The supposed victim is Bruce Greer. He seems to have been upset about his dead dog and took a gun to his neighbor’s house. The officer in the court proceedings did identify that the gun was loaded and a round was in the chamber.
John Collett was getting ready to walk the fence, which is somewhat dangerous because of the coyotes and other dangerous animals out there. He was armed with a sidearm.
Hearing Bruce yelling from the front yard, John Collett stepped out on the front porch of his parent’s home who were in the house. Bruce raises his gun. John pulls his and fires five times. Bruce then, drives his ATV back to his house where he dies in his girlfriend’s arms.
Two 911 calls were made. John made one 911 call where he admits shooting Bruce and that an ambulance is needed. Bruce’s girlfriend makes the other. Bruce dies regardless.
The facts of the case are these and they are undisputed.
A cut and dry case about self-defense. Whether or not self-defense was necessary is what the jury has to decide. But, what a case both sides are making out of the whole thing.
They’ve questioned the girlfriend and brought up her life history, which includes two felonies and the fact that she is still on probation.
They’ve questioned the officer who arrived on the scene who has identified both guns, the shell casings, the supposed crime scene, how a magazine works…etc.
Uh, what I’m getting at is that John Collett has admitted to shooting Bruce Greer. All of this is really unnecessary. But, this is how lawyers make something big out of something so small. The jury should already be deliberating.
What purpose does it serve to have an officer identify the shell casings of the rounds that were used to kill Bruce Greer when you have John Collett admitting to the whole incident?
What purpose does it serve to show blood on the ATV (they actually brought the ATV in the courtroom) and where a bullet hole exists when you have John Collett admitting he shot Bruce Greer?
He showed the officer the gun he used. He explained what happened to the officer just as things are being presented in the courtroom. Is this overkill on the need of both lawyers to justify their existence?
When we’re spending tax dollars on a judge, jury and prosecutor as well as everything else that goes into prosecuting a defender, do we really need to drag this one out this far?
I’ll keep track of this case and keep you updated on its outcome.