I'm getting the feeling that some of the posters here are mad at the fact the stand your ground law was applied to the letter. The same people who would demand the the letter of the law be applied whenever they are aggrieved or under similar legal scrutiny.
FedEx Freight | No Charges For FedEx Driver Who Fatally Punched Man Calling Him The N-Word
- Thread starter Jeff
- Start date
I'm getting the feeling that some of the posters here are mad at the fact the stand your ground law was applied to the letter. The same people who would demand the the letter of the law be applied whenever they are aggrieved or under similar legal scrutiny.
Redracer3136
BANNED
- Credits
- 0
The state of Oregon doesn’t have a “stand your ground” law and the use of deadly force against another person is prohibited except...
- When another person is in the process of committing a felony that involves imminent physical force or violence
- When a burglary is being committed in a dwelling
- When a person is about to use unlawful deadly force against a person
In this case, even though Mr Magnuson’s actions lead to imminent physical force or violence, neither would’ve resulted in a felony which means Mr Warren’s actions wouldn’t have been covered by any such laws IMO.
Note: I’m not a licensed attorney but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express!!
Last edited:
Trust me Red nobody is mistaking you for anything except who you are. BTW what an excellent response to illustrate my point about those who laser focus on the letter of the law. I too read the Oregon statue and then bothered to read a little further and it said this...
This statute was interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court in March of 2007. The court ruled that Oregonians have no “duty to retreat” when faced with a violent confrontation. The Supreme Court correctly noted that Oregon law contains no requirement to retreat from an attacker and that previous rulings to the contrary are not only incorrect, but obviously incorrect. The Court said, “On a purely textual level, ORS 161.219 contains no specific reference to ‘retreat’, ‘escape,’ or ‘other means of avoiding’ a deadly confrontation. Neither, in our view, does it contain any other wording that would suggest a duty of that kind.
This statute was interpreted by the Oregon Supreme Court in March of 2007. The court ruled that Oregonians have no “duty to retreat” when faced with a violent confrontation. The Supreme Court correctly noted that Oregon law contains no requirement to retreat from an attacker and that previous rulings to the contrary are not only incorrect, but obviously incorrect. The Court said, “On a purely textual level, ORS 161.219 contains no specific reference to ‘retreat’, ‘escape,’ or ‘other means of avoiding’ a deadly confrontation. Neither, in our view, does it contain any other wording that would suggest a duty of that kind.
Redracer3136
BANNED
- Credits
- 0
Agreed, Mr Warren had no “duty to retreat” because Oregon has no such law but by responding to Mr Magnuson, according to Oregon law, he should’ve been held accountable for his actions...my problem with the case lies with the DA who failed to charge him with anything.
I see. So do you have a problem more with the DA who is a licensed attorney or with the Oregon Supreme Court who actually issued clarification to the statute 11 years ago ?
Redracer3136
BANNED
- Credits
- 0
As I stated before, my problem lies with the DA who failed to file charges. The Oregon State Supreme Court’s decision has no bearing on this case as they affirmed in 2007 that deadly force is allowable when: “A person reasonably believes another person is using or about to use deadly force against him or her.”
State of Oregon v. Sandoval (2007)
After hearing more facts about the case, I have no problem with Mr Warren NOT being charged for Mr Magnuson’s death because of the underlying health problems to Mr Magnuson that Mr Warren had no way of knowing about, but charges of misdemeanor simple assault would in fact fit in this case. The fact that the DA decided to do nothing sets the precedent making it ok for one to respond with violence when faced with verbal assaults.
joes bar and grill
TB Legend
- Credits
- 0
it will make you put your brain in gear before your mouth
Several "holes" in your case.
Charges of assault, simple or otherwise, do not apply in matters of self defense.
Any physical attack attack can potentially cause serious injury or death, as this case clearly demonstrates. When attacked, it is generally reasonable to respond "in kind".
Mr. Warren, per witness accounts, did not respond with violence to verbal assault (as you contend). Mr. Mangunson escalated the verbal to physical, by throwing a drink on Mr. Warren, then throwing a punch.
The DA made the decision NOT to charge, based on the investigation, the law, and the circumstances. Filing charges unlikely to result in conviction is not the job of the DA. Also, D.A.s don't set precedent. Judges do.
I care less if the driver was charged or not, regardless of race,it takes an idiot to stop your vehicle and
confront someone over such a trivial incident.
This driver didn't know if this guy was mental or armed, he could have been killed or disabled for life.
He could have had a long time to think about what a smart move he made.
If you can't control your emotions in this type situations, don't call yourself a professional.
Personally, I think the driver should be fired.
Just curious, what do you think this will cost Fedx, before it's settled?
confront someone over such a trivial incident.
This driver didn't know if this guy was mental or armed, he could have been killed or disabled for life.
He could have had a long time to think about what a smart move he made.
If you can't control your emotions in this type situations, don't call yourself a professional.
Personally, I think the driver should be fired.
Just curious, what do you think this will cost Fedx, before it's settled?
Redracer3136
BANNED
- Credits
- 0
No “holes” at all, it’s all a matter of interpretation...
Sure they do, it depends on the type of attack being perpetrated. Self defense is generally applied in cases where deadly force was feared by the defendant.
Ex: your wife slaps you up side the head with a frying pan...you call the police and she goes to jail for simple assault/domestic battery, or instead you “fear for your life” and defend yourself by slapping her back...now she calls the police and you go to jail for simple assault/domestic battery for “defending yourself.” Happens all the time!!
Really?? How does a homeless man’s verbal assaults, throwing a drink at you, and then a punch constitute “potential serious injury or death”?? Unless he was drinking sulfuric acid or threw a back roundhouse punch (and looked like he knew what he was doing) then I would find “ potential serious injury or death” highly unreasonable as a juror.
Please show where I said Mr Warren responded with violence to Mr Magnuson’s verbal assaults!! What I said was had Mr Warren continued on his way and ignored the verbal assaults, all could’ve been avoided!!
I believe the DA failed to file charges for other reasons (which we won’t discuss here). It’s not the DA’s job to act as judge and jury, that right belongs to 12 of Mr Warren’s peers!!
The state of Oregon doesn’t have a “stand your ground” law and the use of deadly force against another person is prohibited except...
- When another person is in the process of committing a felony that involves imminent physical force or violence
- When a burglary is being committed in a dwelling
- When a person is about to use unlawful deadly force against a person
In this case, even though Mr Magnuson’s actions lead to imminent physical force or violence, neither would’ve resulted in a felony which means Mr Warren’s actions wouldn’t have been covered by any such laws IMO.
Note: I’m not a licensed attorney but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express!!
https://www.isaacsandisaacs.com/locations/indiana/indianapolis/truck-accidents
Isaac will fly to any state too!!! To get them bad guys!!!
Purple Hammer
On Time Delivery
- Credits
- 384
The law firm of “Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe” will be on the case soon.
I got them on retainer at Coop...
Can't disagree with that. Just because he had a legal right to respond does NOT mean he SHOULD have. Based on what little we know, it wasn't the best decision.
As far as his job, being a "Ground" (contractor) driver, it's hard to say. If it was a violation of "policy, resulting in death, the answer is pretty cut and dry.
Can't believe you said that... very little way to tell what you are up against, base on looks. Any time fists fly the potential for serious injury is there. Doesn't take a prize fighter to deliver a knock out blow. Happens all the time. Might not be the hit itself, but the fall, that can cause serious head injury. Life altering injury. This very (sad) case shows the potential of one hit.
Post 26, last sentence:
Right here, you said it sets precedent. How can you say precedent is set, without there being the same/similar set of facts?
Canadian Flyer
They Call Me CF, Eh
- Credits
- 2
The pure and simple fact is that this never should have happened. Here in Canada Mr. Warren would have been thrown in jail for assault, if not involuntary manslaughter. He became an aggressor the moment he decided to stop his truck and confront Mr. Magnuson.
Mr. Magnuson, though he may not have been a very nice man to Mr. Warren, did not deserve to die for his actions. And he would still be alive today if Mr. Warren had simply carried on with his day. No verbal exchange would have occurred, no punches would have been thrown. Mr. Warren may have been within his right to escalate, but he should not have done so.
Mr. Magnuson, though he may not have been a very nice man to Mr. Warren, did not deserve to die for his actions. And he would still be alive today if Mr. Warren had simply carried on with his day. No verbal exchange would have occurred, no punches would have been thrown. Mr. Warren may have been within his right to escalate, but he should not have done so.
I've read this topic,& have decided to throw out my 2 cents.
My entire trucking career before retiring 10 years ago,was P & D.
In the 45 years driving in a 150 mile radius of my town,I ran across a few jerks.
One that I'll never forget is a guy that followed me behind a shopping mall receiving area.
I never did get why he was so ticked off at me,however when I backed up to a dock to make a delivery.
The guy grabbed my door handle & climbed up on my saddle tank screaming profanity at me.
Well with out thinking I opened my door all the way,& the guy flew off on his back on the ground.
I think he was hurt,but he was able to get up & get back in his car & take off.
I called dispatch to report it,but never heard anything about it.
The rest of the folks that were angry with me over the years.
I just smiled at them & watched them go ballistic,& go racing away.
The thing is if you are positive,you can over look the negatives,but if you are negative it will be hard to see anything positive.
I agree with those of you who feel if the driver was to ignore the ignorance of that man who died.
This topic would never have been posted.
Just my 2 cents as a visitor to your forum.
My entire trucking career before retiring 10 years ago,was P & D.
In the 45 years driving in a 150 mile radius of my town,I ran across a few jerks.
One that I'll never forget is a guy that followed me behind a shopping mall receiving area.
I never did get why he was so ticked off at me,however when I backed up to a dock to make a delivery.
The guy grabbed my door handle & climbed up on my saddle tank screaming profanity at me.
Well with out thinking I opened my door all the way,& the guy flew off on his back on the ground.
I think he was hurt,but he was able to get up & get back in his car & take off.
I called dispatch to report it,but never heard anything about it.
The rest of the folks that were angry with me over the years.
I just smiled at them & watched them go ballistic,& go racing away.
The thing is if you are positive,you can over look the negatives,but if you are negative it will be hard to see anything positive.
I agree with those of you who feel if the driver was to ignore the ignorance of that man who died.
This topic would never have been posted.
Just my 2 cents as a visitor to your forum.