Reply With QuoteOriginally Posted by SafeWNY
Still your best line of defense.
I wonder a lot of things before it got to that point.
Why did Park leave the party?
Why didn't anybody at the party know why he left?
Why did he climb over the neighbor's fence?
Why did he look for an open door?
Why did he go inside the neighbor's house at 2am?
Why did he close all the doors behind him?
Why did he hide in the dining room when the owner came down?
Why did he keep walking through the house instead of leaving?
Why didn't Park say anything?
I think you're focusing too much on the singular point in time when the gun was pointing at him, while glossing over the bizarre actions Park took leading up to that point. Just being drunk does not explain it.
Still your best line of defense.
Do you think he intended to harm the homeowners? What would be his motivation? From what I can gather, there's nothing to indicate he was capable of being a homicidal maniac. You know it really is a sad story all around.
It is always good to look at the law.
Deadly physical force is generally prohibited unless there is a threat of such force. In NYS you have a duty to retreat unless you are in your dwelling (NYPL 35.10(2)(a)(i)) OR during the commission or attempted commission of a burglary (NYPL 35.20 (3)) Among others but I wanted to stay on topic.
Of course, just because you CAN does not mean you SHOULD but I have read nothing in this case which would indicate negligence and certainly nothing which would indicate anything not covered in the law with respect to justification.
b.b.
NYPL 35.10
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20 (below)
NYPL Section 35.20
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such
burglary.
Actually, from the point of view of the homeowner, everything Park did that night seemed like a homicidal maniac. You seem to imply his actions were normal behavior for an innocent teacher.
What was his blood alcohol level?
More of a deterrent than anything else. They'd be bought off by a cookie or a squeaky toy if push came to shove I think...
The section of the law that permits a homeowner to use deadly force to stop a burglary interests me. I don't know the definition of "burglary". It seems like the law permits the use of deadly force in the absence of any threat of the use of deadly force against another person. I think the rules of engagement for trained police officers are different. As the law applies to a homeowner, it seems absurdly permissive.
If you're going to cheerlead the dead teacher and blame the shooter while pretending not to blame the shooter, the least you can do is get the facts straight.
There was no loaded shotgun readily available. It was in the closet, unloaded. He only got it after having heard noises after checking the house while unarmed minutes prior...That's when this supposedly harmless drunk teacher remained completely still and silent while hiding in the dining room, waiting for the threat to leave. Then when he (the teacher) thought the coast was clear, he started up the stairs...
...and?
You made up a claim that he had a loaded shotgun waiting. You pulled it from your ass. You were corrected. "and?" doesn't seem as appropriate of a response as a "thank you".
You're welcome.
The homeowner and possibly his wife are the only living witnesses to this incident. We have chosen to accept his version. The law clearly supports the homeowner. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. I've lived in lots of different places, some considered dangerous. I think if you watch yourself, have an awareness of your surroundings and practice basic security techniques, a person can be safe. I view the world as a very safe place. I believe I have a realistic sense of the risks I face every day and night. I know the statistics about the use of firearms in the home. I've made a personal decision on that. Everyone has a right to their own decision. I think the world has lost a good person. I pray that the homeowner finds peace. I wish none of us are ever put into the position of making such a life and death decision.
So even though you were provided a first hand account of what happened (that's backed up by a 911 recording) you made up a scenario where the exact opposite happens, and then when it's pointed out, you simply pretend as if your made up scenario is something we can agree to disagree on? Well, let me just say "Of frigging course I disagree with what you made up. Who wouldn't disagree with something you pulled from your rectum?" It must be convenient to just make up pieces of information when you want to.
The fact is that the 911 call is on tape. If anything the couple are saying doesn't fit with the 911 recording they'd have been called out on it. It's only logical that their reccollection of the evening/frame of mind/actions coincide with the facts/timeline on the recorded calling, and that's why charges weren't filed.
So you've heard the 911 tape? Did they release it to the victim's representative? Are there any other witnesses to corroborate the homeowner's version of the events?
I'll bet the DA and the grand jury heard it. Do you think the DA is hiding something?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions