Here's a perfect storm for a CCW type

[briandg]

Gator, maybe you're right, but we are reading precise legal briefs. On the hip is general, but if it was a well hidden iwb holster or just jammed into his pants, a judge should have considered the possible value of that information and provided it. This could have affected the outcome.

Something shown later in the document was that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a killer used poor judgment or even deliberately violated the laws governing deadly force self defense.

The prosecution provided much evidence that he acted stupidly and that he had in the past, and that it was in his nature to do so. There was also evidence that he may have lied to build a case for justified homicide.

It just gets worse.

 

[Lohman446]

When [Decedent] refused, [Appellant] flashed his unofficial concealed weapon permit badge. [Decedent] recognized it as a fake, telling [Appellant] as much in colorful language. [Appellant] then revealed his 9-millimeter
pistol.

On the hip is general, but if it was a well hidden iwb holster or just jammed into his pants, a judge should have considered the possible value of that information and provided it. This could have affected the outcome.

As Spats explained, much more effectively than I tried to touch on, there are no questions of fact in an appeal absent new evidence that may result in a new trial. The facts are already established and are not, with minimal exception, part of the appeal process. We are not discussing some accidental exposure. When the appellant failed to accomplish his stated goal of removing the individual from the church with his tin shield he escalated the situation by brandishing the firearm. There is no consideration that this may have been accidental or incidental exposure. He was clearly using the gun as a threat.

One other thing should be noted:

He admittedly approached [Decedent] not with the intent to calm him down but to get him out of the church.

and

[fn3] [Appellant] had no position of authority with the church at the time and was not a law enforcement officer.

and

An associate pastor, seeing that the ushers’ efforts only exacerbated
[Decedent]’s agitation, had them back away and directed someone to call the police.

His defense

[fn2] [Appellant] told investigators he saw [Decedent] pushing the parishioner, but the parishioner testified at trial that [Decedent] never touched him nor got close to him

He intervened in a situation he should not have. When he failed to get his way he flashed some meaningless badge. When that badge was recognized as such and he was told that in colorful language he drew his gun and fired despite having the ability to safely retreat.

I'm sorry I simply do not see any option but to convict him.

 

[GarandTd]

He could be the guy who triggered a truly catastrophic event.

I understand what you are saying, but the shooter literally triggered a catastrophic event by shooting an unarmed man at church in front of the congregation. I don't know much more about the victim other than the fact that he was agitated when he entered the church. He was someone's son, possibly brother, husband, and/or father.

I like the dog analogy posted earlier. [All] People are animals. If you encounter an agitated animal, you steer clear and call the authorities. Provoking an animal, especially an agitated one is asking for trouble.

 

[Lohman446]

I understand what you are saying, but the shooter literally triggered a catastrophic event by shooting an unarmed man at church in front of the congregation.

You are correct but I get Brian's point. There had been instructions in place to call the police. Even had there been a little pushing involved there is no indication that it was ongoing. I cannot use lethal force because someone pushed someone a few minutes ago - the threat has to be ongoing and the threat of severe bodily harm or death imminent. We can argue if an ongoing shove represents that but it is not the point of argument.

The police were, presumably, responding. If the individual did constitute a threat it was not imminent and ongoing. Engaging him only raised the chance that he did pose an imminent threat. In fact prior to engaging him the worst that had been uttered was some colorful language and a command to be left alone. After engaging him, and brandishing a weapon, it became a physical threat.

 

[manta49]

He showed one of the problems with carrying firearms for self defence, a incident that probably would of ended with a few black eyes ended up with one deservedly going to jail and one dead. Some people that normally would not intervene suddenly become braver with a firearm, and can escalate instead of calming the situation.

 

[Lohman446]

He showed one of the problems with carrying firearms for self defence

His blandishment of the firearm was not done in self defense nor was his "use" of the tin shield. At very best it was done in an attempt to defend someone else (when no threat was actually present).

I keep noting this part of the court findings

[the court] was troubled by Appellant’s tendency to insert himself into circumstances that could cause his death and portray him as a hero.

The problem was not the gun. The problem was the individual and a sense of bravado that may have been bolstered by the carrying of a firearm.

 

[manta49]

The problem was not the gun. The problem was the The problem was not the gun. The problem was the individual and a sense of bravado that may have been bolstered by the carrying of a firearm..

I am sure he is not the only individual who has a sense of bravado that may have been bolstered by the carrying of a firearm. You just have read some posts on this and other forums regarding self defence and what they would do to see that. Some good advice in the post bellow. PS i have to laugh at the badge, maybe he could not find his supper man badge.

I find it interesting that the defendant's self-reported history of acting the hero worked so strongly against him, as indicating that he would continue to be a danger to the community. That alone should give pause to a lot of internet warriors...

 

[stephen426]

Definitely made a lot of mistakes and I can't disagree with charging the defendant. I hate those stupid CCW badges as they scream "cop wannabe".

Our church started hiring an off duty police officer after a new-comer started taking picture of some of the kids. He stopped coming after a few weeks, but he weirded out enough people that the church decided it would be better to have an officer there.

 

[Lohman446]

I am sure he is not the only individual who has a sense of bravado that may have been bolstered by the carrying of a firearm. You just have read some posts on this and other forums regarding self defence and what they would do to see that.

True. It does not change my statement. The problem is not the gun

 

[fastbolt]

A cautionary tale that probably won't stop any dismaying number of other similarly-minded people from using similarly poor judgment, and also displaying an inability to understand and apply common sense and make good decisions.

Carrying a firearm doesn't inherently imbue anyone with either common sense, let alone the "right" to impose their skewed sense of purpose, destiny or personal idea of "justice" on the world around them.

Adding a "CCW badge" to the mix? No more empowering than concealing a superhero outfit underneath your daily clothes. Just about as silly, too.

A sad, tragic story. A man has needlessly lost his life, and a family has needlessly been shattered.