If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
just let em do it
I tried to resurrect the old thread (started back on Jan 2 IIRC). I
could still read it but no replies can be made there. Last post there was on Jan 6. The trial for the road rage incident where the perp killed momma by running over her just ended. Verdict "guilty as charged of 2nd degree murder". Defense claimed (as expected) that Jonathan Ellington ran over momma while trying to escape shots being fired at him by daddy. Prosecutor shot it down very solidly. His expert witness testified that no shots were audible on the 911 call tape until after Ellington had rammed the girls vehicle which was also audible on the tape. Best the defense could come up with was 'ya but, there could have been shots fired before that' (and Santa Clause might really exist, I suppose). Prosecutor claimed, and had witnesses, that Ellington was in a bad mood all day. Defense had one rebuttal witness that claimed he was in a good mood as shown by a conversation he had with him that afternoon where they were joking around. I can't believe the jury didn't believe him as he was a known jail bird with multiple offenses and was temporarily out of jail judging by his past record. I was hoping to hear what caused the road rage to begin with. All they put on the news was that the girls had flipped him off. Must have been after whatever it was they had done. My view on the case remains as it was in the beginning. Total stupidity on the part of all parties involved. Harry K |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
just let em do it
"Harry K" > wrote in message oups.com... >I tried to resurrect the old thread (started back on Jan 2 IIRC). I > could still read it but no replies can be made there. Last post there > was on Jan 6. > > The trial for the road rage incident where the perp killed momma by > running over her just ended. Verdict "guilty as charged of 2nd degree > murder". > > Defense claimed (as expected) that Jonathan Ellington ran over momma > while trying to escape shots being fired at him by daddy. > > Prosecutor shot it down very solidly. His expert witness testified > that no shots were audible on the 911 call tape until after Ellington > had rammed the girls vehicle which was also audible on the tape. Best > the defense could come up with was 'ya but, there could have been shots > fired before that' (and Santa Clause might really exist, I suppose). > > Prosecutor claimed, and had witnesses, that Ellington was in a bad mood > all day. > Defense had one rebuttal witness that claimed he was in a good mood as > shown by a conversation he had with him that afternoon where they were > joking around. I can't believe the jury didn't believe him as he was a > known jail bird with multiple offenses and was temporarily out of jail > judging by his past record. > > I was hoping to hear what caused the road rage to begin with. All they > put on the news was that the girls had flipped him off. Must have been > after whatever it was they had done. > > My view on the case remains as it was in the beginning. Total > stupidity on the part of all parties involved. Would you mind providing a little more background on this? Where, when, what, etc? brink |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
just let em do it
brink wrote: > "Harry K" > wrote in message > oups.com... > >I tried to resurrect the old thread (started back on Jan 2 IIRC). I > > could still read it but no replies can be made there. Last post there > > was on Jan 6. > > > > The trial for the road rage incident where the perp killed momma by > > running over her just ended. Verdict "guilty as charged of 2nd degree > > murder". > > > > Defense claimed (as expected) that Jonathan Ellington ran over momma > > while trying to escape shots being fired at him by daddy. > > > > Prosecutor shot it down very solidly. His expert witness testified > > that no shots were audible on the 911 call tape until after Ellington > > had rammed the girls vehicle which was also audible on the tape. Best > > the defense could come up with was 'ya but, there could have been shots > > fired before that' (and Santa Clause might really exist, I suppose). > > > > Prosecutor claimed, and had witnesses, that Ellington was in a bad mood > > all day. > > Defense had one rebuttal witness that claimed he was in a good mood as > > shown by a conversation he had with him that afternoon where they were > > joking around. I can't believe the jury didn't believe him as he was a > > known jail bird with multiple offenses and was temporarily out of jail > > judging by his past record. > > > > I was hoping to hear what caused the road rage to begin with. All they > > put on the news was that the girls had flipped him off. Must have been > > after whatever it was they had done. > > > > My view on the case remains as it was in the beginning. Total > > stupidity on the part of all parties involved. > > Would you mind providing a little more background on this? Where, when, > what, etc? > > brink Go to http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving and enter Just let em do it in the search block, it will bring up the original thread. I tried it just now and the original is the second result down., Harry K |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
just let em do it
"Harry K" > wrote in message oups.com... >I tried to resurrect the old thread (started back on Jan 2 IIRC). I > could still read it but no replies can be made there. Last post there > was on Jan 6. > > The trial for the road rage incident where the perp killed momma by > running over her just ended. Verdict "guilty as charged of 2nd degree > murder". > > Defense claimed (as expected) that Jonathan Ellington ran over momma > while trying to escape shots being fired at him by daddy. > > Prosecutor shot it down very solidly. His expert witness testified > that no shots were audible on the 911 call tape until after Ellington > had rammed the girls vehicle which was also audible on the tape. Best > the defense could come up with was 'ya but, there could have been shots > fired before that' (and Santa Clause might really exist, I suppose). 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
just let em do it
Mike T. wrote: > "Harry K" > wrote in message > oups.com... > >I tried to resurrect the old thread (started back on Jan 2 IIRC). I > > could still read it but no replies can be made there. Last post there > > was on Jan 6. > > > > The trial for the road rage incident where the perp killed momma by > > running over her just ended. Verdict "guilty as charged of 2nd degree > > murder". > > > > Defense claimed (as expected) that Jonathan Ellington ran over momma > > while trying to escape shots being fired at him by daddy. > > > > Prosecutor shot it down very solidly. His expert witness testified > > that no shots were audible on the 911 call tape until after Ellington > > had rammed the girls vehicle which was also audible on the tape. Best > > the defense could come up with was 'ya but, there could have been shots > > fired before that' (and Santa Clause might really exist, I suppose). > > 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
just let em do it
>> 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
just let em do it
"Mike T." > wrote in message reenews.net... >>> 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. Not that this literally applies to this case, but is your statement really true? Again, this might not exactly fit the details of this case, but if Person A is threatening your life with a gun and the only way out is by running over Person B with your car and killing them, are you legally allowed to do so? What is Person B isn't threatening your life -- they're the wife or the bystander or whatever? brink |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
just let em do it
>
> Not that this literally applies to this case, but is your statement really > true? Yes. Absolutely. In the United States. > Again, this might not exactly fit the details of this case, but if Person > A is threatening your life with a gun and the only way out is by running > over Person B with your car and killing them, are you legally allowed to > do so? What is Person B isn't threatening your life -- they're the wife or > the bystander or whatever? > > brink Interesting question. I'd say it depends on the situation. In the case we are discussing, YES. The family was working as a team to capture ellington. Their actions were wholly illegal, BTW. At the point where the father started shooting at ellington, the family was working as a team to MURDER ellington. Citizen's arrest did not apply to the scenario that this trial was about. Several conditions must be met before a citizen can legally arrest another citizen. NONE of those conditions were met before the police were called concerning the road rage incident that started the incident in question. Regardless, IF any of those conditions HAD been met, citizen's arrest no longer applies after police arrive on the scene. As the police had already responded, there is no possible scenario under which citizen's arrest would have been legal. So the family that cornered ellington were acting as a vigilante mob, with no legal authority to do so. If they'd succeeded in capturing ellington, the whole family could have THEN landed in prison on kidnapping and/or false arrest FELONY level criminal convictions. Now I APPLAUD the family for sticking their necks out to try to capture Ellington. But in hindsight, it was pretty fricking stupid, considering that they had no legal authority to act in such a manner, and their illegal activity resulted in the death of the mother. But back to your question . . . Person A is discharging a loaded firearm, intent on killing Person C. Person B doesn't have a gun, but is illegally trying to kidnap Person C as part of a team effort with the person who is trying to kill Person C. In other words, Person B is trying to prevent you from leaving so that Person A can kill you. At that point, it would be legal for Person C to kill either Person A or Person B. It is not a true statement to say that Person B wasn't trying to kill Person C. What it boils down to, is that Person C was going to die if he didn't escape RIGHT DAMNED NOW. All parties involved knew that Person C was going to die if he didn't get away. Thus, Person C was wholly justified in LEAVING, even if that meant driving over someone to get the **** out of there immediately. It was a clear case of self-defense. Of course, Person C was later ****ed by a jury just because he has a rap sheet. -Dave |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
just let em do it
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
just let em do it
> 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 > Odd, I was thinking the same thing about you, that you do not understand self-defense. But it's easy to see how you are confused. You think that mommy was an innocent bystander who got run over. But that ignores the fact that the whole family was an illegal vigilante mob who cornered ellington with no legal authority to do so. It also ignores the fact that after daddy started shooting to kill ellington, nobody else in the family tried to stop daddy from doing so. In fact, the rest of the family were trying to prevent ellington from escaping so that daddy could murder him. So now even you should be able to see that the family was working *** AS A TEAM *** to MURDER ellington at a point in time before ellington escaped the illegal vigilante mob by running over one of the gang members intent on killing him. The only possible way ellington could IN FACT be guilty of murder (as opposed to just wrongfully convicted of murder) would be if he managed to escape the murderous, illegal vigilante mob, and then sometime later deliberately ran over somebody who happened to be walking by, in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because once you've escaped, it can no longer be called self-defense. But when ellington ran over a member of the murderous mob intent on killing him, he was still trying desperately to flee for his life. Again, this verdict was about ellington being a bad boy and the jury wanted to send him to prison (where even I would say that he probably belongs), even though he was NOT guilty of the current charges. The current conviction is utter and total bull****, and I hope like hell it gets tossed on appeal. -Dave |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|