Well, the criminal trial against "John Smith" is over. JS was accused of killing an unarmed 17 year old during a fight. While there is likely more we may never know, what we do know suggests to me that the Not Guilty verdict was the correct one.
In a very short version, and in MY evaluation of the information known to the public, here is what I believed to have happened:
JS's neighborhood has had a number of residential burglaries and thefts. JS's wife was even a witness to one neighbor's such "home invasion". JS became a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, to try help prevent such crimes, or to help get suspects arrested. And, for his personal protection, JS was legally armed with a licensed handgun.
One night, JS saw someone he did not know or recognize as a neighbor, who was walking in the rain, and seemed to be looking around. To JS, this person seemed suspicious and out of place, so he called the Police while he continued to observe the person.
The person, learned to be little "Jimmy Jones", a 6 ft+ black 17 year old, drew JS's attention. While JS was continuing to observe JJ, and talking to the Police on his cell-phone, JJ came back around to meet JS. JJ confronted JS, asking what his problem was, and quickly thereafter, JJ punched JS in the nose, knocking JS down, then got on top of JS, hitting JS in the face and slamming JS's head onto the concrete.
At some point, in what JS described as a fear for his life and/or serious bodily injury, and completely unable to stop the beating, JS pulled his gun and shot JJ, to death.
The jury found for the defense, as Not Guilty.
Now a few things come to my mind about this, and such matters.
1. I have personally known a man, who loved fighting. He was strong as a bull, a tough fighter, and he loved beating people unconscious. He admitted to enjoying the feeling his victim's facial bones break under his fists. This man, MAIMED people. In the course of an interview with him, I told him I'd never fight him, and that if confronted by him, I'd just shoot him, because he's already told me he has maimed his victims in the past. Make no mistake, if confronted by this animal, I'd shoot him.
2. I was reading some FBI statistics about Police Officers killed. In 2010, about 8% of those killed, were killed with their own guns. This means that in some way, they were overcome, and their gun was then available to the assailant. When a Police Officer goes down and is beaten in a confrontation, his gun is then open to be taken and used against him (or anyone else!). At some point, if a Police Officer feels he is losing a confrontation, thus losing control of his own weapon, he can, and should, shoot such an assailant.
3. The above, should also apply to any legally armed civilian. And in the case of JS and JJ, once JS was down, and in his case, feeling he was in real trouble of serious bodily injury or death, he used his firearm to end the battle.
4. Aside from the first guy I spoke of, I have also know, and such things have been reported all over the nation, that some people, when their victim is down and defenseless, will continue to beat them to the point of very serious injury or death. Last year, a returning Marine was beaten to death that way.
In the NY Bronx, as just one example, a 61 year old man was mugged, and beaten to death by two people. Also in the Bronx, a 59 year old man was robbed of $20, and beaten to death. In neither case, was a weapon used.
At what point in such an confrontation, does one then fear serious injury or death? Such a beating, even without a weapon, is a felony in most (or all) states, and one CAN use deadly force to stop a felony assault. Unarmed, is not the same as being non-deadly. In about 5-6% of murders in the US, the reported weapons were hands and feet.
I expect some to recall observing a school or neighborhood fight, where one of the "fighters" went down, and the fight was over. One person won, and one loses. However, I know of fights (as well as read about such fights) where one person was down-and-out, and the other person just kept pummeling them. At that point, it ceased to be "mutual combat", and became a felony assault. If engaged in a fight with anyone vicious enough to beat you when you're down and no longer able to defend yourself, you become completely subject to the other person's will. And if that will is seriously injures you, or beats you to death, what could you do about it?
"Fair fights", can no longer be depended on. Too many incidents of "beat-downs" occur, and anyone finding themselves in a situation where they are no longer able to defend against a stronger opponent, one who continues to beat them, has every expectation and fear of death or serious bodily injury.
So you've been rendered defenseless, what can you do? In many cases, nothing but pray you will live through it. In the case of JS and JJ, JS resorted to his legally carried handgun. It could be, that JJ would have stopped the beating at some point. When? At what point, would JS have never been able to defend against a vicious or deadly beat-down? How long should JS have waited? Would he soon have been rendered totally defenseless or unconscious? Would he have further head injuries, causing brain injury? Would anyone is such a position, pinned down, having their head battered against the sidewalk and unable to defend against the stronger person, resort to a weapon? Unless you're there, you can't be sure. But I can tell you that I would. I would NOT allow anyone to put me into a hospital, or a coffin.
Side-note: "Profiling" IS appropriate in may cases. IF those home-invasions and thefts were committed mostly by young males of a particular group, then anyone of that group would be observed long enough to see if they were a possible offender. "Racial" profiling - that is profiling only because of a persons race, may be wrong. But profiling a person of a race, when that "race" is predominately involved in crime, is NOT "racial profiling". That is just profiling, in which race plays a part of the descriptors of offenders.
