Isn’t this self defense?

FRESNO, Calif. – A former criminal law student has been sentenced to life in a California prison for killing one man and wounding two others in a dispute over a Sony PlayStation console.

Jonquel Brooks was sentenced Friday in Fresno County Superior Court. He asked for forgiveness from relatives of the man he shot.

Police said Brooks killed 19-year-old Brant Daniels and wounded his friends in May 2007. They had apparently gone to Brooks’ apartment to look for their stolen PlayStation.

Brooks was a freshman at California State University, Fresno, at the time.

At his trial, Brooks said he acted in self-defense because he feared they were going to attack him.

However, a jury found him guilty in April of first-degree murder and attempted murder.

Bookmark the permalink.

All comments are reviewed before publication and all links removed.

6 Responses to Isn’t this self defense?

  1. John G says:

    No, he said that he was scared they’d hurt him…not kill him. You can’t kill someone you think is going to hurt you… have to feel your life is in danger, not in for a hurtin’.

  2. Steven J says:

    He used excessive force shooting and killing them. A but shot would have been more reasonable.

  3. dwoodall says:

    No, it isn’t self defense. If his life wasn’t threatened, then he isn’t allowed to use deadly force.

    I agree with the person above who suggested shooting them in the @zz. In my store, if I am robbed with anything other than a gun:

    1. They’re going to get a 10mm round below the waist.

    2. If they continue, the second one goes through the chest.

    3. If by some miracle they’re still standing, and still threatening, the clip will be emptied at their head.

    If I am robbed at gunpoint, skip steps 1 and 2 and proceed directly to step 3.

  4. Mr Placid says:

    It’s self-defense if the defendant feared for his life.

    But, apparently, after reviewing all of the evidence, the jury concluded that there was no justification for deadly force.

    Self-defense is determined by a jury, after being presented with all facts and evidence. Self-defense cannot be ascertained from a newspaper article which presents no facts.

  5. The Criminologist says:

    Some may even argue that because Brooks committed the first crime the crimes of murder and attempted murder would have never happened.

    Sheesh. I wonder if these guys broke in or just threatened him with violence. Yet, according to the castle doctrine, Brooks was correct in doing what he did. A man’s home is his castle and the place where he feels the safest. If his safety is threatened and he has already retreated into his “castle”, any self-defense is acceptable.

    I’m no lawyer, but that’s what I would argue.

  6. STEVEN F says:

    Nothing you stated gives any reason why Brooks had reason to believe they would attack him. Given that he KNOW the intruders, and WHY they were there, it is LESS likely he actually feared an attack. Unless you are leaving out an important act by the victims, this does not sound like self defense to me.

    The answers that suggest shooting in the rear know NOTHING about shooting OR self defense law. SHOWING a gun is legally lethal force, It is either justified or it is not. And shooting a specific body part is NOT even close to reasonable if self defense is required.

    The answer referring to the ‘castle doctrine’ is misinformed. Fisrt, in most states, the castle doctrine means you have no ‘duty to retreat’ before defending PEOPLE in your home. It does NOT extend to PROPERTY in most cases. In NO state would is extend to property STOLEN from the intruder.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *