Drive by shooting in Brookside

[Hammock Parties]

Jesus. Now even the nice neighborhoods are getting shot up.

This town needs an enema!

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local...180768716.html

A man in his late 30s was sitting on his front porch in Brookside on Wednesday morning when he was shot to death, Kansas City police said.

Just after 8 a.m. police were summoned to the 200 block of West 66th Terrace, which is just east of Brookside and Wornall roads, on a shooting.

“It appears that our victim was sitting on his front porch of his residence when he was shot. The victim’s spouse heard something and came out and discovered her spouse on the ground,” said police spokeswoman Sgt. Kari Thompson.

Investigators are searching the area but have very limited suspect information. The shooting is not believed to have been random.

Police said they were looking for a white 1997 Chevrolet van with Missouri license 6FA 453. Anyone who sees the van is asked to call 911. Police warned people not to approach the van if they see it.

Police are speaking with the victim’s spouse to determine what happened. A car was heard speeding away immediately after the shooting. Investigators are also trying to determine if the victim had just walked his children to school prior to the shooting.

Police are canvassing the neighborhood.

“We’re hoping to get to the bottom of this and solve this case as we hope to solve every case,” Thompson said. “We need help. We can’t solve this alone.”

The death one of three homicides reported in Kansas City in the past 24 hours.

[KCUnited]

What's the hold up on making an arrest? Airtight alibi?

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

The only reason Jungerman lost this case is because he was an idiot and defended himself.

Once Pickert saw that his eyes probably lit up. He knew he could **** him big time and get a huge payday.

This wasn't about justice. It was about stealing $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from a guy who was just trying to defend his property from criminal scum.

I can't believe that doesn't sicken more of you.

And the guy who got shot said he was just looking for a place to stay for the night that was out of the weather, and that he was running away when he was shot.

Clearly, the civil jury found that story - and the evidence supporting it - more compelling than the defense offered by the shooter.

I'm sure Pickert was glad when he heard Jungerman was going pro se, though that brings in a lot of other factors (appeals, annoyance of a case being dragged out due to the pro se defendant not knowing what the **** he is doing, etc). It's good for the likelihood of success in the first trial but carries with it its own series of potential issues, too.

I'll side with the family man married to a palliative care attorney who was involved with the local community and charities any day of the week in this case.

I can't believe more people aren't sickened by the casual way many gun enthusiasts approach the use of their weapons, and the concept of shooting people over stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BWillie]

Johnny comes in dropping his knowledge. Pwning the thread. Like a boss.

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

The only reason Jungerman lost this case is because he was an idiot and defended himself.

Once Pickert saw that his eyes probably lit up. He knew he could **** him big time and get a huge payday.

This wasn't about justice. It was about stealing $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from a guy who was just trying to defend his property from criminal scum.

I can't believe that doesn't sicken more of you.

He was an idiot for defending himself. But, I bet you didn't notice that the news stories mentioned that he was assisted by a lawyer. Likely Judge Fahnestock required him to be assisted by counsel before she'd allow him to represent himself.

Otherwise, she risked the verdict getting over-turned on appeal (a bad outcome for a judge because that means the state has to spend money to adjudicate the case all over again). Do that too often, and it hurts your chances to sit on higher courts.

Even though Jungerman had (presumably) competent co-counsel, litigating your own case is generally BAD because you have all kinds of opportunities to piss off the jury. You normally want an expert to filter your communication with the jury so they can portray you in the best possible light.

But, he could easily have lost even if he had a good defense lawyer. The shot from behind is a big problem. The fact that he wasn't on the property when the break in occurred, but instead he arrived on the scene packing an AR-15 made it look like he came looking to punish the intruders rather than protect himself.

Add in multiple other instances of questionable threats and use of deadly force, and you have all kinds of factual problems.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by JohnnyV13

The fact that he wasn't on the property when the break in occurred, but instead he arrived on the scene packing an AR-15 made it look like he came looking to punish the intruders .

He should have packed cookies and milk instead when an alarm went off am I right?

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

He should have packed cookies and milk instead when an alarm went off am I right?

No. Carrying a firearm to an alarm is reasonable because you'll want to defend yourself. However, add in wounds from behind to a questionable pattern of using deadly force, and you've got a lot of problems.

Don't isolate that one fact and forget the others. It's the overall effect that's a problem. I also mention it because Jungerman would have had a much better self-defense case if he'd been on the premises instead of rushing there armed. The jury decided that Jungerman wasn't defending himself, and that his conduct was outrageous. There are facts that reasonably support such a verdict.

Remember, the jury heard more facts than we've extracted from the news reports. They also got to see the demeanor of the witnesses, plaintiff, and defendant (which we didn't see). They were in a far better position to make a judgment than any of us.

I'm not necessarily saying they're right, but I will say their verdict isn't outrageous. Basically, I'll say their verdict falls within the scope of rational decision making given the facts I've heard and the applicable law.

If you want an outrageous case, look at that Lamonte McIntyre situation. THAT trial was a clown show, not this one. http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/ed...179397611.html

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

He should have packed cookies and milk instead when an alarm went off am I right?

No. He should have stayed at home and let the professionals handle it.

Or called the police as he was traveling to the scene and stayed in his car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by TinyEvel

Crime comes to you.

We lived in Fairway/Reinhardt Estates, a block from Mission Hills, and about year in, our neighbor tells us this story that a woman was shot to death in the front yard of the house next door to ours about 7 years ago.

She was there as a worker, painting the house, was up on a ladder in the front painting the trim. Her husband walks up to her yells something and straight cold shoots her head with a handgun.

I guess he found out or thought she was cheating on him.

I grew up on 61st and Alhambra in a big old corner lot house that my mom bought for like $35k in 1978 LOL. We never locked our doors, didn't even know where the keys were. Years later my uncle lived there and left the keys to his Lexus in the center console - parked outside every night.

Of course there was some scandal where the guy across the street was getting the neighborhood teen girls drunk and molesting them. It's always something.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Originally Posted by cooper

as it the recent KUMed litigation.

Are you referring to the female patient who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, had multiple surgeries and, after they discovered she never had cancer at all, failed to notify her? (Noonan, I believe is the plaintiff)

That's going to be a helluva case.

[WilliamTheIrish]

For those who haven't seen the story....

http://www.kansascity.com/news/busin...176200846.html

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by WilliamTheIrish

For those who haven't seen the story....

http://www.kansascity.com/news/busin...176200846.html

WOW. Ka-Ching!!!

That one is unlikely to ever go to trial. The issue is just going to be how much to settle for, presuming the allegations are true.

I might ask my Dad about this one. He's been retired since 2000, but he did his residency at KU and is going to be hooked into this case since he was a gastroenterologist. Diagnosing pancreatic cancer is right up his alley.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by Hammock Parties

Then why wasn't Jungerman CONVINCTED OF A CRIME and PUT IN JAIL?

The whole thing is a clown show. A couple of clowns trying to **** a guy for six million dollars.

You reap what you sow.

Ask OJ.....

[JohnnyV13]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

No. He should have stayed at home and let the professionals handle it.

Or called the police as he was traveling to the scene and stayed in his car.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or, coming onto the scene and seeing what was happening, he should have called police to handle the robbery rather than confronting them himself.

However, I would argue it's acceptable to reveal yourself and attempt to chase them off while showing a weapon (though, I'd like to check the case law on that one. Is threat of deadly force acceptable to defend property?). But, then you're risking your life if they're armed. Ambushing them to defend property, however, isn't protected by self-defense privilege.

The problem with threat of deadly force to defend property is what happens if you negligently discharge the weapon? You could argue that you didn't INTEND to shoot, but you could still be culpable due to creating a risk of harm where deadly force isn't warranted.

[suzzer99]

If Jungleman was in Florida he could have executed both of them in cold blood, admitted to doing as much, and got off scot free. Just had to say he was scared for his life.

[Hammock Parties]

Homeless people shouldn't be allowed in court, anyway. You should be required to have a permanent residence before you can hire legal counsel. Otherwise you just get the dregs of society trying to **** over hard-working taxpaying Americans.

No way this low life deserves to be a millionaire. It's a ****ing outrage, man. I'm sure 80% of that money is going to end up going to Jack Daniels and KCK pimps, anyway.

**** all this shit. Thread ignored. See you in hell, Pickert.