Only in your mind, does going back to the car to get his gun "retreating". Lol
UPDATE: Judge Delares Mistrial in Case of Self Defense or 2nd Degree Murder
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
You're assuming as fact the defendant's self-serving testimony and ignoring the testimony of an eyewitness who has no reason to lie.
You might want to settle THAT issue before moving on to what happened next.
i think it all depends on where the other 2 individuals were when Weiss went to his car to get his phone and gun; maybe he thought the gun would deter the 2 individuals; instead, it appears the victim got even more aggressive
the aggressor appears to be the one who, in the end, got shot.
Did Weiss do everything legally correct where it was indeed self defense? So far, it appears that he did. The prosecutor will have to show otherwise.
when did she arrive? when did she leave? what did she see?
That's kinda the point of settling THAT issue first, now isn't it? Why are you so quick to assume that the defendant is telling the unvarnished truth?
but he retreated AGAIN after getting shoved, spat at, and having his gun grabbed.
who was the real aggressor here?
who legally had the right to have that gun?
who legally had the right to defend himself from the aggressor?
i hate hung juries!
as a juror, we have to decide who is being truthful and who is not
the other kid's testimony will be interesting; he admitted they threatened to beat Weiss up; if HE LIES on the stand and gets caught lying, then Weiss will probably be acquitted
the buddy might have
the driver passing by might have
Weiss will probably testify that he did
All bets are off when you walk away and come back with a gun! That's not anyone's definition of "retreating". So, do yourself a favor and stop saying that he retreated twice. because he certainly did NOT. It defies the definition of "retreating" when you walk away and come back to a confrontation with a gun. That's textbook "escalation" of a confrontation. And not surprisingly...the situation went from a push to a death.
Well, no shit. You've assumed in multiple posts that the defendant is telling the truth. Why is that?
its all based on the article posted in the orig post and on what lawyers are stating in that article
did you read the article?
why do you think this is such an easy case to find Weiss guilty
Why are you swearing?
Why are you angry?
I stated nothing in terms of guilt or innocence. I do have a problem with someone getting in an argument, going back to their car to retrieve a weapon, and shooting an unarmed man. I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't have a problem with that? Until I have some reason to understand WHY he didn't simply get in his car and call the police - a perfectly reasonable response to a perceived threat - I'm going to assign HIM the role of aggressor at that point. His testimony is contradicted by two separate witnesses - one of whom has no reason to lie. Yet, you're assuming he tells the truth. There has to be a reason for that. Right?
I'm not going to bother trying. They charged him and the state will take up that challenge. All I can ask you is that if you and I were having a dispute, you pushed me, I went over to my car and came back with a gun, would you feel that I was trying to calm the situation or escalate the situation? How would you feel if I came walking back with a gun? That's ultimately what the prosecuting attorney is going to ask the jury.
"Mr, Weiss walked back to his car and came back brandishing a gun. How is that self defense?"
To which most reasonable jurors will decide that it isn't.
He legally had the right to have that gun.
The one lawyer in the article said that when be backed up that might meet the "retreat threshold." So do yourself a favor and read the article again.
You have to look at the law and apply the facts to the law; did he legally retreat?
He has a right to a gun. When he retreated to his car, why did he retrieve it and return to the altercation? Why isn't HE the aggressor at that point? If I'm in an argument with a guy and he pulls a gun, why can't I legally kill him in self-defense? Why can't I - at that point - be in such fear for my life that I can kill the person with the gun with anything at my disposal?
The Defendant is innocent until the State proves otherwise.
if you came back with a gun, i would retreat and call 911. i would not get in your face, shove you, spit on you and grab for your gun.
LOL...so why wouldn't you do the same f'n thing if a guy was threatening to beat you? You just lost your case.
And? That presumption of innocence has not a damn thing to do with the truth of what the defendant claims.
you are not a very logical person and would not be a juror for this trial
He DID retreat. To his car. Where he retrieved a gun. And returned to the argument. Those are facts.
More LOL...so if you felt threatened by a GUN you would retreat and call 911...but if felt threatened by a couple of...what?...unarmed thugs?...you would go get your gun to...what? Teach them a lesson? Make THEM back down? Please explain the difference in threat, if you don't mind, Mr. Logical.
I did read the article. Going back to your car to get a gun is not retreating. Not in anyone's definition.
For the record, the gun was in his pocket; Weiss did not come back brandishing a gun, as you incorrectly state. Initially the deceased did not know there was a gun present. So, until you get the facts straight, you should just be silent.
Weiss did not reveal that he had a gun until getting shoved and spat on by the aggressor. Then the deceased went to grab the gun. Then Weiss backed up, which probably meets the definition of retreating, per the lawyer quoted in the article.
So, this case is not so cut and dried as many of you would like.
He's right. Your entire argument is based on the idea that the victim was the only one that should have retreated.
Not guilty. You have two Iraqis teaming up on one scared dude. It's self defense. Why are they threatening to kick his ass over a fender bender? Once that starts happening, fire away, I say.
Are you now inventing testimony to bolster your case or has the defendant's story changed?
I'll ask again - you stated that if threatened by a firearm, YOU would retreat and call 911. According to Weiss's own testimony, he felt threatened and returned to his car to retrieve a weapon. How are the two threats different?
I honestly don't think many of you read the article. This is not a cut and dried case by any means.
Well, here it is, again.
Weiss has a permit to carry a gun.
Weiss said he felt threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returned to his car to get his phone and firearm.
Weiss said he warned the passenger that he was armed. Moments later, he told police, Rahim started to yell at him and said that he and his passenger were going to beat up Weiss.
He said Rahim then approached and was a few inches from his face before shoving him 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. He told police that Rahim then spat at him and told him the gun didn’t look real. Weiss said Rahim then reached for the gun so he backed up and told Rahim to stop.
Weiss then shot him at point-blank range.
“If he really believes that this person is a threat to immediately do him great bodily harm or kill him, then he’s got a right to defend himself,” said Joe Friedberg, a Minneapolis criminal defense attorney. “However, he’s the only one with a weapon.”
Rahim’s proximity to Weiss’ car and their respective sizes will be factors.
The general rule in Minnesota is that unless you’re in your home when threatened, you have a duty to retreat if possible.
Weiss told authorities that in the moment just before he shot Rahim, he backed up, according to the criminal complaint.
“It could be argued that he retreated to the point where he met the burden,” said criminal defense attorney Ryan Pacyga.
The duty to flee doesn’t mean you need to run, just that you try to get away, even if only taking a few steps, Appelman said.
“You need to disengage this particular encounter. … And then if somebody would reapproach you and re-engage, then you are no longer the aggressor,” he said.
The problem for Weiss may be that by his own description of the encounter, he walked away at one point to get his handgun from his car’s glove box, but then returned to face Dukart and Rahim.
“He could have very easily just sat in his car and waited, right? And I think a prosecutor would point that out,” Appelman said.
“This kid [Rahim] had no belief that he was going to be shot,” he added. “This is a challenging case for everybody.”
Well, here it is, again.
Weiss has a permit to carry a gun.
Weiss said he felt threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returned to his car to get his phone and firearm.
Weiss said he warned the passenger that he was armed. Moments later, he told police, Rahim started to yell at him and said that he and his passenger were going to beat up Weiss.
He said Rahim then approached and was a few inches from his face before shoving him 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. He told police that Rahim then spat at him and told him the gun didn’t look real. Weiss said Rahim then reached for the gun so he backed up and told Rahim to stop.
Weiss then shot him at point-blank range.
“If he really believes that this person is a threat to immediately do him great bodily harm or kill him, then he’s got a right to defend himself,” said Joe Friedberg, a Minneapolis criminal defense attorney. “However, he’s the only one with a weapon.”
Rahim’s proximity to Weiss’ car and their respective sizes will be factors.
The general rule in Minnesota is that unless you’re in your home when threatened, you have a duty to retreat if possible.
Weiss told authorities that in the moment just before he shot Rahim, he backed up, according to the criminal complaint.
“It could be argued that he retreated to the point where he met the burden,” said criminal defense attorney Ryan Pacyga.
The duty to flee doesn’t mean you need to run, just that you try to get away, even if only taking a few steps, Appelman said.
“You need to disengage this particular encounter. … And then if somebody would reapproach you and re-engage, then you are no longer the aggressor,” he said.
The problem for Weiss may be that by his own description of the encounter, he walked away at one point to get his handgun from his car’s glove box, but then returned to face Dukart and Rahim.
“He could have very easily just sat in his car and waited, right? And I think a prosecutor would point that out,” Appelman said.
“This kid [Rahim] had no belief that he was going to be shot,” he added. “This is a challenging case for everybody.”
Since when did it become ok to shoot a dude that wants to fight you?
Seriously....while watching the Jags/Pats game down here in Destin I witnessed a guy pick a fight with another dude...ended up getting his ass beat but....would shooting that guy be justified?
Just don't agree that someone threatening to kick your ass gives a green light to putting a bullet in them.
If that was the case a whole lot of drunks at bars would be getting capped. Might cut down on the MAGA crowd but I still wouldn't agree with it.
Weiss said he felt threatened by Rahim’s passenger and returned to his car to get his phone and firearm.
This is the line in the article that turns it from self defense to manslaughter. Every action after this by Weiss, he was the aggressor and instigator of the situation. He was in control of the situation from this point forward and that is the point.
This is the line in the article that turns it from self defense to manslaughter. Every action after this by Weiss, he was the aggressor and instigator of the situation. He was in control of the situation from this point forward and that is the point.
Was it illegal for him to have the gun in his pocket? No.
The deceased did not know FOR SURE that there was a gun present until the deceased shoved Weiss. This was a 2 on 1 situation.
Can you read? I am guessing not, because you can't keep the facts straight from the article.
Is that being logical enough for you?
Since when did it become ok to shoot a dude that wants to fight you?
Seriously....while watching the Jags/Pats game down here in Destin I witnessed a guy pick a fight with another dude...ended up getting his ass beat but....would shooting that guy be justified?
Just don't agree that someone threatening to kick your ass gives a green light to putting a bullet in them.
If that was the case a whole lot of drunks at bars would be getting capped. Might cut down on the MAGA crowd but I still wouldn't agree with it.
I'm a lover, not a fighter. Some dickhead wants to fight me, I'm introducing him to my little friend.
You read the article and missed this?????
“It could be argued that he retreated to the point where he met the burden,” said criminal defense attorney Ryan Pacyga.
I hear ya....but folks can de-escalate those situations pretty easily most of the time. The guy who beat the dudes a$$ who started everything wasn't exactly unwilling.
I've been going to bars, seen fights and somehow haven't been in one in 30 years....not even close. We start justifying putting bullets into people that start talking sh*t then we'll be heading down a bad road IMO.
Wrong again. What is being discussed in the article is that it could be argued Weiss did retreat before he fired his gun.
Who made the threats of beating up whom? The 2 individuals.
Do you think a 2 on 1 situation is a fair situation? Wouldn't you feel for your safety if 2 guys were threatening to attack you and beat you up?
Who shoved whom? The deceased.
Who spat on whom? The deceased.
Who grabbed for the legally possessed gun? The deceased.
Who was the aggressor? The deceased.
Similar threads
