If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Asheville Citizen-Times)   86'd patron returns to bar with a butcher knife and kills three in stabbing rampage. Fark: victim's brother and bar patrons save couple from attack, kill perp. So now the DA's charging the brother, ta-daa   (citizen-times.com) divider line 215
    More: Asinine, Asheville, stabbing, Police chief William Anderson  
•       •       •

12453 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Apr 2012 at 8:33 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



215 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-06 09:11:23 AM

liam76: Silly Jesus: Shatner's Bassoon: "Every time (Wike) hit somebody with a knife, they died. ... This guy knew what he was doing," Light said. "They should look at it as a self-defense case."

When the guy flees and you have to actively chase him down before you can stab him to death, it stops being self defense and turns into vigilantism. Sorry.

Your GED in Law, I see it there.

This is a perfectly legal killing. He had every reason to believe that this guy was going to kill more people. He was still armed with a knife and running toward a group of people. It's perfectly justifiable in the eyes of the law to kill someone in this situation.

We also don;t know if he ran up and stabbed the guy in the back or the guy swung at him.


It doesn't matter.

The guy just murdered three random people and is running around with the weapon. Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified. It's well established law.
 
2012-04-06 09:12:37 AM

heinrich66: Before the Internet determines guilt, we'll need to know the races of those involved here.

He larious.


Seconded. I laughed. Audibly.

They might plead it down, but on the other hand, maybe he'll force it to trial. I don't think it's likely a jury will convict him of Murder1. I wouldn't.
 
2012-04-06 09:13:31 AM

Shatner's Bassoon: Silly Jesus: Your GED in Law, I see it there.

OK GED in Law guy, how the fark is it self defense to chase someone down and kill them after they've fled from you?


It's not self defense. People are allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves or a third party from great bodily harm or death.

If someone is running around shooting people, for example, you don't have to wait for the gun to be pointed at you to pull yours out and shoot the guy in the head.
 
2012-04-06 09:13:47 AM

Silverstaff: In this case, the "victim" was indeed up to no good, but that still didn't justify chasing him down. It went from self defense to revenge once he left the scene of the crime


I disagree.

If you are defining the "scene" as the bar or bar property the guy doesn't magically become a none threat when he leaves.
 
2012-04-06 09:14:50 AM

wraith95: Silly Jesus: wraith95: Silly Jesus: What do you need explained?

I was referring to this: Not necessarily. This guy was on a killing spree, it is justifiable to stop someone one a killing spree with whatever force necessary. If a police officer had witnessed this guy running away from stabbing several people toward a bus full of people he would be every bit justified in shooting the guy in the back. They guy still poses an immediate threat to the public and it is reasonable to assume that he will continue his killing spree if he escapes capture. This is pretty well established law.


Ah, oops.
 
2012-04-06 09:16:41 AM

liam76: Ikam: ihatedumbpeople: Stevie Davis caught up to Wike as he was trying to flag down a city bus and stabbed him to death, police said."

And this is where the problem is.

The problem is a lunatic was on a stabbing rampage. You don't know if he was fleeing to get away or fleeing to stab more people who weren't ready.


Yeah, its a tough one because I probably would have done the same thing if someone stabbed a member of my family...that guy wouldn't have made it far. But if the DA wants to push it, they could argue the attacker was trying to flee (they mentioned he tried to board a bus) and the brother pursued him with the intent to kill, not hold him for the authorities...self defense goes out the window when you pursue the guy.
 
2012-04-06 09:16:45 AM
Believe it or not this is a clear cut case of the fleeing felon rule. Current case-law exempts citizens from prosecution if they use deadly force to restrain a fleeing individual who has clearly committed a crime. Unless you live in Nevada, where the fleeing felon rule applies only to police.

North Carolina allows guns in bars, I am surprised the suspect was not shot in the back.
 
2012-04-06 09:17:38 AM

Silverstaff: ihatedumbpeople: I can't say I agree with it, but this part is the sticking point:

"Wike stabbed Phillip Davis, police said, then fled east on Haywood Road toward Builders First Source with several men in pursuit, including Stevie Davis, who is Phillip Davis' brother, and Richard Anderson.

Stevie Davis caught up to Wike as he was trying to flag down a city bus and stabbed him to death, police said."

He'd have been better off killing him on the spot and claiming self defense. Chasing him down and killing him is a revenge killing, pure and simple. Sorry dude...I feel for ya, but once you hunt him down you're outside the law.

This. After RTFA, I came here to say this.

You can't claim self defense when you chase down the guy and kill him. If he'd put him down at the bar when he was stabbing people, yeah, it's a lot more valid self defense.

Much like the way-too-much discussed Zimmerman case in Florida, you can't plausibly call something "self defense" when you go chasing after the guy and put him down. In this case the victim was an actual bad guy being put down by a friend of the guy he just killed, and not a wannabe-cop/Batman chasing down and shooting a blah kid.

In this case, the "victim" was indeed up to no good, but that still didn't justify chasing him down. It went from self defense to revenge once he left the scene of the crime.


Where did this self-defense nonsense come from? Is America so full of pansies that it doesn't realize it's legally justifiable to kill someone to protect a third party?

I hope that I'm never around any of you guys when some nut is on a killing rampage.

No, wait, he hasn't pointed his gun toward us yet, he's just killing all those other people, it won't be self defense if we intervene.


The stupid, it is strong.
 
2012-04-06 09:17:51 AM
This most curious thing about this case is who in the fark thinks flagging down a bus is a smart getaway tactic?
 
2012-04-06 09:18:18 AM
Am I the only reader who is mildly amused that everyone involved has police mugshots on file?
 
2012-04-06 09:19:43 AM
THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SELF-DEFENSE! SELF-DEFENSE IS NOT THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION FOR KILLING SOMEONE!

Jesus H. Christ, people.
 
2012-04-06 09:20:46 AM

ihatedumbpeople: He'd have been better off killing him on the spot and claiming self defense. Chasing him down and killing him is a revenge killing, pure and simple. Sorry dude...I feel for ya, but once you hunt him down you're outside the law.


THIS. For those of you who are saying "Stupid DA" this isn't a defense situation or even using force to defend someone else. What this guy did was technically murder, regardless of the horrible things the guy had just committed.

It's not his place to track the guy down and administer his own death sentence on the guy.
 
2012-04-06 09:20:49 AM

Shatner's Bassoon: "Every time (Wike) hit somebody with a knife, they died. ... This guy knew what he was doing," Light said. "They should look at it as a self-defense case."

When the guy flees and you have to actively chase him down before you can stab him to death, it stops being self defense and turns into vigilantism. Sorry.


Depends on wether or not he is still carrying the weapon when he leaves.
 
2012-04-06 09:21:01 AM

Shatner's Bassoon: When the guy flees and you have to actively chase him down before you can stab him to death, it stops being self defense and turns into vigilantism. Sorry.


Chase him down? He was simply walking behind him.
Is sharing the walkway illegal?!

The man looked suspicious. When Davis tried to ask him some questions, a fight ensued.
Davis was simply defending himself from a violent slasher, as is his right.
 
2012-04-06 09:21:49 AM

austin_millbarge: ihatedumbpeople: He'd have been better off killing him on the spot and claiming self defense. Chasing him down and killing him is a revenge killing, pure and simple. Sorry dude...I feel for ya, but once you hunt him down you're outside the law.

THIS. For those of you who are saying "Stupid DA" this isn't a defense situation or even using force to defend someone else. What this guy did was technically murder, regardless of the horrible things the guy had just committed.

It's not his place to track the guy down and administer his own death sentence on the guy.


The law, read it.
 
2012-04-06 09:23:03 AM

Silly Jesus: It's not self defense.


Indeed, which was my point.

People are allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves or a third party from great bodily harm or death.

Fair enough, but the guy wasn't being let on the bus, and for all we know from the article he'd already dropped the knife and may have been unarmed. From there on it's up to the cops and the DA to decide if anyone was being actively protected or if this was simply a revenge killing. Apparently they've decided it was a case of the latter.
 
2012-04-06 09:23:19 AM

Silly Jesus: liam76: Silly Jesus: Shatner's Bassoon: "Every time (Wike) hit somebody with a knife, they died. ... This guy knew what he was doing," Light said. "They should look at it as a self-defense case."

When the guy flees and you have to actively chase him down before you can stab him to death, it stops being self defense and turns into vigilantism. Sorry.

Your GED in Law, I see it there.

This is a perfectly legal killing. He had every reason to believe that this guy was going to kill more people. He was still armed with a knife and running toward a group of people. It's perfectly justifiable in the eyes of the law to kill someone in this situation.

We also don;t know if he ran up and stabbed the guy in the back or the guy swung at him.

It doesn't matter.

The guy just murdered three random people and is running around with the weapon. Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified. It's well established law.


Please cite the well established law you speak of. I believe that the man is justified (morally) for taking this POS down but there are no well established laws for chasing someone down in this manner. In fact most states have laws that specifically state that you can defend yourself from an attacker but if they run, you can not pursue, let alone catch and kill.
 
2012-04-06 09:23:30 AM

austin_millbarge: ihatedumbpeople: He'd have been better off killing him on the spot and claiming self defense. Chasing him down and killing him is a revenge killing, pure and simple. Sorry dude...I feel for ya, but once you hunt him down you're outside the law.

THIS. For those of you who are saying "Stupid DA" this isn't a defense situation or even using force to defend someone else. What this guy did was technically murder, regardless of the horrible things the guy had just committed.

It's not his place to track the guy down and administer his own death sentence on the guy.


Track him down?

Was he showing mugshots to store owners in the area?

Was he looking at footprints?

Was he checking for fresh spoor?

Did he do a phone trace and call his mom?

He didn't track down shiat, he saw a guy murder several people and followed him to prevent more murders.
 
2012-04-06 09:23:37 AM

Securitywyrm: So... question. Let's say the guy who just stabbed stabbed two people to death manages to get on that bus, a nice cramped space. How many more would be dead?

This is what's wrong with America: "Well, I see that guy running towards the preschool with a chainsaw screaming he will cut the demons out of the children, and there's a trail of dead children behind him, but I'm not PERSONALLY being threatened so I guess I'll just sit here and film it on my phone like a 'good citizen' and wait for the police to come in about 10 minutes."


At least from the article's POV, it seems as though the murder weapon was either 1) left at the scene or 2) the brother wrestled it from him at the bar.

either way, it's easy to guess the guy didn't plan on doing any more killing...unless he had multiple weapons.
 
2012-04-06 09:23:46 AM

Silly Jesus: Shatner's Bassoon: Silly Jesus: Your GED in Law, I see it there.

OK GED in Law guy, how the fark is it self defense to chase someone down and kill them after they've fled from you?

It's not self defense. People are allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves or a third party from great bodily harm or death.

If someone is running around shooting people, for example, you don't have to wait for the gun to be pointed at you to pull yours out and shoot the guy in the head.


If, however, you follow them home, knock on the door and shoot them when they open the door...youre a murderer.
 
2012-04-06 09:26:20 AM
If I were on the jury, and the case was what I read in the story, I would vote to acquit, and then ask the prosecutor why he was wasting my time.

/well, maybe not the latter, but I would *think* it.
 
2012-04-06 09:28:40 AM

domine: Silly Jesus: liam76: Silly Jesus: Shatner's Bassoon: "Every time (Wike) hit somebody with a knife, they died. ... This guy knew what he was doing," Light said. "They should look at it as a self-defense case."

When the guy flees and you have to actively chase him down before you can stab him to death, it stops being self defense and turns into vigilantism. Sorry.

Your GED in Law, I see it there.

This is a perfectly legal killing. He had every reason to believe that this guy was going to kill more people. He was still armed with a knife and running toward a group of people. It's perfectly justifiable in the eyes of the law to kill someone in this situation.

We also don;t know if he ran up and stabbed the guy in the back or the guy swung at him.

It doesn't matter.

The guy just murdered three random people and is running around with the weapon. Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified. It's well established law.

Please cite the well established law you speak of. I believe that the man is justified (morally) for taking this POS down but there are no well established laws for chasing someone down in this manner. In fact most states have laws that specifically state that you can defend yourself from an attacker but if they run, you can not pursue, let alone catch and kill.


This is the first one that came up on Google. It's Utah, but all states have a similar law...

76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(2) (a) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if the person:
(i) initially provokes the use of force against the person with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(ii) is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(iii) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and, notwithstanding, the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (2)(a)(iii) the following do not, by themselves, constitute "combat by agreement":
(i) voluntarily entering into or remaining in an ongoing relationship; or
(ii) entering or remaining in a place where one has a legal right to be.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(a)(iii).
(4) (a) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Person, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property.
(b) Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony.
(c) Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.
(5) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
(a) the nature of the danger;
(b) the immediacy of the danger;
(c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
(d) the other's prior violent acts or violent propensities; and
(e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties' relationship.
 
2012-04-06 09:29:34 AM

Lizardking: Silly Jesus: Shatner's Bassoon: Silly Jesus: Your GED in Law, I see it there.

OK GED in Law guy, how the fark is it self defense to chase someone down and kill them after they've fled from you?

It's not self defense. People are allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves or a third party from great bodily harm or death.

If someone is running around shooting people, for example, you don't have to wait for the gun to be pointed at you to pull yours out and shoot the guy in the head.

If, however, you follow them home, knock on the door and shoot them when they open the door...youre a murderer.


Correct. Immediacy is a very important factor. On the same city block is pretty immediate to me.
 
2012-04-06 09:31:55 AM

Angry Buddha: This most curious thing about this case is who in the fark thinks flagging down a bus is a smart getaway tactic?


I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that this guy is not a Mensa candidate.
 
2012-04-06 09:32:55 AM

ihatedumbpeople: I can't say I agree with it, but this part is the sticking point:

"Wike stabbed Phillip Davis, police said, then fled east on Haywood Road toward Builders First Source with several men in pursuit, including Stevie Davis, who is Phillip Davis' brother, and Richard Anderson.

Stevie Davis caught up to Wike as he was trying to flag down a city bus and stabbed him to death, police said."

He'd have been better off killing him on the spot and claiming self defense. Chasing him down and killing him is a revenge killing, pure and simple. Sorry dude...I feel for ya, but once you hunt him down you're outside the law.


I'd guess he might use the temporary insanity defense. Seeing your brother stabbed in front of you might lead to strong emotions.
 
2012-04-06 09:33:19 AM

Silly Jesus: Lizardking: Silly Jesus: Shatner's Bassoon: Silly Jesus: Your GED in Law, I see it there.

OK GED in Law guy, how the fark is it self defense to chase someone down and kill them after they've fled from you?

It's not self defense. People are allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves or a third party from great bodily harm or death.

If someone is running around shooting people, for example, you don't have to wait for the gun to be pointed at you to pull yours out and shoot the guy in the head.

If, however, you follow them home, knock on the door and shoot them when they open the door...youre a murderer.

Correct. Immediacy is a very important factor. On the same city block is pretty immediate to me.


The fact that he was killed a city block away doesn't mean they were a city block apart during the encounter. It was probbaly more like one continious action.
 
2012-04-06 09:35:48 AM
As a citizen, you have the right to make an arrest of a person who you have seen commit a crime. During the arrest, you have the right to defend yourself from great bodily harm, including the use of deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would agree that deadly force was warranted. ie...(the guy or gal you were trying to arrest pulled a gun, knife, ect.) and in killing the person you were trying to arrest, the citizen will not be charged, as it was clearly a case of self defense during the attempt to apprehend the criminal.

(720 ILCS 5/7 1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7 1)
Sec. 7 1. Use of force in defense of person.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b - In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7 4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93 832, eff. 7 28 04.)
 
2012-04-06 09:36:29 AM

liam76: Silverstaff: In this case, the "victim" was indeed up to no good, but that still didn't justify chasing him down. It went from self defense to revenge once he left the scene of the crime

I disagree.

If you are defining the "scene" as the bar or bar property the guy doesn't magically become a none threat when he leaves.


Well, I'm no expert on NC law, but it would be interesting to see what the exact wording of their self defense exemption is. Could a Farker more up on North Carolina laws give us some links on that from actual legal references?

Now, from what I do know of other state's laws (especially Kentucky), if he's not attacking or threatening people, you can't use force. At most, the citizens arrest statute would apply since you saw a felony commited by him in your presence, so you could use force to detain him until the police could show up, but then that use of force falls under use-of-force guidelines for arrests, and I'd want to know the exact details of what happened after he chased him down (did he just plain shoot him with no stated intent to detain, for example).

On general principle, what point would does stop being "self defense" then? You are not in imminent danger, no person around you is in imminent danger, the dangerous person is fleeing the area and not engaging other people. Who were you defending? Random people on the street he's running past and not engaging?

Yeah, theoretically he could attack another person. He could do that at any point after he leaves. If you tracked him down at his home the next day, kicked in the door and shot him, would that still be self defense since he could still hurt people and has proven he has a weapon and intent to hurt multiple people? An extreme example, yes, but where would you draw the line?
 
2012-04-06 09:37:11 AM
OnlyM3

Ladies and gentleman, exhibit A: Human garbage.
 
2012-04-06 09:37:22 AM

Securitywyrm: This is what's wrong with America: "Well, I see that guy running towards the preschool with a chainsaw screaming he will cut the demons out of the children, and there's a trail of dead children behind him, but I'm not PERSONALLY being threatened so I guess I'll just sit here and film it on my phone like a 'good citizen' and wait for the police to come in about 10 minutes."


You're right. What's wrong with America is people who don't understand what a false equivalency is.
 
2012-04-06 09:37:26 AM
Oh, and those who wonder what a "forcible felony" is,

A forcible felony is defined in the Criminal Code of 1961:
"treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement[,] and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."
 
2012-04-06 09:38:48 AM
Here is the N.C. law that would have justified a Police Officer in shooting the guy as he fled. The law justifying an ordinary person to do this is quite similar, I haven't found it yet though, N.C. hides their stuff pretty well for some reason.

(2) A law-enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon
another person
for a purpose specified in subdivision (1) of this subsection
only when it is or appears to be reasonably necessary thereby:
a. To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes
to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;
b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person
who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a
deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates
that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical
injury to others unless apprehended without delay;
or
c. To prevent the escape of a person from custody imposed upon him as
a result of conviction for a felony.
Nothing in this subdivision constitutes justification for willful, malicious or
criminally negligent conduct by any person which injures or endangers any
person or property, nor shall it be construed to excuse or justify the use of
unreasonable or excessive force.
 
2012-04-06 09:39:02 AM

Silly Jesus: The guy just murdered three random people and is running around with the weapon. Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified. It's well established law.


Want to know how I know you're not a lawyer?
 
2012-04-06 09:41:07 AM

Silly Jesus: Lizardking: Silly Jesus: Shatner's Bassoon: Silly Jesus: Your GED in Law, I see it there.

OK GED in Law guy, how the fark is it self defense to chase someone down and kill them after they've fled from you?

It's not self defense. People are allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves or a third party from great bodily harm or death.

If someone is running around shooting people, for example, you don't have to wait for the gun to be pointed at you to pull yours out and shoot the guy in the head.

If, however, you follow them home, knock on the door and shoot them when they open the door...youre a murderer.

Correct. Immediacy is a very important factor. On the same city block is pretty immediate to me.


Thats what almost everyone who thinks as you do says. But its not. From the article it isnt even clear whether the guy still had the knife or not. If you witness a mass shooting, follow the guy to the river where he throws the gun in and then shoot and kill him, youre in the wrong. Had the brother acted while the stabber was still stabbing and killed him, he would be 100% not guilty. But he didnt. He followed him to a bus stop and killed him there. Thats illegal
 
2012-04-06 09:42:10 AM

Silverstaff: liam76: Silverstaff: In this case, the "victim" was indeed up to no good, but that still didn't justify chasing him down. It went from self defense to revenge once he left the scene of the crime

I disagree.

If you are defining the "scene" as the bar or bar property the guy doesn't magically become a none threat when he leaves.

Well, I'm no expert on NC law, but it would be interesting to see what the exact wording of their self defense exemption is. Could a Farker more up on North Carolina laws give us some links on that from actual legal references?

Now, from what I do know of other state's laws (especially Kentucky), if he's not attacking or threatening people, you can't use force. At most, the citizens arrest statute would apply since you saw a felony commited by him in your presence, so you could use force to detain him until the police could show up, but then that use of force falls under use-of-force guidelines for arrests, and I'd want to know the exact details of what happened after he chased him down (did he just plain shoot him with no stated intent to detain, for example).

On general principle, what point would does stop being "self defense" then? You are not in imminent danger, no person around you is in imminent danger, the dangerous person is fleeing the area and not engaging other people. Who were you defending? Random people on the street he's running past and not engaging?

Yeah, theoretically he could attack another person. He could do that at any point after he leaves. If you tracked him down at his home the next day, kicked in the door and shot him, would that still be self defense since he could still hurt people and has proven he has a weapon and intent to hurt multiple people? An extreme example, yes, but where would you draw the line?


Self defense doesn't enter into this. It isn't necessary. In America, any citizen is allowed to kill someone if that person is on a wild, random killing spree.

Your thing about going to the home later...I'm not sure what the point is. It's not relevant, and no, you couldn't shoot the guy when he opens the door later, unless there are screaming people in the house or some other exigent circumstance. Not sure why that has even entered into the conversation.
 
2012-04-06 09:42:34 AM
Everything else aside, 1st degree murder? There is no way the DA is going to try to argue this charge. In order to get a conviction, they would have to clearly and definitively prove premeditation. The result of the conflict is premeditation on Wike's part. Davis's role is textbook voluntary manslaughter (3rd degree, "the heat of passion" ). They will likely try to plea it down to third degree. He will get 48 months, out in 18 and have to serve 30 months parole and 10 years probation.
 
2012-04-06 09:42:52 AM

austin_millbarge: Silly Jesus: The guy just murdered three random people and is running around with the weapon. Any killing of such a person within the immediate time frame is justified. It's well established law.

Want to know how I know you're not a lawyer?


How's that?
 
2012-04-06 09:43:01 AM

Ikam: ihatedumbpeople: Stevie Davis caught up to Wike as he was trying to flag down a city bus and stabbed him to death, police said."

And this is where the problem is.


What? If Wike had gotten on the bus he was going to settle down and not stab the driver for trying to kick off a man covered in blood carrying a knife. An armed man on a murder spree most likely will calm right down once he got his point across, right? If I was on that bus, I would telling the driver thank you for not opening the door and glad for everyone else that the man was stopped. No mention of Wike not still fighting at the end.
 
2012-04-06 09:43:24 AM
I understand we need laws in place to stop all the would-be vigilantes from chasing down and killing wrong doers, but I think that should go out the window when the original killer just killed a bunch of people in front of several witnesses. I'd say that the guy is a damn hero for chasing down this drugged out maniac before he killed more people, his own brother no less.

I can't say what I would do in the situation, since I've never been involved with something as horrific as this. I don't agree with vigilante justice before a trial is given, but when someone gets all stabby and kills multiple people in front of several witnesses, that's another story.

I say, hold a trial for the original murderer. If he is proven to be guilty of the crimes, as he obviously would in this situation, then the brother should be acquitted of murdering the murder.
 
2012-04-06 09:44:17 AM
DA isn't stupid... s/he has to charge and try someone who publicly chases down someone else and kills them. A jury conviction will never happen because 1) it can be argued that the brother thought the perp was likely to imminently kill someone else and wanted to stop him, and 2) that he was temporarily insane under circumstances that are unlikely to repeat and he isn't a public threat. Therefor while the brother must be prosecuted, my bet is that the DA will quietly tell the prosecutors to put minimal resources into it and take an early dive at the trial (or offer a *very* sweet plea bargain).
 
2012-04-06 09:45:10 AM
Oh yes, and this.

Here is what Illinois Law says about Arrest by a Private Person (725 ILCS 5/107-3) "Any person may arrest another when he has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense other than an ordinance violation is being committed."

I can't imagine the law would be much different in that state. And from the basic "citizens arrest" we get into the use of force while making an arrest. Which is a bit more complicated. My understanding of it is this.

§ 161.255¹
Use of physical force by private person making citizens arrest

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a private person acting on the persons own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested under ORS 133.225 (Arrest by private person).

(2) A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. [1971 c.743 §31; 1973 c.836 §339]
 
2012-04-06 09:45:45 AM

Lizardking: Silly Jesus: Lizardking: Silly Jesus: Shatner's Bassoon: Silly Jesus: Your GED in Law, I see it there.

OK GED in Law guy, how the fark is it self defense to chase someone down and kill them after they've fled from you?

It's not self defense. People are allowed to use deadly force to protect themselves or a third party from great bodily harm or death.

If someone is running around shooting people, for example, you don't have to wait for the gun to be pointed at you to pull yours out and shoot the guy in the head.

If, however, you follow them home, knock on the door and shoot them when they open the door...youre a murderer.

Correct. Immediacy is a very important factor. On the same city block is pretty immediate to me.

Thats what almost everyone who thinks as you do says. But its not. From the article it isnt even clear whether the guy still had the knife or not. If you witness a mass shooting, follow the guy to the river where he throws the gun in and then shoot and kill him, youre in the wrong. Had the brother acted while the stabber was still stabbing and killed him, he would be 100% not guilty. But he didnt. He followed him to a bus stop and killed him there. Thats illegal


My understanding of the situation was that the guy fled while still in possession of the knife. If the guy didn't have the knife, and it can be shown that the pursuer KNEW that he no longer had the knife, then I can see where charges may come from. He could still argue that a crazed guy on a murdering spree is likely to have more than one weapon, but the lack of the knife would definitely make his case harder. I don't think though, that whatever the scenario, the guy will do any time if the charges even go to trial before being dropped.
 
2012-04-06 09:47:30 AM

Silly Jesus: austin_millbarge: ihatedumbpeople: He'd have been better off killing him on the spot and claiming self defense. Chasing him down and killing him is a revenge killing, pure and simple. Sorry dude...I feel for ya, but once you hunt him down you're outside the law.

THIS. For those of you who are saying "Stupid DA" this isn't a defense situation or even using force to defend someone else. What this guy did was technically murder, regardless of the horrible things the guy had just committed.

It's not his place to track the guy down and administer his own death sentence on the guy.

The law, read it.


I do read the law dipshiat. If he or someone else in his immediate presence is in danger he can use whatever force is necessary to stop that act up to and including deadly force. Once the perpetrator leaves the vicinity or ceases to be an immediate threat you can't just decide to track the guy down and administer your own personal death sentence.
At the point where the brother decides to track down the stabber with intent to kill, he becomes a vigilante.

Do I think the guy deserves first degree murder, no way. But he was wrong to track the guy down and put himself into that situation. Do I understand why he did it, yes I do. But we are talking about legality here not what some jerkwater hick thinks his interpretation of justice is.
 
2012-04-06 09:47:36 AM
Stand Your Ground!!!
 
2012-04-06 09:47:38 AM

Frederick: No jury would convict that victims brother.


Hell, he's not even getting a grand jury indictment.
 
2012-04-06 09:47:51 AM
Well, borderline cases like these are why we have juries.
 
2012-04-06 09:47:53 AM

dBoone: DA isn't stupid... s/he has to charge and try someone who publicly chases down someone else and kills them. A jury conviction will never happen because 1) it can be argued that the brother thought the perp was likely to imminently kill someone else and wanted to stop him, and 2) that he was temporarily insane under circumstances that are unlikely to repeat and he isn't a public threat. Therefor while the brother must be prosecuted, my bet is that the DA will quietly tell the prosecutors to put minimal resources into it and take an early dive at the trial (or offer a *very* sweet plea bargain).


The killing was justified under your 1).

Charges are therefore not appropriate.
 
2012-04-06 09:48:46 AM

liam76: He didn't track down shiat, he saw a guy murder several people and followed him to prevent more murders.


No, he followed the guy to kill him because he saw his brother murdered.
 
2012-04-06 09:50:49 AM

austin_millbarge: Silly Jesus: austin_millbarge: ihatedumbpeople: He'd have been better off killing him on the spot and claiming self defense. Chasing him down and killing him is a revenge killing, pure and simple. Sorry dude...I feel for ya, but once you hunt him down you're outside the law.

THIS. For those of you who are saying "Stupid DA" this isn't a defense situation or even using force to defend someone else. What this guy did was technically murder, regardless of the horrible things the guy had just committed.

It's not his place to track the guy down and administer his own death sentence on the guy.

The law, read it.

I do read the law dipshiat. If he or someone else in his immediate presence is in danger he can use whatever force is necessary to stop that act up to and including deadly force. Once the perpetrator leaves the vicinity or ceases to be an immediate threat you can't just decide to track the guy down and administer your own personal death sentence.
At the point where the brother decides to track down the stabber with intent to kill, he becomes a vigilante.

Do I think the guy deserves first degree murder, no way. But he was wrong to track the guy down and put himself into that situation. Do I understand why he did it, yes I do. But we are talking about legality here not what some jerkwater hick thinks his interpretation of justice is.


"Tracking down" and chasing out of the bar are two very different things. The immediacy of this entire event is very relevant here, dipshiat. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that everyone that this crazed lunatic comes across is in immediate danger of being killed. The guy just murdered three people. It's a logical conclusion that any reasonable person would come to that the guy might not be done with his killing spree just because he set foot outside of the bar.
 
2012-04-06 09:51:12 AM

Lizardking: Thats what almost everyone who thinks as you do says. But its not. From the article it isnt even clear whether the guy still had the knife or not. If you witness a mass shooting, follow the guy to the river where he throws the gun in and then shoot and kill him, youre in the wrong.


If you shto him when he had his hands up, yes. If you shot him when he was reaching for something, no.

Silverstaff: liam76: Silverstaff: In this case, the "victim" was indeed up to no good, but that still didn't justify chasing him down. It went from self defense to revenge once he left the scene of the crime

I disagree.

If you are defining the "scene" as the bar or bar property the guy doesn't magically become a none threat when he leaves.

Well, I'm no expert on NC law, but it would be interesting to see what the exact wording of their self defense exemption is. Could a Farker more up on North Carolina laws give us some links on that from actual legal references?

Now, from what I do know of other state's laws (especially Kentucky), if he's not attacking or threatening people, you can't use force. At most, the citizens arrest statute would apply since you saw a felony commited by him in your presence, so you could use force to detain him until the police could show up, but then that use of force falls under use-of-force guidelines for arrests, and I'd want to know the exact details of what happened after he chased him down (did he just plain shoot him with no stated intent to detain, for example).

On general principle, what point would does stop being "self defense" then? You are not in imminent danger, no person around you is in imminent danger, the dangerous person is fleeing the area and not engaging other people. Who were you defending? Random people on the street he's running past and not engaging?

Yeah, theoretically he could attack another person. He could do that at any point after he leaves. If you tracked him down at his home the next day, kicked in the door and shot him, would that still be self defense since he could still hurt people and has proven he has a weapon and intent to hurt multiple people? An extreme example, yes, but where would you draw the line?


I think it is very reasonable to assume he will attack more people. We don't know if the psycho tried to stab him when he caught up.

Once again he didn't "track" anybody. I would draw the line at the point where he lost sight of the person, or didn't know where they were (ie once they had to "track" them, which didn;t happen here).
 
Displayed 50 of 215 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report