quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
If the dead guy's name is on the deed and there is no TRO/Permanent RO, defense has got some problems here.

Add to that the ballistic vest, another layer of "premeditation"/ambush.

What we dont know, did the defense file a Stand Your Ground motion? (and lose?) Or are they skipping that and just arguing self defense. The SYG is a pre-trial motion, not something, typically, argued at trial. I dont believe it is even something that would be decided by a jury, it is judge only.

Yep, judge disallowed the preemptive SYG dismissal so the DA could charge him with murder. Now, is he tried under the rules of the old SYG law or the new one? I don't know.

Latest trial news here.

If the SYG motion was rejected by the judge then the SYG law No longer has any application during the trial. The SYG motion only determines if the charges are dropped or if the case moves forward to trial.

I'm still scratching my head on the camera. Regardless of if you think you might have to kill someone or you are planning on killing someone, why tape it instead of just making it your word against a dead guy's silence?

rule #1 if you draw a gun shoot to kill

quote:

Originally posted by side_shot:
rule #1 if you draw a gun shoot to kill

I've got a better Rule #1.

If you know ahead of time you'll need to draw a gun, don't be there.
He had better options.

Who know's based on that. But my gut is telling me commando camera guy is headed up stream with out a paddle. Just my gut based on a 1 minute video with few details.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Looks like that was a Kel-Tec KSG used?

Yea it is. I shot one once. It's worse than a POS literally. People who buy those for SD don't know what they're doing. At best it's a toy, and a poor one for even that.

quote:

Regardless of if you think you might have to kill someone or you are planning on killing someone, why tape it instead of just making it your word against a dead guy's silence?

This I really don't understand. If not for the video his testimony and the number of bullet holes in the house, the broken door, and the gun in his hand would have cleared the son in law. Would have never make it to court.

Now everyone in the jury gets to watch the video, listen to DA, and hear testimony. It's not going to look good for the SIL no matter what.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

quote:

Regardless of if you think you might have to kill someone or you are planning on killing someone, why tape it instead of just making it your word against a dead guy's silence?

This I really don't understand. If not for the video his testimony and the number of bullet holes in the house, the broken door, and the gun in his hand would have cleared the son in law. Would have never make it to court.

Now everyone in the jury gets to watch the video, listen to DA, and hear testimony. It's not going to look good for the SIL no matter what.

The link to “Latest trial news” has
“Bernie Jones testified she had gotten locks for the home anyway, because she was scared Jones would harm her or Greenwood. She also said a divorce lawyer had told her to video tape any confrontations she had with Jones in case he tried to steal anything, which might explain why Greenwood had set up the camera in the laundry room the day of the shooting. ”

The mother also had applied for a no contact order that day. I suspect when the police said something about not being able to keep Jones out, it was that in reference to her needing a court order.

In my mind, a lot of it comes down to who shot first. It appears to me to be the defendant.

If the deceased really did have the legal right to be there (or reasonably believed he did) because he had not yet been served a restraining order or eviction notice, then I think the defendant might be toast.

As far as I can see, nothing on the camera clearly shows the deceased presenting a clear and immediate threat to the defendant. I don't see a gun in his hand as he runs out.

quote:

Originally posted by RichN:
In my mind, a lot of it comes down to who shot first. It appears to me to be the defendant.

If the deceased really did have the legal right to be there (or reasonably believed he did) because he had not yet been served a restraining order or eviction notice, then I think the defendant might be toast.

As far as I can see, nothing on the camera clearly shows the deceased presenting a clear and immediate threat to the defendant. I don't see a gun in his hand as he runs out.

”Klotz said Jones carried a pistol with him 24/7, even putting it in his pajamas when he slept, and used it to threaten people on a regular basis. He said Jones had threatened Greenwood a few months before the shooting by pointing a gun at his head, and had bragged before about killing two people.”

This is enough for me...aaaaand he broke into the house.

I didn't see anyone breaking into a house on the video. I saw a guy opening a door to a house he apparently owns using a key.

We get up in arms when the courts take away someone's guns based on unproven claims of a threat, but we are ready sanction this guys death based primarily on the claims of the guy who shot him, despite the fact that his own video doesn't really back up his story.

Hell, I carry a pistol with me everywhere I legally can, so what does that prove?

1. He is wearing a vest, one would think, obviously anticipating a congfrentation.

2. He chases the "assailant" (and I quite intentionally place that word in quotes) out the door.

3. He places a camera to film the interaction.

Knowing nothing else, fuck this guy, he is in the wrong.

It all boils down to whether the jury believes a reasonable person would believe he (the defendant) or another is in peril of death or great bodily harm, or the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

The presumption of fear that one gets in his dwelling or vehicle is murky here because the deceased had a right to be in the residence, as I understand it. So the defense must convince the jury that he held a well founded fear at the moment he fired.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:

quote:

Originally posted by side_shot:
rule #1 if you draw a gun shoot to kill

I've got a better Rule #1.

If you know ahead of time you'll need to draw a gun, don't be there.
He had better options.

Hmmm, I’ll mangle the quote, but it goes something like:
“What pistol do you take to a place you know there is going to be trouble?”
“None. You don’t go to a place where you know there is going to be trouble.”
“But what if you have to go there?”
“Then you take a rifle and friends with rifles.”

The decedent may have needed shooting based on some of the stories about him, but the defendant didn’t need to put himself in the position to be the one to shoot the decedent.

quote:

Originally posted by wrightd:

Yea it is. I shot one once. It's worse than a POS literally. People who buy those for SD don't know what they're doing. At best it's a toy, and a poor one for even that.

POS perhaps. Certainly I would never buy something like that. But it still killed the dude just as dead.

Greenwood took the stand yesterday; that is not a good sign for his defense. I can't find out if it has gone to the jury......

I hope Greenwood gets off. Putting myself in his shoes, I would have killed the MF also. And I would have been prepared as was Greenwood. Why sit around guarding your house and mother without being prepared to kill? The step-father Jones had threatened to kill Greenwood. Jones broke in with a pistol and accomplice. The accomplice testified at the trial for the defense. Greenwood faces life in prison.

quote:

Originally posted by RichN:
I didn't see anyone breaking into a house on the video. I saw a guy opening a door to a house he apparently owns using a key.

Maybe try watching it again.

My long wall of words...

What (think) I see in the video and my thoughts, and watching the video is much different the hearing the person come through the locked door, and the anticipation of a violent confrontation.


1. Door is locked and has a cheap sliding chain lock thing.

2. Jone's unlocks door with key, then encounters the chain, and forces the door, breaking the inside door casing trim.

3. Jones comes in the door and another person is following.

4. Greenwood fires twice and Jones turns and runs out.

5. Since I cannot determine if Greenwood fires the third shot or if it was Jones, and I counted 15 shots, but there may have been an overlap around #4/5 so it could have been 16.

6. I am not certain, but it looks as if Jones is either pulling or may already had a pistol in his right hand as he is heading out the door.

I have been in similar situation on several occasions, most similar were once in Wichita, and three times in Houston, two resulted in gun fire.

Three things that I know. First, is that the mindset is a very different thing than everyday life when it occurs. Second, it's a very similar mindset in the moment of each occurrence.
Third, they are all different, every time, and the reaction is also different even in two that were very similar.


In one case, (no shooting) knowing "what was coming" (someone tipped me off that a person intended me harm), put me at a greater position to want to "prepare". I called LE and Harris County SD and plainclothes detectives arrived, and the plainclothes guy and a SD cleared the house. No one was there.

About a week later, I came in to a dark house, and sat on the couch to remove my shoes, when I heard someone in the other room. (I was 17 at the time and no firearm), so I left the house, went to a friend's house and went back the next day, he and I went in the house (like dumb and dumber) and found no one there, so I went and got a U-Haul and Hauled-My-Ass back to Wichita.

So, back to the video.

With that "history" and looking at the video and reading the "report" in the OP, I would have also gone to the door to see if Jones was leaving or trying to regroup and retaliate.

He was known to make threats, had shown up, broke in (yes, when he pushed the door and broke the chain and trim, it was breaking in as I and I opine Greenwood perceived it.)

If Jones fired as soon as Greenwood became visible at the door, then it became "mutual combat", and both were "aggressor and defender" and somewhat equal.

Now, I read just before this reply, that Greenwood fired the last shot to the back of Jones' head, and "claims" he believed Jones was rolling over and might shoot Greenwood.

1. That shot does concern me as to the truth of the "decision to shoot".
2. Jones was found with the pistol still in his grasp, so that is also a point of conflicting of my thoughts.


As for the SYG. I would not allow that to be considered in this case, as it was not law at the time, and I think the law, even though I think it was backwards and am glad they changed it, the law is sort of the "contract of behavior and consequences" known at the time.

That said, it is on Greenwood to prove he was in fear and was defending himself at the time.

As to weather or not he should have "retreated" from the premises in the first place, I want to use "reasonable actions be reasonable person" as a litmus.

To say he should have left, then would anyone who locks their home, has an alarm, or dogs or firearm or anything to "defend against home invasion", yet stays in there home when at anytime the threat exists that one could be "invaded", then they should likewise "retreat".

But we know that is a silly notion.

So, if a reasonable person, living in their residence, locks doors, arms themselves and then is confronted by an intruder, known or not, is the same reaction/response of them defending applied?

The report does not state if there was a way out, or if Jones coming in had Greenwood "cornered" and unable to retreat anywhere.

Another thing is if he knew Jones was coming over anywhere within the timing of this, if the threat was generalized, or if he was surprised by Jones.

And the issue over it being Jones' property and he having free access, or if Greenwood was considered a tenant and had the right to reasonable notice of access by a landlord?


All that said, it is why I think having courts, even though imperfect, with prosecution, defense jurors and judge, is a good thing and I am glad for it. I hope that justice is properly applied.

The Court of the Internet is a bad alternative to what we have.

Greenwood was acquitted. WEAR TV

LINK

James Greenwood, a Beulah man who was charged with murder for shooting his estranged stepfather Al Jones, was found not guilty Friday.

In a week-long trial, jurors heard testimony that in November 2014, Greenwood shot and killed Jones as he broke into the Mobile Highway home they had once all shared.

Jones, who was married to Greenwood's mother and whose name was on the deed to their house, as well as another man who was acquainted with Jones, entered the house through the laundry room door.

Greenwood, who had been hiding in another room of the house, then shot Jones several times with a 12-gauge shotgun, and Jones was found dead of gunshot wounds next to a set of trash cans beside the house.

Greenwood said he felt threatened by Jones and acted in self-defense. Prosecutors argued Greenwood intentionally created the conditions for a confrontation and "ambushed" his stepfather.

With the not guilty verdict, Greenwood will be released from custody and cleared of all charges.

https://www.pnj.com/story/news...y-murder/2312177002/


I'm good with it.

Merry Christmas, Mr. Greenwood.

Now remember one thing this New Year.

Never go full Zimmerman.

This should be the last anyone should ever hear about you in the news.