TN: Permit Holder Guilty of 2nd Degree Murder

[i8godzilla]

I did not see this posted anywhere else. If it was I apologize......

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Coleman testified that the larger Schwerin initiated the dispute by vandalizing his vehicle and that he was aggressive, profane and threatening. Coleman, who had a handgun carry permit, said he shot Schwerin in defense of himself and of his wife.

The entire article is worth reading.

[LaserTex]

I would have to agree - if that is the only information I am given. It took 12 people on the Grand Jury to indict him and another 12 to convict. And no mention of appeal? And he saw it coming? (had enough pills to take?)

Good call if I had to call it. If the attack has stopped...and you become the agressor....you are now open for other people to be hero's....just saying.

Doug

[katybsrt]

Hard to know what one would do in that situation. I am sure anger played into it, but if the guy wasn't backing down.. Gotta trust the folks that got the whole story. Sure it wasn't an easy verdict to come to

[chasfm11]

Perhaps knowing the exact timeline would help. From the included story, it appears that Coleman's wife was one with the initial confrontation. Since she had time to go and get her husband, there would seem to be some opportunity to find some way to contact the police and avoid further physical confrontation. Since the Hummer was being vandalized or was already vandalized, I would personally prefer to remain physically separated from the situation and let the police handle it.

The argument that you are responding to a threat gets a little weaker when you physically have to walk someplace to confront it a second time. I wonder if TN CHL classes have the same conflict avoidance and handling module that Texas does?

[Keith B]

I think this case brings up a very good argument on the statutes. I don't have the Tennessee self-defense law, but let's look at Texas

(a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or (5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts
to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;
and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably
believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use
of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

Looking at the highlighted sections above, there was never really anything more than verbal provocation going on (b)(1).

Additionally, look at (4)(A); the wife was mouthing to the guy and arguing back and forth (provocation). Next the husband goes an retrieves his pistol from the car and comes back. They never tried to deescalate the situation or back away from it. Had they walked over to get in the car in an attempt to leave, and the guy followed them and prevented them from leaving, then he got his pistol, he might have had better justification.

In the end, I think the alcohol involved and the bravado of both of men and the woman lead to a very stupid decision that ended up costing one man his life and another probably most of the rest of his life in jail.

[kahrfreak]

As a CHL holder, you have an obligation to avoid situations that might lead to a confrontation. All they had to do was get the license plate number off the GMC and back away from the situation. I'm sorry, but I really can't muster a whole lot of indignation over this. A bully loses his life over what, an altercation involving two vehicles? The woman injected herself into the situation when there was no need to do so. It's ugly situations like this that give the anti-gunners their ammunition.

[i8godzilla]

I agree that there is really no defense for shooting him.

Before the shooting, Coleman said, he put the gun to Schwerin's mouth, told him that he and his wife were scared and to leave them alone.

The guy still won't leave them alone? Without a doubt, that was past the time for Coleman (and wife) to leave. Why would you pull a gun if your only intention is the threaten someone? Dumb!

Many years ago I remember a Drill Sergeant stating that you better be prepared to kill someone before you ever decide to point a gun at them.

Unfortunately, the Brady Bunch and company will be all of this.