New law can't guarantee that calling a shooting self-defense makes it so

http://www.heraldtribune.com/ ^ | Tom Lyons

[ChefKeith]

He should have shot him in the head- end of case...

[endthematrix]

I used LAPD as an example. Police use-of-force standing policies of other major cities would be about the same. And the political sentiment and liability concerns are in every PD and city hall.

[adam_az]

Maybe there was no way to get out of the way?

I haven't seen a diagram of the location or timeline, have you?

[endthematrix]

Unarmed? That would just be the beginning of a looong trial.

[endthematrix]

Then he would have been hit by the car. As in the article, he shot to the SIDE...in the door.

Also, like the article says the driver may have felt compelled to use his car in self-defense.

[D-fendr]

Looks like the lawyer should shut up too:

But Loudon's lawyer, Fred Mercurio, says… Loudon got out of the way, drew his gun and fired.

If this is true, I don't see a self defense defense making it.

[ChefKeith]

Armed with a car.

4000 lbs of rolling steel and assorted other material mass vs the human body...

I'm gonna shoot the SOB in the head and I will call it self-defense.

[Smokin' Joe]

For one thing, if Vavrik felt threatened by the approaching Loudon, maybe he was entitled to use his car as a self-defense weapon.

I doubt it. Only in the event Vavrik HAD to pass Loudon to leave the area. Vavrik had no compelling interest in remaining at the scene. Loudon was there to change a tire, with the vehicles owner who was a relative, and whom he had given a ride.

Indirectly, (given that he suspected Vavrik had slashed the tire), he was defending property by not leaving.

From the story, there was nothing to prevent Vavrik from using the vehicle to escape, which (imho) would have been the wiser course of action.

If corroborative testimony is tight and indicates that Vavrik was using the vehicle to threaten Loudon, it should be ruled a good shoot.

Daddy should learn when to shut up, though.

[endthematrix]

Gonna play chicken with 1971 Plymouth? Try it and see who gets out of the way. Guess what? Your brainless ego may want to stand there, but your body will instinctively move out of the way. And lawyers know that. So are you going to shoot as the car passes by and when the bullet passes through the back window and his head? The lawyers will say he was speeding AWAY from you and call you a killer, which in the laws eyes, you would be. Have a good time rotting in jail for being in the wrong place and wrong time, doing stupid things.

[ChefKeith]

I have better things to do that argue with you about what would or would not happen before, during or after a situation like this OR listen to YOU try to tell ME what I would do in that scenario, so take your "brainless ego" crap and move on.

And F*** the lawyerscum!!!

[endthematrix]

ROFLMAO!

[JABBERBONK]

"Loudon hopes that law, lauded by the governor and backed by the National Rifle Association, will protect his son. He hopes the law, combined with witness accounts, will lead prosecutors to drop the aggravated battery charge listed in the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office arrest report"...The new law referenced to in the article, does not go into effect until October 1, 2005.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

always shot first...ask questions later..at least your still alive to do so....

[riverrunner]

I would guess that the guy shot was a ex boy friend of the daughter. Who decided to get back at her slashed her tire and was coming back to do more harm to her.

Sounds like her Dad was not only defending himself but his daughter from crazy ex boy friend.

[marktwain]

The father's a dumbass. Reporter probably planted a few seed questions about the new law when talking to the father.

Bingo! I almost guarantee that the reporter worked hard to get quotes that he could use in the version of the story that he wanted to write.

I notice that he did not have any quotes from the daughter or from people who knew both the daughter and the former boyfriend.

This is one of those instances where a restraining order could have done some good. It would have clearly put the heckler/boyfriend in the legal wrong.

[Shooter 2.5]

Dumba$$ dem voting, gun hater is putting his son in hot water just so he can hate a good gun law.

The driver returned numerous times and used his car as a weapon. Case closed.

[Atlas Sneezed]

My simple take is that unless more facts arise, or more certainty about the reported facts, there is inadequate evidence to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for anyone involved. But that bothers cops and prosecutors, who need to "get" someone.