Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 44
Thanks Tree28Thanks

Thread: Why Isn't This Killing Justified?

  1. #1
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,342
    Thanks
    29705

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio

    Why Isn't This Killing Justified?

    Ohio is not a stand your ground state, and does not bless a homicide to prevent a theft, such as shooting a would-be car thief if you are not in the car at the time. In all cases, even a home burglary, you must reasonably fear imminent danger before you are legally entitled to shoot to kill.

    When does Ohio law allow residents to shoot someone? | cleveland.com

    Or, this is approximately what I understand. And if that's the law, I do not understand the homicide charges against this man:

    CLEVELAND, Ohio -- A drug dealer released from prison in December shot and killed a customer who tried to rob him during a drug deal in the city's Detroit-Shoreway, according to police.

    Quintine Walker, 31, of Cleveland, is charged with aggravated murder in the March 24 slaying of Joseph Timko. Walker is in the Cuyahoga County Jail after being arrested in Parma on an unrelated weapons charge.

    A court date on the aggravated murder charge has not yet been set.

    Timko's friend, Randall Satterwhite, 38, is charged with murder and involuntary manslaughter in his friend's death because he's accused of committing a felony that led to Timko's death.

    The shooting happened on West 76th Street and Lawn Avenue. Satterwhite set up a drug buy with Walker. Satterwhite and Timko met Walker on the side of the road, police reports say.

    Walker got into the front seat of the car with Satterwhite, while Timko sat in the back, according to court records.

    Timko tried to rob Walker and the two fought in the car, according to police. Walker shot Timko and ran away, police reports say.


    Satterwhite drove to Timko's home the 4100 block of Rocky River Drive in the city's Kamm's Corners neighborhood.

    Police found Timko on the ground with a gunshot wound to his neck. He was unconscious with blood coming from his mouth and nose, police reports say.

    *Snip*
    Cleveland drug dealer accused of killing customer who tried to rob him | cleveland.com

    I don't understand why this fact pattern is not justified homicide. Who can argue that this shooter was NOT in imminent danger?

    I suspect that the shooter's criminal record and the illegal nature of the transaction that drew these three together is coloring the DA's judgment.

    What say you? If the facts actually are as reported, should this man be found not guilty?

  2. #2
    Veteran Member John T Ford's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    24,454
    Thanks
    6744

    From
    Great State of Texas
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Ohio is not a stand your ground state, and does not bless a homicide to prevent a theft, such as shooting a would-be car thief if you are not in the car at the time. In all cases, even a home burglary, you must reasonably fear imminent danger before you are legally entitled to shoot to kill.

    When does Ohio law allow residents to shoot someone? | cleveland.com

    Or, this is approximately what I understand. And if that's the law, I do not understand the homicide charges against this man:



    Cleveland drug dealer accused of killing customer who tried to rob him | cleveland.com

    I don't understand why this fact pattern is not justified homicide. Who can argue that this shooter was NOT in imminent danger?

    I suspect that the shooter's criminal record and the illegal nature of the transaction that drew these three together is coloring the DA's judgment.

    What say you? If the facts actually are as reported, should this man be found not guilty?
    Using a weapon while committing a crime (buying selling illegal drugs) is a crime, even if the weapon was used in self defense.
    Thanks from Madeline and Friday13

  3. #3
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    14,146
    Thanks
    9323

    From
    My own world
    I tend to agree with John on this one. A firearm was used in the commission of a crime and someone was shot dead. Who brought the gun to the scene of the crime and what resulted in the shooting at that point is a mute point. Had the men not been there to buy and sell drugs the man would not have tried to steal the drugs and bring the gun and resulted in his own death. I would think the conviction will actually be for manslaughter in the 2nd degree for the guy who pulled the trigger.

    Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
    Last edited by Eve1; 15th April 2017 at 10:18 AM.
    Thanks from Madeline and John T Ford

  4. #4
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,500
    Thanks
    990

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    Ohio is not a stand your ground state, and does not bless a homicide to prevent a theft, such as shooting a would-be car thief if you are not in the car at the time. In all cases, even a home burglary, you must reasonably fear imminent danger before you are legally entitled to shoot to kill.

    When does Ohio law allow residents to shoot someone? | cleveland.com

    Or, this is approximately what I understand. And if that's the law, I do not understand the homicide charges against this man:



    Cleveland drug dealer accused of killing customer who tried to rob him | cleveland.com

    I don't understand why this fact pattern is not justified homicide. Who can argue that this shooter was NOT in imminent danger?

    I suspect that the shooter's criminal record and the illegal nature of the transaction that drew these three together is coloring the DA's judgment.

    What say you? If the facts actually are as reported, should this man be found not guilty?
    All stand your ground does is to cancel the duty to retreat when it is reasonable to do so. Unless we see that charges were filed because the police felt the suspect could jave retreated, its not a SYG/duty to retreat situation, let's not forget you can always 'stand your ground' when retreat isn't practical. Beyond that its a self defense paradigm. Was the suspect threatened with lethal force or serious bodily injury?

    Then we have the added wrinkle here of the self defense occuring during the commision of a felony, so I have to wonder if this just isn't an application of the felony murder rule albeit a fact pattern that tends to contort the doctrine.

    ie in pari delicto, suspect doesn't have 'clean hands'

    Would love to see how that one turns out.
    Thanks from Madeline

  5. #5
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,342
    Thanks
    29705

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by John T Ford View Post
    Using a weapon while committing a crime (buying selling illegal drugs) is a crime, even if the weapon was used in self defense.
    No doubt, and drug distribution is a crime. Plus, as an ex-con, this shooter most likely did not have a legal right to carry a gun. And if these were the only charges he was facing, I'd be fine with it.

    But he is charged with various types of homicide. And I can't see how he could possibly be guilty.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,342
    Thanks
    29705

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Eve1 View Post
    I tend to agree with John on this one. A firearm was used in the commission of a crime and someone was shot dead. Who brought the gun to the scene of the crime and what resulted in the shooting at that point is a mute point. Had the men not been there to buy and sell drugs the man would not have tried to steal the drugs and bring the gun and resulted in his own death. I would think the conviction will actually be for manslaughter in the 2nd degree for the guy how pulled the trigger.

    Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.
    So, the illegal sale is a game-changer?

    What if these three were in the car because the shooter was trying to sell his family bible? Seems to me, it is crystal clear that on those facts, his actions are justified.

    I don't see how the law can be different if the only nuance is, the product offered for sale is illegal. Why does it matter what motivated these three to sit in a car together?

  7. #7
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    51,342
    Thanks
    29705

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    All stand your ground does is to cancel the duty to retreat when it is reasonable to do so. Unless we see that charges were filed because the police felt the suspect could jave retreated, its not a SYG/duty to retreat situation, let's not forget you can always 'stand your ground' when retreat isn't practical. Beyond that its a self defense paradigm. Was the suspect threatened with lethal force or serious bodily injury?

    Then we have the added wrinkle here of the self defense occuring during the commision of a felony, so I have to wonder if this just isn't an application of the felony murder rule albeit a fact pattern that tends to contort the doctrine.

    ie in pari delicto, suspect doesn't have 'clean hands'

    Would love to see how that one turns out.
    The victim's partner is charged with homicide on the felony murder rule, presumably on the premise that armed robbery is a felony even if it is committed to obtain illegal drugs.

    Not sure this stretches as far as you suggest; that the intended victim of the robbery is likewise guilty under the felony murder rule because he offered the illegal drugs for sale (which is not a felony, or even a crime, until that sale is completed.)

    You make a fascinating argument, though.

  8. #8
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    14,146
    Thanks
    9323

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    So, the illegal sale is a game-changer?

    What if these three were in the car because the shooter was trying to sell his family bible? Seems to me, it is crystal clear that on those facts, his actions are justified.

    I don't see how the law can be different if the only nuance is, the product offered for sale is illegal. Why does it matter what motivated these three to sit in a car together?
    It is a fundamental principle. If you engage in something illegal you put yourself in a situation by your own doing knowing the act can lead to
    other acts that are also illegal. A person selling a bible is doing nothing illegal and does not or should not expect to be putting himself/herself in the middle of other illegal activity.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    31,258
    Thanks
    26423

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    No doubt, and drug distribution is a crime. Plus, as an ex-con, this shooter most likely did not have a legal right to carry a gun. And if these were the only charges he was facing, I'd be fine with it.

    But he is charged with various types of homicide. And I can't see how he could possibly be guilty.
    There is a theory in the law that if all the parties are involved in unlawful activity, then the parties should not look to the law for remedy.

    That is more evident in a case were if the buyer robbed the seller of his drugs and money...the seller could not call the cops to report the robbery. In this instance, the seller could not look to the courts for remedy.

    MAYBE the same holds true in this case. Maybe the seller can not claim Self Defense for shooting the buyer during a botched drug-deal. OR the seller was too quick to pull the trigger in killing the buyer trying to rip him off and there was no eminent threat of death.
    Thanks from Madeline and Friday13

  10. #10
    Veteran Member Eve1's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    14,146
    Thanks
    9323

    From
    My own world
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    The victim's partner is charged with homicide on the felony murder rule, presumably on the premise that armed robbery is a felony even if it is committed to obtain illegal drugs.

    Not sure this stretches as far as you suggest; that the intended victim of the robbery is likewise guilty under the felony murder rule because he offered the illegal drugs for sale (which is not a felony, or even a crime, until that sale is completed.)

    You make a fascinating argument, though.

    The fellow who did not pull the trigger but was a witness and later dumped the body was also there to buy and sell drugs as well. I do believe the charge of voluntary manslaughter in that case will not change.
    Thanks from Madeline

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Police union chief calls killing of 12-year-old justified.
    By the watchman in forum Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16th December 2014, 05:44 AM
  2. Justified?
    By Conservative15 in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 7th October 2009, 04:38 PM
  3. Is this justified?
    By chu chu rocket in forum World Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 3rd July 2007, 08:58 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed