"A good shoot is a good shoot"... BS!

[spencer60]

The same prosecutor who cleared a man when he shot a 'peaceful protester' who attacked him outside his bar a few weeks back just got a Grand Jury to indict him for Manslaughter.

The prosecutor admitted that the facts remained the same, but...

Franklin said jurors were able to get insight into Gardner’s “state of mind” and his actions before the shooting from his phone and Facebook account.

So, what was a factually good claim of self defense is now in doubt because of things he said online....

So much for the whole idea that a 'good shoot is a good shoot' as some here like to claim.

Even if he manages to win, unless he has some kind of carry insurance you can bet he'll be in the hole for $100K in legal costs alone.



https://www.foxnews.com/us/omaha-ba...tester-wont-face-charges-county-attorney-says

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nebraska...t-shooting-death-initially-ruled-self-defense

 

[GAGunguy]

SO the lesson here is to stay off Facebook and social media. Anything you post can be used against you.

 

[GeauxLSU]

A good shoot IS a good shoot. His face book posts don't change the FACTS of the shoot.
Now having said that, can a spinless DA and jury comprised of SJWs use them to erroneously convict you? Absolutely.
What a state of affairs....
Disclaimer - Haven't seen video, his posted comments apparently haven't been released.

 

[Horsehat]

SO the lesson here is to stay off Facebook and social media. Anything you post can be used against you.

Including what is posted on here. Can be used and will be used. This is the world in which we live.

 

[spencer60]

A good shoot IS a good shoot. His face book posts don't change the FACTS of the shoot.
Now having said that, can a spinless DA and jury comprised of SJWs use them to erroneously convict you? Absolutely.
What a state of affairs....
Disclaimer - Haven't seen video, his posted comments apparently haven't been released.

Sorry, but I'd disagree. It's not a 'good shoot' if you still go to jail because of your own actions.

We have no idea what was found on Facebook and such, and we probably won't until it comes out at trial.

That being said, if the DA found posts where he seemed to be saying he was looking for a fight, they could legally use that to show that it wasn't a valid self-defense claim.

Even though he was attacked, if he had posted that he was going to go out and bait a 'protester' into attacking him so he could claim self defense, that would pretty much throw the claim out the window.

Not saying that's what they found, but this case does show that there is a lot more than what happened at the time that will go into a self defense claim.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Sorry, but I'd disagree. It's not a 'good shoot' if you still go to jail because of your own actions.

That assumes there are no bad convictions. Yep, we'll just disagree.

 

[gh1950]

SO the lesson here is to stay off Facebook and social media. Anything you post can be used against you.

Standard advice to new divorce clients is scrub every social media account, delete if possible, get a new phone.

The info can still be retrieved

Sorry, but I'd disagree. It's not a 'good shoot' if you still go to jail because of your own actions.

We have no idea what was found on Facebook and such, and we probably won't until it comes out at trial.

That being said, if the DA found posts where he seemed to be saying he was looking for a fight, they could legally use that to show that it wasn't a valid self-defense claim.

Even though he was attacked, if he had posted that he was going to go out and bait a 'protester' into attacking him so he could claim self defense, that would pretty much throw the claim out the window.

Not saying that's what they found, but this case does show that there is a lot more than what happened at the time that will go into a self defense claim.

I have to agree. Don't understand why idiots feel compelled to put so much info "out there" but they do. But now a Facebook post would be considered an oral statement against his interests.

I'm thinking he is lucky they didn't indict him for murder to ramp up the pressure. Probably didn't want to do that to keep the DA from looking like an idiot.

I'm thinking of Athens case, John Mooney who was convicted of murdering a competitor when his amateur hit man got drunk and started bragging in a bar about how he was the one that shot T.K. Hardy. Pre-computer Facebook post.

 

[spencer60]

That assumes there are no bad convictions. Yep, we'll just disagree.

Not sure how you get that... I'm not saying anything about bad convictions. There's plenty of those.

To my mind this case shows that what happened at the scene isn't the whole story when it comes to self-defense cases, at least anymore.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Not sure how you get that... I'm not saying anything about bad convictions. There's plenty of those.

To my mind this case shows that what happened at the scene isn't the whole story when it comes to self-defense cases, at least anymore.

I understand that. What I'm saying is that regardless of any previous comments (online or otherwise) if the facts in the individual incident show it was self defense, then it was self defense, and then a "good shoot". You don't give up your right to self defense because you said stupid stuff previously. But perhaps to your point LEGALLY, you may have dumped in your mess kit.

 

[gh1950]

You don't give up your right to self defense because you said stupid stuff previously.

I'm not sure that anyone is saying that he "gave up" his right to self defense.

The article doesn't give much insight into Missouri's definition of "manslaughter." In Georgia, one definition is "a legal act committed in an illegal manner".

Plus the indictment only requires a finding of probable cause, and self defense is still available to him. He is far from "giving up" his plea of self defense.