[Gallium]

.....:wow:

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100413/NEWS03/304139975

ALEXANDRIA BAY — "There was nothing I could do, I had no choice," Jesse S. Bartlett said Monday afternoon, a day after he shot and killed the man he once considered his best friend.
"I'm not proud of what happened, I wish it didn't happen, and I feel horrible for his family," said Mr. Bartlett, 33.
State police have filed no charges against him in the shooting death of Keith E. Brabant, also 33, Clayton, but chief assistant District Attorney Kristyna S. Mills said the case will be presented to a grand jury. While refusing to use the term self-defense, Mrs. Mills acknowledged the grand jury will be asked to consider "legal justification."
"Legal issues need to be sorted out," she said, "and sometimes, people are justified in what they do."


The results of an autopsy conducted Monday afternoon by Dr. Samuel A. Livingstone, Jefferson County medical examiner were not available yet.
State police and Mrs. Mills were releasing little information about the case. However, the admitted gunman said the shooting transpired shortly before 9 a.m. Sunday at 41026 County Route 2, or Bailey Settlement Road.
"I tried not to shoot him in any vital places," he said when reached by telephone at the home of his parents, Richard and Maureen Bartlett, 40653 County Route 2.
"I didn't shoot him in the head. I didn't shoot him in the stomach, but he died very quickly, probably in a couple minutes. And I am the one who called 911."
When the call was received by Jefferson County emergency dispatch at 9:01 a.m., a dispatcher understood him to report a stabbing, and logged in the complaint as such.
"There was no stabbing," Mr. Bartlett asserted.
He said he considered Mr. Brabant his best friend when they were teenagers, but the friendship soured when they were 17, partially over a girl.
"I hadn't had a problem with him in years," he said, and that was still the situation Sunday morning when he was awakened by the door being kicked in at his home.
"I don't know how he even knew where I live," Mr. Bartlett said. "He was freaking out like he was on meth. He was going through my house, and he kept saying he was going to kill me. I'm standing there in my underwear, and I'm trying to get him out of the house."
Mr. Bartlett said he did not want to say more about what transpired because of the continuing investigation and grand jury action, especially since he had not yet consulted with a lawyer.
"The state police treated me very well, and they advised me of my rights, but I wanted to cooperate. I had nothing to hide."
"He has been very cooperative," Mrs. Mills confirmed.
Mr. Bartlett said he is now fearful for himself and for his family, and he was upset that his address was publicized.
"I'm afraid that more bad things could happen, and people want me to get the death penalty," he said. "I want people to understand that I didn't want this to happen."


A neighbor, Gary Orvis, said Mr. Bartlett lives alone in his house, which he said was built within the last couple years.
Mr. Brabant's survivors include his parents, Kenneth and Melody Brabant, of 608 Webb St., Clayton. They could not be reached Monday for comment.
Mr. Bartlett is a 1994 graduate of LaFargeville Central School.
Mr. Brabant was awarded scholarships by the Northern New York Community Foundation for the 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 academic years.
There are personal web pages for both men at MySpace.com, both showing their interest in music. Mr. Bartlett is a member of a band Penetration, and on his page, he made comments similar to what he said to the Times.

 

[mitchshrader]

Barring conflicting evidence, going strictly on the statement of the one with the most to gain by lying, seems fairly open and shut. Nol-pros & give him his gun back.

 

[badr1]

Does NY have a castle Doctrine? :dunno:

 

[moncoacp]

Does NY have a castle Doctrine? :dunno:

Limited - can use deadly physical force to end or prevent an arson or burglary (and attempted burglary) Of course, can use deadly physical force in the home (no duty to retreat) if the other person is using or about to use deadly physical force or reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20



</pre>

 

[Spen84107]

It'll be interesting to see how the "I tried not to shoot him in any vital places" pans out. I was taught shooting for legs, or extremities means the threat wasn't serious enough to shoot in the first place.

 

[badr1]

It'll be interesting to see how the "I tried not to shoot him in any vital places" pans out. I was taught shooting for legs, or extremities means the threat wasn't serious enough to shoot in the first place.

This is why the only thing I would say to LEO on the scene after a Shooting would be "Sir I have just been through a very stressful and emotional encounter and I feel I should talk to my lawyer before giving any statements"

 

[Gallium]

It'll be interesting to see how the "I tried not to shoot him in any vital places" pans out. I was taught shooting for legs, or extremities means the threat wasn't serious enough to shoot in the first place.

Well, that was one of the parts I needed help with. Maybe he was truly shooting to STOP and not to kill? :headscratch:

'Drew

 

[Cody Jarrett]

Limited - can use deadly physical force to end or prevent an arson or burglary (and attempted burglary) Of course, can use deadly physical force in the home (no duty to retreat) if the other person is using or about to use deadly physical force or reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery; or reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20



</pre>

Correct. We fall short of a true castle doctrine but we are entitled to defend ourselves as moncoacp has stated. He is accurately quoting article 35 of the NYS penal law.

DREW... It seems like there's got to be more to it than this doesn't it?

 

[smoffett87]

Well if he is telling the truth and he was being threatened, and he thought there was a legitimate chance that he was going to carry through with his threat than I would say justified. If someone kicks down your door and threatens you with death then they mean business in my mind.

 

[Gallium]

Correct. We fall short of a true castle doctrine but we are entitled to defend ourselves as moncoacp has stated. He is accurately quoting article 35 of the NYS penal law.

DREW... It seems like there's got to be more to it than this doesn't it?

Cody, I would almost absolutely have to agree with you.

I will keep my eyes peeled for updates.

'Drew

 

[Gunnut 45/454]

Based on whats been presented I'd say he was justified! Anyone that breaks into your home is a dangerous threat! Freind or not they get shot!:steamed:

 

[ithaca_deerslayer]

I know of a case in NYS where 2 guys were friends (let's say homeowner and vistor).

One day, visitor came over, was even invited inside by the homeowner. An hour or so later, the visitor started to get upset about stuff (like who owned or paid for some stuff, not drug related, not sex related, just stuff). Homeowner asked the vistor to leave. Vistor wouldn't leave, and increasingly got angry, then threatened violence and came at the homeowner (not actually even hitting him, I don't think).

Homeowner shot and killed the vistor.

Police arrested, and prosecutor prosecuted, even though I don't think they believed it was anything other than self-defense.

Homeowner won in court.

There was a 3rd person, a woman, who in prosecution took the side of the vistor. She didn't say events were different than what the homeowner claimed, but she disputed that the visitor intended any harm. She didn't think he would have hurt the homeowner.

 

[dbrook67]

It'll be interesting to see how the "I tried not to shoot him in any vital places" pans out. I was taught shooting for legs, or extremities means the threat wasn't serious enough to shoot in the first place.

I was taught in my CCW course that when you pull your weapon, you have introduced deadly force. There is no 'option' to only 'injure' someone with a firearm.

Bottom line - use your weapon only if deadly force is justified.

 

[OD Green Glock 19]

It'll be interesting to see how the "I tried not to shoot him in any vital places" pans out. I was taught shooting for legs, or extremities means the threat wasn't serious enough to shoot in the first place.

not necessarily true. i wouldn't advocate it, but put yourself in a position where deadly force would be justified. say a man breaks into your house with a bat and says he's going to bash your head in and then comes at you. you are justified in using dealy force, but you choose to shoot him in the knee caps (or wherever)...the threat is eliminated. it doesn't change the fact that you were justified in shooting just because you tried to remove the threat without using deadly force.

 

[SuperSleuth]

not necessarily true. i wouldn't advocate it, but put yourself in a position where deadly force would be justified. say a man breaks into your house with a bat and says he's going to bash your head in and then comes at you. you are justified in using dealy force, but you choose to shoot him in the knee caps (or wherever)...the threat is eliminated. it doesn't change the fact that you were justified in shooting just because you tried to remove the threat without using deadly force.

It may be the case that shooting the attacker in the knee caps is the only viable option in this scenario (I'm not really sure how this would be the case, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt). However, that doesn't change the fact that you are using deadly force. You could shoot the attacker in the knee caps, wing him in the shoulder, or shoot him center-of-mass, it's still deadly force. What the justice system will look at is whether or not the situation required the use of deadly force to end it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because you fired at a relatively non-life-threatening part of the body that it ceases to become deadly force. Deadly force is force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, not definitely cause death.

 

[Noots]

Living in NY and taking the county Sheriff's firearms course, they told us you shoot until the threat is stopped.

So i guess shooting him in the knee caps would stop the threat?

 

[MacG22]

Interesting. opcorn:

 

[moncoacp]

Interesting. opcorn:

Very. Somebody must have watched a lot of TV westerns. Yup, just shoot the bat right out of the guys hand. Wing him good and he will just give up.

I don't think so. If the use of deadly force is justified, do what the cops do ... shoot for center mass and if that doesn't stop him I am going to aim higher. Shoot until the threat is stopped.

 

[parkerrocks33]

Cody, I would almost absolutely have to agree with you. I will keep my eyes peeled for updates. 'Drew [/QUOTE

 

[parkerrocks33]

Cody, I would almost absolutely have to agree with you.

I will keep my eyes peeled for updates.

'Drew

Charged for a slew of things today. I have a feeling this death will be brought back up. He’s been claiming to be “The Chinese Zodiac Killer” and has said he has killed people and will again.