Mike T. wrote:
> >> 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

First of all, your explanation has nothing at all to do with "self
defense". It is an explanation of "fleeing danger", "escaping" or
similar. To be self-defense he would have had to be driving at daddy,
not mommy, driving at mommy does nothing to stop the shooting. How is
running away self defense? That is "self preservation". I myself
though that a much better defense would have been, "it was an
accident". He could have even tried the "I was too drunk to know what
I was doing" but self-defense was a non-starter from the git go.

Note that at the point daddy started shooting, Ellington was clearly a
criminal (felonious assualt with a deadly weapon - twice) and daddy was
trying to protect innocent parties (the girls). His shooting at that
point was justified. Anyone is authorised to use deadly force to save
the life of a victim. Of course someone doing it is going to have some
fun justifying it later.

In the original thread you displayed a complete misunderstanding of
self defense and aren't doing much better here.

Harry K