Police: Smile Sparks Fatal Gunfight

[The Straight Story]

Police: Smile Sparks Fatal Gunfight

POSTED: 1:05 am EDT September 2, 2006

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Police on Friday announced arrests in two fatal shootings -- one earlier this week and one in May.

The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said Quentin Mitchell, 30, is charged with murder even though he did not shoot 24-year-old Daniel Wilson Tuesday night, but instigated a gunfight that ended with Wilson's death.

According to the arrest report, the shooting at the Roosevelt Gardens Apartments began when Mitchell "didn't like the way (Michael Thomas) smiled at him."
Click here to find out more!

Witnesses told police that Wilson produced a gun, handed it to Wilson and told him to shoot Thomas. Wilson fired, hitting Thomas in the leg. Thomas returned fire, hitting Wilson in the chest.

http://www.local6.com/news/9781029/detail.html

[LiberalArkie]

1. I thought it was legal in Florida to shoot when a person felt threatened.

[happyslug]

2. It is, if it was Self-Defense, but you can NOT provoke someone else.

Also sloppy writing "Wilson produced a gun, handed it to Wilson and told him to shoot Thomas"?????
What I think the writing meant was MITCHELL gave a gun to WILSON, who than shot Thomas in the leg. Thomas to defend himself shot WILSON in the chest. Note Thomas was NOT charged even through he was the person who SHOT Wilson. (Wilson apparently is dead).

So why is MITCHELL charged with the murder of WILSON? Because Mitchell started the gun fight by giving the gun to Wilson (Wilson did the actually shooting, but he is dead and thus can not be charged). As general rule an ATTEMPT is the same as actually doing the crime, Furthermore an accomplice can be charged with the same charge as the person who did the actual shooting, and since Mitchell gave the gun to Wilson and told Wilson to shoot Thomas, Mitchell is an guilty as Wilson would have been had he survived. Thus the Attempted murder of Thomas should be one of the charges against Mitchell.

Now, some states (California for example) has expanded the felony-Murder rule to include the death of an accomplice. For example if you and a buddy decide to rob someone, and that victim kills one of the two attackers, the surviving attacker is charged and is guilty of the murder of his buddy. Other states do not take the Felony-Murder rule this far (For example my Home state of Pennsylvania would NOT charge the surviving robber with the murder of his co-robber).

Florida may have a Felony-Murder rule similar to California, I do not know, but someone is dead do to the actions of Mitchell and some-sort of Murder charge is going to be charged against him.