Bond person shoots her client.

[suncowiam]

VIDEO: Stillwater bond agent fatal shooting

She was acquitted for this killing.

After watching the video, I do not see how she had the right to shoot him. He wasn't posing a threat to her or her son. People with guns have to make these split second decisions and the fact that a court found this legal really scares me.

I understand the argument that a gun is used for defense, but IMO, the video clearly shows that this man was not being aggressive. He was not threatening the family. He might not have been an angel but his actions I don't think warranted what happened.

If trained cops can wrongly shoot people then I can't imagine how more people with guns would add to this.

[Edited]
I've learned that the most likely reason the woman was acquitted was because she was charged with a higher degree. So in this case, it is most likely that the prosecution failed in this court process. I leave my original OP as is.

Please discuss...

 

[Axe Elf]

Well, she was acquitted of first-degree murder. The prosecutor might have had better luck if he had charged her with second-degree murder. It did not appear that she premeditated the shooting/killing, but it might have been illegal by a lesser definition, if they hadn't tried to convict her of the harshest possible crime.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Notice the crickets from the usual 'guns are safe' crowd

 

[Subduction Zone]

VIDEO: Stillwater bond agent fatal shooting

She was acquitted for this killing.

After watching the video, I do not see how she had the right to shoot him. He wasn't posing a threat to her or her son. People with guns have to make these split second decisions and the fact that a court found this legal really scares me.

I understand the argument that a gun is used for defense, but IMO, the video clearly shows that this man was not being aggressive. He was not threatening the family. He might not have been an angel but his actions I don't think warranted what happened.

If trained cops can wrongly shoot people then I can't imagine how more people with guns would add to this.

Please discuss...

The problem is that she may have been over charged. Juries are often all but forced to enter a Not Guilty verdict when a person is charged with too severe of a crime. Now it appears that justice may not be done at all since it appears they cannot recharge her with a lesser crime.

 

[Srivijaya]

Unbelievable. They tricked the guy into coming into the office in order to cuff him and he tries to escape. The woman is clearly out of her depth and the gun is her 'solution'. An incompetently managed situation resulting in manslaughter. Shot in the back, trying to get out of her office and she walks free.

Still, she represents the "good guys" and he represents the "bad guys". It's okay if good guys shoot bad guys in the films, so it's all okay.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Notice the crickets from the usual 'guns are safe' crowd

Shoulda shot him again.

 

[suncowiam]

Shoulda shot him again.

Are you seriously joking about the man's death?

 

[Brickjectivity]

She's a bondsman, and that means he's out on bail and owes her and is about to skip and cost her money. By shooting him she saves the $30,000 that she has already put up. In this respect she is like a policeman pursuing and escapee. A bondsman may break any number of laws to subdue and retrieve someone out on bail who owes them for that bail. They take a lot of personal risks in the process, and they are given legal leeway. Notice his bail is set at 34,000$ but he only pays about 3,400$. That's a service the bondsman provides, and it is a contract you have with them. They put up the bail, while you pay a fraction, and if you skip they lose the 34,000$ For that reason they are permitted to pursue escaped convicts. If they know the location of a convict they may break and enter almost any building, fire on the suspect etc. By shooting him she saved herself 30,000$ . She is nevertheless in trouble and will probably be sued civilly for $$. Its not like she just gets away with it. She should not have killed him of course.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Are you seriously joking about the man's death?

No more than the fact that this thread is more about guns than it is about the actual event whereas a convicted criminal trying to escape due process of law is somehow painted as a being victim here.

Given how predictable criminals like this are, chances are pretty high he would escape and harm somebody else, so I think this woman saved lives more than one she took for which this guy clearly is a scumbag.

Bondsman as far as I know are regarded as peace officers, and he refused to comply to lawful orders for which there was nobody to blame but himself for what happened.

It could have been all avoided had he just complied so like the jury, I don't blame the woman because she didn't intend to kill him at the start. Her intent was only to arrest him.

I only mentioned shoot him again, because that's probably what the anti gun crowd people want to hear, so I simply indulged in a little tongue-in-cheek comment.

Many areas now require a police officer to be in company with a bondsman. So on a more serious note it would probably be a good time to look at the local laws there when it comes to bounty hunters and taking criminals into custody.

 

[Revoltingest]

Notice the crickets from the usual 'guns are safe' crowd

There is no "guns are safe" crowd.
An individual event doesn't paint a large picture.
Which is no doubt why you were silent on my posts about the Oklahoma
mother & daughter armed defense against the robber with the shotgun.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There is no "guns are safe" crowd.
An individual event doesn't paint a large picture.
Which is no doubt why you were silent on my posts about the Oklahoma
mother & daughter armed defense against the robber with the shotgun.

I just saw that actually. Clearly a justifiable shooting and one dangerous criminal off the streets who fact had been on a robbing spree.

If it wasn't for guns those women probably would have been dead by this animal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I just saw that actually. Clearly a justifiable shooting and one dangerous criminal off the streets who fact had been on a robbing spree.

If it wasn't for guns those women probably would have been dead by this animal.

I think that every wrongful shooting will get its own thread on RF.
Think they'll ever post something positive?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think that every wrongful shooting will get its own thread on RF.
Think they'll ever post something positive?

True dat. You will never ever catch a liberal doing that. I think it's sacrilege or something...

 

[Revoltingest]

True dat. You will never ever catch a liberal doing that. I think it's sacrilege or something...

I regularly mention people I know who should not own guns.
Ever hear them consider any side other than their own?
(To be fair, a few liberal types will see both sides.)

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Which is no doubt why you were silent on my posts about the Oklahoma
mother & daughter armed defense against the robber with the shotgun

If I was silent it's because I may not have noticed the post. I am quite busy most of the week. I tend to only check threads on Page 1, or ones I get responses to. I support the right of a person to reasonable defense.

Possibly I also was tired of debating about gun ownership, but if you think I need to see a thread you make- feel free to tag me into it.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I was silent it's because I may not have noticed the post. I am quite busy most of the week. I tend to only check threads on Page 1, or ones I get responses to. I support the right of a person to reasonable defense.

Possibly I also was tired of debating about gun ownership, but if you think I need to see a thread you make- feel free to tag me into it.

But not so tired as to taunt the other side in this thread, eh?
Consider yerself retaunted!

 

[Buddha Dharma]

But not so tired as to taunt the other side in this thread, eh?
Consider yerself retaunted!

I was mainly thinking about one particular user, but should I be explaining my motivations?

 

[suncowiam]

There is no "guns are safe" crowd.
An individual event doesn't paint a large picture.
Which is no doubt why you were silent on my posts about the Oklahoma
mother & daughter armed defense against the robber with the shotgun.

The two threads are quite different. Do they cancel each other out? Or can they still be discussed independently?

The video was clear for the two women. I didn't answer your thread, but agree the women were right to defend themselves when the perp became aggressive.

So now, in this thread. What is your opinion after watching the video?

In tangent, so I don't write another comment. If you wanted to write about another defense post, then I have no issues with that. Additional threads might even possibly have enough differences to warrant separate threads.

Yes, this is another gun thread about the use of a gun in a non-provoked situation by a civilian.

That man did not deserve to be shot. So, what are we going to do about it? Are we going to argue that we have too many anti-gun threads? Are we going to do nothing?

One gun advocate already proclaimed that the man deserved to die even though he wasn't prosecuted and given the death penalty.

 

[suncowiam]

I just saw that actually. Clearly a justifiable shooting and one dangerous criminal off the streets who fact had been on a robbing spree.

If it wasn't for guns those women probably would have been dead by this animal.

I don't normally ignore people but this is the most delusional post I've ever read asserting this man deserved to die. If you actually think that was justice, then I implore you to give up your gun.

I'm ignoring you in this thread.

[Edited]
I have many things wrong in this comment on my part. I responded to the wrong comment and I'm being overly dramatic about your original comments.

I still strongly disagree with your assertions with him and being shot again making it a joke. I read your comments again... You did not declare he deserved to die though.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't normally ignore people but this is the most delusional post I've ever read asserting this man deserved to die. If you actually think that was justice, then I implore you to give up your gun.

I'm ignoring you in this thread.

That's fine.

You want to be so naive to think a man aggressively wielding a shotgun which is clearly the definition of deadly intent towards two women whos only "crime" is trying to make a living and rightfully defending themselves with legal firearms is delusional then it's probably for the best you ignore me.

Far as I'm concerned, it's a crime they had not had the fortune of blowing his head clean off, but I'm glad that they taught him a lesson he's so rightfully deserved to not screw with armed people. Come to think of it, with his criminal track record and profile I don't have the impression he even learned any lesson from it.

Kudos to the women and I hope they recover from the experience and are still packing heat more than ever.