71 Year Old Arrested For Shooting Friend's Attackers

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-12-08 12:48am

Darth Wong wrote:
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).

I'm not sure anyone is qualified to say what they'd do in that situation unless they've been in that before. When you've got the adrenaline pumping, you don't tend to consider any options beyond the most immediate one that would lead to success.

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2003-12-08 12:55am

Just as an update on this case, while the man has been released, he was told he can no longer carry a gun.

http://www.tampabays10.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=5918

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-08 12:58am

Whoa...so the old guy serves jail time without bond, but the perp is put in the hospital and later released.

WHAT THE HELL?!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-08 12:58am

He still might potentially be charged, but the article says that prosecutors are still weighing the evidence.

I still don't see why everyone thinks this is such an easy open-and-shut case. The outrage that you describe was a direct result of the evaluation of the officers on the scene, was it not? While we can argue about what the situation might have looked like, or work on limited information based on a few sketchy media reports, the people with the best expertise and information available decided that it looked like a case where charges could be laid. At the very least, you are not justified in your assumption that they must have been unreasonable; you have far less information at your disposal in this case than they did.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-08 01:04am

Darth Wong wrote:He still might potentially be charged, but the article says that prosecutors are still weighing the evidence.

I still don't see why everyone thinks this is such an easy open-and-shut case. The outrage that you describe was a direct result of the evaluation of the officers on the scene, was it not? While we can argue about what the situation might have looked like, or work on limited information based on a few sketchy media reports, the people with the best expertise and information available decided that it looked like a case where charges could be laid. At the very least, you are not justified in your assumption that they must have been unreasonable; you have far less information at your disposal in this case than they did.

But it IS unreasonable for the man who shot the guys who were beating up his 63 year old friend to be stuck in jail, but for the guys who were doing the beating to be given hospital treatment and then released.

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2003-12-08 01:15am

Nathan F said:

But it IS unreasonable for the man who shot the guys who were beating up his 63 year old friend to be stuck in jail, but for the guys who were doing the beating to be given hospital treatment and then released.

But not when he is suspected of attempted murder. It sounds like the man did the right thing, but that's only afterthefact. I can imagine the police coming to the scene where Moore's buddys tell them that Spaulding shot him for no reason. They'd have no choice but to arrest him, at least until the facts can be sorted out. And that's what it sounds like is happening.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-08 01:19am

Gunshy wrote:Nathan F said:

But it IS unreasonable for the man who shot the guys who were beating up his 63 year old friend to be stuck in jail, but for the guys who were doing the beating to be given hospital treatment and then released.
But not when he is suspected of attempted murder. It sounds like the man did the right thing, but that's only afterthefact. I can imagine the police coming to the scene where Moore's buddys tell them that Spaulding shot him for no reason. They'd have no choice but to arrest him, at least until the facts can be sorted out. And that's what it sounds like is happening.

What about the statements of the attacked? Shouldn't their statements (and the fact that the old guy had the crap beaten out of him) have some weight? Should the police not take in the guys who were assaulting the old dude?

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2003-12-08 01:22am

Nathan F wrote:

Should the police not take in the guys who were assaulting the old dude?

Absoultely. But attempted murder is much more serious than assault.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-08 01:27am

Nathan F wrote:But it IS unreasonable for the man who shot the guys who were beating up his 63 year old friend to be stuck in jail, but for the guys who were doing the beating to be given hospital treatment and then released.

Actually, most criminals are released either on bail or on their own recognizance after being taken in, even if charges are being laid. Very few criminals are actually denied bail and kept in jail indefinitely. Are you suggesting that these three punks should have been denied bail and kept in jail until the court date over a simple assault case? If people did that all the time, there would be no room in jail. Why do you act as though there's some kind of evil conspiracy here? I'm sure the police in that jurisdiction are not just sitting around scheming about how they can make old mens' lives miserable. There are reasons for their actions.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-08 02:04am

Darth Wong wrote:
Nathan F wrote:But it IS unreasonable for the man who shot the guys who were beating up his 63 year old friend to be stuck in jail, but for the guys who were doing the beating to be given hospital treatment and then released.
Actually, most criminals are released either on bail or on their own recognizance after being taken in, even if charges are being laid. Very few criminals are actually denied bail and kept in jail indefinitely. Are you suggesting that these three punks should have been denied bail and kept in jail until the court date over a simple assault case? If people did that all the time, there would be no room in jail. Why do you act as though there's some kind of evil conspiracy here? I'm sure the police in that jurisdiction are not just sitting around scheming about how they can make old mens' lives miserable. There are reasons for their actions.

I'm not making a conspiracy theory, it just seems sort of...strange...that the old guy is put in jail without bond, and the perp is given hospital treatment and released.

>>looks behind back to see if the black helicopters are circling dorm window yet<<

Gunshy · Post by **Gunshy** » 2003-12-08 02:12am

Just for you Nathan

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_vote.JPG

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-12-08 02:13am

Darth Wong wrote:He still might potentially be charged, but the article says that prosecutors are still weighing the evidence.

I still don't see why everyone thinks this is such an easy open-and-shut case. The outrage that you describe was a direct result of the evaluation of the officers on the scene, was it not? While we can argue about what the situation might have looked like, or work on limited information based on a few sketchy media reports, the people with the best expertise and information available decided that it looked like a case where charges could be laid. At the very least, you are not justified in your assumption that they must have been unreasonable; you have far less information at your disposal in this case than they did.

At least from my point of view, the "outrage" is not that the issue is being investigated as a possible attempted murder case. When bullets fly, by all means that has to be done no matter HOW clear things seem to be.

The outrage is that this man was arrested and held in jail without being charged. If the evidence was so damned clear that they were ready to arrest the guy then and there, the charges should already be filed and the guy should either be in jail or out on bail. If the charges were not enough to file right then and there, then that man should not have been arrested.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-08 02:22am

Gunshy wrote:Just for you Nathan

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_vote.JPG

They found me!

>>Goes and gets in bunker<<

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-08 02:22am

BTW, nice garand.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-08 02:23am

I got to thinking, how is this guy being held without being charged any different from the prisoners at GITMO being held without being charged. And look at the uproar that has caused...

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-08 02:24am

OK, strike that last comment, that was an unintended red herring.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-08 03:08am

Nathan F wrote:I got to thinking, how is this guy being held without being charged ...

You know, maybe if you'd read through the thread, you would know that he's already been released on his own recognizance. And in fact, you've posted several tirades about the injustice of holding this guy without bond after a link was posted to a news article saying he'd already been freed.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-08 10:02am

Darth Wong wrote:
Nathan F wrote:I got to thinking, how is this guy being held without being charged ...
You know, maybe if you'd read through the thread, you would know that he's already been released on his own recognizance. And in fact, you've posted several tirades about the injustice of holding this guy without bond after a link was posted to a news article saying he'd already been freed.

I know he was freed, and I'm glad he was, but was the perp ever even taken into jail? As far as I saw, no, he wasn't. But I guess it's all a moot point now anyways.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-12-08 03:07pm

The article says that the guy was released from the hospital and then arrested. He didn't get off.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-08 04:46pm

Meantime Moore was treated and released from the hospital, and later charged in a separate beating on the same night.

He was charged for a separate beating, not this one.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2003-12-08 10:52pm

He should carry a S&W .50 cal. That would have done more than just winged the guy.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-12-08 10:54pm

Nathan F wrote:
Meantime Moore was treated and released from the hospital, and later charged in a separate beating on the same night.
He was charged for a separate beating, not this one.

That makes it a bit simpler.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-08 11:42pm

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:He should carry a S&W .50 cal. That would have done more than just winged the guy.

And probably broken his wrist, got knocked down, and broke his hip when he did it.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-12-09 08:08am

Gunshy wrote:Just for you Nathan

http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_vote.JPG

That helicopter doesn't look black enough.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2003-12-09 10:33am

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:He should carry a S&W .50 cal. That would have done more than just winged the guy.

That probly would have amputated the guy's arm. Phun!