* Personal/Professional disclosure: I'm working this case for the defense in preparation for trial on Monday 8/29/11. Because of that I can only reveal/discuss those issues that have been reported or are contained in the public record.

In light of the Ersland trial and the hot topic of C&C and one's right to defend oneself, I'm shocked this has had very little media or Internet discussion coverage - beyond the initial reporting of the robbery.

Abridged version of the public record;
A precious gems dealer from Texas, I'll refer to as HM, was in Oklahoma early last year meeting with various jewelry stores. On the first day he felt confident he was being followed and lost the vehicle in a neighborhood and decided to call it a day and checked into a hotel. The next day be started meeting again with jewelry stores.

At one point he stops at the Russell Stover candy store on N. May Avenue. While leaving he was approached by 3 disguised men, described as most likely Hispanic in hoodies with sewn-in face masks (ninja style according to witnesses). All three were armed with pistols and demanded the $400,000 in gems HM had on his person. HM refused and was even able to knock one of the guns from one of the robbers hands. He was then thrown to the ground and relieved of the gems and his cell phone.

The three then ran to a waiting car, driven by a forth 'ninja' and sped away.

As the four were leaving the parking lot, HM pulled his C&C weapon (.380 pistol) and fired 5-6 shots at the vehicle. At least two shots hit the suspects vehicle. At least one uninvolved vehicle was also hit - A 2010 Porsche driven on N. May Ave. by a local business owner. The bullet went through the passenger window, into the dash and came to rest in the back of the car. The airbag also deployed. The Porsche owner, JG, drove home unaware or unconcerned that his car had been hit by gunfire. JG had the Porsche towed to a local dealer and it was the dealer who located the bullet and contacted police and the vehicle's owner.

The suspects vehicle was found within an hour of the robbery at 50th and Ross in a parking lot. It appears the vehicle was purchased for the specific purpose of the robbery and the purchaser and insurance (only one month purchased) came back to an unknown Hispanic man.

HM was later charged with misdemeanor "ENGAGING IN RECKLESS CONDUCT WHILE POSSESSING A FIREARM." If convicted he will have a record and lose his C&C license. Could possibly do some jail time.

Thoughts?
Is this a case of our right to defend ourself being limited and even punished - or did the victim of the armed robbery go too far?

Once the robbery is over and the thieves are fleeing, you don't get to shoot off rounds in an urban area. He could have killed an innocent person. C&C is for self-defense only. When he shot at the robbers after the fact, they were no longer a threat to him. His insurance, if he was smart enough to buy it, should cover the loss. It isn't worth ending human life and endangering innocent life over.

He should have his license revoked at the very least. If you aren't responsible enough to check behind your targets then you shouldn't be carrying. I don't care what the details of the case are. If you fire a gun onto an occupied city street you are a danger.

Once the robbery is over and the thieves are fleeing, you don't get to shoot off rounds in an urban area. He could have killed an innocent person. C&C is for self-defense only. When he shot at the robbers after the fact, they were no longer a threat to him. His insurance, if he was smart enough to buy it, should cover the loss. It isn't worth ending human life and endangering innocent life over.

On face value I agree - however, that it not the standard in Oklahoma County. I have literally dozens of examples where victims of armed and even unarmed robberies shot at the criminals as they fled. In each of those cases the victims were never charged. In 7 cases the robbers were actually hit by the gunfire and wounded or even killed - all while fleeing the scene.

If he had pulled the gun and fired during the robbery then fine. But after the robbery when your life is no longer in immediate danger leave the gun in the holster.

On face value I agree - however, that it not the standard in Oklahoma County. I have literally dozens of examples where victims of armed and even unarmed robberies shot at the criminals as they fled. In each of those cases the victims were never charged. In 7 cases the robbers were actually hit by the gunfire and wounded or even killed - all while fleeing the scene.
In our concealed carry class, the attorney was very clear that you are responsible for anything that you hit when firing your gun. Firing toward a busy street at FLEEING suspects is just asking for trouble. How would he have felt if he had KILLED that driver instead of just hitting his vehicle? He'd be spending some time with Ersland had that happened.

One thing that has not been determined in court is that the bullet that hit the Porsche actually came from the victim's gun. The robbers were never found, nor were their weapons and there are no witnesses who saw the victim of the robbery specifically shoot the Porsche. This will be critical - as it should be.

Also, 'no longer a threat' is NOT a black and white issue. Some people define that as when the criminals turn their backs to you, others when they are leaving the scene, but it is reasonable to some to argue that armed felons fleeing at a high rate of speed still pose a deadly threat.

Regardless, I find many of the yet to be revealed facts and theories to be fascinating.

On face value I agree - however, that it not the standard in Oklahoma County. I have literally dozens of examples where victims of armed and even unarmed robberies shot at the criminals as they fled. In each of those cases the victims were never charged. In 7 cases the robbers were actually hit by the gunfire and wounded or even killed - all while fleeing the scene.
Then we get, once again, to what the law says vs how it's really enforced. The way I read the law all of those firing at fleeing robbers are breaking the law. Especially if the robber was unarmed to begin with.

Then we get, once again, to what the law says vs how it's really enforced. The way I read the law all of those firing at fleeing robbers are breaking the law. Especially if the robber was unarmed to begin with.

Its a reminder that the discretionary powers of police investigators and prosecutors is great.

However, most people read these laws with bias and like many laws are open to interpretation.

The statute:

It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in reckless conduct while having in his or her possession any shotgun, rifle or pistol, such actions consisting of creating a situation of unreasonable risk and probability of death or great bodily harm to another, and demonstrating a conscious disregard for the safety of another person. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section shall be punished as provided in Section 1289.15 of this title.

Any person convicted of a violation of the provisions of this section after having been issued a concealed handgun license pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1 through 25 of this act, shall have the license revoked and shall be subject to an administrative fine of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), upon a hearing and determination by the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that the person is in violation of the provisions of this section.

"Reckless conduct" and "conscious disregard" could have many definitions in this case.

Reckless conduct and conscious disregard have pretty specific meanings in the law. Sure, there's a lot of room for an attorney to argue something to a jury, but I'll bet if you pulled the Uniform Jury Instructions, you could find hard and fast definitions for those terms for use by the jury during deliberations. Chances are that this gets plead out to a misdemeanor, some money, and a short deferred sentence involving this fella fixing the business owner's Porsche.

Reckless conduct and conscious disregard have pretty specific meanings in the law. Sure, there's a lot of room for an attorney to argue something to a jury, but I'll bet if you pulled the Uniform Jury Instructions, you could find hard and fast definitions for those terms for use by the jury during deliberations. Chances are that this gets plead out to a misdemeanor, some money, and a short deferred sentence involving this fella fixing the business owner's Porsche.

I've seen the usual instructions, they are no more concrete than the elements of the crime outlined in the statute. Also, its already a misdemeanor. I can't discuss what's been offered in way of a plea (if any) or if the Porsche owner was offered/given reimbursement in full. I do find it curios Prater himself is 2nd chairing this misdemeanor case.

If the bullet is from the gem dealer's gun, it's a problem for him in my opinion. In the dozens of examples you reference Brian, do any of those include causing actual bodily or property damage to anyone who is not a fleeing crime participant? Just wondering if that might help distinguish why a charge exists here.

As to a trial, I don't know near enough to speculate, but depending on facts not yet discussed (oh those pesky facts), I can see it being interesting.

Of revealed fun points ...Prater is 2nd chairing a CM? Yeah, that's a bit interesting all on its own.

Once the robbery is over and the thieves are fleeing, you don't get to shoot off rounds in an urban area. He could have killed an innocent person. C&C is for self-defense only. When he shot at the robbers after the fact, they were no longer a threat to him. His insurance, if he was smart enough to buy it, should cover the loss. It isn't worth ending human life and endangering innocent life over.

I agree with this and personally if I was carrying close to a half million dollars in jems and was being followed the previous day and had to 'lose' a car I would have been more aware of my surroundings. The second I saw three guys in hoods my weapon would have been out and ready to use. Once they were running away the danger was over.

I agree with this and personally if I was carrying close to a half million dollars in jems and was being followed the previous day and had to 'lose' a car I would have been more aware of my surroundings. The second I saw three guys in hoods my weapon would have been out and ready to use. Once they were running away the danger was over.

Those pesky and stealthy 'ninja's' were not seen by anyone until they grabbed the victim from behind.

Still trying to finalize a timeline. Looks to be about 15-20 seconds from the time the robbery started until the last shot was fired.

Another example of why I don't carry a firearm even though I have CLEET 4 training and ongoing training. I fear others judging my use of that firearm in a situation they cannot put themselves in.

Its very easy to say "yeah you don't shoot when the armed bad guys are apparently making their getaway" all while sitting back in your jammies typing on a computer. Completely different when your life just flashed before your eyes, you had a gun to your head and they just took your livelihood and are 15 feet from you still.

That said, owning a firearm and using it comes with an awesome responsibility. One that many boast about, but a very few actually have to ever put into practice.

A bat would probably have served him better in that situation. Or a dog.

Once the threat is over the right to shoot is over also. Pretty simple in context. In practice not so much. As Brian stated recent history is all over the map on this issue and when the suspect(s) have taken flight the smart play is to let them get away. I suspect the DA might bargain but only if it costs the defendant his right to carry in the future.

In one vein I am very happy the media has not picked up on this: The rabid anti-gunners have not weighed in and thank goodness their stupidity is not involved. If an uninvolved party had been hit I would bet prison and/or a ruinous civil suit.

Prater backstopping his ADA's while not common occasionally occurs.

Once the threat is over the right to shoot is over also. Pretty simple in context. In practice not so much. As Brian stated recent history is all over the map on this issue and when the suspect(s) have taken flight the smart play is to let them get away. I suspect the DA might bargain but only if it costs the defendant his right to carry in the future.

In one vein I am very happy the media has not picked up on this: The rabid anti-gunners have not weighed in and thank goodness their stupidity is not involved. If an uninvolved party had been hit I would bet prison and/or a ruinous civil suit.

Prater backstopping his ADA's while not common occasionally occurs.

So somebody who doesn't believe in guns is stupid?

Someone who does not beleive in self defense is, well fill in the blank. IMHO. The F/A is just a means to an end. A lot of folks on the non-gun side of the question also have the temerity to question a persons right of self defense which IMHO is not a questionable subject. The right of self defense is absolute and inalienable.

If someody wants to just lay down and be victimized that is their right in this society. However that person/group of persons HAS NO RIGHT to question or complain when someone else does decide to take a stand and defend themselves and their family. My meaning was that whenever a F/A is used for self defense a certain micocosm of society springs to the fore to lament weapons and that person who legitimately used a F/A to ward off an attacker. Questioning my, or anybody elses, right to self defense is what I was labeling as stupid.

Some very intelligent folks are on the opposite side of the F/A question from me and the majority of society. It is unquestionaly logical for reasonable adults to agree that very smart people on occasion do very stupid/dumb/ignorant things. It is in inarguable fact of the human condition.

Someone who does not beleive in self defense is stupid IMHO. The F/A is just a means to an end. A lot of folks on the non-gun side of the question also have the temerity to question a persons right of self defense which IMHO is not a questionable subject. The right of self defense is absolute and inalienable.

If someody wants to just lay down and be victimized that is their right in this society. However that person/group of persons HAS NO RIGHT to question or complain when someone else does decide to take a stand and defend themselves and their family. My meaning was that whenever a F/A is used for self defense a certain micocosm of society springs to the fore to lament weapons and that person who legitimately used a F/A to ward off an attacker. Questioning my, or anybody elses, right to self defense is what I was labeling as stupid.

Some very intelligent folks are on the opposite side of the F/A question from me and the majority of society..

I've never seen not believing in guns as not believing in self defense or to lay down and be victimized as you put it. This thread is questioning if the gem salesman was using self defense or not and I don't think any body on this thread is stupid. I guess I don't understand calling somebody stupid because they believe differently is a very intelligent thing to do.

I'd say this thread also asks if the gem dealer was acting in the defense of others also? Is it reasonable to assume he may have been acting in his own self defense and in the defense of those whom he was speeding towards while armed an in the commission of a felony? The suspect vehicle struck at least one vehicle, disregarded signal lights and caused others to have to make evasive moves.

If they were firing a gun blindly into the public then maybe. However firing to stop them because they were driving recklessly...not hardly, that is a HUGE departure from the intention of the statute IMHO. If that were true would it not then behoove each and every one of us to crash our vehicles into every reckless driver we saw endangering the public?

If they were trying to hit him with the car then yes. If they are driving away definitely NO.

I'd say this thread also asks if the gem dealer was acting in the defense of others also? Is it reasonable to assume he may have been acting in his own self defense and in the defense of those whom he was speeding towards while armed an in the commission of a felony? The suspect vehicle struck at least one vehicle, disregarded signal lights and caused others to have to make evasive moves.
If we were allowed to shoot ag anyone who drove poorly I think it would send the wrong message.

If we were allowed to shoot ag anyone who drove poorly I think it would send the wrong message.

That statement completely ignores the fact we are talking about armed felons leaving the scene of an armed robbery at a high rate of speed and hitting other vehicles - and instead frames it as if we should gun down granny if she crosses the center line.

It doesn't matter. Your weapon is for your protection (and immediate family). You can't play temporary cop or vigilante trying to protect others. The restrictions are very clear on this as you should know. If I were him, I'd plead.

If they were firing a gun blindly into the public then maybe. However firing to stop them because they were driving recklessly...not hardly, that is a HUGE departure from the intention of the statute IMHO. If that were true would it not then behoove each and every one of us to crash our vehicles into every reckless driver we saw endangering the public?

If they were trying to hit him with the car then yes. If they are driving away definitely NO.


On this we agree completly

It doesn't matter. Your weapon is for your protection (and immediate family). You can't play temporary cop or vigilante trying to protect others. The restrictions are very clear on this as you should know. If I were him, I'd plead.

Actually, I've read several police reports where a third party used deadly force in the protection of others (non immediate family) that never resulted in charges.

Actually, I've read several police reports where a third party used deadly force in the protection of others (non immediate family) that never resulted in charges.

I would suspect those are the exceptions and not the rule. It now sounds like grasping at straws. He might want to take the best deal that keeps him out of jail and take his lumps and move on down the road. Brian using only the info in your original post if I were on the jury I would almost certainly vote to convict. And I am very pro Second Amendment and self defense, however there are limits to that.

Actually, I've read several police reports where a third party used deadly force in the protection of others (non immediate family) that never resulted in charges.
But, again, as the attorney in our class clearly pointed out, that's not the way the law reads. And I'm not necessarily going to stake my life (and freedom) on the inconsistent application of that law.

But, again, as the attorney in our class clearly pointed out, that's not the way the law reads. And I'm not necessarily going to stake my life (and freedom) on the inconsistent application of that law.
Exactly. I'd rather not depend on the whim of whatever DA happens to be in office at the time.

My question is why he was being followed over a couple of days and how did four ninjas know he had that kind of gems on him. More to this story, seems to me.

As far as shooting in public at someone who is fleeing with the goods, I can't imagine what he thinks his defense would be. Defense of self is one thing. Defense of property is something else. It may not seem fair to some but just think if he'd harmed that innocent driving by in the nice car. Or a baby in a stroller.

As to Mustang's discussion with rabid anti gun folks, when I hear that, I take it to only mean people who leave their brains at the door and not take into consideration the law and the particular facts of the situation because, to them, "guns are bad" and that is all they need to know.

Actually, I've read several police reports where a third party used deadly force in the protection of others (non immediate family) that never resulted in charges.

But in this case, there WERE charges. I'd be interested to see what in the world he used as a defense. The fact that he was carrying so many valuable items AND had been shadowed the day before makes it more likely (to me) that he should have hired a body guard or taken some other prudent steps. To go about his business on his own and shoot in public at a fleeing car smacks of recklessness on quite a few fronts. It isn't like this was some lady picking her kids up from daycare one day who panicked when some guys jumped out of the bushes behind the church.

This is simple. The guy should never be charged and should never be faced with the possibility of losing his license. What the police need to do is to be smart and work together on finding the thieves and do everything possible to track down the gems. OKC police should be ashamed of themselves. Is the DA actually pursuing the charges? If so, then this is another hard evidence against him in the next election. As for the Mexican thieves, they are most likely illegals. Anyway, this needs to reach the media immediately so the public can see what the DA and OKC police is doing yet again to another innocent man. Brian, did you submit the story to the media already or should I?

On face value I agree - however, that it not the standard in Oklahoma County. I have literally dozens of examples where victims of armed and even unarmed robberies shot at the criminals as they fled. In each of those cases the victims were never charged. In 7 cases the robbers were actually hit by the gunfire and wounded or even killed - all while fleeing the scene.

Interesting post. I think the key words up there are "the robbers were actually hit by gunfire...."

If the jeweler damaged someone else's property, or God forbid had harmed or killed that same innocent, then the jeweler is liable for that in my opinion. Sure the robber has some liability in my mind too, but that doesn't free the jeweler of all liability.

To me it seems like a knock against the guy, my only question would be was it negligence or was it recklessness. IANAL, but you know when I read through these two classical definitions of both, it sure strikes me as reckless:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recklessness_%28law%29


I do get a bit torqued by the "well you know he could have been driving his Porsche down another road where another random shooting was going on that same day in the same part of town..." logic that defense lawyers come up with. I mean come on.

This is simple. The guy should never be charged and should never be faced with the possibility of losing his license. What the police need to do is to be smart and work together on finding the thieves and do everything possible to track down the gems. OKC police should be ashamed of themselves. Is the DA actually pursuing the charges? If so, then this is another hard evidence against him in the next election. As for the Mexican thieves, they are most likely illegals. Anyway, this needs to reach the media immediately so the public can see what the DA and OKC police is doing yet again to another innocent man. Brian, did you submit the story to the media already or should I?

But what would you say if the innocent guy in the Porshe got hit and killed while the robbers still got away? Would unpredmeditated murder charges be appropriate? I think so.

Anyway, this case deserves wider publicity in case the outcome is helpful for armed people to better learn what circumstances under the law may they fire when feeling a need to defend themselves and their property.

If they were firing a gun blindly into the public then maybe. However firing to stop them because they were driving recklessly...not hardly, that is a HUGE departure from the intention of the statute IMHO. If that were true would it not then behoove each and every one of us to crash our vehicles into every reckless driver we saw endangering the public?

If they were trying to hit him with the car then yes. If they are driving away definitely NO.

Well... I guess if it were me... Regardless of why you are shooting at someone, whether the intent is right or wrong, if in the course of doing so you injure me, you better believe that I am going to sue you into oblivion. I am most likely going to ignore the criminal in a civil case about money because I assume he has none and you have a lot and I've been wronged and want to win. Data shows that it's a near certainty that I can get you to capitulate and pay me off in some sort of out of court settlement. It sucks but that's reality and you can guarantee that pretty much any effected party is going to think along similar lines. And really, why shouldn't they.

Well, the main purpose was getting some knee-jerk reactions and valid opinions to try and get some additional brainstorming going. Wish I could get into additional info (facts not in the public record, theories and defense strategy) but that wouldn't be professional. Will be interesting to see how this plays out next week.

When the case is complete Brian please come back to this thread and lay out all the details we cannot be privvy to now. Once the case is over the veil of secrecy is no longer in the way.

Well... I guess if it were me... Regardless of why you are shooting at someone, whether the intent is right or wrong, if in the course of doing so you injure me, you better believe that I am going to sue you into oblivion. I am most likely going to ignore the criminal in a civil case about money because I assume he has none and you have a lot and I've been wronged and want to win. Data shows that it's a near certainty that I can get you to capitulate and pay me off in some sort of out of court settlement. It sucks but that's reality and you can guarantee that pretty much any effected party is going to think along similar lines. And really, why shouldn't they.

As a general rule the out of court settlement is no guarantee. And what you get almost always gets decimated by the lawyers fees and cost. So therefore the amount of money you put in your pocket is most often FAR less than your medical bills. Civil suits are really nothing better than a crap shoot.

Anyway, this needs to reach the media immediately so the public can see what the DA and OKC police is doing yet again to another innocent man. Brian, did you submit the story to the media already or should I?

Thunder, Brian is more than capable than handling this himself. He does not need you or anybody else to horn into what is NOT their business.

This is simple. The guy should never be charged and should never be faced with the possibility of losing his license. What the police need to do is to be smart and work together on finding the thieves and do everything possible to track down the gems. OKC police should be ashamed of themselves. Is the DA actually pursuing the charges? If so, then this is another hard evidence against him in the next election. As for the Mexican thieves, they are most likely illegals. Anyway, this needs to reach the media immediately so the public can see what the DA and OKC police is doing yet again to another innocent man. Brian, did you submit the story to the media already or should I?

So you're saying if I catch somebody running off with my yard gnome I can start shooting at them and if I accidently kill a neighbor it's just their tough luck and I shouldn't be held liable?

So you're saying if I catch somebody running off with my yard gnome I can start shooting at them and if I accidently kill a neighbor it's just their tough luck and I shouldn't be held liable?

Yuppa. You hit the nail on the head since that is the exact take on his wowser that I got.

I'll provide details that emerged during trial after the verdict - as they will be a public record. I cannot however divulge information I have knowledge of if it does not enter into the public record. I'd like to give some further 'opinion,' but it would most likely divulge defense strategy. But, its a very interesting case.

Next up is a child death case - Indian child in DHS custody that died while a family was in temporary/Emergency custody of the child. Goes to trial within the month.

Why the need to divulge that the child was Indian. What matter does the race of the child make?

I'd say this thread also asks if the gem dealer was acting in the defense of others also? Is it reasonable to assume he may have been acting in his own self defense and in the defense of those whom he was speeding towards while armed an in the commission of a felony? The suspect vehicle struck at least one vehicle, disregarded signal lights and caused others to have to make evasive moves.

Shooting someone to discourage their reckless driving?

Awesome.

I'm heading over to the Hefner Expressway.... and I'm packing heat. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

My question is why he was being followed over a couple of days and how did four ninjas know he had that kind of gems on him. More to this story, seems to me.

It's not that complicated. They were professionals who had cased their victim thoroughly. They stole the gems when they were the most vulnerable. This was a well-planned theft.


As far as shooting in public at someone who is fleeing with the goods, I can't imagine what he thinks his defense would be. Defense of self is one thing. Defense of property is something else. It may not seem fair to some but just think if he'd harmed that innocent driving by in the nice car. Or a baby in a stroller.

Exactly. After the criminals are fleeing, your issue is with your insurance company if you're smart, and with yourself if you're dumb enough to have that sort of exposure without insurance.

Shooting someone to discourage their reckless driving?

Awesome.

I'm heading over to the Hefner Expressway.... and I'm packing heat. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

ROFLMAO. I assume you mean the Hefner Raceway. Let the TVI's commence.

Why the need to divulge that the child was Indian. What matter does the race of the child make?

Actually it makes all the difference in the world in this case - also, since when is the inclusion of facts a detriment to a topic.

But what would you say if the innocent guy in the Porshe got hit and killed while the robbers still got away? Would unpredmeditated murder charges be appropriate? I think so.

One could certainly charge manslaughter in the 2nd degree.


Anyway, this case deserves wider publicity in case the outcome is helpful for armed people to better learn what circumstances under the law may they fire when feeling a need to defend themselves and their property.

Agreed.

Actually it makes all the difference in the world in this case - also, since when is the inclusion of facts a detriment to a topic.

Far too often the inclusion of race is meant to PANDER to baser instincts. It is a common media practce. I apologize if it was not the case here but too often the inclusion of race is to engender undeserved sympathy and concern. And since you opened the door it is incumbent upon you to expalin why it is relavent.

But, again, as the attorney in our class clearly pointed out, that's not the way the law reads. And I'm not necessarily going to stake my life (and freedom) on the inconsistent application of that law.

I agree completely. But, if ever in a position where I saw an un-related adult or child being severely beaten, raped, etc. I think I would say to &^% with the law and use my weapon to remedy the situation. Still shooting at a fleeing criminal is out of the question.

Child yes I would respond. As to another adult they are on their own as you as the shooter are ignorant of the background information. Kids I will assist. Adults can pound sand and help themselves or expire. Pretty simple.

Far too often the inclusion of race is meant to PANDER to baser instincts. It is a common media practce. I apologize if it was not the case here but too often the inclusion of race is to engender undeserved sympathy and concern. And since you opened the door it is incumbent upon you to expalin why it is relavent.

Since when does stating a fact, like someone's race, make the speaker obligated to explain why they stated their race to begin with?

That case is for another thread, when the trial date gets closer, but if you're just dying to know, it has to do with tribe politics and their insistence on additional and independent ME reports in an attempt to justify their preconceived notions as to the cause of death. Minus the child being Native American, there would most likely be no criminal charges - some will argue that's a good thing, while others will argue that's a bad thing.

Why the need to divulge that the child was Indian. What matter does the race of the child make?

American Indian children may be subject to different laws concerning custody. Maybe that's it.

Child yes I would respond. As to another adult they are on their own as you as the shooter are ignorant of the background information. Kids I will assist. Adults can pound sand and help themselves or expire. Pretty simple.

Since when do you have to know "background information" to know a person shouldn't be allowed to beat the crap out of or even kill another - let alone raped. Are you saying the person being raped might 'deserve it?'

I will relate a story told to me by a county Sheriff
(No, there is too much. Let me sum up.) :)

Older Guy (OG) has a CCL and happens to be driving through the parking lot of a Wal Mart and comes upon a large male (LM), wielding a tire iron, standing beside a car just as he punches a much smaller woman (SM) and starts to chase her. OG stops his car, runs up to the scene, pulls his weapon and yells at LM to stop. When LM turns to face OG (still holding the tire iron), OG fires. Witnesses call the police and they arrive 10 minutes later.

Large Male is injured in the spine and is crippled from the waist down. It turns out that the guy was changing a flat tire on his car when the crack-addict girl comes up to him and asks for money. When he sends her away without a donation, she stabs him in the back with a steak knife. He was defending himself when OG spots him punch the girl. In all the confusion, the crack head disappears.

OG goes to jail and LM is crippled for life. Two lives ruined all because someone decided to play Dirty Harry without any knowledge of the situation.

Since when do you have to know "background information" to know a person shouldn't be allowed to beat the crap out of or even kill another - let alone raped. Are you saying the person being raped might 'deserve it?'

To answer your question YOU brought it up it is YOUR repsinsbility to make the logical connection. Just throwing it out there is unacceptable. You work for a few lawyers and you should know how facts and statements are questioned. If you do not want to be questioned, the way to avoid that is simple do not post it.

Get a grip, grow up, and control yourself Brian. You are now injecting information into the question and changing the facts as you go along. Grow up and post all the facts at the start and not parcel them out as you see fit. In that way the members of the board can make educated decisons. Putting out only fragmented information and getting emotional when it is questioned is unethical. You STILL HAVE NOT explained why the race of the child involved is important. Child rape is serious no matter the race of the victim. YOU injected the RACE, YOU are RESPONSIBLE to explain WHY it is germaine to the situation. Since by your own statement the childs race would be irrelevant if the child was not American Indian. The burden for information is on YOU.

As to charges since you brought it up what is your opinion???

To answer your question YOU brought it up it is YOUR repsinsbility to make the logical connection. Just throwing it out there is unacceptable. You work for a few lawyers and you should know how facts and statements are questioned. If you do not want to be questioned, the way to avoid that is simple do not post it.

Get a grip, grow up, and control yourself Brian. You are now injecting information into the question and changing the facts as you go along. Grow up and post all the facts at the start and not parcel them out as you see fit. In that way the members of the board can make educated decisons. Putting out only fragmented information and getting emotional when it is questioned is unethical. You STILL HAVE NOT explained why the race of the child involved is important. Child rape is serious no matter the race of the victim. YOU injected the RACE, YOU are RESPONSIBLE to explain WHY it is germaine to the situation. Since by your own statement the childs race would be irrelevant if the child was not American Indian. The burden for information is on YOU.

As to charges since you brought it up what is your opinion???

I brought up the child is Native American - which is a fact - I don't have to connect it to anything. It just so happens the child's Native American status has had a direct effect on the case and I went on to briefly say why. None of the facts have changed and you can't show any examples where they have. Just because I didn't satisfy your weird racial curiosity in the beginning is not my problem. Actually the easiest way to avoid ridiculous questioning from you is to simply ignore you - Walla.

from Brian (a white guy)

As a general rule the out of court settlement is no guarantee. And what you get almost always gets decimated by the lawyers fees and cost. So therefore the amount of money you put in your pocket is most often FAR less than your medical bills. Civil suits are really nothing better than a crap shoot.

That's a good point, but if I'm out and left footing medical bills, from my perspective something is better than nothing, so I would be happy with anything. Meanwhile, the shooter bears the full brunt of the cost... my lawyers, your lawyers, the expenses I actually get reimbursed, etc. The results would still be very painful for the one who did the shooting. So from that perspective there is still no reason for me the innocent bystander not to cause a bunch of grief to the shooter. So if it were me I'd still sue.

I brought up the child is Native American - which is a fact - I don't have to connect it to anything. It just so happens the child's Native American status has had a direct effect on the case and I went on to briefly say why. None of the facts have changed and you can't show any examples where they have. Just because I didn't satisfy your weird racial curiosity in the beginning is not my problem. Actually the easiest way to avoid ridiculous questioning from you is to simply ignore you - Walla.

from Brian (a white guy)

No, you did not say Native American. You directly said Indian.