>> That's a disappointing outcome. I remember this case now. Timeline
>> seemed
>> to go something like:
>> 1) Whole family cornered road-rager Ellington in a ditch
>> 2) Attempting to escape, Ellington pushes another vehicle with his
>> vehicle
>> 3) Daddy gets ****ed to see his daughters' car get banged up a bit, and
>> so
>> he shoots at Ellington
>> 4) Ellington, now fearful of being shot and killed, drives away quickly,
>> running over and killing an idiot who was attempting to stop Ellington's
>> car
>> with her body
>>
>> Ellington is a bad, bad man, who probably belongs in prison. It's
>> unfortunate that he got convicted in this case in spite of a valid
>> defense
>> though. At the point where Ellington ran over the momma, Ellington was
>> acting just like anybody afraid of dying would have acted. The only
>> thing
>> that separates everyone here from Ellington is that MOST of us wouldn't
>> have
>> been stupid enough to get ourselves into a situation where it would have
>> been necessary to kill someone else to survive. -Dave
>
> Oh yeah, he's a bad baaad man alright. Has several convictions and
> several times in jail including a couple serious assaults. His "valid
> defense" was so good it got laughed right out of court. Took the jury
> all of 4 hours to reach a decision after 7 days of trial.
>
> I just re-read portions of the orginal. I see your definition of self
> defense is still way over the horizon from what will be found in the
> law.
>
> Harry K

Harry - If you feel you are in immediate danger of losing your life or
suffering grave bodily injury, you have the right to use any means available
to defend yourself. The prosecution in this case argued that the daddy shot
at ellington after he drove into the daughters' car (while trying to
escape). That much is absolutely true and undisputed. The interesting
thing is, even the prosecution claims that Ellington was shot at BEFORE he
actually ran over the woman who was killed, while trying to desperately flee
for his life, from the homicidal father who was shooting at him (not just
threatening to shoot at him, SHOOTING at him)

If you really analyze this situation logically, you'd have to conclude that
the self-defense claim was valid AT THE TIME THAT THE WOMAN WAS KILLED.
This trial was not about previous crimes committed by Ellington, but the
verdict apparently was. That is not justice, it is conviction based on bad
reputation. -Dave