A case of self defense or not (long) - Sadly update in Post #36.

[Ziggy2525]

There's lots of chatting here about righteous self defense shootings and bad shoots. For those interested, here's a case in the squishy middle.

During the George Floyd riots in Omaha a few months ago, a bar owner and his dad were protecting the bar. They were attacked by some rioters. The bar owner shot and killed one of the rioters. The County Attorney, who has been pretty even handed in SD cases, cleared the bar owner. A big protest ensued. Because of the uproar, the County Attorney agreed to call a Grand Jury to look at charges. The Grand Jury is just starting to meet.

The local paper just did an analysis looking at both sides of the argument (self defense vs not) using local attorneys that have Nebraska SD experience. The article also contains videos of the event from multiple sources.

The article is long, but it really lays out how messy the legal side of an SD shooting can be. Not a binary good or bad choice. Also, even if the bar owner isn't charged, important to note it's already pretty much wrecked his life.

Here's the link.
Provocation or protection? Videos, case law will guide grand jury in James Scurlock's death | Crime News | omaha.com

ETA - for background - Omaha probably has 25 to 30 murders per year and just a guess but maybe 3 to 4 non-fatal shootings per week. IMO, Nebraska probably sits in middle in SD laws. Somewhere between Texas and New Jersey.

 

[Old Arkansawyer]

Whatever the outcome of the case, someone else will probably own
the bar.

 

[stansdds]

Guaranteed, legal fees will eat the owners. As for the legal outcome, hard to say since the event occurred on a public street. If it had occurred within the the confines of the property, likely would have been an easy case to settle.

 

[dougb1946]

Sometimes, the decisions on cases like these can be long drawn, convoluted, and strange. Many will disagree, no matter how it is decided. Actually, the less informed will probably disagree with a jury just because. Every detail-especially the details not reported by the media-influences the jury decision. Sometimes, despite public opinion, the law has to be considered.
Trevor Martin and George Zimmerman case is an example. Lots of disagreement from the public about the verdict. But Zimmerman had broken contact and was leaving the area when Martin ambushed him. Martin was beating Zimmermans head against concrete, which has the same result as hitting a head with a brick. Lots of the public didn't see it that way.

 

[Ziggy2525]

Whatever the outcome of the case, someone else will probably own
the bar.

Already happened. He owned two bars, side by side. The building owner revoked his leases. Why they revoked them is in question, but they still got revoked and the revocations happened immediately after this occurred.

 

[Echo40]

Personally, my thoughts on the matter are as follows.

The letter of the law is to be followed, but not so strictly as to allow one's self to be terrorized, brutalized, victimized, or outright murdered.

If I owned a business that was my livelihood, then I would defend it with my life against those who would seek to destroy it. It makes no difference to me whether it has been decided that it's suddenly okay for certain people to destroy my property, ruin my livelihood, and especially harm me in the process.

In such a situation, you're pretty much darned in you do and darned if you don't... Either your business is destroyed and you're financially ruined, or you get sued for defending your business and you're financially ruined, so you better believe that if given the choice between the two, I'll take the route of a warrior and fight to protect what's mine and fight in court to defend my rights.
I'll always stand up for myself, for what is right and just. It won't earn me any popularity and it will most certainly be the harder it the two paths, but I refuse to be a victim and I refuse to stand idly by in the face of wickedness and injustice.

Don't get me wrong, I wish to be a peaceful man at heart, and I will always do my best to turn the other cheek and seek a path of peace, but when it comes to such grotesque injustice as being victimized as Law Enforcement is forced to turn a blind eye to my plight then turn on me because I didn't just lie down and take it, that's when I say NO! I refuse to accept the unilateral lawlessness that is going on in some parts of the nation and if it were to arrive at my doorstep, then I'm going to approach the situation in what I believe is the only appropriate fashion, I will defend myself, my home, and my family because if I'm going to loose everything either way, then I would rather go down fighting.

I only pray that it never comes to that and that order will be restored nationwide soon enough.

 

[16thVACav]

Whatever the outcome of the case, someone else will probably own
the bar.

On the other hand, he is still alive.

 

[Rastoff]

Well that's clear as mud.

I think the biggest mistake here was standing on the street. Both of the Gardners should have retreated inside the bar.

I'm glad I'm not on this jury. This will take a while to sort out.

 

[Borderboss]

Already happened. He owned two bars, side by side. The building owner revoked his leases. Why they revoked them is in question, but they still got revoked and the revocations happened immediately after this occurred.

I hope he has a lawyer review his lease. He may end up still owning his bars and the building they're in.

 

[stansdds]

I hope he has a lawyer review his lease. He may end up still owning his bars and the building they're in.

That was my thought as well.

 

[johngalt]

It's disappointing that the prosecutor abdicated his responsibility to make charging decisions to a mob.

 

[Ziggy2525]

Personally, my thoughts on the matter are as follows.

The letter of the law is to be followed, but not so strictly as to allow one's self to be terrorized, brutalized, victimized, or outright murdered.

If I owned a business that was my livelihood, then I would defend it with my life against those who would seek to destroy it. It makes no difference to me whether it has been decided that it's suddenly okay for certain people to destroy my property, ruin my livelihood, and especially harm me in the process.

In such a situation, you're pretty much darned in you do and darned if you don't... Either your business is destroyed and you're financially ruined, or you get sued for defending your business and you're financially ruined, so you better believe that if given the choice between the two, I'll take the route of a warrior and fight to protect what's mine and fight in court to defend my rights.
I'll always stand up for myself, for what is right and just. It won't earn me any popularity and it will most certainly be the harder it the two paths, but I refuse to be a victim and I refuse to stand idly by in the face of wickedness and injustice.

Don't get me wrong, I wish to be a peaceful man at heart, and I will always do my best to turn the other cheek and seek a path of peace, but when it comes to such grotesque injustice as being victimized as Law Enforcement is forced to turn a blind eye to my plight then turn on me because I didn't just lie down and take it, that's when I say NO! I refuse to accept the unilateral lawlessness that is going on in some parts of the nation and if it were to arrive at my doorstep, then I'm going to approach the situation in what I believe is the only appropriate fashion, I will defend myself, my home, and my family because if I'm going to loose everything either way, then I would rather go down fighting.

I only pray that it never comes to that and that order will be restored nationwide soon enough.

Thoughtful answer.

IMO, in the current political climate (at least in the cities) you have to make a choice if someone attacks you with deadly force: 1) being killed or maimed or 2) using deadly force to protect yourself (or your loved ones) to stay alive, but losing everything you have in the aftermath from the legal process.

Not 100%, but seems like the direction things are going.

 

[Muss Muggins]

This is the most insightful and relevant quote from the story:

"The criminal code doesn't fit well during mass chaos," one longtime prosecutor said.

 

[Echo40]

Thoughtful answer.

IMO, in the current political climate (at least in the cities) you have to make a choice if someone attacks you with deadly force: 1) being killed or maimed or 2) using deadly force to protect yourself (or your loved ones) to stay alive, but losing everything you have in the aftermath from the legal process.

Not 100%, but seems like the direction things are going.

I am a man of faith and a man of hope. I reject the world's pessimistic view and asserted slanted messages of hopelessness. I reject the agents of chaos within society who promote fear, doubt, paranoia, and anarchy within society. I reject evil and all those who sow its seeds.

I will fight until the end to uphold my ideals of justice and morality in spite of all opposition, holding fast to my belief that justice will prevail in the end, regardless of whether or not I'm around to see it.

For too long have good people remained silent, succumbed to fear and doubt, allowed evil to take root by relinquishing their ideals and allowing their conscience to be compromised as their minds became tainted by nihilism. I reject it all and will stand firm before my convictions. I accept personal responsibility for my actions, especially my faults, my failures, and my shortcomings. I shall seek to better myself with great tenacity rather than allow fear to compromise my spirit and surrender in the face of darkness.

Folks may mock me for my speech, doubt my resolve, question my convictions, and slander my name, but by God I will be a man of courage regardless and my light shall pierce through their darkness.

 

[Ziggy2525]

This is the most insightful and relevant quote from the story:

Do you think concealed carriers should keep moving forward using the old rules and just let the cards fall where they may? Or do you think if someone get incidentally gets caught up in a deadly force attack in a riot there's a better approach?

 

[Flattop5]

Two thoughts:

1. If this were 1955, we wouldn't be having this conversation. (I miss America. Where did she go? If you see her, tell her to come home).

2. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Every time. Be more clever than the bad guys. Think outside the box. Way outside it.


-----------------

 

[Muss Muggins]

I think that the criminal code does not fit well during mass chaos. I am not your spiritual advisor. . .

Do you think concealed carriers should keep moving forward using the old rules and just let the cards fall where they may? Or do you think if someone get incidentally gets caught up in a deadly force attack in a riot there's a better approach?

 

[Ziggy2525]

I think that the criminal code does not fit well during mass chaos. I am not your spiritual advisor. . .

Probably why I didn't ask you for spirtual advice.

Since you spent years as a federal probation officer (IIRC) and are a bounty agent now (IIRC); and since you're participating in a forum where people discuss things about concealed carry issues, I assumed you had nore depth than just parroting "I think that the criminal code does not fit well during mass chaos." Guess not.

 

[Muss Muggins]

In addition to my 20 year Federal career, I also have ten years as a real police officer and professional firefighter, and two years as the criminal investigator for a county prosecutor. I'm more of a bail bond agent than I am a bounty hunter, because I don't write a bond if I think you're gonna run. I have much more depth, but I don't offer advice for free on an anonymous Internet forum. Here's my best advice for free. Unless it impacts me or mine, I'm out. You can Venmo me in advance for paid advice . . .

Probably why I didn't ask you for spirtual advice.

Since you spent years as a federal probation officer (IIRC) and are a bounty agent now (IIRC); and since you're participating in a forum where people discuss things about concealed carry issues, I assumed you had nore depth than just parroting "I think that the criminal code does not fit well during mass chaos." Guess not.

 

[biku324]

It's not directly relevant, but I'm 7'2" and routinely date 19 year old heiresses (if they are buxom and have daddy issues).