General Categories > General Firearm Discussion

CCW Holder Convicted of Manslaughter in 2015 Shooting

(1/4) > >>

wcr:
Interesting article on Front Page of todays (Aug 3, 2016) Omaha World Herald about a shooting
and conviction by a CCW holder in 2015.  The CCW holder pleaded "self defense," but the jury found him  guilty of manslaughter and weapon use.  If you don't get the OWH I'll put a link
to the internet version (don't know how long it will stay up) below.  Would
be interesting to get some comments from CCW instructors/holders on how this went
down, what should/shouldn't have been done?  Might be some good lessons here.  Article
describes history, how the incident went down, police questions.  Anyone know who the
defense lawyer was?
 
Link:  http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/jury-rejects-claims-of-self-defense-finds-omaha-man-guilty/article_52e618f8-58fc-11e6-9e83-8b262095f37b.html

also can go to OWH main page link which has a link to the article.

Chris Z:
Defense lawyer was Stu Dornan


What went wrong? The CCW holder after the shooting agreed to go talk to the Police without legal counsel, and made some confusing/conflicting statements which appear to have been used against him.

Waltherfan:
From the evidence provided, I'd have come to the same verdict. Heng shouldn't have gone to Lane's place. The girl was free to leave but chose to stay.
Not Heng's problem.
Heng or the girl could have called the police but didn't. Not sure what the police could have done as no crime had been committed yet.
Most damning evidence (if true, these days you never know) was no powder burns on Lane, meaning Heng's story didn't hold up.

Les:
Yup, should've never went there, recipe for disaster, sad.  Call LEO

depserv:
Based on what I read in the article, it looks to me like talking to the police without a lawyer present was one in a series of bad decisions this guy made.  A man's instinct tells him to defend his woman (in this case a former girlfriend), but the law tells us to let the police do it (unless that's not an option).  This guy should have followed the law instead of his instinct.

But it looks like he had a right to be where he was even if being there might not have been a good idea.  And it is possible that if he hadn't been there the woman might have gotten beat up or killed.  We'll never know. 

We'll also never know if the shooter could have defended himself without shooting the guy, or if the threat really was as serious as he claimed.  Maybe he saw an opportunity to get rid of the competition and get his old girlfriend back.  Pure speculation I know, but people themselves don't even always know why they do what they do.       

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page