Defendant, 61, says killing of teen was justified

[Knightrider]

Seems like Pulley may have run out of rope!

Bobo

Why must you make a joke that funny on something so serious

However, I hope Mr. Pulley gets nailed. He had no business playing Magnum P.I and following people around. He is lucky that the kid didnt have a gun.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[OldVet]

I think the old guy's in trouble. He had ample chance to avoid any confrontation (two buses?) and didn't.

[rigel42]

Mr Pulley has indeed run out of rope



Jury finds man guilty of killing teenager | ksdk.com | St. Louis, MO

A St. Louis jury deliberated for about 7 hours before convicting a man of fatally shooting a teenager in North St. Louis last summer.

61-year-old Johnnie Pulley Junior was on trial this week for the July 2009 death of 17-year-old Brandon Colenberg. Jurors found Pulley guilty of the second degree murder charges he was accsused of, but not guilty on the armed criminal action crime. Sentencing is set for July 15th.

[ccw9mm]

^^ Had he been a rickety, decrepit 61 yrs old, against a strong, aggressive and violent 17yr old, and had he not gone hunting for the guy, he might well have been able to do exactly the same thing and be acquitted of the charges. But, to hunt down and take out another citizen? That's really bad.

Lesson: Your CHL doesn't make you a cop. Do not go hunting down criminals and end up shooting them dead. At minimum, it doesn't look good. At maximum, you could very easily wind up like this poor sod ... who, by any other name, is now a murderer.

[packinnova]

This doesn't look good for the shooter legally, nor for the rest of us I think. I wonder, if this may set a some sort of precedence. See if what I'm thinking here makes sense. I'm also making a lot of big assumptions here and understand that assumptions are the mother of all foulups...just indulge me for a moment.

There are a number of folks on this board and in the community in general(and in most times I agree) that would suggest that if you were to see a known criminal or a criminal in the act that you should:
1) not attempt to intervene unless it was absolutely clear that someone's life was in IMMINENT danger.
2) call 911 immediately and relate all relevant information.

Now, given that information lets make an assumption that the person you are reporting on has taken off in a different direction and you attempt to follow from a distance long enough in order to relate street name information to the police that you are already on the phone with. Now, lets make another big assumption that the possible BG has picked up on you and turns back to attack you.

Now YOU are in imminent danger and do what is necessary to stay alive. Are you guilty of playing vigilante and chasing down and murdering a BG...or have you really done nothing more than attempt to be a witness and were attacked in the process?....

It's a fine line to toe.

[CommonMan101]

Well, based on the story it appears that revenge is the culprit. Still, maybe the word will get out that not all bullies get a free pass. I was beaten as a kid and I’ll never forget the guy and his name. If I ever cross this guy’s path I would just likely cause him some inconvenience. Nothing physical or serious, but something nevertheless. A few decades and counting...

I actually did have an oppurtunity to repay a bully from years before and when I confronted him he told me he realized what a tool he had been in that part of his life and had wanted to apologize for it for years. He was glad we met again to give him the chance to ask for forgiveness.

I did.

Would you do the same if that happened to you?


Back OT...

IMO Pulley is fried. With what I read here he is the aggressor regardless of what happened on another day. The possibilty of it not being the same guy makes it only worse.

[peckman28]

Sounds like revenge based on the way this article is written.

[OldVet]

Well, based on the story it appears that revenge is the culprit. Still, maybe the word will get out that not all bullies get a free pass. I was beaten as a kid and I’ll never forget the guy and his name. If I ever cross this guy’s path I would just likely cause him some inconvenience. Nothing physical or serious, but something nevertheless. A few decades and counting...

Probably not a case such as yours, but I got into a lot of fights as a kid (Blame the red hair, I did.). With one exception, everyone of the guys became a buddy of some measure afterwards. Did I win all the fights? Certainly not, but I guess they decided "seconds" weren't worth it and it was easier to get along.

[ccw9mm]

Now, given that information lets make an assumption that the person you are reporting on has taken off in a different direction and you attempt to follow from a distance long enough in order to relate street name information to the police that you are already on the phone with. Now, lets make another big assumption that the possible BG has picked up on you and turns back to attack you.

Now YOU are in imminent danger and do what is necessary to stay alive. Are you guilty of playing vigilante and chasing down and murdering a BG...

It can indeed be a fine line.

A situation most of us have probably been in previously: swatting a few disrespectful youths away from the mailbox, when they began abusing it with a stick or whatnot. What if they turned on you and attacked violently, as you suggest ... would defense be hailed or reviled?

Reality is, violence should be withstood and put down. NOBODY has the right to attack another violently. IMO, the law should consider that in every such situation in which an upstanding person is about to be harmed by a criminal on the offensive. However, there are limits to the leeway a person has. What the scenario in this thread shows is how playing vigilante and not being seen as the upstanding person can destroy the justification to defend that would otherwise exist. The 61yr old guy should have known that, or at least guessed. It's not as though our communities make secret of the fact that playing vigilante is severely frowned upon, from judges on down.