A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.
Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.
NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.
Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.
Although the defender used a knife instead of a gun, the story is relevant to a claim of self defense, regardless of the weapon used. The two people cut allegedly claimed the guy with the knife went after and attacked them, but the surveillance video showed the opposite.
The statement from the prosecutors office in taking this case to trial, even after the two guys allegedly made false statements to police, and after the video, was
“While we believe there was sufficient evidence to prove the defendant unjustifiably assaulted and seriously injured the victims, the jury returned a not guilty verdict,” Montgomery County assistant prosecutor Kimberly Melnick said in a statement from the prosecutor’s office. “While the verdict is disappointing, all the available evidence was presented to the jury.”
The most interesting thing to me about this isn't the self-defense claim or verdict, but the fact the jury also acquitted him of the public indecency charge which from the earlier linked story was based on:
"According to an affidavit, Murphy was accused of exposing himself to the bartender at the Moose Lodge, 2110 E. Central Ave., before patrons of the members-only establishment removed the 45-year-old from the business."
Which tells me the jury didn't believe that affidavit. Not saying they were wrong, but I wonder what they heard that caused them to disbelieve that even happened.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:The most interesting thing to me about this isn't the self-defense claim or verdict, but the fact the jury also acquitted him of the public indecency charge which from the earlier linked story was based on:
"According to an affidavit, Murphy was accused of exposing himself to the bartender at the Moose Lodge, 2110 E. Central Ave., before patrons of the members-only establishment removed the 45-year-old from the business."
Which tells me the jury didn't believe that affidavit. Not saying they were wrong, but I wonder what they heard that caused them to disbelieve that even happened.
If I read the story correctly, the bartender was also the wife of one of the alleged knife victims.
There might not have been any video to corroborate this. Even though she might've been telling the truth, she does have a relationship to someone who was proven to be very untruthful about the second part of the incident. Perhaps this was on the minds of the jury as well when it comes to the reasonable doubt aspect?
