Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 6:54 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 2 hrs 36 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Advanced Cell Technology Inc. Message Board

  • deeppockets46 deeppockets46 Jan 6, 2013 11:19 AM Flag

    guns

     

    A Georgia mother shot an ex-convict six times to protect her and her children after he apparently
    forced his way into the family’s home.

    The mom heard knocks on her front door Friday and assumed it was just a solicitor, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

    She told her 9-year-old twins not to answer the door and, when the visitor began repeatedly ringing the doorbell, she called her husband at his job and he told her to gather the children and hide.

    “He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver.”

    - Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman

    According to the Journal-Constitution, the father then dialed 911 and his wife, who works from a home office, hid with the children in a crawlspace.

    By that time, according to the paper, the intruder had used a crowbar to forcibly enter the home, and made his way to the home office.

    “He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

    The woman fired six bullets, five of which hit Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area, Chapman said. But Slater, who has arrests dating to 2008 and was released from jail in August, was still conscious.

    “The guy’s face down, crying,” the sheriff said. The woman told him to stay down or she’d shoot again.

    While down, the woman and her children ran to a neighbor’s house, and the injured intruder made it out of the home and into his car, the paper reported.

    Authorities found Slater a short time later bleeding profusely in a neighbor’s driveway.

    “I’m dying. Help me,” he told them, according to Chapman.

    Slater was transported to Gwinnett Medical Center and is expected to survive, the sheriff said.

    This topic is deleted.
    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • if guns kill people then
      then pencils misspell words
      cars make people drive drunk
      spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat

    • When is a shooting justified? Recent case shows how authorities decide whether a person has acted in self defense

      A Santa Maria man shot and injured after he allegedly confronted a resident was arrested in an unusual incident last month, yet the person who fired the bullets wasn’t detained and won’t face charges.

      That’s because the Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s Office has since determined Ricardo Ramirez of Santa Maria acted in self defense when he shot Feliciano Bravo Ruiz, who allegedly wielded a gun as he confronted Ramirez.

      According to local law enforcement authorities, determining whether a violent act involved legally justified self defense is an important decision carefully made after reviewing a number of factors.

      Santa Maria police have said Ruiz knocked on Ramirez’s front door Dec. 9 before threatening him and other occupants of the home with a handgun. Ramirez retrieved his own gun and shot Ruiz several times. Police believe a dispute developed between the men who didn’t know each well, and said the incident was not gang related.

      Officers arrested the recovering Ruiz two days later on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, but did not arrest Ramirez.

      The District Attorney’s Office investigated the case and found the shooting was legally justified.

      District Attorney Joyce Dudley said she was prevented from discussing the decision further as a criminal case is pending against Ruiz.

      In an email, Dudley explained how her office evaluates potential self-defense cases submitted by police.

      “The determination as to whether or not a crime has been committed, and if so, what crime, is determined by whether the elements of the alleged crime, as specified in California statute and case law, can be proved,” she said.

      “Part of the evaluation of the case and the filing decision includes whether there are any legal defenses to the alleged crime(s).”

      People can lawfully defend themselves by killing someone or trying to kill someone if: They reasonably believed they were in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury, they reasonably believed immediate use of deadly force was necessary for protection, and they used no more force than reasonably necessary, according to Dudley.

      Self defense by taking action other than homicide or attempted homicide is also lawful if people reasonably believed they were in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury or being touched unlawfully, and they believed immediate force was necessary and only used the force needed for protection.

      Dudley estimated, after consulting with other prosecutors in her office, that self defense is raised as an issue in about 70 percent of the battery cases that come through the District Attorney’s Office countywide. However, in only about 30 percent of the battery cases the prosecution does not file a criminal case because of a strong argument for self defense.

      California case law dictates that a mentally ill person who kills someone based on a false belief of danger does not meet the “reasonable person” standard required for self defense, Dudley added.

      However, people can be charged with voluntary manslaughter instead of murder if they acted in “imperfect self defense” and believed they were in imminent danger of serious injury or death and believed immediate force was necessary, but at least one of those beliefs was unreasonable.

      Santa Maria police Sgt. Chris Nartatez said his agency occasionally encounters cases of self defense.

      “For the most part, it’s all about state of mind and if the person feels that he’s being threatened by harm,” Nartatez added.

      When determining whether an incident is justified self defense, officers might need to conduct multiple interviews, and consider physical or circumstantial evidence, according to Nartatez. Sometimes the agency defers to prosecutors on whether or not a violent act was justified.

      Often when crimes are committed, the culprit eagerly and falsely claims self defense, the sergeant noted, which underlines the importance of a thorough investigation.

      By Samantha Yale Scroggin

      • 1 Reply to pstrgod
      • Thank you for the information Samantha. However, we have a rampant wave of violence by "outlaws" that hide behind some shrewd lawyer to get them off the hook by means of some technical error. I still believe that we all should carry guns openly. You might not know this but the Bad guys all have guns, and are not afraid of the law. The regular citizen is like a gazelle in the African Tundra, just waiting to be killed and eaten.
        I guarantee that if everyone had a gun, the first month mortuaries would see brisk business then it would dry up. the word would be out to the local Hoods, "Make My Day, Punk". What do you think about that?
        By the way, ACTC is a GO!!!!

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Now the SOB will try and come back and sue her for bodily harm,, at least some POS lawyer will,, we forget, criminals have rights in this country,, that would be unbelievable,,
      C

      Sentiment: Hold

 
ACTC
0.086+0.004(+5.01%)Jul 22 3:59 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.