Multiple attackers and defense of others
A case in New Mexico looks at the issue.
7 Responses to “Multiple attackers and defense of others”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 6th, 2010 at 10:07 am
While I think the guy over did it. Let us look at if from this point of view. If you take a ride with your buddies to the store and they rob the store without you knowing it you are still an accomplice to robbery whether you did not know or not. If the courts follow precedence then could this not be construed in the same manner. You are riding in a vehicle and the the other guys are planning something. While carrying through with their act you automatically become an accomplice even if you are not directly involved with the crime. How exactly would a lone police officer respond in the same situation. By shooting everybody that is a suspect most likely. While it is not fair to the person not involved how can the one defending himself tell the difference between who is friendly and who is not when they are all accomplices to the crime. Maybe I am twisting the law too much.
April 6th, 2010 at 10:25 am
There’s two things that make me side against calling this self defense:
One is the fact they fled afterwards. The second is the sequence described in {13}. I could by that had three people advanced on him, he might shoot all three not knowing which were armed or not, but when, after the initial confrontation, he then walks some distance to the other car and then shoots someong lying in the back at close range in the head, that’s not self defense.
This is just another gang-on-gang incident and after he eliminated the initial threat, he decided to execute the other passengers in the car.
April 6th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Stormy:
I can’t see from {13} where you get the impression that he shot the individual in the head after the initial altercation, or that the individual was lying down when shot. All it says was that that Mr. McCormick was found lying on the back seat with his feat out the door. If he was coming out the back door of an Explorer on the side that the defendant was standing on there is a pretty good possibility that after a close range headshot he would fall back onto the seat.
According to the other witnesses, all the shots were fired in a very close fashion. If there is only a few feet between the vehicles, and I am moving while firing, and there is someone coming out of the rear door, I fire at them.
I think that this decision is correct in that the Defendant gets a new trial where the jury can consider defense of self and others versus multiple attackers.
Respectfully,
Pol
April 6th, 2010 at 11:43 am
The really odd part is, the third guy could have probably been charged with felony murder if the defendant wouldn’t have shot him. I still think the decision of the appeals court was right, whether the third guy was part of the threat or innocent bystander is a matter of fact for the jury to decide, not for the judge to declare in the instructions.
April 6th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
How about that? There are still some judges who can get it right.
April 7th, 2010 at 12:06 am
Stormy,
Several points. According to the court document:
1. Ramos had a .012 BA at the time of his death. That’s 6X (0.02/beer – 0.2/hr metabolized) what Arbizu testified to him drinking. He had approx. 12 beers on board at the time of the shooting
2. Two witnesses indicated that Ramos made a move like he was reaching “to his side” (in a drawing motion?) This apparently triggered the gunfire.
3. McCormick’s feet were outside the vehicle. He was exiting the vehicle at the time he was shot, not cowering in fear. Sandoval see’s McCormick exiting the vehicle, doesn’t know if he might also have a weapon (both the others did, one for sure, the other apparently by his drawing action), moves to stop him prior to his getting out and potentially exposing his girlfriend to more gunfire. No indication of more than one shot to stop to McCormick. Additionally, there is no indication of the distance between the vehicles. Potentially less than 20 feet. According to the Tueller study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill), a person can move 21′ in 1.5 seconds and deliver a fatal injury.
4. If Sandoval was intending to “finish” them, why didn’t he shoot Arbizu again before leaving? He fired to stop. Having done so, and not knowing whether the shots were fatal, removed his girlfriend from danger by leaving the scene before any of the three could recover enough to start the whole thing up again. Do you have the training to “secure” as scene?
Gang on Gang incident?
I can promise you, in this state (NM), 19 y/o “bangers” don’t work at McDonalds much less make assistant manager. However, I can also say that the gang culture in NM is multi-generational so that it is reasonable that McCormick, Ramos and Arbizu may have all been “bangers”. Nothing in the document indicates what kind of posturing the 3 may have used to intimidate Sandoval at the gas station. (point their fingers like guns and acting like they were shooting him maybe?)Here that can be a real threat. Also, gangs here have a “talent” for beating people into comas or beating them to death so a lack of actual weapons is not a valid argument.
The appellate court made the right decision. But, this time, the defense attorney should put Sandoval on the stand to tell what happened at the gas station that may have made him feel that Ramos and McCormick were valid threats.
April 7th, 2010 at 12:11 am
Sorry, tried to proof things but missed some typos. The BAC was 0.12. That would be 6 beers as noted before I started trying to edit things and got totally distracted with other things.