Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It sounds like what happens when idiots meet. Arguement over a purse leads to a rifle being pulled............... Instead of reporting a rifle being pulled on them, and the missing purse.......... Multiple people show up a "rifleman's" house and physically attack him (knowing he has a RIFLE) After the people that attacked him are driving away, he shoots the driver of the the motor vehicle (where would that bullet go if he missed? Did it keep going through the GSW-R? Were there other cars nearby? Did he care where the now driverless motor vehicle might end up, or who it could hit?) How would you like to live in a house "in the line of fire", or that got hit by the car? How responsible would you think his actions were then? Not saying anyone was real responcible here.  Also all the other consequenses are civil issues.  If he was justified in shooting, which a jury said he was, then he's not a criminal because the victim does damage fleeing the shot, or in the process of dying. Do any of you have the first clue what went on here other then what the stories provided?   The jury for some reason didn't want to put the man in jail.  Or are we only supposed to trust the jury when they make calls we like? First, the Jury can only find people guilty of a crime they are charged with. So if what he did fits Reckless Endangerment, Reckless Use of a Weapon, Firing a Weapon Inside City Limits, etc. but he wasn't charged, he can't be found guilty of those crimes. It doesn't mean he didn't do them. But he can't be Guilty of them. People are found Guilty or Not Guilty in criminal trials, no one is ever found "innocent". Also the State has to prove thier case "beyond a reasonable doubt". Any reasonable doubt means not guilty. That means a reasonable doubt about if the defendant was the one that committed the crime, the facts surrounding the alleged crime. Or whether or not the act committed was a crime under the law. I suspect that the "victim's" unreasonable criminal behavior, that lead up to the shooting, as well what exactly the "make my day law" meant in this circumstance. Again, if YOUR house was hit by a car driven by the guy that the "rifleman" shot dead, would you say it isn't at least partially the "rifleman's" fault? Of course not. Any reasonable person would have concerns about what would happen if the driver of a motor vehicle is intentionally shot when the vehicle is in motion.

Ok, so bring the other charges and see what you get.  They didn't do that because they wanted the guy convicted of murder with no weasel out for the jury and they got surprised.  There is an argument to be made that when a person makes a threat to return, and has already done so this time and beat you in the head in the process that they represent an ongoing threat.  I'd certainly NEVER hang my freedom on it, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

He got revenge, and the jury kinda said "oh well" given that the "victim" acted like an animal and attacked a man in his home.  That's what I say too.  Oh well....  I'm not going to cry a river for them.  

Let me ask this.  You have a real self defense situation.  You fire at the person, and as he goes down he fires off some wild shots on the way down.  It's foreseeable.... but are you also responcible for the damage they do as he dies?  

In this case, yes, I'd be a little perterbed that the shit bag drove into my house.  I'd want someones insurance to cover it.  That would be the extent of my anger.  All the other "what ifs" are just that.  No babies died.  No bystanders died.  No wives were shot in their sleep.  He hit what he shot at.  Anytime anyone discharges a gun in public there could be a tradgedy, and if there is, it's on you.  If there isn't.... well, there isn't.