Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Steven, Dayton OH on January 12, 2009:

I concur with your assessment. Unless starring in a horror movie, being able to be bored enough to tell someone to "just die already" well and truly signifies that the threat is neutralized. At that point, continued violence is for the gratification of the attacker, not the defense of anyone.

Posted by Rewinn, Mercer Island on January 12, 2009:

I agree that this guy got away with murder, for the reasons you discuss. Self-defense stops when the burglar is helpless, et cetera.

However, I have a very different take on the O.J. jury. We *know* as a matter of *fact* that O.J. killed 2 people with no justification, and therefore *should* have been convicted. But the jury could not reasonably convict him on the basis of the evidence they were given; it was tainted by being introduced by a man proven to be a liar (Marcia Clark even had to argue Yes Fuehrman's a racist liar but he's still telling the truth ... which is a tough argument to make); some of the evidence was obviously fabricated (remember the blood sample taken to the scene?); and above all, the glove didn't fit (not, I'm sure, because it wasn't his glove, but because it'd dried out and shrunk ... but the prosecution blew it with that). And of course the prosecution didn't notice the Magli shoe prints, and the cops tainted almost ALL the evidence with their warrantless entry.

Basically, the cops and the prosecutor "tried to frame a guilty man" and were not prepared to face a truly professional defense, which did its job.

It is very regrettable that O.J. walked free for so long, but the jury did what it had to do.

I apologize for going on and on ... but it's an important thing to remember: Our Team screwed up bad.

Posted by bill from Edmonton on January 12, 2009:

I live in the city where this happened, and own a building in the neighbourhood. Your summary of the story leaves out some important details which may help in considering the "justify-able"-ness of what happened.

1. Mr. Falle was/is a street preacher type with some mental health issues, but utterly harmless, and I doubt even knows to this day how to stab someone properly.

2. This was the third (3rd) time that Mr. Chalifoux had threatened/tried to kill Falle; it sounds like it was some kind of weird gang initiation and indeed other gang members were waiting outside when this happened. Anyone, intelligent or otherwise, would have had to believe that if he did not kill the intruder, eventually he would come back and finish the job.

If Mr. Falle was more articulate to explain things up front, I suspect this would not even have gone to trial.

---

I'm not surprised that the neighborhood would be abuzz with details (many of which may be true, even!) The source article I used said he goes by the "nickname" of "Preacher", so I'm still unclear whether he's some sort of ordained minister, or just went by that handle for some reason. Not that it really matters either way, I guess. -rc

Posted by Felix, Dutch Flat CA USA on January 12, 2009:

My first reaction is that yes, there is a duty to stop stabbing, shooting, beating, or whatever, when the threat stops. But then I wonder how easy it is to do that in the heat of the moment. If I were scared enough to start shooting, could I actually think before each shot whether the threat was diminished enough? Stabbing would, I think, be even trickier. If I were scared enough to pick up a knife and start stabbing, I doubt very much I could think between stabs. Once started shooting, I could easily imagine emptying the entire magazine. Once started stabbing, I could easily be so freaked out that I would be more scared of stopping too soon than not stopping at all, and in any case, I don't think my state of mind would allow any contemplation of what might appear reasonable in the hindsight of 12 strangers.

The only way I can imagine being so dispassionate as to think clearly would be where I had plenty of notice that someone was trying to kill me, where I saw a stranger pull up in my front yard and get out with a gun, or known scumbags from the area show up and poke around looking for a way in.

I simply can't imagine having any brain power left to consider when to stop if I were surprised, and I can't imagine what my state of mind would be afterward, so ordering a pizza doesn't surprise me much at all.

If someone threatens people, whether a bank robber with a note about a gun he doesn't have or a burglar breaking into a home and surprising the occupants, all bets are off, and if they die, it is just too bad.

Posted by Amanda, Montclair, NJ on January 12, 2009:

Details though there may be, one thing is clear: Falle has either a disregard for life, or an unhealthy inclination to kill, possibly both.

Anyone who didn't would have subdued the guy, beating the crap out of him if it was necessary or particularly well-deserved, then called the police and had him hauled off.

Posted by Ernest, Junee, Australia on January 12, 2009:

A couple of points in the article make me wonder if Mr Falle should have been put in a mental institution.

a. 39 stabs indicates a frenzy, which is indicative of a mental short circuit.

b. It only takes two or three stabs to incapacitate someone long enough to call the police, so 39 stabs is excessive.

c. His comment of having said "Just hurry up and die," indicates someone not all there and an intent to kill beyond self defence.

d. Every legal system I know of equates 'reasonable force' as being just enough to stop the attack or a single blow.

If someone attacks me and I strike back once and kill them, that's usually seen as accidental while defending yourself as one blow is usually reasonable. If I hit back three to their one and the third kills, that's usually seen as excessive as I should've stopped after the second made it clear they had stopped.

e. I wonder about the jury in this case and what instructions they got.

If I lived in that city I'd be looking to move damn quick as I'd have no faith in the judicial system any more as it either lets murderers run free or homicidal maniacs run free - either is scary.

As to the OJ case, I think that got so muddied I'm not sure OJ actually did it, some reports suggest he may have been covering for his son, I don't know and there is no real solid untainted evidence available now.

Posted by Jay in Rochester, NY on January 12, 2009:

Recently, there was an argument in a movie theater here that erupted into a shooting. The local media hyped it and then dropped the story. What we don't know is what the person who was shot said to the shooter. Was a threat made that would fulfill the legal requirements of immediate, bodily harm? Even if there was a threat, I'm not sure it can override endangering the other people in the theater by firing a handgun.

For me, the first question is "is there a threat?", then "is there an exit for me and the others involved?" and, finally, "how to I nullify that threat?"

At the theater, the shooter should have just walked away. As for Falle, he should have stopped stabbing when the intruder was no longer a threat.

Posted by Felix, Dutch Flat CA USA on January 13, 2009:

I am amazed at how many people think it would be easy to know when to stop stabbing. If Falle was surprised in his home, who knows what his mental state was -- if he were scared and surprised and started stabbing out of pure fear, how could he possibly revert to cold blooded sanity in seconds? Do any of you actually think you could do that? As for being in a frenzy of 39 stabs, I suggest that they must have been pretty ineffective stabs if the guy was still living, implying short useless ones, also implying Falle was simply too freaked out to think coldly and rationally. And I don't see 39 as taking all that long if he were just flailing away, certainly something he could do in the shock of being surprised.

I doubt any of the armchair experts here have any idea what it would be like to be surprised in your home in a normal burglarly. The comment by the guy from the same city says Falle had been threatened twice before by the same person -- how would that affect things?

As for backing off and escaping if possible, I tell you what -- if I am in my home and some burglar (or a wannabe assassin who has attacked me twice before) surprises me, I'll be damned if I see why I should back off and try to escape rather than kill the intruder. I'll walk away from aggressive panhandlers, but burglars deserve whatever they get.

Posted by Steve in Dayton, OH on January 13, 2009:

@Rewinn: I was personally on a jury where the preponderance of evidence (what's needed for a civil case) was that the defendant was guilty, but we could not be sure beyond a reasonable doubt.

It made us all sick to do it, but we had to find the defendant not guilty. So I see what you're getting at; honestly, I tend to skim over OJ jokes as kind of lame. (Sorry, Randy.)

@Bill: That does make a difference; I can understand needing to not only make someone stop, but to make sure they're not going to just turn around and do it again (yes, I'm stealing that wholesale from Ender's Game. Still, that fact alone isn't enough to explain the severity of the attack. I might see it as an excuse to lessen the punishment, but that doesn't justify the repeatedness of the attack.

@Felix: You made me think of my disorientation after I was in a car wreck; I made some odd requests while I was in shock. We don't know if he was hurt at all himself. That said, I remember an essay of Larry Niven's that points out that while violence (from brawls, etc) might stay the same, deaths from them from haven't. His explanation is that when you're punching someone, it's actually slower to kill someone - it takes a deliberateness and determination. The amount of time between incapacitation and death is comparatively large. With a knife, that difference in time becomes slower. With a gun, that time difference might be zero. (Remember, hydrostatic shock can kill someone even if you shoot them in an extremity, and there's plenty of arteries to hit.) The "castle doctrine" is generally a good thing, IMHO - but even it doesn't usually give license to kill unless absolutely necessary. Even with the additional info that Bill provided, I'm not seeing the necessary here.

Posted by Randy in Schenectady, NY on January 13, 2009:

As Monday morning quarterbacks, we have the luxury of making a calm, reasoned judgment of what level response is appropriate. Not so when eyeball-to-eyeball with a criminal; every second counts. When confronted by a stranger with who-knows-what intentions and possibly under the influence of who-knows-what chemicals, people may react defensively based on adrenalin and the primitive parts of the brain rather than on the more compassionate and rational areas of the brain.

During an attack, when criminals perceive their lives to be on the line, I suspect many can offer nearly super-human resistance. Even a serious stab wound may take a few minutes to prove itself lethal, during which time the attacker, blinded by fear and rage, repeatedly attempts to end the resistance.

Yes, it is possible that the victim of a home invasion could himself have serious mental issues, possibly even being a psychopath. The results of a psychiatric exam should be required evidence at trial.