ST. PETERSBURG -- A 71-year-old man was arrested for firing a gun at three men beating up his 63-year-old friend, striking one of the men in the arm, deputies said.
Melvin B. Spaulding held up his .22-caliber pistol and told the men to stop hitting and kicking his friend George Lowe. When they didn't listen, he fired the gun, Pinellas County Sheriff's spokesman Tim Goodman said.
``I'm sure he was concerned for his friend's safety...,'' Goodman said. ``The use of a weapon to stop a confrontation is not the right way. He would have been better off calling 911.''
James T. Moore, 20, was treated for the gunshot wound at Bayfront Medical Center and was arrested for an unrelated battery charge earlier the same night.
Lowe said the altercation began Sunday night when he heard loud noises outside his home and discovered a group of young men pounding on cars and shouting. When he told them to stop, they attacked him, he said.
Spaulding, who had no criminal record in Florida, acknowledged firing the gun, according to sheriff's records. He was being held without bail in Pinellas County Jail.
The Pinellas-Pasco State Attorney's office would carfully investigate the case before deciding whether to file an attempted murder charge against Spaulding, prosecutor Bruce Bartlett said.
``As far as I'm concerned, he's my hero,'' said Lowe, who suffered a torn leg muscle, bruises and a sore back in the fight. ``He's my friend, but he's also my hero.''
They arrested this old guy who was protecting his friend, saying he should have called 911 instead! Yeah, I'm sure that would have done ALOT of good when the police arrived in 15 minutes, after it was over (if he was lucky).
Xenophobe3691 wrote:I say good for him. We need more Good Samaritans like that in this country,
They also need larger caliber firearms.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Whilst this situation is a waste of court time, and no judge and jury in the land would allow it through, I have no problem with this man being tried for this, even if it is only to be acquitted, (as no judge is going to send a 71 year old to jail), yes, it's a waste of court time, it's also upholding the law with regard to vigilante action. Yes, this situation isnt a vigilante situation, and there's no question that the man's motives were anything other pure friendship and willingness to help someone in need, but what if they'd all been younger, and maybe the situation wasnt as clear cut, maybe they were all drunk and it was the guy being beaten up who had started it, and his friend came in late and concluded that he was the victim and fired? Note that it said that they were considering whether or not to file the case, not that they were going to, they're following procedure with regard to these situations.
"...a fountain of mirth, issuing forth from the penis of a cupid..." ~ Dalton / Winner of the 'Frank Hipper Most Horrific Drag EVAR' award - 2004 / The artist formerly known as The_Lumberjack.
Evil Brit Conspiracy: Token Moose Obsessed Kebab Munching Semi Geordie
It's a good thing they are holding him withou bail. The man is a menace to crimin--citizens everywhere. Why, inagine if EVERYONE confrontent with vastly superior musclepower in criminals fought back with guns, then honest, law abiding citizens, well citizens, would fear for their safety when engaged in criminal activity!
I don't think this will fly. All he has to say is he felt his friend's life was in iminant danger, and it becomes discharging a firearm inside city limits.
If he has any balls, (Probably does!) he will demant a jury trial. One good citizen is all it takes!
Hmmmmmm.
"It is happening now, It has happened before, It will surely happen again."
Oldest member of SD.net, not most mature.
Brotherhood of the Monkey
He hasn't even been charged yet, people. The fact is that he shot somebody, the police aren't exactly sure what happened yet, so they're holding him until they know what they're going to do. So far, at least, nothing unreasonable has taken place.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Typically a person will not be arrested out of hand in such a case. Typically, the guy would just do whatever he normally does until the DA decided on a course of action.
Howedar wrote:Typically a person will not be arrested out of hand in such a case. Typically, the guy would just do whatever he normally does until the DA decided on a course of action.
Typically however someone would usually call 911, rather than shoot one of the attackers. If its pushed through rather than dropped, he'll likely be charged with assault or similar and acquitted due to mitigating circumstances.
You're forgetting that he isn't a police officer which means that he doesn't have the RIGHT to shoot people in defense of someone else, even police officers have to justify their actions, so don't get so defensive about it.
Howedar wrote:Typically a person will not be arrested out of hand in such a case. Typically, the guy would just do whatever he normally does until the DA decided on a course of action.
Really? Around here, if you shoot somebody, they're not going to let you walk around until they're confident that you're in the clear. Any crime scene involving something as serious as a shooting is not neatly wrapped up by the first officer to arrive, particularly not in such a manner as to let the shooter go free.
As it is, they could easily point out that a police officer at the scene would probably not have been so eager to discharge his firearm, and some kind of charge would probably be applicable (although attempted murder sounds much too severe). While self-defense can get you out of a lot of jams, this was not a self-defense case. It was vigilantism whether you agree with his actions or not, and that warrants a different kind of investigation.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Well that depends. Here we have a 63 year-old man being beaten by younger, stronger, multiple opponents. What if he had a heart condition or something that his friend knew about? The guy could very reasonably have feared for his friend's life, giving him justification for his action. If your friend's life was at stake, would you want to wager on the police showing up in time?
Damien Sorresso
"Ever see what them computa bitchez do to numbas? It ain't natural. Numbas ain't supposed to be code, they supposed to quantify shit."
- The Onion
Durandal wrote:Well that depends. Here we have a 63 year-old man being beaten by younger, stronger, multiple opponents. What if he had a heart condition or something that his friend knew about? The guy could very reasonably have feared for his friend's life, giving him justification for his action. If your friend's life was at stake, would you want to wager on the police showing up in time?
I would have tried firing a warning shot before aiming at the guy's centre of mass (there's no way he was actually aiming for his arm; he was probably just aiming in his general direction).
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:
I would have tried firing a warning shot before aiming at the guy's centre of mass (there's no way he was actually aiming for his arm; he was probably just aiming in his general direction).
At where? Bullets do come down you know...
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Darth Wong wrote:
I would have tried firing a warning shot before aiming at the guy's centre of mass (there's no way he was actually aiming for his arm; he was probably just aiming in his general direction).
At where? Bullets do come down you know...
I was thinking of shooting at the grass. The only point is to make them realize that the gun is real and loaded, so you're not kidding around.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:
I would have tried firing a warning shot before aiming at the guy's centre of mass (there's no way he was actually aiming for his arm; he was probably just aiming in his general direction).
At where? Bullets do come down you know...
I was thinking of shooting at the grass. The only point is to make them realize that the gun is real and loaded, so you're not kidding around.
Knowing the mentality of assholes,if the old man had shot one warning shot in the grass they might have decided then to jump him too,kick his ass then kill them both with the gun.
Jerry Orbach 1935 2004 Admiral Valdemar~You know you've fucked up when Wacky Races has more realistic looking vehicles than your own.
Darth Wong wrote:
I was thinking of shooting at the grass. The only point is to make them realize that the gun is real and loaded, so you're not kidding around.
Once you draw weapon you should not take it off the target at any time.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Darth Wong wrote:I was thinking of shooting at the grass. The only point is to make them realize that the gun is real and loaded, so you're not kidding around.
Once you draw weapon you should not take it off the target at any time.
Perhaps I'm visualizing this event differently than everyone else. Since the three young assholes in question were unarmed, I was assuming he would be relatively safe from assault at any reasonable distance. I didn't figure he'd be close enough for them to jump him.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:I was thinking of shooting at the grass. The only point is to make them realize that the gun is real and loaded, so you're not kidding around.
Once you draw weapon you should not take it off the target at any time.
Perhaps I'm visualizing this event differently than everyone else. Since the three young assholes in question were unarmed, I was assuming he would be relatively safe from assault at any reasonable distance. I didn't figure he'd be close enough for them to jump him.
That's just the point with out more info we can't know what happened. For we know the guy could've been a good 40-50 feet away, or he could've discharged the gun at point blank range. Just no info to go on.
Seniors get seriously injured every day from the simple act of falling. Getting a beat down from men in their 20's is a life threating act. There is nothing improper about the police holding him to clear things up. But charging him would be an outrage. He was protecting life.
Now, if they all ran away and he shot them in the back, then we are talking a different case.
While self-defense can get you out of a lot of jams, this was not a self-defense case. It was vigilantism whether you agree with his actions or not, and that warrants a different kind of investigation.
Florida law recognizes the right to defend others under limited circumstances.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102.
Three men in their 20's having a boot stomping party on a 71 year old man certainly is grounds for a reasonable fear of 'great bodily harm' to the stompee.
The ideal ending to this would have been that all of the assailants were legally shot to death while assaulting their victim.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Darth Wong wrote:I was thinking of shooting at the grass. The only point is to make them realize that the gun is real and loaded, so you're not kidding around.
Once you draw weapon you should not take it off the target at any time.
Perhaps I'm visualizing this event differently than everyone else. Since the three young assholes in question were unarmed, I was assuming he would be relatively safe from assault at any reasonable distance. I didn't figure he'd be close enough for them to jump him.
In the United States at any rate it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. If the people were threatening a person that is your friend, anything up to lethal force is acceptable, although it depends on the exact circumstances. If he genuinely feared for his friends life, then according to US law, you can blow the motherfuckers away.
As for the arrest, in the US a person is not arrested unless there is the intention of arraigning them at a later date. Therefore an arrest occurs when there is an intent to charge someone. You cannot simply take someone into custody unless you intend to charge them (it varies from state to state as to how long you can hold someone prior to charging them). I'm not familiar with Russian law on this subject, but I can't imagine why they would arrest him if they didn't plan to charge him.
Three men in their 20's having a boot stomping party on a 71 year old man certainly is grounds for a reasonable fear of 'great bodily harm' to the stompee.
Crap. I meant to say 63 year old man.
Could this be edited please?
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
Howedar wrote:Typically a person will not be arrested out of hand in such a case. Typically, the guy would just do whatever he normally does until the DA decided on a course of action.
Really? Around here, if you shoot somebody, they're not going to let you walk around until they're confident that you're in the clear. Any crime scene involving something as serious as a shooting is not neatly wrapped up by the first officer to arrive, particularly not in such a manner as to let the shooter go free.
You don't get taken in by police unless you've been charged with something. Police will keep a close eye on you and you'd be wise to volunteer to be questioned, but you won't be arrested.
As it is, they could easily point out that a police officer at the scene would probably not have been so eager to discharge his firearm, and some kind of charge would probably be applicable (although attempted murder sounds much too severe). While self-defense can get you out of a lot of jams, this was not a self-defense case. It was vigilantism whether you agree with his actions or not, and that warrants a different kind of investigation.
A police officer also is trained in how do defuse such situations in a nonviolent manner, and would be much more able to do something without a gun than a 70-odd year old man.
criminals have more rights than honests citizen
