2 CHP holders have fistfight/shooting (update)

[paramedic70002]

This reminds me, whenever a law comes up to loosen gun restrictions (like right to carry in VA) there are dire predictions of "fender benders leading to shootouts." Of course the case is more complicated than that...

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[JungleJim]

Drunk driver = loser, good riddance. I have no sympathy for them, zero.

Based on the article, and I realize that is probably not the full story, I didn't see any reason to convict him of shooting the second guy either. 2 vs 1 should meet the standard to use force.

[ccw9mm]

§ 18.2-51.2. Aggravated malicious wounding; penalty.

A. If any person maliciously shoots, stabs, cuts or wounds any other person, or by any means causes bodily injury, with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable or kill, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony

Seems ridiculous. A two-on-one attack stopped via firearm is deemed okay in the first case, where the one attacker died, but he's then convicted in the second case, where the attacker lived (the one with 5 bullets remaining in his body). To be guilty of the "malicious wounding" crime he was convicted of, it requires that he intended and meant to maim, disfigure, disable or kill. Seems to me that he simply meant to stop the two-on-one attack against him. He wasn't intending on doing any of those things to others. And, if he wasn't convicted of anything of the sort in the case of the dead guy, then how in the world can he have been convicted of this for the guy who survived the shooting?

In a sense, in order for a firearm to actually stop an attacker, it's going to leave a mark. At minimum, it's going to poke holes in the person in such a manner that maiming, disfiguring, disabling or killing is almost certainly to occur, else it won't stop the attacker. I suppose it could be said, then, that ANYONE who uses a gun shall be found guilty of at least desiring "disabling" of an attacker, and yet that's not the case. Strange.

Makes no sense to me.

If anything, it shows how fickle juries can be. It shows that decisions can go any direction.

[Rustynuts]

Probably something to do with the FIVE shots the guy took! We all know it can take that many to stop someone at times, but it still looks bad for the shooter. Some of the shots may have been taken when he was down or something.

[Chiller2]

Title is misleading It takes two willing participants to have a fistfight, one or more guys attacking another is assault.

[Siafu]

Yep and a drunk agressor,in a lot of states being intoxicated and carrying will get your permit revoked,

His permit was revoked alright.

[Eagleks]

Drunk driver = loser, good riddance. I have no sympathy for them, zero.

Based on the article, and I realize that is probably not the full story, I didn't see any reason to convict him of shooting the second guy either. 2 vs 1 should meet the standard to use force.

From what info there is, I agree with you on this one. I don't see a reason he should have been convicted of anything.

[ccw9mm]

Probably something to do with the FIVE shots the guy took! We all know it can take that many to stop someone at times, but it still looks bad for the shooter.

Easy enough to disabuse the ignorant of this, in court. More than one shot is often required. Police reports document this regularly.

Some of the shots may have been taken when he was down or something.

So long as the "Bernard Goetz" mentality doesn't take hold, a person should be fine in justifying why more than one shot was required.

Quite simply, unless the one bullet is a "magic" bullet and stops the CNS immediately, at least a second is likely to be required. I'm sure even the most gullible jury member will accept that the "magic bullet" concept is weak, that a dedicated attacker isn't going to be easily dissuaded by a "pin *****" or two. Given what some of these animals are on, in crimes, it's not surprising they're able to continue as if nothing hit them.

[edr9x23super]

They should all spend some time in jail for this......And yes, we are not going to look good after this all spills out......

[LongRider]

I too see no reason why he Royals was convicted of anything. I can not find anywhere that said the was drunk only the dead assailant was drunk. Could be wrong.

The only reason I can think of that he was found guilty of shooting Marcus McGee was, that McGee was not armed. Even though he was one of two assailants. Which seems like a good reason to shoot him to me. His pathetic whiny butt may have gotten some sympathy from the jury, so to bad he lived IMO

[Janq]

Title is misleading It takes two willing participants to have a fistfight, one or more guys attacking another is assault.

Yup. ^^

An attack is one person being an unwilling participant.
It is unlawful to fist fight but that is not an attack...It's an unsanctioned boxing match.

When the first guy went for his pockets seeming to have intent to secure a weapon, that is when the fist fight cease. His reaction to defend himself was by that warranted...Because the dead guy was actually found to have had a weapon (gun).

Meanwhile guy #2, who had hemmed up the shooter, committed no actual crime. Placing one self within close proximity of another is not expressly unlawful.
I bet what happened is that the shooter once he went to draw and turned on the switch in his brain to shoot...He turned his view toward the secondary, who was unarmed, and lit him up too. Five times!
Doing so was unlawful because the secondary presented no _lethal force_ threat to him so as to justify use of lethal force.

This is a good real world example of why it's important to train, and take lethal force decision making courses. Not just how to pull a trigger and make hits. But how to apply measured control.

For many folks they have a switch.
Like a light switch; Off...ON!!!
Idle...FULL THROTTLE

Thing is though we as civilians who bear arms lawfully, AND law enforcement officers too, we have a requirement by most every states laws (excluding notably Texas) to be measured, calculating and in the immediate analytical.

This means we need to have a rheostat rather than a switch.

Just because you made a draw, and fired on one...Does not mean you have implicit right or reason to light up everybody else who came with threat #1.
Each and every human being in front of your front sight must pass the active threat litmus test BEFORE you my go ahead and light them up...With hope for after the fact judicial allowance upon third party review.

This guys life is now ruined as he'll have a case on him he will not be able to shake. Higher end employers tend not to give thought toward persons with a firearm charge and malicious wounding conviction.
As well he will lose his 2A rights in VA and most everywhere else in the US he might apply to in the future. And he gets to pay $2.5K for the privilege, after serving 90 days in Hell among generally unfriendly demons, devils and hellions.

Every action must be measured, calculated and analyzed as in the immediate....When it comes to guns and carry.

- Janq

[kazzaerexys]

This is the sort of case where a defendant needs not only a good lawyer, but the right type of lawyer.

A good criminal lawyer will be successful if Royals gets convicted of a lesser offense than murder---some flavor of manslaughter, most likely.

A lawyer who knows how to defend innocent people, particularly in a lethal force case, can call out details of the deceased's aggression; point out the attackers' furtive movements (reaching into the pockets); make plain the disparity of force that turned a fistfight into a lethal force situation.

I sure hope Royals has the right type of lawyer.

[Bark'n]

I try not to pass judgment from these silly news articles, but this seems to be a pretty clear case of multiple drunk attackers (one of which was armed) and a legit self defense shoot.

Why are there even charges?

Because this is what happens in real life. It isn't always right but it happens.

The only winner in a gunfight is the gunfight that never happens.

This man is going to have a hard time and go broke defending himself. I hope the truth comes out at trial. But it doesn't always.

[ccw9mm]

Because this is what happens in real life. It isn't always right but it happens.

And this is why I always say it's crucial to be seen to be the good guy. It's often not enough to simply be correct.

Which places a premium on withdrawal, loud command voice strongly indicating non-desire to engage (so that others hear and understand), as few "false" moves as possible (so there is little to misinterpret). These aren't the most important things, when a bad situation is brewing, of course, but the techniques of moving away, being heard and seen to withdraw, being heard and seen being an unwilling participant in the attack ... all of these help point the finger of witnesses toward the aggressor(s).

This guy in the reported scenario is in a cloudy situation, where it appears to have been mutual combat. The logical conclusion is, therefore, that he ended up escalating it to a gunfight and killed a guy. That's bad juju, no matter how you slice it. He's got very little to hold onto, it's one nasty he said / she said type deal. He wasn't clearly heard/seen as the good guy, attempting to withdraw from a clear violent aggressor.

Bark'n, you're probably correct: he'll likely lose much time, money, reputation, possibly his job, possibly his ability to live in that town/state, possibly lose relationships.

[LongRider]

Meanwhile guy #2, who had hemmed up the shooter, committed no actual crime.

This is the part I do not get. By all reports he instigated the second confrontation. He participated in trapping and assaulting the victim. In my play book any time more than one person attacks me, its assault all parties involved will get stopped. As I said in my previous post it seems that worst thing that happened is that this second violent drunk criminal lived. To manipulate the jury with his whining about the five bullets in him. Failing to mention that was the number of rounds it took to stop his drunken assault.

I sure hope Royals has the right type of lawyer.

Its a done deal Royals lawyer was incompetent. Based on public reports