If the fatal shot occurred in the first few shots, what would the charge be for the last shot?Man the shooter was doing sooo good till the last 5 shots. Unfortunately he will pay the price for the last shot.
If the fatal shot occurred in the first few shots, what would the charge be for the last shot?Man the shooter was doing sooo good till the last 5 shots. Unfortunately he will pay the price for the last shot.
Unless the last shot was the fatal shot, how was the last shot an execution?All we can see is one camera angle. Is it possible or even plausible that the bad guy did something after the good guy moved the gun that prompted the next shot?
If the "good guy" just executed the bad guy on the ground to get one final shot in, that's bad. But I'm not sure that the video linked above shows that.
If he is charged, maybe his defense will be "He was already dead your honor, just thought I'd pump a few more rounds into his corpse for sh**s and giggles"Unless the last shot was the fatal shot, how was the last shot an execution?
I think Montana is the only State that has the "sh**s and giggles" statute. But then again, I am NOT an attorney.... sh**s and giggles"....
I think I'm not understanding the train of thought on the majority of the responses here. He has to prove he was in fear of his life before that last shot. He has no idea if he was dead or not. It's not like the guy had a heart or brain activity monitor hooked up to the robber. With that said, it isnt relevant if the guy was dead or not since he didnt know.
If he is charged with murder and the fatal shot was one of the justified shots, his defense would most certainly be "he was dead already." Again, I'm not saying the last shot isn't problematic. I'm saying it's not as problematic as a number of people seem to think it is. Illegal discharge of a weapon comes to mind as a more appropriate charge, assuming Texas has similar laws as Louisiana. But I would love to see the evidence presented by the prosecution that shows how the guy's last shot killed a dead person.If he is charged, maybe his defense will be "He was already dead your honor, just thought I'd pump a few more rounds into his corpse for sh**s and giggles"
Because at the time, the shooter couldnt know he was or was not. A person shoots until they precieve the threat was stopped, not dead.How is it not relevant if the guy was dead or not? .
Because at the time, the shooter couldnt know he was or was not. A person shoots until they precieve the threat was stopped, not dead.
I think he intentionally, knowingly and recklessly caused the death with the last shot.do you believe his actions when taking the last shot meet the legal requirement of causing the death of an individual?
Assuming some of his shots were justified and one of the justified shots was fatal, do you believe his actions when taking the last shot meet the legal requirement of causing the death of an individual?
I think he intentionally, knowingly and recklessly caused the death with the last shot.
I misread the below in bold.So he caused the death of someone who was already dead. Got it.
I get what you are saying. But why must any one assume he's already dead? That's the part I dont get. The shooter doesnt know when he died. You want me to assume he's dead at a certain time, I wont. It doesn't make sense.Assuming some of his shots were justified and one of the justified shots was fatal
I misread the below in bold.
I get what you are saying. But why must any one assume he's already dead? That's the part I dont get. The shooter doesnt know when he died. You want me to assume he's dead at a certain time, I wont. It doesn't make sense.
If you want me to assume he was dead already so we can agree they wont charge him for something specific on that last shot, I won't. I agree if he was already dead, then you can't kill him again.
Beautiful wasn't it?That last shot.