WELL, SHOOT... JUST SHOOT

[HairOfTheDog]

Jonathan A. Ferrell, 24, shot to death by on-duty police officer. RIP.


Randall Kerrick, police officer - arrested for voluntary manslaughter.

UPDATE TO ^ OP CASE

The judge denied a defense motion to move the voluntary manslaughter trial of former Officer Kerrick. The trial is expected to begin in July.

The prosecution and defense also discussed other motions, offering a window into how they intend to approach the case.

Prosecutors say the shooting was a case of excessive force, while defense attorneys say Kerrick acted in self-defense.

George Laughrun, one of Kerrick's attorneys said the testimony will show that Ferrell had been smoking marijuana and drinking before the crash, and that when he approached another officer he shouted: "Shoot me. Shoot me." "There will be no witness who says Ferrell was trying to get help. He was disoriented because of the accident and alcohol he consumed," he said.

Refs:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/lo...65083.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-office...-be-moved/
----------------------------------------------

Personally, it's hard for me to believe that a man who was engaged to his high school sweetheart, working two jobs while attending college, and had no police record or known history of mental illness was looking to commit suicide by cop following a fun night out with his work friends.

The fact that the autopsy report shows that Ferrell's BAL was well below the legal limit (.06) and he had no illegal drugs in his system makes the Defense's reported strategy seem even less convincing.

But, I'm anxious to hear/see all of the evidence in court - specifically the dash cam video and the sealed testimony of the other two officers at the scene with Kerrick. All we know about them is that they were black and they did not fire their weapons.

[Duchess]

The more I see of cases like this the better I understand why so many have such little regard for the police. Seriously. So many of them are no better than the thugs they come across in the bad parts of any town in America. They don't conduct themselves in a manner that is worthy of respect.

[HairOfTheDog]

Trippin' Outside the Lines


^ Shot to death, Robert Zamora

No charges will be filed against a Boulder man who shot and killed a University of Colorado student who broke into his house.

District Attorney Stan Garnett said Wednesday the homeowner acted in self-defense when he shot 19-year-old Robert Zamora on May 4.

Garnett said the shooting falls under the state's "Make My Day" law which, he says, "permits you to use deadly force against an intruder who enters your house without consent and who appears to be going to use force against anyone else."

Police say Zamora banged on a window at a home where a man and a woman were watching television. The homeowner says he retrieved his handgun before Zamora came around to the front of the house, shattered a glass storm door and burst inside.

Police say Zamora then attacked the resident and they began fighting on the floor. The resident shot Zamora once in the chest, saying he feared for his life.

Authorities believe Zamora was on drugs at the time, specifically "psychedelic" mushrooms. A toxicology test is pending.

Garnett said the case is not so unusual for Boulder. In fact, he says people under the influence of drugs or alcohol mistakenly wander into other people's homes in Boulder 10 times a month.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-charges-f...-intruder/

---------------------------------
One of the most fun and surreal experiences I've had was trippin' on mushrooms with a high school friend and a couple we'd known for like 10 years when we were in our early 30s. I would never recommend doing them alone and then wandering about in that altered state.

I don't think the Zamora kid was likely trying to hurt anybody in this case, but I don't think the homeowner could have possibility known that based on Zamora's actions. Unless there's more to the story, it's sad but understandable that Zamora was shot to death IMO.

(Still, I hate the effin' nickname for CO's castle doctrine law.)

[SIXFOOTERsez]

Yea, I think Colorado's law nickname sends the wrong message. But I do think the homeowner was well within the law to shoot. I would not have waited to be attacked and would have popped him when he came in the door.
This guy hesitated and it could have cost him. Maybe its a good thing, but its definitely a risk.

[Jimbone]

I'm going to look where that nickname came from, because that has to be one of the dumbest monikers I've ever seen for a castle doctrine law.

ETA: Looks like they were just being trendy:

Colorado’s “Make My Day” Law
Colorado adopted its “Make My Day” law in 1985. At that time, the phrase “make my day” had been popularized by the 1983 Clint Eastwood film Sudden Impact and then revived by President Reagan in his 1985 threat to veto any tax increase legislation sent to him by the U.S. Congress. In its 28-year history, Colorado’s “Make My Day” law has never been amended. The law is codified at section 18-1-704.5, C.R.S.

Nothing personal Colorado, but maybe it's time for a makeover to your statute.

[HairOfTheDog]

OOPS, sorry bro...


^Mackeon Schulte, 15. RIP.

I think the 17-year-old shooter should be charged with a felony, and/or his parents should be charged with negligent homicide.

The teen shooter had a loaded weapon in his bedroom and chose to shoot it as first course of action when there was no imminent threat and he didn't know what/who he was shooting at. Now his friend is dead. Effin' stupid and sad.

A Montana teenager fatally shot his 15-year-old friend after mistaking him for an intruder when the boy threw a rock at his bedroom window in the predawn hours and then stuck his head through it, police said on Tuesday.

A preliminary probe into the shooting found the teen was sleeping in the family's Billings home just before 2:30 a.m. on Sunday when his friend Mackeon Schulte and another teenage boy sought to rouse him but instead sparked fears of a break-in, said Billings Police Department Captain John Bedford.

The teen grabbed a revolver, a family heirloom he kept in his bedroom, and shot Schulte in the head in an incident Bedford described as a "horrible tragedy." Schulte died a short time after being taken to a hospital, police said.

Bedford said investigators believed the teenager, whose name was withheld, did not intend to kill his friend, but that the county prosecutor would ultimately decide whether any charges would be brought against him.

Ref: https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.c...&strip=all

HOTD edit: corrected shooter's age from 15 to 17

[Maggot]

I believe the knowledge that he shot his own friend will be punishment enough. He will relive that nightmare night for the rest of his life and I would be concerned with any thoughts he has of suicide for the next few years. The boy will be haunted for the rest of his life and that punishment to me seems unbearable. I feel sad for him and hope he can somehow get over it at some point.
You never know how the results of a persons actions will effect the rest of their lives but I'm hoping that somehow there may be some kind of positive thing that this boy accomplishes in the future that can relieve some of his mental anguish.

[HairOfTheDog]

I hear ya Mags and agree with some of your points.

But, I don't think (potential) guilt is punishment enough for a 17-year-old who took a loaded gun, fired it at a presumably unknown target outside of the house, and blew a 15-year-old's brains out.

Letting him skate legally because the dead victim was his friend is wrong and sends a dangerous message to other gun owners, IMO.

Why did his parents allow him to have a loaded gun in his room in the first place when he clearly wasn't qualified to practice responsible gun ownership 101? I don't think they should skate either if they were aware that he had it.

And, if the boy felt life-threatened by pebbles hitting his window, why didn't he beckon his parents? Why didn't he call 911? Why on earth would he pick up a gun and shoot to kill as a first course of action? And, what if he skates and ends up doing it again?

Strong difference of opinions. Mine is that if the teen shooter demonstrates true remorse, he should be eligible for a light sentence, but he should absolutely be held legally accountable for his actions.

I feel the same when little children shoot/kill themselves or others because idiot adults left loaded guns lying around -- those adults should be held legally accountable too.

HOTD edit: corrected shooter's age from 15 to 17

[Maggot]

Well the kid did stick his head through the window. He should have said "Hey dickhead wanna come out and play?"

[HairOfTheDog]

Well the kid did stick his head through the window. He should have said "Hey dickhead wanna come out and play?"

He didn't stick his head in. He tossed pebbles at the window in attempt to wake his friend up in the wee hours of Sunday morning.

The shooter reportedly got scared, picked up a loaded gun, and shot through the window without doing anything else first.

The shooter seems to have been a good kid, the victim too. But, it's flat out wrong to pick up a loaded gun and start shooting anytime you're scared. The teen killed somebody, he should be charged appropriately for killing somebody and let the justice system determine the penalty IMO.

But, it seems to me like the police chief agrees with your take. I hope the prosecutor doesn't.

Here's the status:
Billings Police Capt. John Bedford said the suspect was not considered an immediate danger, and criminal charges could run the risk of "compounding a horrible situation." "We're not going to rush to judgment," he said. "There's enough damage that's already been done."

Prosecutors are planning a lengthy review, Yellowstone County Attorney Scott Twito said.

Montana law recognizes three types of homicide — deliberate, mitigated and negligent — and all three will likely be options for prosecutors, Andrew King-Ries, associate dean at the University of Montana School of Law, said.

Deliberate homicide, or murder, comes into a play when someone knowingly causes another person's death, King-Ries said.

Mitigated homicide is when a person kills someone while under some kind of mental or emotional distress.

Negligent homicide applies when a person should be aware that their actions could cause a death but chooses to disregard that risk.

"When you shoot a gun, you're probably aware there's a risk," King-Ries said. "If you can establish negligence, it's not an accident."

Bedford said charges of negligent homicide likely would be considered. "You don't necessarily have to have intent," he said. "Was this young man negligent in not identifying his target before firing the gun?"

Prosecutors have broad latitude on whether to file charges and can consider the wishes of the victim's family, who weren't available for comment Tuesday. But "there's going to have to be some kind of acknowledgment of what this young man did," Bedford said.

Prosecutors also will have to consider whether a defendant can claim a killing was justified under Montana's "castle doctrine" of self-defense.

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/monta...e-31139812

[Duchess]

"Was this young man negligent in not identifying his target before firing the gun?"

Yes. One of the first things one is taught when handling a gun is to identify what you're shooting at. I'm not sure why that's even a question in this case. The kid obviously shot blindly.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

Hmmm...This kid had way too many options available to be justified in any manner to shoot. He was under no threat whatsoever, he could have turned on the lights, gotten his parents, called 911, left the room, etc......
Instead, he picks up a gun that he was clearly not qualified to have access to and fires at an unidentified target. The fact that it was his friend is completely irrelevant, he made a decision and took an action that killed someone that was not a threat.
Of course the parents bear a great deal of the responsibility for creating a situation like this in the first place.
None of them should skate on this.
Yes there is a lot of damage done already, thats what happens when you do something stupid. There is a debt owed.

[Maggot]

This in the article is what made me think the kid that was tossing the pebbles was the same one that stuck his head in--------------------------> (A Montana teenager fatally shot his 15-year-old friend after mistaking him for an intruder when the boy threw a rock at his bedroom window in the predawn hours and then stuck his head through it, police said on Tuesday.)

[username]

Stupid question alert!!

Can someone under 18 legally "own" a weapon? If not, at minimum THAT should involve some punishment for both the kid and I ALWAYS think that irresponsible parents who don't safely store their weapons (with kids living in their house) should be held accountable for negligence.

If those under18 can legally own/possess a weapon, why?? I can see allowing them to go target shooting or even perhaps hunting with adult supervision but having their own? In their nightstand? Nah. They can't even vote yet.

[SIXFOOTERsez]

I can see how you would think that

[HairOfTheDog]

Stupid question alert!!

Can someone under 18 legally "own" a weapon? If not, at minimum THAT should involve some punishment for both the kid and I ALWAYS think that irresponsible parents who don't safely store their weapons (with kids living in their house) should be held accountable for negligence.

If those under18 can legally own/possess a weapon, why?? I can see allowing them to go target shooting or even perhaps hunting with adult supervision but having their own? In their nightstand? Nah. They can't even vote yet.

It's not a stupid question at all.

The answer is frustrating though. It's another case where there is a federal statute (18 ys old to legally possess a handgun; no Fed minimum for long gun) but states have their own laws.

Montana is a gun state; open carry and all. In Montana it's legal for a person 14 or older to be in possession of a loaded long firearm.

The original story didn't state the shooter's age and I thought it was 15; he is actually 17 (two years older than the teen he shot).

The gun was said to be a "family heirloom". If it was a long gun, I believe it was legal for the teen to be in possession of the loaded firearm.

^ All to the best of my understanding.

Shooting the gun (handgun or long gun) under the given circumstances is a separate legal question which the DA's office is considering.

[Tammy75]

This is about 30 miles from me. Change your opinions any now?

http://www.wsoctv.com/videos/news/dash-c...k_2014_sfp

Start watching at the 7:30 mark

[Duchess]

Anyone foolish enough to rush LEO's are probably going to pay with their life.

[HairOfTheDog]

This is about 30 miles from me. Change your opinions any now?

http://www.wsoctv.com/videos/news/dash-c...k_2014_sfp

Start watching at the 7:30 mark

It doesn't change my opinion, Tammy. But, when I saw the video for the first time yesterday it surprised me how calmly Ferrell was approaching when he was targeted with the taser. I do wish the video were clearer and we could see what happened after Ferrell ran.




I think Officer Kerrick (left) deserved to be indicted and the jury should decide whether shooting Jonathan Ferrell (right) 10 times was warranted or not.

There were a lot of things that officers unfortunately didn't know or were misinformed about when they arrived on the scene.

-They did not know that Ferrell had just been in a car accident (his BAL was only .05 and no traces of drugs in his system) and had no cell phone.

-They were told by 911 dispatch that they were responding to a B&E, though Ferrell never attempted to break into the house and was instead pounding and screaming for help at the nearest house to the accident.

-They did not know that Ferrell was carrying no weapons of any kind.

Ferrell didn't flee the area, he stayed there until officers arrived and then slowly/calmly walked towards them. I think Ferrell was disoriented from the accident and got very scared when the taser lights hit his chest. I don't think Ferrell appeared threatening or intimidating at all when he was targeted with the taser.

I do not believe that the unarmed man needed to be pumped with bullets to be contained by 3 officers.

But, I think Kerrick will probably be acquitted, especially having heard the testimony of Officer Neal, who was on the scene. I don't know whether I believe Neal in full, but his testimony really helps Kerrick. It's their narrative and what they claim was in their minds, versus the prosecution's contentions (and the prosecutors obviously weren't there). The jury may well believe that Kerrick feared for his life and was justified when he shot Jonathan Ferrell to death.

The 12-member jury has two people who are Latino, three African-American and seven white. Eight are women and four are men. The alternate jurors are all white, and consist of one man and three women.

If convicted, Kerrick faces three to 11 years in prison. He has been on unpaid suspension since the shooting in 2013.

Trial updates: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/lo...24984.html

[Duchess]

Of course he didn't deserve to be pumped full of bullets but they'll find a way to justify it like they almost always do.

I was raised to have respect for cops. One of my grandfathers was a LEO but I sure as hell don't view any of them the way I was raised to. I'm not even so sure I have trust for them. In general, I don't. For every 10 bad cop stories there might be 1 lovely story of one of them going above & beyond when they help someone.