ADVERTISEMENT

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

Hey everybody!!! OVER HERE!!!

giphy.gif


One thing is clear. We have noticed the lies.
 
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.

I agree with everything said except a warning shot. On paper a warning shot sounds good but in reality a warning shot should never be fired.
 
it was the 17 yr old that physically came at Weiss, not the other way around; it was the 17 yr old who tried to grab the gun and take it away; Weiss even stepped back (which one lawyer said could be legally deemed retreating) and told the 17 yr old to stop

All according to Weiss
 
^This right here. Grabbing a gun is certainly escalating the situation. He could have retreated to his vehicle (sounds like he actually did this to retrieve his firearm) and called authorities with his gun by his side. He had options.

It will be interesting to see his answer to "Why did you grab your gun?"

Did he fear for his safety? Why? What did the deceased and his friend say and do to make Weiss fear for his safety?
 
He can troll me by putting his money where his mouth is.
He'd never pay up. Like I said, he knows he's wrong. He'd make the bet to string you along then say, "awww, I was just messing with you" if he lost. But I'd never bet on a jury...especially in cases like this.
 
OK, I'm on the jury and my mind has been changed.

For the first time ever, I agree with @tarheelbybirth.

Weiss went to his car, grabbed his loaded handgun and then returned to the situation. He wasn't under threat of severe bodily harm when he shot an unarmed man.

Weiss chose to get his gun and shoot an unarmed man that wasn't pummeling him or anything. Weiss is guilty.

Another reason I know Weiss is guilty is because @TheTradition believes he's innocent and @TheTradition is literally wrong about everything all the time.
 
it will be interesting to see when the witness arrived, how long she was there, and what she saw and what she heard;

"A driver who was passing by the scene at the time of the confrontation said she didn’t see Rahim raise a fist, advance or assault Weiss before he was shot."
 
OK, I'm on the jury and my mind has been changed.

For the first time ever, I agree with @tarheelbybirth.

Weiss went to his car, grabbed his loaded handgun and then returned to the situation. He wasn't under threat of severe bodily harm when he shot an unarmed man.

Weiss chose to get his gun and shoot an unarmed man that wasn't pummeling him or anything. Weiss is guilty.

Another reason I know Weiss is guilty is because @TheTradition believes he's innocent and @TheTradition is literally wrong about everything all the time.
Unfortunately, none of that means a jury will convict him. And it's possible there are facts that are still unknown. But on the face of it and by his own testimony to the police it certainly seems he had the opportunity to get in his car and call the police and chose instead to arm himself and then threaten the other men. By his own admission, he escalated the situation.
 
He'd never pay up. Like I said, he knows he's wrong. He'd make the bet to string you along then say, "awww, I was just messing with you" if he lost. But I'd never bet on a jury...especially in cases like this.

Wrong about what?

I just don't think this is a cut and dry case.

I can easily see how a defense attorney could make a case that this was a 2 on 1 situation, there was retreat (which the law requires for self defense) and there was self defense.

The only thing that could change that is we don't know what happened between when the deceased grabbed for the gun and when Weiss stepped back and told the deceased to "stop."
 
Wrong about what?

I just don't think this is a cut and dry case.

I can easily see how a defense attorney could make a case that this was a 2 on 1 situation, there was retreat (which the law requires for self defense) and there was self defense.

The only thing that could change that is we don't know what happened between when the deceased grabbed for the gun and when Weiss stepped back and told the deceased to "stop."
The deceased never grabbed for the gun. Didn't you read your own article?

Wow.
 
It will be interesting to see his answer to "Why did you grab your gun?"

Did he fear for his safety? Why? What did the deceased and his friend say and do to make Weiss fear for his safety?

The problem that you fail to see here is that IT DOESN'T MATTER IF OR WHY he feared for his safety. I fully believe he did.

The point is that once he got to his vehicle, HE WAS SAFE. He had the barrier of his locked doors and a gun in his possession. By exiting the vehicle, he put himself into harms way. He made a choice to pursue an altercation at that point and it is the reason it's murder.
 
The problem that you fail to see here is that IT DOESN'T MATTER IF OR WHY he feared for his safety. I fully believe he did.

The point is that once he got to his vehicle, HE WAS SAFE. He had the barrier of his locked doors and a gun in his possession. By exiting the vehicle, he put himself into harms way. He made a choice to pursue an altercation at that point and it is the reason it's murder.
The gun was in his pocket. Didn't you read the article?

Just channeling Franisdamoran for you.
 
I agree with everything said except a warning shot. On paper a warning shot sounds good but in reality a warning shot should never be fired.

In most situations, I'd agree with you and even in this situation, it would be questionable. The difference in this situation is that the alleged assailant supposedly did not believe the gun was real. So you fire a warning shot to prove the weapon's validity and it stops the assailant in his tracks. I understand, though, that by doing this you provide the chance for another party to shoot you when you take your aim off the target and fire.

Having said that, Weiss shouldn't have even been standing there with the weapon in the first place. He should have never exited the vehicle.
 
OK, I'm on the jury and my mind has been changed.

For the first time ever, I agree with @tarheelbybirth.

Weiss went to his car, grabbed his loaded handgun and then returned to the situation. He wasn't under threat of severe bodily harm when he shot an unarmed man.

Weiss chose to get his gun and shoot an unarmed man that wasn't pummeling him or anything. Weiss is guilty.

Another reason I know Weiss is guilty is because @TheTradition believes he's innocent and @TheTradition is literally wrong about everything all the time.

Did he ever really leave and come back from the situation? Remember that the deceased backed into Weiss' car; the cars may not have moved (its not clear).

I see a hung jury on this case. It was 2 on 1, the 2 threatened to beat Weiss up. The deceased was aggressive towards Weiss. It could easily be argued that Weiss retreated from an aggressive confrontation, meeting the definition of what would be self defense. All Weiss needs is a good attorney and this is a hung jury or an acquittal.
 
Unfortunately, none of that means a jury will convict him. And it's possible there are facts that are still unknown. But on the face of it and by his own testimony to the police it certainly seems he had the opportunity to get in his car and call the police and chose instead to arm himself and then threaten the other men. By his own admission, he escalated the situation.

I don't think Weiss should get life in prison, considering he's 25 years old. That would mean he gets 60 years or so. This seems more like a bad manslaughter case.

I'd probably give him 20 years, and he's out in 12 or 15.

JMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rudolph
In most situations, I'd agree with you and even in this situation, it would be questionable. The difference in this situation is that the alleged assailant supposedly did not believe the gun was real. So you fire a warning shot to prove the weapon's validity and it stops the assailant in his tracks. I understand, though, that by doing this you provide the chance for another party to shoot you when you take your aim off the target and fire.

Having said that, Weiss shouldn't have even been standing there with the weapon in the first place. He should have never exited the vehicle.
Nobody who knows guns would fire a warning shot. It's just not done. The bullet could ricochet if you fire into the street and firing into the air is no better. There's no telling where a bullet might end up.
 
Did he ever really leave and come back from the situation? Remember that the deceased backed into Weiss' car; the cars may not have moved (its not clear).

I see a hung jury on this case. It was 2 on 1, the 2 threatened to beat Weiss up. The deceased was aggressive towards Weiss. It could easily be argued that Weiss retreated from an aggressive confrontation, meeting the definition of what would be self defense. All Weiss needs is a good attorney and this is a hung jury or an acquittal.

Getting into a vehicle and then getting back out with a weapon is leaving an altercation and then re-initiating. You are being purposely obtuse at this point.
 
"A driver who was passing by the scene at the time of the confrontation said she didn’t see Rahim raise a fist, advance or assault Weiss before he was shot."
its not clear how long she stuck around

did she literally pass by or did she stop and hear/see what went down?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT