ADVERTISEMENT

UPDATE: Judge Delares Mistrial in Case of Self Defense or 2nd Degree Murder

@BrianNole09
@CarolinaHawkeye
@coloradonoles
@Franisdaman
@HKI
@jscott78
@Menace Sockeyes
@Rifler
@ScoutRefugee
@soybean
@SSG T
@TDJ7

You are on the 12 person jury.

Based on what you read, what is your preliminary conclusion? When Weiss stepped back and told the 17 year old to stop, did that meet the legal requirement of retreating? Again, retreating does not require you to turn and run. Was the 17 yr old the aggressor or was Weiss? Was Weiss defending himself against a person who was being aggressive and who made physical contact (shoving, grabbing for the gun)?

Do you vote Guilty or not guilty?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09
Franisdaman said:
@BrianNole09
@CarolinaHawkeye
@coloradonoles
@Franisdaman
@HKI
@jscott78
@Rifler
@ScoutRefugee
@SSG T
@soybean

You are on the jury. We need 2 more to get to 12.

Based on what you read, what is your preliminary conclusion? When Weiss stepped back and told the 17 year old to stop, did that meet the legal requirement of retreating? Again, retreating does not require you to turn and run. Was the 17 yr old the aggressor or was Weiss? Was Weiss defending himself against a person who was being aggressive and who made physical contact (shoving, grabbing for the gun)?

Do you vote Guilty or not guilty?
Click to expand...
Guilty. If he had his gun on him during the entire exchange, I could be convinced otherwise. The fact that he went back to the car and got his gun, is the problem here. And it should be a problem for everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghost80, TDJ7, Rudolph and 2 others
Go back to your car, call the cops, lock the door, and write down the license plate. How hard is it to not kill a person? Seems like he even had to take extra steps to make it happen. Yeah, the guy that got shot sounds like he instigated everything and was confrontational. That's not worth dying over.

This is why I believe most people shouldn't be able to carry firearms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jellyfish10, Rudolph, soybean and 2 others
IACub said:
Go back to your car, call the cops, lock the door, and write down the license plate. How hard is it to not kill a person? Seems like he even had to take extra steps to make it happen. Yeah, the guy that got shot sounds like he instigated everything and was confrontational. That's not worth dying over.

This is why I believe most people shouldn't be able to carry firearms.
Click to expand...

And if they damaged your vehicle? Same response? Police don't respond for hours? Same response?
 
After being warned there was a gun, shown the gun, he still reached for the gun and threatened violence, these are not the actions of a reasonable person. I would imagine this will end in a mistrial or two with no unanimous decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mthawkeyes
Based on the legal definition of self defense, I am going to vote RIGHT NOW not guilty.

As documented:

* Rahim was the aggressor and approached Weiss and was a few inches from Weiss' face before shoving Weiss in the chest. Weiss then pulled the gun out of his pocket and pointed it at the ground to show Rahim that he was armed.

* Rahim again was the aggressor when he then spat at Weiss and reached for Weiss' gun; at that moment Weiss backed up and told Rahim to stop (like it or not, but Weiss backing up is where the legal requirement of retreating is met, in my opinion).

Weiss then legally (note, I did not use the word morally) shot the aggressor in self defense.

As a juror, you have to apply the facts to the law and it appears Weiss legally met the definition of retreating, he was not the aggressor, and he defended himself against the aggressor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClarindaA's and Chuck C
ScoutRefugee said:
Guilty. If he had his gun on him during the entire exchange, I could be convinced otherwise. The fact that he went back to the car and got his gun, is the problem here. And it should be a problem for everyone.
Click to expand...

This.

If he has his gun on him, is threatened, backs up and the kid comes at him, I could be swayed to not guilty fairly easily. But going to get the gun out of his car... If he can do that why can't he get out of the situation? I have a problem with that based on what we know right now.

Who knows, maybe some other evidence pops up that would sway me based on what we currently know. But right now, it would be hard for me to let him off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghost80, Rudolph and ScoutRefugee
SSG T said:
This.

If he has his gun on him, is threatened, backs up and the kid comes at him, I could be swayed to not guilty fairly easily. But going to get the gun out of his car... If he can do that why can't he get out of the situation? I have a problem with that based on what we know right now.

Who knows, maybe some other evidence pops up that would sway me based on what we currently know. But right now, it would be hard for me to let him off.
Click to expand...

Looks like we have 3 not guilties; can we avoid a hung jury?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09
IACub said:
Are you serious? Yes, same response. Damaging a vehicle is not a capital offense. Is your insurance company really so bad that you'd rather kill someone than deal with them?
Click to expand...

That certainly isn't what I posted. You are essentially saying that there is no scenario in which one can hide in a car that defending oneself with lethal force is acceptable. I disagree, and I think human nature, biology and history disagrees. I also don't think it sets a precedent that actually leads to safer citizenry, therefore I think it fails on all fronts. You could, for example, apply your same insurance-company-angle to that at your own home as well, so what would be the reason for protecting it and nowhere else?
 
Franisdaman said:
Weiss then legally (note, I did not use the word morally) shot the aggressor in self defense.
Click to expand...

You say this met the retreat, but don't consider the second element, whether or not there was another life-threatening/gbh action. Once he backed up was there another aggression? One obviously can't retreat and use lethal force if unreasonable during the retreat. Article doesn't say.
 
Gimmered said:
After being warned there was a gun, shown the gun, he still reached for the gun and threatened violence, these are not the actions of a reasonable person. I would imagine this will end in a mistrial or two with no unanimous decision.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the other guy, the shot one, was reasonable, doesn't play much of a factor, at least not in my opinion. I guess it does work to inform our opinion on the shooters reasonableness, which may differ based on the "unreasonable" actions of the aggressor.
 
SSG T said:
Who are the not guilties besides you? I'd vote guilty based on what we currently know.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to acquit, but would need to hear what happened and when, after he is in possession of the gun. Such as the backing up. What I'd like to express in this thread is that this should be, and mostly appears to be in this thread, just a discussion of standard self defense and reasonableness of conduct. I think the additional element of retreat hurts its own cause, and when it works only reiterates some people's views on reasonableness. I don't know if posters in here disagree with the shooting and would convict are doing so just because a statute says to retreat, or if they are finding the retreating and returning with a gun to be unreasonable. I would guess the latter. The statute doesn't improve the law, imo. I think you can use the same logic to go the other way on "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws, which don't help either, they are just viewpoints on reasonableness that cloud the discussion.
 
In this particular situation, I don't consider it self-defense. He had ample opportunity to retreat. Get in his car, lock the doors, call authorities. (It says he had a cell phone).

So he failed already there. Then, when the other guy approached him saying the gun wasn't real, he could have fired a warning shot to prove it was real. I'm quite sure that would have ended the conflict.

Instead, he goes back into a situation he knows is hostile, this time armed, and provokes the situation. I'm all for the right to carry a weapon but I feel like you should be held to a very high standard if you use it. He failed his obligation in this instance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThorneStockton, Rudolph, KennyPowers_96 and 2 others
longliveCS40 said:
I'm all for the right to carry a weapon but I feel like you should be held to a very high standard if you use it. He failed his obligation in this instance.
Click to expand...

This is what I fail to understand. You are fine with him having the gun, therefore his retrieving the gun shouldn't be the issue. (wouldn't make sense to reward one for actively carrying, and the other for obtaining the carry). So then it seems, to me, that you just disapprove with him using it to shoot at the person. In to the ground is ok, even though it demonstrates the lack of actual threat. (if actual threat, can't waste the time shooting anything but the aggressor). You appear to be ok with that because it would de-escalate the situation. So you seem to approve of carrying, but never actually using the gun to shoot someone, which defies one of the largest reasons for carrying one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chuck C
If I shot someone every time I was threatened similar to what this article references then I’d be a mass murderer. This was escalated by the guy that got his gun. If he didn’t want confrontation, just stay in the car. If they try to get in the car, light’em up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghost80, Rudolph, KennyPowers_96 and 1 other person
HKI said:
That certainly isn't what I posted. You are essentially saying that there is no scenario in which one can hide in a car that defending oneself with lethal force is acceptable. I disagree, and I think human nature, biology and history disagrees. I also don't think it sets a precedent that actually leads to safer citizenry, therefore I think it fails on all fronts. You could, for example, apply your same insurance-company-angle to that at your own home as well, so what would be the reason for protecting it and nowhere else?
Click to expand...

Jeez, can no one take a joke anymore?

I agree that this is not a cut and dried case, and it sounds like in the end he may have been defending himself, though whether his life was threatened is pretty gray. But to answer your question, defending a home doesn't mean you can shoot someone for peeing on your siding. It means they've broken into your home and you feel your life is threatened. If the defendant in this case felt threatened enough to go back to his car to get his gun, then he should have hidden in the car and busted out the gun as a last defense. Instead he took it back into an already tense situation, which ended in him killing a guy. Should he spend the rest of his life in prison? No. Should he get off without punishment? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HKI, Rudolph, soybean and 1 other person
HKI said:
This is what I fail to understand. You are fine with him having the gun, therefore his retrieving the gun shouldn't be the issue. (wouldn't make sense to reward one for actively carrying, and the other for obtaining the carry). So then it seems, to me, that you just disapprove with him using it to shoot at the person. In to the ground is ok, even though it demonstrates the lack of actual threat. (if actual threat, can't waste the time shooting anything but the aggressor). You appear to be ok with that because it would de-escalate the situation. So you seem to approve of carrying, but never actually using the gun to shoot someone, which defies one of the largest reasons for carrying one.
Click to expand...

No. I approve of using it of there's an imminent threat situation that you, as the gun carrier, didn't create and can't escape.

He created the situation when he grabbed the gun and went to confront the situation.

If he'd had the gun holstered on him at the time of the altercation and didn't go to retrieve it, it would be justified as he wouldn't have had a way out.

As it was, he could have avoided the conflict, he did not.

He had knowledge his alleged assailant did not believe his firearm was real. He could have proven the point by discharging it safely. Then, if the the guy continued at him shoot him.

You have an obligation to NOT shoot people while carrying. He failed in many ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudolph, soybean, KennyPowers_96 and 1 other person
It's a tough call.

I'd probably give the shooter manslaughter and hope he gets a few years in the can. 5-10.

It baffles me why a 25 year old Church guy in Minnesota would feel the need to drive around with a loaded handgun in his car...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudolph and soybean
IACub said:
Go back to your car, call the cops, lock the door, and write down the license plate. How hard is it to not kill a person? Seems like he even had to take extra steps to make it happen. Yeah, the guy that got shot sounds like he instigated everything and was confrontational. That's not worth dying over.

This is why I believe most people shouldn't be able to carry firearms.
Click to expand...

He could have gone back to his car, got his gun and sat in the driver's seat and called 911.

If the two other guys started trying to bash in his windows, he could have shot then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKGrad93, IACub and Rudolph
coloradonoles said:
If I'm on the jury... at a MINIMUM we are hung. I am not convicting that guy with what I know right now.

#Finalanswer
Click to expand...

I keep asking myself, "Who was the aggressor? Who laid hands on who?"

Did Weiss retreat? Well, actually, he retreated twice, and he had the legal right to have that gun in his possession.

Legally speaking, and legally speaking only, I don't know how you could convict.

Morally speaking? Well, it seems excessive. And it seems like there has to be an explanation of what happened after Weiss got shoved, the 17 yr old grabbed for the gun, and Weiss retreated / backed up.

Bottom line is we are talking about the law and did Weiss break the law? It does not appear, based on the article, that he did. Someone was clearly the aggressor and the person on the receiving end legally has a right to defend himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09 and Chuck C
Franisdaman said:
I keep asking myself, "Who was the aggressor? Who laid hands on who?"

Did Weiss retreat? Well, actually, he retreated twice, and he had the legal right to have that gun in his possession.

Legally speaking, and legally speaking only, I don't know how you could convict.

Morally speaking? Well, it seems excessive. And it seems like there has to be an explanation of what happened after Weiss got shoved, the 17 yr old grabbed for the gun, and Weiss retreated / backed up.

Bottom line is we are talking about the law and did Weiss break the law? It does not appear, based on the article, that he did. Someone was clearly the aggressor and the person on the receiving end legally has a right to defend himself.
Click to expand...
You can't meet a push in the chest with a bullet. If Iowa was playing Michigan in basketball and some pushing and shoving occurred, you'd be ok with a kid going into the locker room and coming back out with a gun? If your son got into a dispute and some pushing and shoving occurred, the other kid has the right to shoot your son dead???
I don't think so. And neither would you, if you were the father of the victim here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghost80 and Rudolph
ScoutRefugee said:
You can't meet a push in the chest with a bullet. If Iowa was playing Michigan in basketball and some pushing and shoving occurred, you'd be ok with a kid going into the locker room and coming back out with a gun? If your son got into a dispute and some pushing and shoving occurred, the other kid has the right to shoot your son dead???
I don't think so. And neither would you, if you were the father of the victim here.
Click to expand...

If I were the father of the victim, yes I would be very emotional.

But as the father of the victim, I would not be allowed on the jury.

And as a member of this jury, you have to take the law and apply the facts to the law.

Looking at the law, did he break the law? I don't think it is clear that he did.

He legally had the right to have that gun in his possession.

And legally, I think he retreated TWICE. The only aggressor was the 17 yr old.

Again, I am only looking at the law and trying to keep emotion out of it.

What is really important to me is when the 17 yr old shoved Weiss, spit at him, reached for the gun, Weiss stepped back (he retreated); what happened from that moment of retreat to when he then fired the gun? Until that is answered, I cannot find him guilty.

We are a hung jury at the moment, sorry to say. We are gonna be here a while. Hope the food they bring us and the hotels we stay at (we are sequestered, baby!) are awesome!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09
BrianNole09 said:
It's a tough call.

I'd probably give the shooter manslaughter and hope he gets a few years in the can. 5-10.

It baffles me why a 25 year old Church guy in Minnesota would feel the need to drive around with a loaded handgun in his car...
Click to expand...

some people feel they have this right
 
HKI said:
You say this met the retreat, but don't consider the second element, whether or not there was another life-threatening/gbh action. Once he backed up was there another aggression? One obviously can't retreat and use lethal force if unreasonable during the retreat. Article doesn't say.
Click to expand...
i think this is the key to the case. until we find out, i can't say guilty
 
  • Like
Reactions: HKI
coloradonoles said:
They threatened to beat him up... which is the threshold for me if I was on the jury. Period. It was 2 vs 1. You can't ever afford to get in those fights and lose.

Too many people in this world try to bully their way through life. He didn't believe the gun was real and bowed up and caught the dead.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity...what do you think would have happened if, when he retreated to his car, he had gotten in, locked the doors, and called the police? He did have a phone. Said so himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudolph
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cigaretteman

Judge to backers of Jan. 6 rioter: Don’t condone political violence

Replies
57
Views
841
Off Topic
hawkedoff
H
QChawks

Man accused of killing roommate over a $1

Replies
14
Views
363
Off Topic
The Tradition
The Tradition
cigaretteman

Trump’s New York hush money case to start April 15

Replies
68
Views
1K
Off Topic
ft254
ft254
cigaretteman

Judge calls Trump defense arguments ‘really odd’ and takes a break

Replies
0
Views
137
Off Topic
cigaretteman
cigaretteman
alaskanseminole

US military veteran accused of having explicit images of a child apparently...

Replies
26
Views
496
Off Topic
seminole97
seminole97
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back