TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.kltv.com/story/18101125/form ... na-slaying" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And of course the mainstream media will play this one up as hard as they can to score brownie points...I'm rather curious as to what ACTUALLY transpired...also, what was the "high-powered rifle", since we know the media has about ZERO knowledge of firearms. I've been reading articles by Mr. Venola for some time now, and I have to say that I am highly shocked by this, to say the least.

I am willing to wait and see this unfold, but I strongly suspect this will turn out to be legitimate self defense. I'll give him the benefit of doubt until proven otherwise.

Remember, if he is smart about it (and being in the industry, I suspect he is), he is keeping his mouth shut per attorney advice. We aren't hearing his side of the story.

Jumping Frog wrote:I am willing to wait and see this unfold, but I strongly suspect this will turn out to be legitimate self defense. I'll give him the benefit of doubt until proven otherwise.

Remember, if he is smart about it (and being in the industry, I suspect he is), he is keeping his mouth shut per attorney advice. We aren't hearing his side of the story.

I understand...it just HIGHLY irritating to have to wade through the biased media crud to get any sort of coherent story.

Sometimes you can find more than one news story:

The county sheriff’s office said 53-year-old Richard Venola of Golden Valley was arrested on a second-degree murder charge. Police found 39-year-old James Patrick O’Neill dead of a rifle shot to the chest. Police say the men had been drinking, but detectives don’t know what led to the shooting.

http://www.fronterasdesk.org/news/2012/ ... 6aEG8Vv_rs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Mohave County sheriff's office says a former gun magazine editor has been arrested in the death of one of his friends....
Venola and O'Neill had been drinking, but detectives say they don't know yet what led to the shooting. Venola declined to speak with detectives until he had a lawyer present.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/7 ... -Shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Upon arrival, deputies found 39-year-old James Patrick O’Neill outside the residence. They summoned medical personnel, who responded and declared the victim dead at the scene.

Sheriff’s office spokeswoman Trish Carter said O’Neill suffered a gunshot wound to his chest.

Detectives then executed a search warrant and collected evidence.

The murder weapon was a high-caliber rifle, Carter said, which was recovered.

http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles ... 542416.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please notice that when a news article quotes or paraphrases a police spokesperson, this is probably what the police said. Newspapers and television stations can't maintain good relationships with their sources if they misquote them.

Also Kingman, Arizona, is not exactly a hotbed of liberalism.

- Jim

He was listed, they say, as the 12th editor in 2008!

So in 2012, 4 years later, he has nothing to do with G&A, but they drag that up!

seamusTX wrote:Sometimes you can find more than one news story:

Yep, I read some others as well. They made it quite clear that detectives don't know what happened because Venola has gotten a lawyer and has not spoken them at all.

seamusTX wrote:

Police say the men had been drinking, but detectives don’t know what led to the shooting.

It is easy to paint that so that it is implying he did something wrong. Maybe he did, since we obviously do not know what transpired or if the drinking was even a factor.

But I would like to point out that just because someone has had a drink or five, they still have an inherent, God-given right to legitimate self defense. I am not willing to start assuming he is either in the right or in the wrong just because "Police say the men had been drinking" . . .

Jumping Frog wrote:But I would like to point out that just because someone has had a drink or five, they still have an inherent, God-given right to legitimate self defense.

I agree.

However, there are a few relevant points to keep in mind:

• Arizona has a strong presumption of justified self-defense, passed into law since the Harold Fish case. It requires the state to prove that a defendant did not have a justification, rather than the defendant proving that he did have a justification.
  
  As a result, prosecutors have to think twice before prosecuting someone who has used force or deadly force in self-defense.
  
  Granted that everyone who is arrested is considered innocent until proven guilty, the police on the scene at the time believed that they had good reason to arrest Mr. Venola. I can't say exactly what the practice is in Arizona, but arresting someone for a felony charge usually requires approval from a prosecutor.

• It never looks good when people who are acquainted (whether they are really "friends") are involved in a violent incident. This doesn't mean that justified self-defense is impossible, but the authorities are going to take a much closer look at whether it was some kind of ongoing dispute, like a debt or romantic problems.

• It never looks good when people who are drinking are involved in a violent incident. Whether you are a teetotaler or a bartender, you have to acknowledge that no one has better judgment after a few drinks than they do sober.

"Looks bad" does not mean guilty. I don't know what happened here. It's a complicated case that is going to cost Mr. Venola a fortune no matter what happens.

What I do know is that not every shooting is justified self-defense.

There are about 15,000 homicides per year in the U.S. (not all are shootings, and there are many more non-fatal shootings). In 2010, the FBI classified 665 homicides as justified. Of those, fewer than half were justified shootings by people who were not acting in a law enforcement capacity.

That was not an exceptional year, BTW. The murder rate has been going down since 1992, and the number of justifiable shootings by private citizens has been going up.

Therefore, odds are that any homicide is outright murder or manslaughter. The police are going to be skeptical about any shooting of an unarmed man outside the shooter's home or business. If you think not, think again.

The Arizona self-defense law is discussed here:
http://blog.novakazlaw.com/2012/04/ariz ... -defenses/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2010:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... murdermain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... rtbl14.xls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... micidemain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

TLE2 wrote:He was listed, they say, as the 12th editor in 2008!

So in 2012, 4 years later, he has nothing to do with G&A, but they drag that up!

He has at least one article in the latest G&A, so he's still contributing.

seamusTX wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:But I would like to point out that just because someone has had a drink or five, they still have an inherent, God-given right to legitimate self defense.

I agree.

However, there are a few relevant points to keep in mind:

• Arizona has a strong presumption of justified self-defense, passed into law since the Harold Fish case. It requires the state to prove that a defendant did not have a justification, rather than the defendant proving that he did have a justification.
  
  As a result, prosecutors have to think twice before prosecuting someone who has used force or deadly force in self-defense.
  
  Granted that everyone who is arrested is considered innocent until proven guilty, the police on the scene at the time believed that they had good reason to arrest Mr. Venola. I can't say exactly what the practice is in Arizona, but arresting someone for a felony charge usually requires approval from a prosecutor.

• It never looks good when people who are acquainted (whether they are really "friends") are involved in a violent incident. This doesn't mean that justified self-defense is impossible, but the authorities are going to take a much closer look at whether it was some kind of ongoing dispute, like a debt or romantic problems.

• It never looks good when people who are drinking are involved in a violent incident. Whether you are a teetotaler or a bartender, you have to acknowledge that no one has better judgment after a few drinks than they do sober.

"Looks bad" does not mean guilty. I don't know what happened here. It's a complicated case that is going to cost Mr. Venola a fortune no matter what happens.

What I do know is that not every shooting is justified self-defense.

There are about 15,000 homicides per year in the U.S. (not all are shootings, and there are many more non-fatal shootings). In 2010, the FBI classified 665 homicides as justified. Of those, fewer than half were justified shootings by people who were not acting in a law enforcement capacity.

That was not an exceptional year, BTW. The murder rate has been going down since 1992, and the number of justifiable shootings by private citizens has been going up.

Therefore, odds are that any homicide is outright murder or manslaughter. The police are going to be skeptical about any shooting of an unarmed man outside the shooter's home or business. If you think not, think again.

The Arizona self-defense law is discussed here:
http://blog.novakazlaw.com/2012/04/ariz ... -defenses/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2010:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... murdermain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... rtbl14.xls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cr ... micidemain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

How many folks who shoot someone in self-defense either A) Don't kill the person, or B) Aren't charged due to the circumstances? There are sources out there, but with so much anti- propaganda on the 'Net, it gets hard to wade through.

Heartland Patriot wrote:How many folks who shoot someone in self-defense either A) Don't kill the person, or B) Aren't charged due to the circumstances?

I don't know off the top of my head.

Homicides are easy to measure because the victim is either dead or not. (Some people die long after the shooting, but not many.) Then all homicides are classified as criminal, justifiable, accidents, or a very few other categories.

Non-fatal shootings are much harder to classify because often they are not closed. A shooting may not be prosecuted for lack of evidence, so it is never determined to be a criminal act or justifiable.

I think it's reasonable to estimate that if 5% of homicides are justifiable self defense and the rest are criminal, probably the percentage is about the same for non-fatal shootings.

There's an old saying, when you hear hoofbeats, look for a horse, not a zebra.

- Jim

Mr. Venola was indicted for second-degree murder by a grand jury a few days ago:

http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles ... 481324.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That means a majority of the grand jury (I don't know the specifics in Arizona) decided there was probable cause to proceed with a trial. Self-defense cases are usually dismissed at this stage because the grand jury finds the actions of the accused justified.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Mr. Venola was indicted for second-degree murder by a grand jury a few days ago:

http://www.mohavedailynews.com/articles ... 481324.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That means a majority of the grand jury (I don't know the specifics in Arizona) decided there was probable cause to proceed with a trial. Self-defense cases are usually dismissed at this stage because the grand jury finds the actions of the accused justified.

- Jim

Despite the image of "good ol' boys drankin' beer and shootin' stuff", it is my firm belief that alcohol and firearms don't mix too well. I really hope to hear the ACTUAL FACTS of this one as I enjoyed reading some of Mr. Venola's back page stories. If he is guilty, then he should get what punishment is proper under Arizona law. No more and no less than anyone else would or should.

A month has passed, and there is no news on this topic. Nada. Not even rumors.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:A month has passed, and there is no news on this topic. Nada. Not even rumors.

- Jim

The wheels of justice turn ever so slowly.