Hi-Point Firearms Forums banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,752 Posts
Oh my... that's horrible!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
684 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
From article that mikev posted link to.....

Responding to that filing, Thorp maintained that there clearly was evidence that Gumm "was not justified, in the circumstances that existed, to use deadly force in defense of a misdemeanor assault and battery.
Was he suppose to wait until it was too late to do something to protect himself? :shock:
 
G

·
The first one is a sort of local one. Although, it happened north of here, it still happened in this state. Sad, really, when a whacko advances on you, with large dogs, and this travesty happens. I have stronger feelings on this, thus, I will stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,846 Posts
Absolutely appalling. I can't believe that a court would so blatantly stack the deck against a man that just wanted to go on a nature walk, was being assaulted by an insane man with 2 aggressive dogs. Like Elguapo, I think I'll stop here.
 
G

·
It is so weird how something like this can happen a man defend himself and yet people think he was wrong in doing it. I just don't understand it.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
1,792 Posts
I dont understand Most of this story. Warning shot??? Shoots man but not attacking dogs?????

Withheld evedence?????

I just want to take this time to add Fire arms training and membership to NRA and GOA.
I dont know how much more one can do it seems as if the Defending party is always taking the shaft. But again I dont know all the story, or let alone fully understand.

weres are legal guru????



As it stands i could see him backing away with weapon still out. I dont know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,286 Posts
When people ask me why I no longer practice law, this is the kind of thing I point out to them...

This just goes to show how important it is for lawmakers to properly draft legislation. In the first case, it appears to be the work of an overzealous DA with some kind of grudge. But if the original SD law had been drafted with the procedural shift of burden of proof, then a conviction, even in the face of a DA gone bad, would have been unlikely.

Lucky for AZ residents that the legislature fianlly got it right with the new law... not that is does this guy any good.

Here in TN, like most states that have adopted the castle doctrine, the burden of proof is on the DA to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooter acted improperly, which is as it should be. The first guy got shafted because the state made HIM prove that he acted properly. Even the lesser BOP of preponderance of evidence was not enough to save him in this case. When the jury is instructed "This guy has to prove to you that he acted properly, and we the State say he did not" they are very likely to find him guilty.

We all should take from this the important lesson of knowing and clearly understanding our own state's law regarding SD, whether they have castle on not, is there a duty to retreat if not in your own home, warning shot or no, etc.
 
G

·
Excellent points, gtv: one more to think about, is people, even people who carry concealed, think that "warning shots" are the best course. Not so, because since you felt that the first shot was not meant to stop a threat: the threat level was not yet that elevated to use deadly force to stop said threat. That being said, others might argue with me: why even have a firearm for defense, if you have to suffer before its justified? There, it gets murky, and since I wasnt there, I wont offer my opinion on the hows/whys/whatnots about that particular action.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top