but from the facts as I know them, I would most likely vote to convict.
I believe in the right to own guns, but nowhere is it written that you have the right to use them irresponsibly. From the facts I have found with a quick Google search (and allowing that my opinion might change if the facts available change) the guy had no legitimate "fear" of anything but being annoyed at 1:30 in the morning. Not that this changes my opinion about the reckless and criminal behavior of the shooter, but I do find myself asking why a fourteen year old kid was allowed to be roaming the streets at 1:30 AM?...were playing "ding-dong-ditch" on New Year's Eve, ringing doorbells and running away. On their way home at 1:30 AM, they rang someone's doorbell for the second time that night. The homeowner came out and started shooting.
The homeowner was not arrested even though he shot the boy in the back as he was running away. Okie justice has to investigate whether the homeowner’s use of deadly force was lawful or illegal. Even if he's prosecuted, what are the chances that twelve fellow "shoot first and ask questions later" Okies won't let the homeowner get away with his "stand your ground" defense?"
Of the NRA.
...If a prospective juror is a member of the NRA, that doesn't mean he or she will automatically be dismissed for cause. The juror would be asked if his/her NRA membership or view of guns would prevent him from deciding the case in a fair and impartial manner.
The prosecution would have to dismiss NRA member with their peremptory challenges not have enough peremptory challenges to dismiss all the NRA members.
In any event, if the prosecution wanted ( and the defense allowed them) to impanel a jury made up entirely of non-NRA members, they'd have a hard time finding twelve Okies who aren't NRA members. They'd need a bigger panel of prospective jurors than they did for the O.J. trial.
You learned what "voir dire" means. Great. Now back to your online correspondence course.
-- Modified on 1/3/2016 12:03:23 AM
I get most of my information about the law now that Law and Order has been canceled.
The inquiry about NRA/gun rights membership would most likely be in the questionnaire. A “yes” answer would lead to questions exploring the implications of such membership. You would not exclude a person solely bc of NRA membership- NRA members are not brainwashed robots who agree with all of the positions of the NRA.
Saul also reports that, on the facts you gave us, the home owner does not have a “stand your ground defense” anyway. There was no unlawful and forcible entry if the kids just rang the doorbell, and you get no presumption where children are involved. Nor did this guy have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself. When the facts come out, this guy will probably claim they did break in and that he saw a gun.
You see, allowing someone to shoot in the circumstances you described would chill pizza deliveries.
Did you miss that episode
but from the facts as I know them, I would most likely vote to convict.
I believe in the right to own guns, but nowhere is it written that you have the right to use them irresponsibly. From the facts I have found with a quick Google search (and allowing that my opinion might change if the facts available change) the guy had no legitimate "fear" of anything but being annoyed at 1:30 in the morning.
Not that this changes my opinion about the reckless and criminal behavior of the shooter, but I do find myself asking why a fourteen year old kid was allowed to be roaming the streets at 1:30 AM?
...his parents felt comfortable letting him stay out that late knowing they live in a state where everyone has a gun. He couldn't have been safer anywhere else, could he?
Perhaps his parents are irresponsible and should have know that bad things happen at that hour of the morning.
Now I am NOT saying that the kid deserved to get shot
A little common sense goes a long way in preventing things like this.
You're Welcome
In God We Trus
...it was a loaded question, but it wasn't loaded with bullets so it can't kill anyone. The keyboard is mightier than the Glock.
And I have more questions - call me Dupey, Jr. Does the Second Amendment give you the right to shoot someone because you're annoyed that he rang your doorbell twice in the middle of the night? Why wasn't the homeowner arrested and held on suspicion of murder since the boy was shot in the back while running away and did not have a weapon? Is it because gun nut red states always give the benefit of the doubt to the gun totin' gun nuts?
Bad pun. Agreed.
You are asking questions that will all come out eventually. What is the rush?
Hasnt this board learned from the Michael Brown case, Tamir Rice and Trayvon Martin? Remember all those bogus cases that DA used to bring up here that me or Mari would destroy with one post?
You make it sound like Oklahomans want to see dead children who knock on doors. that's just silly BP to generalize.
Do you like it when peeps generalize about blacks? What's the diff? Just wait for the facts, then bitch about the whole process when it's over. That's all I am saying.
Quite often, much too often, LE is not charged for flagrant criminal actions against civilians.
More often than not, though rarely charged, LE is found not guilty because they had a slick talking, lying attorney, a hand picked jury, with at least one member who's a die hard believer in, no matter the circumstance, "police can do no wrong".
Why was the October 2014 video showing Chicago LE shooting a suspected criminal sixteen times, held under wraps for a year?
Common sense gives me suspicion it took a year to attempt to engineer a police cover up.
I've watched the video numerous times, I failed to see a reason for the 15 shots after the first one that put the suspect out of any realistic chance to threaten LE with his little knife.
Wouldn't a 5 MPH tap with the Cop's car been an easier way and non lethal method to subdue the little knife wielding suspect?
Have you seen the 2011 security camera video of the murder of the homeless defenseless guy in Fullerton California ?
When LE is not charged until civilians protest for months on end, and then acquitted of cold blooded murder against a defenseless person like the homeless non threatening person in Fullerton California, the 99%+ of good police lose more respect from honest law abiding citizens.
I've had a few altercations in my life because I jumped in to help someone I didn't know, from a physical attack, when LE was nowhere in sight.
I've always been respectful toward LE, heeded their commands and supported their cause, even the few times I felt I was being profiled, or when I held my composure and polite nature when the rogue Gestapo cop was doing everything he could hoping I would fly off the handle, daring me to make a move.
I knew it was to my benefit to not move a muscle no matter how easy it would have been to flatten his short fry lard ass.
After that escapade I quit contributing to gain my support LE window sticker.
When LE continues to cover up crimes against citizens they stand to lose much more than monetary donations to Fraternal Order of Police.
If I happened to be walking by and noticed someone choking to death, either one of the two rogue cops who murdered the homeless unarmed guy in Fullerton California, I'd quickly ignore what I saw, turn my back and walk away thinking, good job citizen, justice finally administered.
You ask what's the rush, I ask why not treat LE criminals with the same urgency as criminal charges against citizens?
You are asking questions that will all come out eventually. What is the rush?
Do you like it when peeps generalize about blacks? What's the diff? Just wait for the facts, then bitch about the whole process when it's over. That's all I am saying.
-- Modified on 1/3/2016 4:06:12 PM
They are given the presumption of innocence, like any civilian.
My point really shouldn't be controversial. This board leaps to condemn cops or gun owners with scant, zero or bogus information.
All I am saying, based on the evidence that some on this board convict people falsely on a almost a monthly basis, is to wait. The "facts" here are almost never the same as what is initially reported.
Many here had Trayvon as an innocent "victim" and that was horseshit. Same with Michael Brown. Tamir rice was a totally different case but a GJ looked at that and gave the benefit of the doubt to people who have to make split second decisions or they themsleves die.
As it should be.
Whether that felony is attempted murder, aggravated assault, or any one of a dozen different crimes, yes I agree he will, and he should face criminal charges. That said, I agree with Jack, why the big rush? He is hardly a flight risk, if he committed a crime he will face charges and do time in prison, what difference does it make when?
Would you rabid anti-gunners really prefer that charges were filed before all the facts were in and by rushing the process a criminal managed to either slip out with a lesser charge or get off scot free altogether? When the criminal justice system works properly it works slowly, I am willing to withhold judgment for another few days to make sure the cops and the DA get it right.
...hasn't even been released. Do you know anything at all about the shooter than he's a "homeowner?" And he might not even be a homeowner - he could be a renter of the house. That would make him even more of a flight risk. Does he have a criminal record? You don't know Jack shit about him yet the Great and Powerful Oz, er, GaG is ready to proclaim that he's hardly a flight risk. You know about as much about the U.S. Marshals Services as marikod does about the law. Yet that doesn't stop both of you from ponitificating.
When I was young we called that something else, I'm sure you know what.
Just like playing with a toy gun at a public park. Bad things can happen when you do stupid shit. If people would exercise a little common sense, other people might not be given the opportunity to do something stupid in return.
Have you ever heard the theory of relativity?
and ambivalent to PC.
"Ding-dong-ditch" is perhaps not the safest form of juvenile mischief in a gun friendly State as Oklahoma. Not saying the shooter isn't a tad impulsive, overactive or short sighted; but just say'n
Trayvon Martin (could have been Barack's son . . . ) and Michael Brown. Both instigated conflict by bullying, then they were shocked when the victims fought back. Ultimately each showed how profoundly stupid they were by bringing fists to a gun-fight.
Now, to the Black lives matter crowd, their names have been elevated to be icons of the new civil rights movement supplanting the visionary MLK, Ralph Abernathy, John Lewis, Jesse Jackson when in reality they should be top candidates for the Darwin award. Their parents must be SO proud! 
Now Barack wants to disarm law-abiding people and take away their right and ability to defend themselves against the thugs that the left creates/coddles.
Pants-up/Don't loot (Hands-up/don't shoot)