Disparity of Force??

[Jeff White]

This was in the weekend St Louis Post Dispatch. The victim was 63 and the shooter was 72. The shooter had minor injuries to his face. I think this case will afford us a good opportunity to discuss El Tejon's favorite subject, Problem 2.

I'll post further details as they become available.

Jeff

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...79C6F5A1CC32144D86256FF5007FDC37?OpenDocument

Chesterfield man charged with murder in shooting death
Mary Shapiro
Of the Suburban Journals
Chesterfield Journal

A Chesterfield man has been charged in the shooting death of another man April 29 in what police call a "landlord-tenant dispute."

Charles Robert Collins, 72, of the 15600 block of Dresden Lake Court, was charged the following day with one count each of first-degree murder and armed criminal action, said Chesterfield police Sgt. Steve Lewis.

The victim, Joseph Maiorana, 63, was shot with a handgun at Collins' home, Lewis said. Maiorana had been staying at the home, in the Baxter Lakes subdivision, but originally was from California.

Collins is being held without bond at the St. Louis County Jail in Clayton, Lewis said.

Collins was arrested at about 4:21 p.m. April 29 after police received a 911 call notifying them of a shooting at Collins' home.

The shooting stemmed from an argument between the two men, "and the disagreement escalated into a physical altercation," Lewis said.

Collins then shot Maiorana multiple times with a handgun, Lewis said.

"The victim was renting a room in (Collins') home," Chesterfield police Capt. Ed Nestor said.

"Investigation is continuing," he said Monday. "We are not releasing further details about the argument that led to the shooting."

Collins was examined by paramedics at the scene, Nestor said.

"But the injuries he sustained — cuts on his face — didn't require further medical attention," Nestor said.

You can contact Mary Shapiro at [email protected].

 

[HankB]

Not enough info here to come down on either side . . .

 

[Steve in PA]

No disparity of force.

 

[c_yeager]

The really big question is what was happening IMMEDIATLY prior to the shooting. Was the 'victim' in the process of beating up the shooter, or was the victim laying on the ground in a pool of blood when he was shot? The lack of an answere to that question means that no possible concusions can be drawn from the article.

 

[Jeff White]

No there is not enough information here to make a judgement. However, There is enough information to talk about these issues. Because they will come up in a defensive shooting.

The shooter was 9 years older then the victim. The article doesn't say anything about the size or health of the two men, but it's entirely possible that the shooter could make an arguement that a reasonable man would agree that he was in fear of his life before he fired.

Just because he was arrested doesn't mean that he's guilty. My purpose in starting the thread was to generate some discussion on the legal ramifications of a defensive shooting. I will post updates as they become available.

Jeff

 

[El Tejon]

It depends. Media leaves things out or is not told everything by po-po.

One doesn't know right away. If I may quote one of my fave state cases: "Ordinarily the question how far a party may properly go in self-defense is a question for the jury, not to be judged very nicely, but with due regard to the infirmity of human impulses and passions." Monize v. Bagazo, 76 N.E. 460, 461 (Mass. 1906).

Lots of things to factor in: prior relationship, health/strength of shooter, weapon(s) we are not told about by media or police held by decedent, intent of decedent (hey, can I use your shampoo? v. hey, I'm gonna kill ya), inter alia, etc.

You me to tell me that if I shoot someone that I can be arrested? But, but at the gun shoppe they told me I'd get a media for using violence against a fellow human being.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Obviously there was a disparity of force. One guy is dead and the other didn't even require medical attention.

 

[sturmruger]

There is little info here, but I can tell you right now that I hope this guys gets a really good lawyer because I bet he is going to need it.

 

[atk]

To those who have already concluded one way or t'other:


I don't think there's enough information, at all. With the information we have available:

- the shooter could be extremely healthy, in excellent condition, and a world reknown judo champion.
- the shooter could be a wheelchair bound invalid, with only one functioning limb
- the target could be extremely healthy, in excellent condition, and a world reknown kenpo champion
- the target could be a severly retarded, alzheimer afflicted amnesiac, who couldn't bring himself to harm a fly
- the target could have been weilding a steak knife
- the target could have been weilding a firearm


There simply aren't enough details to know.


To RileyMC:

"Obviously there was a disparity of force. One guy is dead and the other didn't even require medical attention."

So, if someone tries to shoot me, and misses several times, and I shoot him, and kill him on the spot, then there's no disparity of force, since I don't need medical attention?

 

[rock jock]

"Disparity of Force" is kinda like porn - you might have a hard time defining it, but you recognize it when you see it.

 

[R.H. Lee]

So, if someone tries to shoot me, and misses several times, and I shoot him, and kill him on the spot, then there's no disparity of force, since I don't need medical attention?

Uhhhh........did I miss the part where the dead guy was armed?

 

[Al Thompson]

No, you sort of implied that one needs to be hurt before responding.

However, your statement is exactly accurate. atk just took it out of contextt.

 

[atk]

RileyMC,

You didn't miss the part where the dead guy was armed. The problem is that there's no indication he wasn't armed. We just don't know.


Al Thompson,

The problem, which I was trying to point out, is that there is no context. Every comment saying that it was a good shoot, or that it was a bad shoot, until we get more information, is out of context. All we know is that there was a shoot.


Making any kind of a judgement without any supporting evidence, to either point, is not prudent. I'm just trying to point out that we should reserve our judgement until we know more.


Exactly like that old scenario:

You walk around a corner, and see a man pointing a gun at a woman, with about 10 feet separation. The woman is lowering herself to her knees. What do you do? Unfortunately, you don't know that the woman just tried to kill the man, and will repeat the attempt, given half a chance; and he successfully prevented the murder.


We don't know the details. We can't make fair judgement without them.