SWB Ricky Pearsall-WR-Florida; 31st Pick 2024 Draft - NO politics

I'm just guessing like everyone else but from what I know about anatomy the gunshot must have been high and to one side of the chest. The area just below the collar bone on either side is rather fleshy and there are no vital organs there. Lower down the bullet likely would have hit the lung or bone. It sounds like the gun went off during the struggle several times hitting each guy once. My guess is the defense will try to say that if Pearsall hadn't tried to disarm the kid there would have been no shots fired. That may indeed be true. Certainly enough to provide reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by maxsmart:
Very interesting case. It must have been a full metal jacket with a small caliber like either a .380 or .22 or maybe 9mm?
Maybe it traversed along the junction between the pleura/lung and the cheat wall?
Yes, I think God was protecting him.

Why didn't he just stop him from getting shot in the first place?

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I'm just guessing like everyone else but from what I know about anatomy the gunshot must have been high and to one side of the chest. The area just below the collar bone on either side is rather fleshy and there are no vital organs there. Lower down the bullet likely would have hit the lung or bone. It sounds like the gun went off during the struggle several times hitting each guy once. My guess is the defense will try to say that if Pearsall hadn't tried to disarm the kid there would have been no shots fired. That may indeed be true. Certainly enough to provide reasonable doubt.

All bets are off for the person that drew the weapon. For all Ricky knew at the time he could have been an active shooter looking to rob/shoot other people. Cause as much damage as possible.

That type of argument is like saying the Niners would have never lost the Superbowl if they just didn't play the game

Originally posted by Silky:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I'm just guessing like everyone else but from what I know about anatomy the gunshot must have been high and to one side of the chest. The area just below the collar bone on either side is rather fleshy and there are no vital organs there. Lower down the bullet likely would have hit the lung or bone. It sounds like the gun went off during the struggle several times hitting each guy once. My guess is the defense will try to say that if Pearsall hadn't tried to disarm the kid there would have been no shots fired. That may indeed be true. Certainly enough to provide reasonable doubt.

All bets are off for the person that drew the weapon. For all Ricky knew at the time he could have been an active shooter looking to rob/shoot other people. Cause as much damage as possible.

That type of argument is like saying the Niners would have never lost the Superbowl if they just didn't play the game

He'll certainly be charged with multiple offenses. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets convicted on the armed robbery charge but not for the actual assault. If Pearsall tried to take the gun and it went off during the tussle it will be hard to prove that the kid intended to shoot him. Not everyone that pulls a gun actually intends to shoot someone. They're often just used as a threat. That would bring the charge of menacing.

Originally posted by Silky:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I'm just guessing like everyone else but from what I know about anatomy the gunshot must have been high and to one side of the chest. The area just below the collar bone on either side is rather fleshy and there are no vital organs there. Lower down the bullet likely would have hit the lung or bone. It sounds like the gun went off during the struggle several times hitting each guy once. My guess is the defense will try to say that if Pearsall hadn't tried to disarm the kid there would have been no shots fired. That may indeed be true. Certainly enough to provide reasonable doubt.

All bets are off for the person that drew the weapon. For all Ricky knew at the time he could have been an active shooter looking to rob/shoot other people. Cause as much damage as possible.

That type of argument is like saying the Niners would have never lost the Superbowl if they just didn't play the game

Yeah. What happened to the legal principle that if someone gets injured or killed during the commission of a crime, its the criminals fault. How does it benefit society to go away from that? You can expect somebodys going to act in self defense.

Originally posted by BOI49er:

Originally posted by Silky:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I'm just guessing like everyone else but from what I know about anatomy the gunshot must have been high and to one side of the chest. The area just below the collar bone on either side is rather fleshy and there are no vital organs there. Lower down the bullet likely would have hit the lung or bone. It sounds like the gun went off during the struggle several times hitting each guy once. My guess is the defense will try to say that if Pearsall hadn't tried to disarm the kid there would have been no shots fired. That may indeed be true. Certainly enough to provide reasonable doubt.

All bets are off for the person that drew the weapon. For all Ricky knew at the time he could have been an active shooter looking to rob/shoot other people. Cause as much damage as possible.

That type of argument is like saying the Niners would have never lost the Superbowl if they just didn't play the game

Yeah. What happened to the legal principle that if someone gets injured or killed during the commission of a crime, its the criminals fault. How does it benefit society to go away from that? You can expect somebodys going to act in self defense.

I'm not saying I agree with it but thats what the defense will probably be. What else could they use. None of us actually knows if the kid would have shot Ricky without the tussle. A good attorney only needs to plant the possibility in the jury's mind that Ricky grabbed the gun and that caused it to go off. If the kid had fired first it's unlikely the tussle would have happened.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I'm not saying I agree with it but thats what the defense will probably be. What else could they use. None of us actually knows if the kid would have shot Ricky without the tussle. A good attorney only needs to plant the possibility in the jury's mind that Ricky grabbed the gun and that caused it to go off. If the kid had fired first it's unlikely the tussle would have happened.

Yeah, watch this guy only gets 2 yrs.

Originally posted by bmvanthiel:

Originally posted by maxsmart:
Very interesting case. It must have been a full metal jacket with a small caliber like either a .380 or .22 or maybe 9mm?
Maybe it traversed along the junction between the pleura/lung and the cheat wall?
Yes, I think God was protecting him.

Why didn't he just stop him from getting shot in the first place?

To give San francisco and the mayor a black eye?

Originally posted by bmvanthiel:
Why didn't he just stop him from getting shot in the first place?

"god works in mysterious ways" or some s**t.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by BOI49er:

Originally posted by Silky:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I'm just guessing like everyone else but from what I know about anatomy the gunshot must have been high and to one side of the chest. The area just below the collar bone on either side is rather fleshy and there are no vital organs there. Lower down the bullet likely would have hit the lung or bone. It sounds like the gun went off during the struggle several times hitting each guy once. My guess is the defense will try to say that if Pearsall hadn't tried to disarm the kid there would have been no shots fired. That may indeed be true. Certainly enough to provide reasonable doubt.

All bets are off for the person that drew the weapon. For all Ricky knew at the time he could have been an active shooter looking to rob/shoot other people. Cause as much damage as possible.

That type of argument is like saying the Niners would have never lost the Superbowl if they just didn't play the game

Yeah. What happened to the legal principle that if someone gets injured or killed during the commission of a crime, its the criminals fault. How does it benefit society to go away from that? You can expect somebodys going to act in self defense.

I'm not saying I agree with it but thats what the defense will probably be. What else could they use. None of us actually knows if the kid would have shot Ricky without the tussle. A good attorney only needs to plant the possibility in the jury's mind that Ricky grabbed the gun and that caused it to go off. If the kid had fired first it's unlikely the tussle would have happened.

I understand, but the perp put Ricky in this position, mentally unprepared, and the fault can not rest with him even if he acted stupidly. Imo, the jury should be instructed to follow the law, as I stated above. If your good attorney gets his way, that's one more reason I'll question the legal system here.

Originally posted by Montana:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
I'm not saying I agree with it but thats what the defense will probably be. What else could they use. None of us actually knows if the kid would have shot Ricky without the tussle. A good attorney only needs to plant the possibility in the jury's mind that Ricky grabbed the gun and that caused it to go off. If the kid had fired first it's unlikely the tussle would have happened.

Yeah, watch this guy only gets 2 yrs.

Yeah, I still remember the "If it don't fit, you gotta Aquit." Case.

Originally posted by NYniner85:

Originally posted by bmvanthiel:
Why didn't he just stop him from getting shot in the first place?

"god works in mysterious ways" or some s**t.

At least now he probably doesn't feel the shoulder pain as much.

This case has several possibilities. They're still deciding whether to try him as a juvenile or adult. That would have a huge bearing on the actual sentencing. Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that the kid is 17. How did he get the gun? Was it stolen or did he buy it on the street. That could be an additional charge. In cases where the defense is likely to lose there is often a plea bargain where they plead guilty to the lesser offenses. It's up to the DA to decide if they think they can get a guilty verdict on the more serious charges.

I don't see any way the kid doesn't do some time. It's just a question of how much and whether it will be in a juvenile facility or an adult prison.

Originally posted by Giedi:
Yeah, I still remember the "If it don't fit, you gotta Aquit." Case.

Yep...my mom worked at the same prison OJ was in lol..creepy place in BFE

I keep thinking 2-4 yrs max
...but knowing CA..2.

Love the legal talk in here. This reminds me of the episode where a robber breaks into Al Bundy's home and Al punches the robber, so the robber sues him. In the end, Al counter sues saying he broke his hand punching the robber's face lol. It's the American way.