Thanks for digging all that up
Phew! I’m not nuts, after all!
11 Likes
Really?
8 Likes
Most instructors will tell students to aim for the torso or “center mass” as it is the largest part of the body and most likely to substantially disable/kill the assailant. It’s going to be last part of the body to move if an assailant tries to duck when faced with pistol. Anything else is awfully risky for a person who likely has never been in a high stress/high adrenaline situation before.
The term “center mass” also invokes a dramatic image for shock value when used in media reporting situations, at least in my opinion.
16 Likes
This was my impression. Like civilians using cool cop show lingo.
Thanks to you and others for the technical explanation.
10 Likes
Here’s why I used “center mass”. If one just says “she was shot”, the statement does not specify whether the victim was shot 1) in the head 2) in a limb, 3) in the shoulder, or 4) in the center of the torso where the vital organs are located.
Probability of death, and inferred intent to kill by the shooter, varies by the location of the shot.
So when the details “shot in the back the a head, execution style” vs “shot in center mass” vs “shot in the leg” are specified, the detail indicates the likelihood the shot is fatal.
You’re a lawyer. In the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, does the defense have the burden of proof or the prosecution?
1 Like
Sarcasm?
1 Like
Bottom line, there are many questions to be answered in the trial. The
only story the cops went with was RG’s (unless you believe IM knows everything - more than anyone). There continue to be questions about the gun, the participation of the dog,
RG’s statement on having “it all recorded”, LK’s varying statement of the day, who actually attacked whom at MB’s home…lots to break down during the trial as well as much more we honestly aren’t privy to, except for IM, of course (not intentionally being snarky but we heard from IM several times that only they knew it all.)
7 Likes
I don’t think so, but I am not good at mind reading so I can not say for sure what Angela_Freda was trying to say.
I can think of several reasons how bullets would end up in the torso that do not include the intent to kill. The main one has already been said here several times. Where the person has no desire to kill anyone, they just want the threat against them to stop. Typically called Self Defense.
9 Likes
Struggle for control of a weapon?
14 Likes
does it?
9 Likes
What’s wrong with shot in the chest? Most laypeople would understand that MUCH more easily than this other phrase.
If you know enough about me to know I’m a lawyer, you also know I’m strictly transactional and defer consistently to those legal professionals on here with trial, criminal law, and court experience. I ask them questions, too. Many of them have been very generous with their time and expertise in response to your posts. I would refer you back to their excellent explanations.
Law is a highly specialised field, like medicine. You don’t see a neurosurgeon for your ACL tear.
21 Likes
Bold mine.
That is not what your original post said. I’ve quoted it here in case you’ve forgotten.
10 Likes
No actually question.
Shooting two bullets, center mass has plenty of explanations beyond intent to kill.
Otherwise, wouldn’t all center mass, point blank shots be charged as murder? Trayvon Martin comes to mind.
7 Likes
The threat of a 5’2” 110 pound female armed with a cell phone?
I will be highly entertained to follow the trial in which Bilinkas attempts to convince the jury it was self defense.
2 Likes
Yes, I’ve backed off the intent to kill part, based on what Einhorn said.
Short answer, not entirely. As with most legal matters, there’s rarely an absolute. It’s more about whether you know and understand that using a weapon against someone, regardless of what that weapon is, is likely to cause grievous bodily injury or death.
“Intent to kill” refers to a mental state at the time of an action. Intent is multifaceted. General intent is that a person intended to do the act in question. Specific intent is the intent to bring about a particular outcome or circumstance from that action. Those two items are related but not the same.
16 Likes
Thanks, that certainly clarifies things.
2 Likes
Yes, you’ve said many times that your field is transactional. Nevertheless, I thought someone who had a law degree would have more knowledge of what is meant by an affirmative defense than the rest of us who did not go to law school.
When I looked up the definition of “affirmative defense” in Wikipedia (and other sources) I was surprised that none of the lawyers had remarked on the implications of his pleading insanity when other posters continued to go on and on about “maybe the gun went off accidentally in a scuffle”, and disputing whether he had admitted to shooting her.
2 Likes
Huh? George Zimmerman was in fact tried on a murder charge.
2 Likes
