Matthias wrote:My argument does not lose credibility. It's about proportionality. Just because there is a crime being committed does not mean that someone is authorized to shoot down the perpetrator to stop it. This is now the third time that you've dodged trying to differentiate this scenario from the others.
In any case, I don't need you to get credibility. I've graduated from law school. I've passed the New York State Bar Exam. I've actually studied this issues. I don't need random guy on a fantasy sports board's approval to give me credibility on this stuff.
You're a lawyer? Congrats on passing the bar. Oddly enough it crossed my mind that either you were a criminal defense attorney or had someone in your family break the law and wind up with a punishment you thought was unfair. Was the only thing that made sense as to why you'd defend the criminal in this and go after the good guy. Sling enough mud and you're guy doesn't look so bad. Interesting strategy and I'm sure that fools a lot of sheep out there, but the simple fact of the matter is that if you're guy hadn't brought a gun into Burger King and tried to rob it, none of this would have happened and he'd still be alive. All the mudslinging in the world won't change that.
But go ahead and argue against what the good guy did all you like, but when you argue that the criminal being shot dead is "unfair" it ruins anything else you have to say. Actually, on second thought, it might draw you more criminals to defend. Anyway, tell you what, go even bigger with it. Put your money where your mouth is and go try to file a lawsuit against the good guy on behalf of the parents of the crook. I'd love to read the transcript of what the judge says to you as he laughs it out of court. And if by some miracle it does go to court, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the jury room. 10 seconds to find not guilty, 10 minutes to laugh at the silliness of the lawsuit. And hope they don't decide to hit the family with the court costs while they are at it.
And I don't dodge things, as I said, if you cannot see the difference in your examples and what happened here, I can't show that to you. But I promise you judges and juries can and do, and that's where your credibility comes from. If you cannot convince a typical average random person on a message board of something, how do you expect to convince a judge and/or jury?
Here's a tip, take it or leave it of course. Toss out the part about the criminal being killed being "unfair" in your opinion. You want to go after the good guy, argue the merits of just that. Once you mention the bad guy getting an "unfair" punishment, your case is over, so ignore that. Argue about the good guy firing in a "crowded" place or however else you'd like to spin it and go from there. You might get a person or two to side with that part of the argument, but avoid the things like why the crook was there in the first place, who drew first, etc., because that outweighs what you're going for by such a vast margin that no one will give you the time of day. Of course, that's just the opinion of a typical random jury member (you know, the people you need to convince in order to have a case).
Matthias wrote:I've ignored the fact of something being "most likely"? That doesn't sound like a fact; that sounds like a probability. But what it most sounds like is supposition.
From a report on the story that I found:The robber entered wearing a ski mask. He approached a clerk, showed his gun and demanded money, said Miami police spokesman Jeff Giordano.
A customer eyed him and the two started arguing. The customer had a concealed-weapons permit and his gun -- and the two exchanged gunfire.
What it sounds like to me is that if the vigilante had followed any number of other ways to help bring this guy to justice, nobody pulls their gun, and nobody shoots. But when he started arguing, he reached for his piece which caused the robber to reach for his and we all know the end result.
I've read the same. The two exchanged gunfire. If the good guy drew first, the crook never would have had a chance to draw his gun. And with the crook dead and the good guy with several bullet wounds, seems pretty factual that the crook drew first. A probability is that the crook fired first, but there's no doubt in my mind that the crook drew first, and as you know sir, juries are what decide these things. Prove the good guy drew first and fired first, and then I will give your clients a larger ear.
Matthias wrote:Thanks, Counselor. I've taken this under advisement.
Too late. The judge already laughed you out of his courtroom. Go find another ambulance to chase. (meant in good fun )