USA Today
The arrest this week of a 73-year-old Nevada man in the shooting death of a trespasser has elicited debate on the state's "stand your ground" law.
Wayne Burgarello was charged with murder and attempted murder in the February shooting of two people in a Sparks duplex.
According to a police affidavit filed this week, on Feb. 13, Burgarello entered a vacant duplex he owned where two people were staying without his consent.
Burgarello entered with two guns and fired several rounds, followed by a pause and a final shot, killing Cody Devine, 34, and seriously injuring Janai Wilson, 29, the affidavit said.
Burgarello said the shooting was self-defense. He told police he shot after Devine, who was lying on the floor, appeared to move his arm parallel to the ground as if he had a gun.
According to the affidavit, Burgarello told police: "I don't know which arm it was. I think it might have been the left arm. That makes sense because there's another person next to him. The arm came up ... right at the center of me. I think I said, 'Who are you? What are you doing here? Something like that. I don't know if I said anything or not. The arm came up like a gun, and I reacted."The gun-rights fanatics love to say, "Aha, he didn't get away with it." They say this in response to the made-up gun-control position that every single person who cries "stand your ground" gets away with it. Of course we don't say that. Some get away with it, some don't.
The main point is that the stand-you-ground mentality is encouraging more people to shoot first and ask questions later. The fact that some of them don't get away with it means little to the people who are killed and injured unnecessarily.
According to his own words he had no clue what the guy actually did, which means he had no cause to shoot. Dead men tell no tales, so we won't be able to ask him what he did. Whatever the guy did, he shot two guys. Did either one of them have a gun? Trespassing should not be a justification, alone.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't he get away with it, Mike? Was it because the facts of the case don't support legitimate self-defense protected under the law? Or do you think it's random? "Some get away with it, some don't", as you say?
ReplyDeleteYou asshole gunsuck ammosexuals ENCOURAGE the thinking. The people ARE DEAD, MORON. Because the NRA encourages THINKING THAT TAKING THE LAW INTO YOUR OWN HANDS IS NECESSARY.
DeleteWhen will you FUCKING MORONS figger out that after the arrest and conviction, the victims are still dead. Did you know that?
TS, it is random in a sense. In some cases where the shooter claims self defense there's just no evidence to refute his claim - the bad guy is dead and there were no witnesses. In other cases there is. My main point is the one POed Lib made so eloquently. Gun-rights fanatics encourage the kind of thinking that leads to shootings like this.
DeleteWhy do you say it's "random in a sense" and then go on to explain that evidence makes the difference. You're right after your opening statement. There is evidence that this wasn't self-defense. That's not random. And you know what? That works the same way as all our other crimes. There needs to be evidence that a crime was committed (beyond a reasonable doubt even). You're actually suggesting here that we should lock people up for life when there is no evidence to dispute a self-defense claim. Do you fell that way about all crimes?
DeleteNo, I'm not saying we should lock people up where there is no evidence. I've never said such a thing. What I do say, over and over again, is that some of the people who claim legitimate self defense are getting away with murder. When there's a shooting with no witnesses and no contradicting evidence, what's to stop the shooter from exaggerating the threat a little bit - or a lot?
DeleteTS misses the point as usual.
ReplyDeleteGunloonery advocates and encourages the use of force when none is merited. As a result, 1 person dead, 1 injured, and one old man whose remaining years probably aren't going to be so good.
But he didn't get away with it.
Let's put it in another context: suppose a loved one needed heart surgery. On the day of surgery, the heart surgeon decides to kickstart his day with a couple martinis and a few lines of cocaine. The surgery goes badly and your loved one dies. Are you seriously going to be content with saying, 'well, the doctor didn't get away with it?
--JG
Good analogy.
DeleteOk Jade. Let's look at the other side of your analogy. We're comparing malpractice to self-defense. You speak of an obvious case of malpractice, but doctors also need to be protected from frivolous claims, just like someone who protects themselves needs to be protected. What if a patient dies, the family is angry, but there is no evidence of malpractice? The way you treat self-defense claims, you'd like to see every doctor sued out of their practice of jailed anytime a surgery doesn't go well.
DeleteSpeaking for myself, all I want is for you to admit that in the absence of evidence, some doctors are still guilty of malpractice but they get away with it. Same with so-called defensive shooters. Why are you so reluctant to admit this?
DeleteUh, I have no problem admitting that people get away with crimes when there is no evidence that a crime was committed. That happens a lot, and I subscribe to the theory that it's better to let 10 guilty go free than to lock up one innocent. You don't agree with that principle? What do you want anyway? What should we do in absence of evidence of a crime? You just said you don't support locking them up, so what's your point?
DeleteMy point was made with your reluctant admission that "That happens a lot."
Delete"These stand your ground laws — people are getting killed for Skittles," he said. "People are getting killed for throwing a popcorn box or having loud music, and now Cody was killed for being on a date."
ReplyDeleteAnd what kind of date might you ask?
"Wilson told police she met Devine the day of the shooting and that they had injected methamphetamine together before entering the vacant property and going to sleep about 4:30 a.m. She said over the past three years she had occasionally stayed at the duplex, which was often vacant and unlocked."
While not a justification for using deadly force, they were certainly not on their A game in the good decision department.
"Wilson said as Burgarello approached, Devine started to get up from the floor and said they were just sleeping. That's when the shooting began, she told police.
Burgarello told police Devine had moved his arm in a threatening manner. "The arm came up like a gun, and I reacted," Burgarello said, according to a police affidavit."
The old movement of some sort that might have been a weapon but wasn't. And it doesn't sound like the police are buying it, and the burden will be on the defendant to convince a judge that he was justified. You should revisit Ayoob's video again. If a judge can be convinced he more likely than not was justified in shooting, then he cant very well be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
I can't believe you're even bringing up that the victims were not on "their A game." That has nothing to do with being shot by a dangerous gun owner when they didn't need to be.
DeleteThey are not buying it because he kept saying, I think he did this, I think I did that, I think I saw this..........
DeleteThe victims are still dead. They ARE STILL DEAD. The shooter, encouraged by ammosexual gunsucks, believed that he had the right to act as judge, jury and executioner.
DeleteThe NRA thinking that the gunsuck gets to make the decisions is wrong. And we as a society are going to stop the gunsucks from killing, killing, killing.
All three of you, Jade, Mike, and POed Lib speak of "encouraging", but it is only you people who say people can get away with this. I have never said you can run into a vacant and kill the squatters. You say people can do that and get away with it. You do.
ReplyDeleteOnce again I will challenge all three of you to say something about the limitations of a self defense claim. Just once, tell me something that the law doesn't allow. You won't do it, because you can't possibly speak honestly about these laws. You're like bizarro Spock.
La Pierre is the leader in encouraging this kind of behavior. He always stresses how dangerous it is and how you need to defend yourself against the bad men who are always threatening. Then the rest of you gun nuts follow suit. That's the encouragement.
DeleteHe never says you can get away with murder because of these laws. You do.
DeleteYou still haven't answered my challenge. Give me one example of an act that is not protected by these laws. If somebody does [blank] it is an act of murder and not protected by SYG or Castle Doctrine.
DeleteWhat challenge? The guy pictured in this post is an example. They don't all get away with it, in spite of your encouragement that they shoot first and ask questions later. Your advice is to defend yourself before it's too late. When a guy raises his arm, you must shoot, just in case, right?
DeleteMy challenge is for you to say why he didn't get away with it. Hint: it doesn't have anything to do with raising arms.
DeleteWell, there are a number of factors that go into that. The bottom line is really whether or not the cops believe him. In this case they didn't. In other cases they do.
DeleteThe cops believe them when the evidence matches the story. Again, you make it sound random, or based on how much they like his face, or skin color. But, whether or not they believe them IS NOT the bottom line. He may have told them exactly what happened. Take the Smith case in Minnesota. He told them exactly how he shot those two teens. And the cops believed him. Then they slapped the cuffs on him, and he was later convicted of murder. Why? What did Smith and this guy do that was not protected by self-defense law. My challenge to you is to answer that question.
DeleteSometimes the gun owner commits an unnecessary killing, lies about the circumstances leading up to it and since there is no evidence to contradict his story, he walks. And, yes, skin color certainly does have something to do with it - in some cases.
DeleteI don't know if he is guilty and neither does anyone else. Devine was a big guy who apparently was trying to get laid by this woman that repeatedly vandalized this mans property. by her own admission they were doing drugs. So recap dope fiend vandal trespassers shot by property owner after making suspicious movements in the dark. Sounds to me like this woman is responsible for this and should be prosecuted and as for the comment about letting the police handling it they were called many times and told him they could do nothing. Personally I'm tired of scumbag punks that want to tear up stuff that other people have worked hard for. You look at that picture of Devine now picture him in the dark making movements towards a 73 year old man who could not possibly hope to defend himself physically from him so had no choice but to shoot at that point
ReplyDeleteThat's great that you're sick and tired of scumbag punks, bit the fact remains, you can't go around executing them for little or no reason.
Delete