Shooter convicted of 2nd degree murder...

[lock n' load]

This may be in another forum on here, if so. please move. This appears to be a case of vigilantism and the results that follow..

 

https://newschannel9.com/news/local/accused-bradley-co-landfill-shooter-trial-enters-closing-arguments-on-3rd-day

 

Edited July 21, 2018 by lock n' load

[DWARREN123]

No matter if he had a HCP or not, got to use common sense.

[lock n' load]

I agree. Having a HCP or not does not make one judge, jury and executioner or a LEO for that matter. Another example is the pharmacist in OK that was sentenced for shooting an assailant a few years ago. We as HCP holders must always remember that we do not have license to kill but to protect ourselves and loved ones. I have the feeling that he was looking for a reason to use deadly force when it wasn't warranted and then claimed self defense. He had made statements prior to the encounter that he would shoot if he saw the suspect. He got lucky to get second degree murder. It's like he planned out on "providing justice" if he encountered the suspect. That s premeditation to me.

[lock n' load]

Just another reason for the anti-gunners to paint us as "loose cannons" or "vigilantes". smh...

[lock n' load]

I should have made my title something different instead of "HCP holder sentenced" I don't know if he was an Alabama HCP holder so my bad for the misleading title...

[lock n' load]

Thread post corrected...

[tnhawk]

It's difficult to claim self defense after shooting an unarmed person.

[DaveTN]

I was curious about what happened (because I had never heard of the case), but can’t find a whole lot of detailed information on what happened. From what limited amount I can find this whole trial sounds sketchy.

Of course I’m giving the benefit of the doubt to the man working at the landfill that had been warned a dangerous fugitive was on the loose instead of the fleeing forcible felon that got killed.

[mikegideon]

Pretty narrow rules for using deadly force. Sounds like he was outside those rules. The moment somebody believes that you decided somebody needs to die, you are probably in trouble. If you have a permit, they tied to teach that.

[monkeylizard]

The new one in Florida doesn't look good for the shooter either.

[GlockSpock]

This hits close to home. Take all of this with grains of salt, it was information passed along to me from my father, who works for the company that was involved in doing work at the landfill. From what I've been told, the cops came in, pulled everyone off the job site for a while warned them about the fugitive on the run, and then eventually let everyone go back to work. However, the cops supposedly warned everyone that this man was armed and dangerous. In my mind, this statement likely put everyone in a certain mindset.

At some point, supposedly the guy charged the above mentioned man's dozer. If the two factors I've mentioned are true (cops saying he was armed and dangerous + suspect charging man's dozer), this does seem as if it is dangerously grey. When this first happened, I figured the man recently found guilty would be found innocent.

I cannot deny that it is likely that many people on the job site didn't have a "lets get him" attitude. However, what if the man had instead charged a police officer's car and the officer had shot him? Would the outcome be the same?

Again, I don't know how much of that is true, purely speculation at this point. 

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, CZ9MM said:

This hits close to home. Take all of this with grains of salt, it was information passed along to me from my father, who works for the company that was involved in doing work at the landfill. From what I've been told, the cops came in, pulled everyone off the job site for a while warned them about the fugitive on the run, and then eventually let everyone go back to work. However, the cops supposedly warned everyone that this man was armed and dangerous. In my mind, this statement likely put everyone in a certain mindset.

At some point, supposedly the guy charged the above mentioned man's dozer. If the two factors I've mentioned are true (cops saying he was armed and dangerous + suspect charging man's dozer), this does seem as if it is dangerously grey. When this first happened, I figured the man recently found guilty would be found innocent.

I cannot deny that it is likely that many people on the job site didn't have a "lets get him" attitude. However, what if the man had instead charged a police officer's car and the officer had shot him? Would the outcome be the same?

Again, I don't know how much of that is true, purely speculation at this point. 

Based on the limited amount of information I have seen (From his wife); I agree. Couple the above with him charging the shooter; and no, we would not be seeing a trial if a cop had shot him. It appears he was convicted on statements made before the criminal showed up and a picture after he was shot. Neither have anything to do with whether or not a reasonable person would fear they were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm.

I support the Police when they take action against a criminal creating a deadly force situation, and the standards for a citizen protecting himself should be no less.

EDIT: This appears to be another case of a person getting exactly as much justice as they can afford.

Edited July 22, 2018 by DaveTN

[GlockSpock]

18 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Based on the limited amount of information I have seen (From his wife); I agree. Couple the above with him charging the shooter; and no, we would not be seeing a trial if a cop had shot him. It appears he was convicted on statements made before the criminal showed up and a picture after he was shot. Neither have anything to do with whether or not a reasonable person would fear they were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm.

I support the Police when they take action against a criminal creating a deadly force situation, and the standards for a citizen protecting himself should be no less.

EDIT: This appears to be another case of a person getting exactly as much justice as they can afford.

That, and a decent 1/3 serving of saying and doing stupid things. Had he never "boasted up" beforehand and then took a "victory photo" afterwards, any defense would have had an easier job defending him.

 

[DaveTN]

I never saw what he supposedly said beforehand, do you know?

Edited July 22, 2018 by DaveTN

[Defender]

Hard to tell with very limited facts out there about this case, but I agree that something seems amiss here.  Im starting to think that i need some good carry insurance.  DaveTN's statement about "getting exactly as much justice as they can afford" sure seems to have the ring of truth to it. 

[lock n' load]

Enclosed is another set story of testimony of the trial

https://newschannel9.com/news/local/trial-begins-for-accused-bradley-county-landfill-shooter

 

[GlockSpock]

10 hours ago, lock n' load said:

Enclosed is another set story of testimony of the trial

https://newschannel9.com/news/local/trial-begins-for-accused-bradley-county-landfill-shooter

 

A lot in that post does seem to reinforce many details of what I had heard. However, it doesn't say anything about the shooter being charged but rather he may have been following the guy.

Also, if nothing else everyone should take from this the extreme value of keeping your mouth shut.

[GlockSpock]

Instead of all the boasting and taunting as if he were playing Call of Duty, if he had simply said "I really, really hope we don't run into this guy today; I don't want to shoot anyone", he probably would not have been found guilty if there was ANY reason that he should fear for his life.

However, I still get hung up on the following line from the article:

Witnesses say police told them Headley was armed and dangerous that day.

Is that not reason enough to fear for your life? After being told about this guy running from police for three counties and that he is armed and dangerous, I think I would certainly be on edge.

[DaveTN]

5 minutes ago, CZ9MM said:

Instead of all the boasting and taunting as if he were playing Call of Duty, if he had simply said "I really, really hope we don't run into this guy today; I don't want to shoot anyone", he probably would not have been found guilty if there was ANY reason that he should fear for his life.

However, I still get hung up on the following line from the article:

Witnesses say police told them Headley was armed and dangerous that day.

Is that not reason enough to fear for your life? After being told about this guy running from police for three counties and that he is armed and dangerous, I think I would certainly be on edge.

Yes, but if this is true it shows he wasn't in fear for his life....

(The other stories I saw said Headley charged him and was yelling.)

Quote

 

By the time Chris Parker got there, he says Treuchet was following Headley in his bulldozer.

"He got out and had a gun and i was worried because i was kind of in the line [of fire]," he said.

When Headley continued to walk away, Parker says Treuchet fired at Headley several times.

 

 

[GlockSpock]

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

Yes, but if this is true it shows he wasn't in fear for his life....

(The other stories I saw said Headley charged him and was yelling.)

 

Yeah, I addressed that too above. If he was at any point chasing the guy or getting out of the dozer with a gun, seems that does take away the majority of any claim of "self defense" but rather vigilantism. Either way, thought he was doing a good thing, they even took a picture because they thought he was going to be a hero for a day.

For those than can learn without doing, let this serve as a major life lesson.

[Erik88]

A lot of mistakes were made by the shooter. Too many to convince a jury he was acting in self defense. If witness testimony was true, he may have something wrong with him if he's that excited about killing someone. 

[enfield]

On 7/21/2018 at 5:41 PM, tnhawk said:

It's difficult to claim self defense after shooting an unarmed person.

Everybody with arms, legs and teeth is armed.

[GlockSpock]

On 7/21/2018 at 5:41 PM, tnhawk said:

It's difficult to claim self defense after shooting an unarmed person.

That may be true, but after being told by police that a fleeing felon was armed and dangerous, I do see why everyone had reason to believe that this person was armed. As anyone familiar with carrying a firearm daily already knows, it is incredibly easy to be armed and not appear that you are armed.

The jury seemingly did not think that the shooting was covered under self defense. If Treuchet was at one point following the suspect with his dozer and then exited the dozer with his firearm, that does mostly eliminate any claim to self defense. He could have went the other way and left it at that. Cops likely would have found him a bit later. He was likely pumped up with some adrenaline, eager to "help", and did what he thought was "helping" even though that has been judged to have been murder.

However, if and only if, the suspect was charging his dozer, to me that is grounds for self defense. It doesn't matter to what extent the suspect was armed or not armed, if someone could gain physical access to the cab of the dozer, they could potentially harm or kill the driver (in this case, the defendant). The defendant himself is an older gentlemen, the dead was in his 20's. Even a screwdriver could have been deadly.  Pair this with the fact the police warned everyone the suspect was armed and dangerous. If he charged the dozer, and that could be proven, I don't think I could have found the shooter guilty had I been on the jury.

Although this pertains to law enforcement exponentially more than civilians, what about the Fleeing Felon Rule (or Tennessee vs. Garner? If the police were on the ground and a dangerous suspect fleeing gave them enough reason to believe he would be a risk to other innocents, TN vs. Garner says they can use up to deadly force to stop the suspect. I've always wondered to what extent that theory of thought would be transferred to a civilian case.

Imagine it's 3:00pm, some guy comes and busts down your door. You immediately respond with a shotgun, he starts running away but you see him running down the street with a gun in his hand. You have no reason to believe he is anymore a direct threat to you as he is running 180 degrees away from you. However, after just seeing him bust down your door and now he is running away, visibly armed, you shoot him because you feel he is a potential harm to someone else in the vicinity.

Edited July 23, 2018 by CZ9MM

[Omega]

17 minutes ago, CZ9MM said:

That may be true, but after being told by police that a fleeing felon was armed and dangerous, I do see why everyone had reason to believe that this person was armed. As anyone familiar with carrying a firearm daily already knows, it is incredibly easy to be armed and not appear that you are armed.

The jury seemingly did not think that the shooting was covered under self defense. If Treuchet was at one point following the suspect with his dozer and then exited the dozer with his firearm, that does mostly eliminate any claim to self defense. He could have went the other way and left it at that. Cops likely would have found him a bit later. He was likely pumped up with some adrenaline, eager to "help", and did what he thought was "helping" even though that has been judged to have been murder.

However, if and only if, the suspect was charging his dozer, to me that is grounds for self defense. It doesn't matter to what extent the suspect was armed or not armed, if someone could gain physical access to the cab of the dozer, they could potentially harm or kill the driver (in this case, the defendant). The defendant himself is an older gentlemen, the dead was in his 20's. Even a screwdriver could have been deadly.  Pair this with the fact the police warned everyone the suspect was armed and dangerous. If he charged the dozer, and that could be proven, I don't think I could have found the shooter guilty had I been on the jury.

Although this pertains to law enforcement exponentially more than civilians, what about the Fleeing Felon Rule (or Tennessee vs. Garner? If the police were on the ground and a dangerous suspect fleeing gave them enough reason to believe he would be a risk to other innocents, TN vs. Garner says they can use up to deadly force to stop the suspect. I've always wondered to what extent that theory of thought would be transferred to a civilian case.

Imagine it's 3:00pm, some guy comes and busts down your door. You immediately respond with a shotgun, he starts running away but you see him running down the street with a gun in his hand. You have no reason to believe he is anymore a direct threat to you as he is running 180 degrees away from you. However, after just seeing him bust down your door and now he is running away, visibly armed, you shoot him because you feel he is a potential harm to someone else in the vicinity.

This scenario always comes to mind when I hear homeowners get charged for shooting at, or shooting fleeing home invaders.  The perp has already shown the propensity for violence by forcibly entering a home, who knows what would of happened if not challenged, or what they will now do to the next victim.  Same with carjackers, they already showed they are willing to act violently, keeping them from doing it to others should be taken into account if there is any question of self-defense.

[lock n' load]

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 11:25 AM, monkeylizard said:

The new one in Florida doesn't look good for the shooter either.

I watched the video to that shooting and it appears to be unjustified. Apparently that man has had other run ins with other people about parking in handicapped spaces from what I have read.  In this particular case, he found a "reason" to use deadly force. I am surprised that he isn't charged with something. Being pushed to the ground isn't grounds to shoot someone. I'm all for SYG laws. I think every state should have them. However, there are some instances where instigating a fight and using a gun to end it just plays into the anti-gunners hands on why they shouldn't be legal. 99.9% of SYG shootings are legally justified but in cases like this, it just gives the other side a reason to deem such laws "shoot to kill" or whatever bs they like to use to describe them...