A legal analysis, in plain English of the auto parts store shooting that took place during a physical confrontation between two black women in a Dayton OH auto parts store.
NEW! Law of Self Defense LAW SCHOOL COURSES!
First-year law school classes, as Attorney Branca was taught them.
First 20 students 50% OFF! MAX 40 students!
https://lawofselfdefense.com/lawschool
FREE! Law of Self Defense “HARD TO CONVICT” Webinar!
https://hardtoconvict.com/
FREE, BUT VERY LIMITED SEATS!
FREE LEGAL CONSULTATION!
We ONLY consult on legal cases for our Platinum members!
BE HARD TO CONVICT, become a Law of Self Defense Platinum member TODAY!
http://lawofselfdefense.com/platinum
FREE BOOK! “The Law of Self Defense”
Physical book, 200+ pages, we just ask that you cover the S&H:
PROUDLY SPONSORED BY CCW SAFE!
Provider of Legal Service Memberships (aka “self-defense insurance”)
Andrew is personally a member of CCW Safe!
Learn more about what they have to offer at:
https://lawofselfdefense.com/ccwsafe
Save 10% off your first-year membership with code: LOSD10
FREE 5-ELEMENTS OF SELF-DEFENSE LAW CHEAT SHEET!
Totally free cheat sheet explaining the 5-elements of any claim of self-defense.
If you don’t understand these five elements you have no idea what legally qualifies as lawful self-defense.
PDF download, zero cost:
http://lawofselfdefense.com/elements
NOTE: Nothing in today’s content represents legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice, please retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.
I don’t know what a “pew-pew” is.
“Pew! Pew!” is a phonetic representation that native (American) English speakers make to simulate the sound and explosive nature of gunfire. Young boys typically made (still make) this sound when simulating gun battles, initially simulating firearms, and over time evolving to also represent science fiction weapons.Mar 24, 2016
Use of force in defense of others law isn’t the same in every state. In some states a reasonable belief that in the circumstances as they appear to you the person you are defending has a right to self defense is enough to justify your use of force in his defense, but in other states you not only have to have this reasonable belief, but your reasonable belief must be correct—the person you are defending must actually in fact have a legal right of self defense in the circumstances as the circumstances actually exist.
Yes, alter ego – I believe.
In regard to the auto parts store shooting, notwithstanding the legal presumption that the shooting was justified or excused, I believe the audio and video of the encounter is sufficient evidence to support probable cause to reasonably suspect that the shooting was unlawful. Not enough evidence to overcome the legal presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt on its own, but it won’t take much more evidence to go with it to meet that standard. Any evidence that the shooting victim was moving away from the store employee at the moment she was shot would be enough for me to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was an unlawful act of revenge.
Picture of Simon’s girlfriend with knife can be found at
https://www.livesportv.online/pageone-https-www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11002189/New-videos-bodega-worker-stabbed-gangsters-girlfriend.html
Thanks for your comments the dangers of the client testifying.
If there are no witnesses, or the witnesses say they heard nothing, and there is no audio recorded, This means the friends of the deceased will be creating the narrative of what happened. This will force the client to testify. Then the client will have to do it himself and testify to get his version of the facts before the jury, losing his 5th amenment right to not have to testify.
When you consider putting your client on the witness stand, there are a number of risks you’re incurring,
1. one of which is your past criminal record comes into the record which would normally no be admisible,
2. your client will be goaded into some kind of outburst that makes them look aggressive, angry, when you would rather should look as harmless as posible,
3. you don’t want them making political or moral statements which they think are normal, but will be perceived by the jury and others as insane,
4. The prosecutor is from the start building up to their closing arguments, to say to the jury before they go into deliberations, the sole purpose of their questions is to illicit a certain response that they can use in their closing arguments, if they can get your client to say things in a particular way, so they can say, “Even the defendant told us such a such”. That can be extremely damning. In the Kyle Rittenhouse case, Binger spent three hours asking Rittenhouse the same question in different forms over and over again. The reason he’s doing that is that the prosecutor has a specific response he looking for. The risk is that your client has no idea what those words are. There’s nothing you can do but watch your client get destroyed then and in closing.
Most clients have little education and are not prepared for an aggressive prosecutor, for this level of sophistication and it’s an unnatural thing. They are outclassed, out gunned, in an environment, even if they’re 100% not guilty, they come across poorly in front of a jury. Most people will break after a prosecutor has hammered on them for three hours. Rittenhouse was exceptional. The pressure of life in prison is too much. It’s a brutal system. People think if I talk this way I will be OK, but the jury is not going to hear your side unless the prosecutor wants them to hear your side. This is why you never talk to police.
I also appreciate your comments about the ambiguity of a use of force event. Use of lethal force in the home is hard to mess up, but when one is out in public, there is ambiguity where the prosecutor can make a case. You have to know the law, be humble, inoffensive, and avoid to the extreme using force. Unless you’re about to die, or someone you care a lot about is about to die, never use lethal force, because the prosecutor can invent a theory that you were not justified due to the ambiguity of the shooting.
I believe there is more confusion about the justified or excused use of force in the home (the castle doctrine) than there is about the justified or excused use of force outside the home. There is a popular myth about what the castle doctrine is and what it does, and most people don’t know what the actual castle doctrine is and isn’t, and they also have an adamant belief in the myth. The result is it is much easier to “mess up” a use of force in the home than it is to “mess up” a use of force in a public place.
I am not sure that I agree with Steve’s minimizing of case law knowledge. For example, in Mass the use of a firearm is defined by Mass Case Law. Mass Case Law states that the only time one can go to one’s gun is if that gun can actually be used. This is not covered by the 5 Principles, nor could it be since it is state specific. In my presentations, gun owners are surprised by this restriction – and I will add, by other limitations.
Same situation/supreme court precedent in Missouri. You have to have a present legal right to kill your assailant before you can display a deadly weapon in an angry or threatening manner. If you display a weapon before there is a use or imminent use of unlawful force that justifies your instantaneous use of deadly force, then you commit a forcible felony called “unlawful use of a weapon” and that felony bars you from claiming justification for using any level of force in self defense even if you are subsequently attacked with unlawful deadly force and the use of such force is necessary to protect life and limb. It is not statute law, it is repugnant to statute law and both the Federal and State Constitutions, but it is the “law” that you are going to be judged by and condemned.