Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Malum Prohibitum, Sep 2, 2017.
Good for him but that link is dearth of details.
But it's the only link I have . . . I have a dearth of links . . .
Defendant seems to have found a very friendly jury and dayum good counsel. Cops had been called and were on the way when the shooting happened.
Click below. You can have many links but most say little different from each other and very little in those.
From the Joplin Globe link:
" [deceased's sister] does not believe her brother would have gone to the address if he knew Bowman was there and armed. She also doubts that he would have argued with him."
Well, if he didn't EXPECT to be met by the armed homeowner, that's fine, that's believable. But it's irrelevant. What happened after he DID FIND that Mr. Bowman was there, and armed, and stood guard on his own front porch ordering this trespasser off his property?
What did the violent ex-husband do THEN?
Quite obviously he did not say "Oh, this situation is not what I was expecting. I'll try again later when y'all are in a better mood. Have a nice day" while backing his pickup truck off their property.
Instead, he got angry and refused to comply with the lawful commands of the home occupants who wanted this trespasser off the property.
If he had been on a bicycle, where his entire body and everything around him could be easily seen, perhaps it would not be a good shoot unless and until Bowman actually SAW the trespasser reach for a deadly weapon.
But since the offender was in a car, and his arms and hands were not visible, and since violent criminals often keep deadly weapons in the cabs of pickup trucks in places where they can't be easily seen from outside the vehicle (guns are in glove boxes, center consoles, under seats, and on seats, but NOT hanging from string looped over the rearview mirror)... if the trespasser in the truck says the wrong thing and makes a threat of causing somebody harm while his arms are out of sight and his access to weapons unknown, it could be reasonable to open fire on him preemptively, and incapacitate him before he could grab a gun on the seat next to him and bring it up to firing position.
At least, I can see where such a case would end in a jury finding that there is "reasonable doubt" as to what happened and the state of mind of the person who did the shooting.
The history of the "prior difficulties" between this man and his ex-wife, to the extent that they were known to the shooter and influenced him in his assessment of the level or risk this trespasser posed that day, were probably the best and most powerful items of evidence for the defense.
I agree with her opinion and I don't even know her brother.