The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Tue Nov 26, 2024 10:35 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
Posted without comment

http://mynorthwest.com/11/722147/Even-i ... he-trigger

Brandi Kruse 97.3FM Seattle wrote:
As he sat in a holding cell, Bryce Fortier overheard a police officer say he would be charged with murder.
"That can't be right," he thought. "It was self-defense."

But on Halloween 2007, media reports confirmed what he could not believe. Prosecutors in Snohomish County had charged him with second-degree murder in the shooting death of 18-year-old Christopher Chandler.

Nearly five years later, with criminal and civil proceedings behind him, Fortier and his father say they are on the verge of bankruptcy. They spent more than $250,000 trying to prove what Bryce Fortier had said all along: He pulled the trigger to save his life.

"Even if you're right or justified, it's horrendously expensive," said his father, Andrew Fortier, 49, of Seattle. "The whole process was astronomically frustrating, god I can't even explain it. But then, at the end of the day, I knew that if I had to spend it I was going to spend it."

'They were killing me dad'

Bryce Fortier was 21 years old when he decided to buy a firearm. He purchased a Taurus PT145 and got a Concealed Pistol License.

"I carried fairly often, just because you never know what's going to happen," he said.

Fortier, however, hadn't planned to bring his firearm to a Halloween house party in Mill Creek on October 27, 2007. He stopped at the get-together with an acquaintance and chose to bring the weapon inside rather than leave it unattended in his friend's vehicle, he said.

"It was a perfect storm," his father said of the circumstances that would result in his son's arrest later that night.

According to Fortier, there was a fight outside the party and he was asked by the homeowner to tell those involved that police were on their way. He claims he was blindsided as he approached the group of partygoers.

"One of them hit me in the back of the head with a bottle and I went down," he said. "Then they just kind of circled around me ... and they basically just stomped me."

Fortier said he was able to escape the first round of assault, but ended up on the ground again.

"Each time I was getting hit it was just flashing white," he recalled. "I just remember thinking, 'They're not going to stop.'"

It was in that moment that Fortier said he had to make a decision: "It was either see if they stop, or try and get out of this."

Fearing for his life, Fortier chose the latter.

"I put my pistol in the chest of the person who was on top of me and pulled the trigger."

That person was Christopher Chandler, a student at Lake Washington Technical College. He also worked as a server in the dining room at Madison House Retirement Community in Kirkland.

Chandler died on the sidewalk from a single gunshot wound.

As police were en route, Fortier called his father.

"He was very shaky and he said, 'Dad, dad, I just shot somebody. I can't believe it ... I didn't know what else to do. I was dying,'" Andrew Fortier recalled. "'They were killing me dad.'"

Self-defense or murder?

Witnesses, prosecutors and the media would paint a very different picture of the night Christopher Chandler was killed.

Based on witness testimony that described Fortier as the aggressor, Snohomish County deputy prosecutor Sherry King alleged that Fortier was not being assaulted at the time he shot Chandler. She argued that Fortier was angry about having been beat up earlier in the night.

Pulling information from court documents, several media outlets at the time reported that Chandler was shot trying to break up a fight.

While Fortier would be charged with second-degree murder, his defense attorney, Peter Mazzone, believed it was a clear case of self-defense.

"When I first got the call to go and see him ... he was all bruised up and his face was swollen and he had black eyes and he was a mess," Mazzone said.

No one could deny that Bryce Fortier had been beaten that night. A booking photo displayed at trial shows his right eye swollen shut, his upper lip bloodied and his face covered in abrasions.

"I don't think there's any question in anybody's mind, after being presented with all the facts, that he was certainly in great danger of losing his life."

But Mazzone would have to prove that at trial.

A 'horrendously expensive' ordeal

Andrew Fortier paid $25,000 to retain Peter Mazzone as his son's defense attorney, but was warned the cost could surpass $80,000.

After hiring forensic experts, a private investigator, a crime reconstructionist and paying other court costs, Bryce Fortier's defense bill was well into six-figures.

"$147,729.36," Andrew Fortier recalls. "I don't really think I spared a dime."

A jury acquitted Bryce Fortier of murder and manslaughter. However, when asked to rule whether the shooting was justified, a procedural step that determines if a defendant should be reimbursed court costs, the jury did not agree that Fortier acted in self-defense.

Mazzone could not explain the latter ruling, but suggested it could have been a symbolic gesture to the victim's family.

Following the criminal trial, Bryce Fortier and the owner of the home where the shooting occurred were served with a civil suit brought on by the estate of Christopher Chandler.

Fortier said he was sued for negligence and battery.

"I was just trying to figure out what they wanted," he said. "At that point I had more debt than stuff."

While Bryce would eventually be cleared of wrongdoing in the civil proceedings as well, it came at a cost of roughly $110,000.

Having relied on his father to pay for his criminal defense, Fortier worked to pay for the civil side himself.

Now, five years and $257,729.36 later, he is still paying for the split-second decision he made at that Halloween party.

He still owes $75,000 in attorney fees.

He tried to join the military, but said he could not come up with the roughly $6,000 needed to provide them with court documents that fully explain his second-degree murder charge.

Fortier said he never expected it would be so hard, or so costly, to prove that he acted to save his own life.

Mazzone said the cost of a good defense doesn't enter someone's mind when they pull the trigger to protect themselves.

"I don't think anything goes through their mind expect defending themselves and wanting to live," he said. "I'm here to tell you that if you do that and if you defend yourself, your actions will be scrutinized very, very carefully and in most cases you'll end up charged with a crime."

Had he not had his gun on him that night, Bryce Fortier believes he could be dead. Which is why, despite the aftermath, he still carries his pistol.

If he ever finds himself in the same situation, he says he would pull the trigger again - even if he can't afford to.

Brandi Kruse, 97.3 KIRO FM


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:29 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
and the cost of not pulling it?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:59 pm
Posts: 9412
Why the **** does it require $6000 to come up with documentation that you were acquitted for a crime?

Not to mention, **** the jury and their "symbolic gesture." A guy is dead by his gunshot. He either committed murder, manslaughter, or shot in self defense. Way to ruin a victim's life because you wanted the family of the guy assaulting him to feel like maybe their kid wasn't beating a guy to death at a party.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:21 am 
Offline
Lucky Bastard
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:11 am
Posts: 2341
This situation is exactly the type of reason that Oonagh and I have stalled our process of arming ourselves.

We both obtained our licenses, but never followed up with safety/handling/CCW training and eventual purchase of a sidearm.

I want to feel safe that I could protect my family if necessary, but the financial outcome of such a decision would be disastrous.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:26 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Why the **** does it require $6000 to come up with documentation that you were acquitted for a crime?


A complete transcript of the proceedings could easily hit $6000, but I can think of no reason the military would need a complete transcript. Then again, I've never worked in recruiting, so there may be some bizarre requirement in a case like this to have the JAG go over the entire trial. That would be absurd, but quite plausible for obscure regulations.

Quote:
Not to mention, **** the jury and their "symbolic gesture." A guy is dead by his gunshot. He either committed murder, manslaughter, or shot in self defense. Way to ruin a victim's life because you wanted the family of the guy assaulting him to feel like maybe their kid wasn't beating a guy to death at a party.


The "symbolic gesture" thing was speculative. The problem is that the jury is allowed to decide the self-defense issue separately from guilt or innocence. That's a tacit way of reducing the burden of proof ont he prosecution and is a problem with the procedure of that state. The jury just acted on what they were told was their duty.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:29 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Foamy wrote:
This situation is exactly the type of reason that Oonagh and I have stalled our process of arming ourselves.

We both obtained our licenses, but never followed up with safety/handling/CCW training and eventual purchase of a sidearm.

I want to feel safe that I could protect my family if necessary, but the financial outcome of such a decision would be disastrous.


There's a real possibility of that, although most self-defense cases do not go to anything like these extremes. This case is an outlier, and hence news. Still, you could face real costs, especially in a civil suit. It's a fundamental problem with our system that we allow a civil suit after a criminal charge has already been acquitted or dismissed. No, I don't care that this means Nicole Brown Simpson's family wouldn't have gotten anything.

That said, what would be the greater cost to them? You being sued or you being dead?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:22 am
Posts: 385
This is the reason for the Stand Your Ground laws that have been showing up in some states.



Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:08 am
Posts: 6465
Location: The Lab
The case I linked is a bit of a challenge. I think most 'stand your ground' cases are fairly cut and dry. Someone breaks into your home, and you shoot them in defense is probably not going to be a huge problem.

Getting into a fight at a party, and you just happened to be the guy with the gun. That's a bit more problematic. Unless someone is running a smartphone camera and gets it all on tape, it's going to be about eyewitness reports, and probably from a bunch of drunks.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:57 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
I wonder if he was drinking and that played into the handling of the case.

Also DE hit it spot on. The problem is the way the legal system is written in regards to how its decided who has to pay court costs (I'd like to see a looser pays for both criminal cases and civil suits.) and suing those found criminally innocent.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:09 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Midgen wrote:
The case I linked is a bit of a challenge. I think most 'stand your ground' cases are fairly cut and dry. Someone breaks into your home, and you shoot them in defense is probably not going to be a huge problem.

Getting into a fight at a party, and you just happened to be the guy with the gun. That's a bit more problematic. Unless someone is running a smartphone camera and gets it all on tape, it's going to be about eyewitness reports, and probably from a bunch of drunks.

.
I didn't get into this aspect of it, but yes, this is totally accurate

Part of the problem in this case is that guns and alcohol do not mix. No one with an ounce of sense disagrees. Really, you should not have guns at parties that involve alcohol, period. Even if you're not drinking. This guy is really a one-in-a-lot-more-than-a-million case where he actually needed one, but most of the time if there's an altercation at a party, both sides are in the wrong, and if you do shoot someone, more than likely your *** deserves to get sued and go to jail even if they were assaulting you because most likely you did something wrong as well, like try to play hero because they weren't treating their hot girlfriend the way you thought she ought to be treated and stuck your fat face in.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:36 am
Posts: 4320
Diamondeye wrote:
This guy is really a one-in-a-lot-more-than-a-million case where he actually needed one, but most of the time if there's an altercation at a party, both sides are in the wrong, and if you do shoot someone, more than likely your *** deserves to get sued and go to jail even if they were assaulting you because most likely you did something wrong as well, like try to play hero because they weren't treating their hot girlfriend the way you thought she ought to be treated and stuck your fat face in.


I really have to wonder if those fighting knew he was carrying (many are bad at hiding it) or that the home owner knew he was carrying which is why he asked him to go tell them the cops are on the way, which may have made him a target for the guys fighting or their friends. Also, was the guy doing more than telling them the cops are on the way, like trying to reach for them to get their attention or something, at which point others thought he was either joining the fray or trying to break it up, which they didn't want. Obviously we're only getting one side of the story in the article.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:06 pm 
Offline
Perfect Equilibrium
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:27 pm
Posts: 3127
Location: Coffin Corner
Brandi Kruse 97.3FM Seattle wrote:
According to Fortier, there was a fight outside the party and he was asked by the homeowner to tell those involved that police were on their way. He claims he was blindsided as he approached the group of partygoers.


The owner is a **** coward and I would have never agreed to tell them for him. It's his home so it's not only his duty to do this but it would carry more weight if he said it. If he can't control his own party he should be facing the consequence for the cops citing him but instead some kid was assaulted and his life is ruined.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 73 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group