Man Sucker-Punches Another At Chicago Liquor Store, Victim Shoots Him Dead

a reply to: sapien82

he didnt react within the 1sec your allowed for self defense with deadly force

While I agree with your assessment, I don't believe there is a time limit for self defense. Had his attacker pursued him, the shooter would be justified.

The key is what a reasonable person would see as a threat to their life. Bigger guy sucker-punching him to the ground? Yep, that's self-defense. Bigger guy standing over him in a threatening posture? Yep, that's self-defense. Leaving the immediate scene without being pursued, then turning and firing after the confrontation? Nope, that's revenge. Doesn't matter if it's 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day... at that exact point in time that he fired, was he in reasonable fear for his life?

I don't see that. He was mad (understandably), probably had been attacked before, and he decided to end it after he was attacked. That's not self-defense.

TheRedneck

I'd vote not guilty any day of the week if I was on that jury for a murder charge. Not emotional either. It is justice. If someone has such a loss of respect for life to randomly find someone and hit them that hard then they should expect this response.

The shooter has no idea if he was actually out of danger. He was within 10 feet away and for all he knew the guy was going to attack again.

Man 2, 2 years probation and a anger management course. Case dismissed.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeh Im sure ive read about this before in a few cases and lawyers and solicitors will take into consideration the length of time in which the person being attacked acted in self defense where the use of force was considered not reasonable
as in shooting someone to death because you were punched.

the guy clearly had thought Im going to kill this guy for sucker punching me
he could have easily just pointed the gun at him

this man is going to jail

originally posted by: medusaseyes1984

there is an augment to be made that if the safety was on and somehow the badguy got your gun he might not know how to use it.

i walk around with always 1 in the pipe but safety is always on

That argument is pretty stupid. I'm for the one where you both have a gun and the badguy shoots you first because he will not have his safety on, or in the heat of the moment you are fumbling around with your gun and then the badguy takes it from you...lol

When a 1/2 second counts have fun with that, so bullet chambered and safety off. Better yet, get a Glock that does not have a safety. If you carry a smaller one like .25 the trigger pull is long and heavy, so once again there really isn't anything that could happen with the safety off. With 28 years in the military carrying concealed the safety was never on too. Rifles are different, and so the safety is always on unless you are in an engagement situation.

Do you always carry? If you are a woman you better just run with the safety off because you are in deep trouble if you do not get that bullet flying before the badguy gets his hands on you. Even drawing your gun and pulling the trigger can be too slow for many situations, so you better have skills too. You better practice pulling your gun and shooting it within a second (1 thousand and 1) like a quick draw in a way and being able to hit a target within 15 feet. Go watch some videos where two guys are demonstrating how long it takes a person with a knife to cover 15 feet and the other guy needs to pull and shoot, and the knife guy won like 2 out of 3 attempt, so you need to also practice the ability to walk backwards or to the side as part of your routine to draw and fire to always keep as much distance as you can. No where in all that should the safety be on.

a reply to: Xtrozero

My Hellcat EDC has no safety.

If you pull it you should already have made the decision to fire and you should be ready. That is how I was taught.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Self-defense... this was not self-defense. Self defense would apply if he had fired from the ground while Hole-y One was threatening him, but he was already outside the door and turned back. Hole-y One was not following him. Legally, we just watched second-degree murder... intentional but not premeditated. The legal response would be to report the attack to the police and Hole-y One would be looking at a pretty serious assault and battery charge. As it is, the shooter is looking at Murder 2.

If you read my posts on this we are in agreement in we need to see more of the video than at the start of the punch. I think the shooter did a pretty good job shooting. Hit his target in the middle of his chest with another guy a foot away and was rather quick once he started to turn back. The weird part is the puncher didn't run or continue to follow the guy after the one punch and was clearly upset over something. He also picked up some papers on the counter like he knew what they were as he talked to the other guy, so there is something going on between these two guys that wasn't just some thug doing a sucker punch.

But hey 90% of the people posting on this is saying the shooter was in the right and the puncher got what he deserved, so good riddance. All on 15 second video... geez If they catch the shooter he is going down for murder, there was no self defense there.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Liquor store...check cashing. He was trying to rob him....no?

a reply to: Xtrozero

I don't agree that the shooting was LEGALLY justified, but it was a form of justice - an eye for an eye.

The bastard got what he asked for. He wanted to play by Wild West rules and he reaped what he sowed.

Good riddance. One less scumbag is no loss to society.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: infolurker

Definitely self defense, but surely this falls into kneecapping territory.

No. It isn't self-defense. The man who was punched, was walking towards the door and then turned and shot the man who punched him. At the time that he fired, the man was NOT a threat to him. I'm pretty sure that the man who fired could claim extenuating circumstances, but, it isn't self-defense.

originally posted by: matafuchs

My Hellcat EDC has no safety.

If you pull it you should already have made the decision to fire and you should be ready. That is how I was taught.

100% correct.

originally posted by: matafuchs

Liquor store...check cashing. He was trying to rob him....no?

He picked up some 8x11 white people it seems to me. If it was as you suggest then yes the guy got what was coming, but in any case the shooter is in big trouble. The gun was most likely illegal too where this took place.

originally posted by: VierEyes

I don't agree that the shooting was LEGALLY justified, but it was a form of justice - an eye for an eye.

The bastard got what he asked for. He wanted to play by Wild West rules and he reaped what he sowed.

Good riddance. One less scumbag is no loss to society.

So lets say it was a lovers fight and the Black guy was upset his lover left with their favorite poodle and was filling for divorce. Then after the White guy bitch slapped him a number of times in the parking lot he came in all upset and punched him back...

My point is you are basing your assumptions on 15 seconds of a video that started with the punch, so what led up to it? We do not know...

You might be 100% right, I'm just not ready to go that full in my opinion until I see more.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: matafuchs

Liquor store...check cashing. He was trying to rob him....no?

He picked up some 8x11 white people it seems to me. If it was as you suggest then yes the guy got what was coming, but in any case the shooter is in big trouble. The gun was mostly illegal too where this took place.

I agree that the shooter may face legal issues. In my mind, it wasn't a good shoot, but having said that, the idiot who punched the guy, needed to be taken off the street. There is nothing I can think of that would justify a sucker punch to the back of the head. The shooter was hurt and pissed off. Could likely claim temporary insanity if he is charged. All this is based on what we know from the video.

When I see some asshole hit an elderly person, it makes me wish that someone would blast their face off with a .45. I know that's wrong, and I know that's un-Christian, and for that, I suppose I have to answer for that, but to attack the helpless for no other reason that to get a kick, is something a psychopath would do, and murder is likely the next logical step.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The quote function is not working for me.

In reply to your post, maybe you're right and there were other things going on, but I think it's unlikely.

We've seen incidents like this before where black people have, totally unprovoked, attacked others, mostly Asians. They've hauled off and whopped them, pushed them down and even pushed their victims in front of trains.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: sapien82

he didnt react within the 1sec your allowed for self defense with deadly force

While I agree with your assessment, I don't believe there is a time limit for self defense. Had his attacker pursued him, the shooter would be justified.

The key is what a reasonable person would see as a threat to their life. Bigger guy sucker-punching him to the ground? Yep, that's self-defense. Bigger guy standing over him in a threatening posture? Yep, that's self-defense. Leaving the immediate scene without being pursued, then turning and firing after the confrontation? Nope, that's revenge. Doesn't matter if it's 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day... at that exact point in time that he fired, was he in reasonable fear for his life?

I don't see that. He was mad (understandably), probably had been attacked before, and he decided to end it after he was attacked. That's not self-defense.

TheRedneck

dude was probably seeing double and with these big guys in white moving around, he might have thought the puncher was coming after him.

originally posted by: network dude

I agree that the shooter may face legal issues. In my mind, it wasn't a good shoot, but having said that, the idiot who punched the guy, needed to be taken off the street. There is nothing I can think of that would justify a sucker punch to the back of the head. The shooter was hurt and pissed off. Could likely claim temporary insanity if he is charged. All this is based on what we know from the video.

When I see some asshole hit an elderly person, it makes me wish that someone would blast their face off with a .45. I know that's wrong, and I know that's un-Christian, and for that, I suppose I have to answer for that, but to attack the helpless for no other reason that to get a kick, is something a psychopath would do, and murder is likely the next logical step.

My only issue is many here are reading too much into it all and already decided the verdict. What if the White guy shot the Black guys brother in the parking lot just 30 seconds before the video started with the punch? You all then would be like oh sh!t...

originally posted by: VierEyes

The quote function is not working for me.

In reply to your post, maybe you're right and there were other things going on, but I think it's unlikely.

We've seen incidents like this before where black people have, totally unprovoked, attacked others, mostly Asians. They've hauled off and whopped them, pushed them down and even pushed their victims in front of trains.

Does that seem to be the same here? The video starts with the punch and that concerns me a good deal already. The attacker didn't run after the punch, didn't chase the guy, seemed upset over something as the other guy was talking to him. Then the puncher picked up some papers just before the other guy who was rather calm turned around at the door and fired a clean shot into the guys chest with the other guy like a foot away, to then run at top speed away which is pretty crazy for someone people here are suggesting was half unconscious.

a reply to: Xtrozero

If you google the case all the paper says is that a man was shot. No other information. If you did not see the video and read the article you would think the guy just walked in an shot a random.

a reply to: Xtrozero

If you read my posts on this we are in agreement in we need to see more of the video than at the start of the punch.

I believe we are indeed. I've seen people react the way the puncher did many time, but never without a cause (maybe not justified, but a cause nonetheless). A couple of other things make me suspicious: the fact that he backed off so quickly when his buddy stepped in is one. His buddy apparently knew what was going on and was trying to talk him down.

The shooter didn't react as i would have expected from an innocent, either. He got up, walked to and out the door, then stopped, calmly pulled out a gun, turned, took quick aim, and fired. That tells me he wasn't really surprised that he was hit... and that makes me wonder what he had done that made him expect a punch at some time. For all we know, he had just spit in the puncher's face.

That's not to say the puncher was an innocent little lamb... that was a hard sucker punch, and the fact the police haven't pressed any charges yet says a lot to me as well. As I mentioned the police can be pretty pragmatic at times if they know the people involved. I think we have a continuing feud happening and one of them suddenly decided to up the stakes.

But even that is just an uninformed opinion based on very circumstantial evidence. We definitely need to see more of what happened before. That video is from surveillance footage... it did not just start rolling as the punch was thrown. So why not include the 30 seconds or so before to give context?

But hey 90% of the people posting on this is saying the shooter was in the right and the puncher got what he deserved, so good riddance. All on 15 second video... geez If they catch the shooter he is going down for murder, there was no self defense there.

I'll agree that we likely just witnessed a second degree murder happen, but getting a conviction is another story. That requires 12 people to unanimously agree that there is no way the shooter could not be guilty. That's a pretty high bar (as it should be), and with so many on here thinking it is obviously self-defense, how easy would it be to get one juror to agree in a court of law? Not every juror follows the judge's advice on the law; quite a few give a verdict based on emotion.

If they can't get all 12 to say he's guilty, it's a mistrial. How many times will the DA throw money at a prosecution when it has such a high chance of failing?

TheRedneck

a reply to: network dude

When I see some asshole hit an elderly person, it makes me wish that someone would blast their face off with a .45.

As an elderly person who has access to a Colt .45... be careful what you wish for.

TheRedneck