@jarfil@beehaw.org avatar

The charges were:

  • aggravated malicious wounding
  • use of firearm for aggravated malicious wounding
  • malicious discharge of a firearm within an occupied dwelling

The “aggravated” charges seem to have been decided as “not guilty”; the remaining one is not aggravated, just simple trying to shoot someone when there are innocent people nearby in range of the shots.

I bet the lawyers are going to dissect the meaning of “malicious”, but as I see it, he did intend to shoot someone; he didn’t fire a warning shot into a flower pot, the gun didn’t discharge accidentally. I’d say that qualifies as “malicious”.

hackerman ,

I agree we'll need to know how malicious is defined so it can be applied to this situation. He didn't get to choose the time and place it took place. He didn't go to the mall looking for trouble, it found him.

I'm also not fully sure how many shots were fired. The few articles I read before didn't mention it, but assuming it was 1 and done. It hit the intended target to neutralize the perceived threat, using a caliber that most likely wouldn't fully penetrate. I would say a he didn't act with neglect for other's lives that were not a part of the situation. If he wildly fired his gun and somehow managed to hit the guy, then yeah I could easily see how that could be malicious/neglectful.

enki ,

What the hell kind of 9mm ammo you using that would barely penetrate? There are so many types of deforming rounds made for 9mm because it’s actually really good at penetrating humans, walls, cars, you name it. If this idiot loaded FMJs, a single round would easily go through multiple people before stopping.

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

Correction: may over-penetrate, given the actual center-mass shot, and even then, given this individual seems to have ensured a safe shot e.g. knowing what is beyond your target, there’s absolutely no reason to assume such risk.

This, even side from jumping to alarmism regarding projectile without a reference to the actual projectile used. It seems you’re just fearmongering.

jarfil ,
@jarfil@beehaw.org avatar

given the actual center-mass shot, and even then, given this individual seems to have ensured a safe shot e.g. knowing what is beyond your target, there’s absolutely no reason to assume such risk.

Except for the parts where the guy shot almost backwards, with barely any aiming, at an angle, nowhere close to center-mass, and with a bunch of food stands with workers on one side, plus an unknown number of clients on the other.

Did you even watch the video?

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

The video which demonstrated a single rounded placed into the assailant low-center (backwards? barely any aiming? Way to take the mask off), completely clear of those stands and “unknown clients”?

Did you watch it? The extent to which you’re misrepresenting what happened makes a person wonder. I sincerely hope it’s just you were just too preoccupied with confirmation bias to see the objective truth of the situation in the video.

jarfil ,
@jarfil@beehaw.org avatar

So you didn’t watch it.

Seeing how you’re arguing in bad faith, this is where we shall part ways.

jeremy_sylvis ,
@jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social avatar

So you didn’t watch it.

Seeing how you’re arguing in bad faith, this is where we shall part ways.

Discussions must be easier when you can simply accuse another of your own failings, with no support for such an accusation, and just peace out when called out on it.

I believe that’s considered trolling.

jarfil ,
@jarfil@beehaw.org avatar

I’m also not fully sure how many shots were fired.

There’s a link to the video: cdn.discordapp.com/…/downloadfile.mp4

It was a single shot, almost at point-blank, but kind of backwards and without proper aiming. It’s kind of how they tell you not to use a gun. It isn’t obvious from that video whether he had a clear shot; there were at least 2 other people around, who arguably could’ve been considered part of the threat, but also any number of workers at the food stands, and an unknown number of clients, who could’ve ended up being shot had he missed.

I’d say there was “some” neglect on his part… but how much, and how does it translate to the law, is hard to say without more data (and IANAL anyway).

AnalogyAddict ,

He’s clearly guilty of discharging, but it may not be found malicious, given the other verdicts.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines
    •