This case is gonna be a shitshow on social media. People had already hunkered down in their positions on what happened, in spite of no evidence been presented
TheChrisD on
I still contend that it was a lawful discharge against trespassers.
Altruistic-Pin8578 on
But lads,”back of the head”.
seamustheseagull on
No way they’re going to nail a murder charge on this one IMO.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a bar here. The deceased’s friend won’t be considered a reliable eyewitness, and the accused’s account will be plausible.
Whether the discharged was lawful will be irrelevant to whether he intended to hit the deceased.
Maxomaxable23 on
A stern warning ❗️ shot that certainly got the message across
Kanye_Wesht on
He’s story is that they were rushing towards him. Sounds like self defence if so. Seems like there were plenty witnesses either way.
Ok_Magazine_3383 on
For context, law enforcement agencies across Europe are typically taught to fire warning shots _into the ground_.
Because the purpose of a warning shot is to alert someone to the fact that you have a gun and will shoot if they don’t cease their action. Not for your shot to actually pose any sort of threat. Your intent is _specifically_ not to hit them.
If your three “warning shots” end up killing someone in a manner that is indistinguishable from someone actually aiming to kill, you’re either a liar or so unbelievably stupid that you don’t understand what a warning shot is or why shooting at someone’s head is bad.
Accomplished-Try-658 on
What a jerk.
Equivalent_Two_2163 on
God, to think you can’t just shoot someone in the head who’s retreating albeit on your land. What in the name of Pauric nally is the world coming to.
Acrobatic-Energy4644 on
Is it true the Professor of Law, the accused, is extremely wealthy and has a huge farm?
10 Comments
This case is gonna be a shitshow on social media. People had already hunkered down in their positions on what happened, in spite of no evidence been presented
I still contend that it was a lawful discharge against trespassers.
But lads,”back of the head”.
No way they’re going to nail a murder charge on this one IMO.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a bar here. The deceased’s friend won’t be considered a reliable eyewitness, and the accused’s account will be plausible.
Whether the discharged was lawful will be irrelevant to whether he intended to hit the deceased.
A stern warning ❗️ shot that certainly got the message across
He’s story is that they were rushing towards him. Sounds like self defence if so. Seems like there were plenty witnesses either way.
For context, law enforcement agencies across Europe are typically taught to fire warning shots _into the ground_.
Because the purpose of a warning shot is to alert someone to the fact that you have a gun and will shoot if they don’t cease their action. Not for your shot to actually pose any sort of threat. Your intent is _specifically_ not to hit them.
If your three “warning shots” end up killing someone in a manner that is indistinguishable from someone actually aiming to kill, you’re either a liar or so unbelievably stupid that you don’t understand what a warning shot is or why shooting at someone’s head is bad.
What a jerk.
God, to think you can’t just shoot someone in the head who’s retreating albeit on your land. What in the name of Pauric nally is the world coming to.
Is it true the Professor of Law, the accused, is extremely wealthy and has a huge farm?