Correct. Sorry, Jason, but the homeowner has no legal authority to act to prevent future crimes by the fleeing thug. And it's also debatable whether he has the moral authority anyway.
Maybe we need to start a lobby for a "moral imperative" clause. This notion of criminals having the slightest leg to stand on in these cases is getting really, REALLY old.
I can't work up too much indignation over this. I feel the homeowner was wrong, but not sure I'd be in a rush to charge him. At most, a slap on the wrist and a stern 'don't do it again'...
Sounds like a just punishment for the homeowner.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
Maybe we need to start a lobby for a "moral imperative" clause. This notion of criminals having the slightest leg to stand on in these cases is getting really, REALLY old.
I've been on this board for a while now and I've often been silent in my disagreement with you on stuff like this. Once, I remember you posted about a clerk shooting a guy over a 6 pack.i couldn't equate a 6 pack with human life. But now I think sorting got to give and I'm tired of hard working citizens being subject to punishment by the government for protecting themselves and their stuff.
so, I too am ready for the law to protect the law abiding instead of criminals being protected by the law.
things are upside down and I'm tired of it.
Teach your children to love guns, they'll never be able to afford drugs
Maybe we need to start a lobby for a "moral imperative" clause. This notion of criminals having the slightest leg to stand on in these cases is getting really, REALLY old.
Sort of a majority morality? As much as I like the thought, I think you know where that ends up. No thanks.
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
Sort of a majority morality? As much as I like the thought, I think you know where that ends up. No thanks.
Let's take this out of the courtroom and remove the aspect of leisurely contemplating with 20/20 hindsight. You been held up at gunpoint or roughed up a bit physically. Maybe the threat's been extended to family or friends.
#1. The victim (and let's remember who the freakin' VICTIM is here) will have a quart of adrenaline in their veins when the opportunity presents itself to get a round into the perp. Is it even SLIGHTLY reasonable to apply a requirement for relaxed contemplation of some kind of lethal force "checklist" in such circumstances?
#2. Is the threat fleeing, or turning his back for some other reason? What is the likelihood of the threat returning in the less-than-911-response-time, and will they be more or less of a threat when they do?
#3. Is a confirmed mad dog in your neighborhood no longer a threat because it is no longer five feet away and snarling at you?
The normal, natural, healthy, and INSTINCTIVE response to seeing a disease-carrying cockroach is to step on it, without contemplation of how that cockroach or its bacteria might someday cure cancer or the common cold. Any FAIR judgement of that response needs to take that instinct into account.
Let's take this out of the courtroom and remove the aspect of leisurely contemplating with 20/20 hindsight. You been held up at gunpoint or roughed up a bit physically. Maybe the threat's been extended to family or friends.
#1. The victim (and let's remember who the freakin' VICTIM is here) will have a quart of adrenaline in their veins when the opportunity presents itself to get a round into the perp. Is it even SLIGHTLY reasonable to apply a requirement for relaxed contemplation of some kind of lethal force "checklist" in such circumstances?
#2. Is the threat fleeing, or turning his back for some other reason? What is the likelihood of the threat returning in the less-than-911-response-time, and will they be more or less of a threat when they do?
#3. Is a confirmed mad dog in your neighborhood no longer a threat because it is no longer five feet away and snarling at you?
The normal, natural, healthy, and INSTINCTIVE response to seeing a disease-carrying cockroach is to step on it, without contemplation of how that cockroach or its bacteria might someday cure cancer or the common cold. Any FAIR judgement of that response needs to take that instinct into account.
:that:
Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
Let's take this out of the courtroom and remove the aspect of leisurely contemplating with 20/20 hindsight. You been held up at gunpoint or roughed up a bit physically. Maybe the threat's been extended to family or friends.
#1. The victim (and let's remember who the freakin' VICTIM is here) will have a quart of adrenaline in their veins when the opportunity presents itself to get a round into the perp. Is it even SLIGHTLY reasonable to apply a requirement for relaxed contemplation of some kind of lethal force "checklist" in such circumstances?
#2. Is the threat fleeing, or turning his back for some other reason? What is the likelihood of the threat returning in the less-than-911-response-time, and will they be more or less of a threat when they do?
#3. Is a confirmed mad dog in your neighborhood no longer a threat because it is no longer five feet away and snarling at you?
The normal, natural, healthy, and INSTINCTIVE response to seeing a disease-carrying cockroach is to step on it, without contemplation of how that cockroach or its bacteria might someday cure cancer or the common cold. Any FAIR judgement of that response needs to take that instinct into account.
And on further reflection:
Do we really want to foster a system where violent criminals can expect an outcome OTHER than getting shot by their victims as a consequence of their actions?
While it may not always be appropriate to drop the hammer on someone who has just committed a crime of violence/threat of violence against you, considerations need to be slanted - and slanted harshly - against the criminal that started the business in the first place.
While it may not always be appropriate to drop the hammer on someone who has just committed a crime of violence/threat of violence against you, considerations need to be slanted - and slanted harshly - against the criminal that started the business in the first place.
Exactly. I would hope, for my own peace of mind, that I would not shoot someone unless something has convinced me that it is absolutely necessary. But, on the other hand, I would not put a citizen (who was no threat to the community) in jail for murder, or even excessive force, for killing a thief who was caught in the act of menacing the community, even if he screwed it up, badly. Citizens should elect DA's that understand this, and the one's who don't get that should be taught, by no-billing the citizens who are charged for it.
Do we really want to foster a system where violent criminals can expect an outcome OTHER than getting shot by their victims as a consequence of their actions?
While it may not always be appropriate to drop the hammer on someone who has just committed a crime of violence/threat of violence against you, considerations need to be slanted - and slanted harshly - against the criminal that started the business in the first place.
And this is why I posted that AT WORST, this guy gets a stern talking to. Yes, I do want criminals to fear for their lives...all the time.
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
And this is why I posted that AT WORST, this guy gets a stern talking to. Yes, I do want criminals to fear for their lives...all the time.
You're damned if THEY DO and you're damned if THEY DON'T!
I have mixed emotions about all this. I don't trust most DAs as far as I can throw the Astrodome left handed and I don't trust sleezeball lawyers either. DAs too often use that position as a step up to a political career.The more convictions they can get the better they look and they don't care if you're really guilty or not, they're going to try to nail you as such. Some of them are heartless beasts and I don't relish the thought of being the star attraction at a grand jury accused of killing some sleezeball for stealing apples off a tree so to speak. On the other hand I'm so damn sick of guilty scumbags getting off on a technicality!
Daddy, what's an enabler?
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
You're damned if THEY DO and you're damned if THEY DON'T!
I have mixed emotions about all this. I don't trust most DAs as far as I can throw the Astrodome left handed and I don't trust sleezeball lawyers either. DAs too often use that position as a step up to a political career.The more convictions they can get the better they look and they don't care if you're really guilty or not, they're going to try to nail you as such. Some of them are heartless beasts and I don't relish the thought of being the star attraction at a grand jury accused of killing some sleezeball for stealing apples off a tree so to speak. On the other hand I'm so damn sick of guilty scumbags getting off on a technicality!
Heat of the moment should be a legit defense. Good thing where I live we can just practice SSS and avoid such problems.
Wal Mart where the discriminating white trash shop.
Paddle faster!!! I hear banjos.
Reason for editing: correcting my auto correct
Heat of the moment should be a legit defense. Good thing where I live we can just practice SSS and avoid such problems.
I am already on record here advocating denying the perpetrator of a crime any initiative regarding the actions of his victim, even if he turns and runs in the middle of it all. But how shall we define in law the rights of the victim so that he is immune from prosecution even after using extreme or deadly force, and even if it is all out of proportion to the force employed by his attacker?
The criminal should be charged with "Incitement to self defense." Any criminal physical action that motivates an otherwise peaceable person to a physical response out of fear would qualify. Fighting words and insults would not - the incitement must be a true threat to life, limb, companion/service animal, or property. Any action in response to a true threat would be protected. Punishment for conviction to be determined.
When a true threat is ended, and the perpetrator attempts to flee the scene, and is shot anyway, the victim should be protected by the claim of "Self defense of Passion ." Just as a crime of passion is forgivable, a self defense of passion should also be. Civilian citizens are not trained and indoctrinated as LEOs are, and must not be held to the same high standard of conduct. A far lower standard should apply.
So, with Incitement to Self defense we get the criminal coming, and with Self Defense of Passion we get him going. No rest for the wicked. Politicians would never enact such legislation, it would have to be achieved through the initiative and referendum process. Anybody wanna sign my petition?
Yes!!! You are forced into a situation where you are fighting for your life I would see anyone who did that as a threat until they could no longer move wether restrained or dead. once engaged by someone else in a fight there should be almost no limits on what a non professional can do in defense of their lives. Crap anytime police snuff a civvy no matter the circumstances it is almost always ruled justified even if they were cuffed in the backseat or had their hands up in their doorway. Once someone engages you in a deadly force encounter there should be no limits on your justification. Also I would never trust the"justice system" where I live if I had to defend myself.
Wal Mart where the discriminating white trash shop.
Paddle faster!!! I hear banjos.
Reason for editing: correcting my auto correct
The whole scenario in the OP sounds fishy to me- - - -the participants were "acquaintances"- - - - -the "home invader" searched the house for money and drugs- - - - -When the resident returned, he got hold of the gun and took some shots at the fleeing scumbag- - - - -it sounds like the original bad actor tried to rip off his drug dealer and the cops used the circumstances as an opportunity to toss both participants in the slammer. I really doubt the shooter is as pure as the driven snow!
:roll:
Jerry
Yes!!! You are forced into a situation where you are fighting for your life I would see anyone who did that as a threat until they could no longer move wether restrained or dead. once engaged by someone else in a fight there should be almost no limits on what a non professional can do in defense of their lives. Crap anytime police snuff a civvy no matter the circumstances it is almost always ruled justified even if they were cuffed in the backseat or had their hands up in their doorway. Once someone engages you in a deadly force encounter there should be no limits on your justification. Also I would never trust the"justice system" where I live if I had to defend myself.
Sorry, but if I've heard of a dumber defense, then the memory escapes me. Heat of the moment? I think I get what you're trying to say, but don't we argue on a fairly regular basis against such a defense? No, either self defense is required, or it is not. Legitimizing 'heat of the moment' does nothing more than open the floodgates for lawyers across the country to use such an argument for their 'clients'. Sure, sometimes the lie will be an obvious one, but are you willing to leave that up to the mouth breathers that commonly man jurist panels?
Yeah, heat of the moment is a non-starter for me.
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
"Heat of the moment" is a circumstance that's used for charging someone with 2nd degree homicide (aggravated manslaughter) if I'm not mistaken. It in no way lets someone off scot free for shooting a fleeing felon.
At least that's the way I think it is in Texas. I could be wrong -- often am -- and of course other states have different interpretations of the way they deal with manslaughter. By definition, and I think I'm right here, "manslaughter" is the intentional taking of a human life, regardless of whether it's justified.
For example, if you shoot & kill a guy who's threatening your life and he's armed and all that, and you are correctly defending yourself in accordance with the law and also morally, it's still technically termed manslaughter by legal definition, but in this case it would be ruled "justified manslaughter" and you'd not be charged. The term "homicide" is reserved for the illegal taking of a life.
I think I'm right on that. But nevertheless, in this event that started the thread, I agree that the circumstances are suspicious, that they "knew one another" and so on. It may be later determined that the shooting was malicious (that is, intentionally unlawful and illegal). This particular case has too many loose ends for it to serve as an example of "correct" behavior, regardless of whether some think that shooting a fleeing felon is justified.
Replies
Maybe we need to start a lobby for a "moral imperative" clause. This notion of criminals having the slightest leg to stand on in these cases is getting really, REALLY old.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Sounds like a just punishment for the homeowner.
― Douglas Adams
so, I too am ready for the law to protect the law abiding instead of criminals being protected by the law.
things are upside down and I'm tired of it.
Sort of a majority morality? As much as I like the thought, I think you know where that ends up. No thanks.
George Carlin
Let's take this out of the courtroom and remove the aspect of leisurely contemplating with 20/20 hindsight. You been held up at gunpoint or roughed up a bit physically. Maybe the threat's been extended to family or friends.
#1. The victim (and let's remember who the freakin' VICTIM is here) will have a quart of adrenaline in their veins when the opportunity presents itself to get a round into the perp. Is it even SLIGHTLY reasonable to apply a requirement for relaxed contemplation of some kind of lethal force "checklist" in such circumstances?
#2. Is the threat fleeing, or turning his back for some other reason? What is the likelihood of the threat returning in the less-than-911-response-time, and will they be more or less of a threat when they do?
#3. Is a confirmed mad dog in your neighborhood no longer a threat because it is no longer five feet away and snarling at you?
The normal, natural, healthy, and INSTINCTIVE response to seeing a disease-carrying cockroach is to step on it, without contemplation of how that cockroach or its bacteria might someday cure cancer or the common cold. Any FAIR judgement of that response needs to take that instinct into account.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
:that:
And on further reflection:
Do we really want to foster a system where violent criminals can expect an outcome OTHER than getting shot by their victims as a consequence of their actions?
While it may not always be appropriate to drop the hammer on someone who has just committed a crime of violence/threat of violence against you, considerations need to be slanted - and slanted harshly - against the criminal that started the business in the first place.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Exactly. I would hope, for my own peace of mind, that I would not shoot someone unless something has convinced me that it is absolutely necessary. But, on the other hand, I would not put a citizen (who was no threat to the community) in jail for murder, or even excessive force, for killing a thief who was caught in the act of menacing the community, even if he screwed it up, badly. Citizens should elect DA's that understand this, and the one's who don't get that should be taught, by no-billing the citizens who are charged for it.
And this is why I posted that AT WORST, this guy gets a stern talking to. Yes, I do want criminals to fear for their lives...all the time.
George Carlin
You're damned if THEY DO and you're damned if THEY DON'T!
I have mixed emotions about all this. I don't trust most DAs as far as I can throw the Astrodome left handed and I don't trust sleezeball lawyers either. DAs too often use that position as a step up to a political career.The more convictions they can get the better they look and they don't care if you're really guilty or not, they're going to try to nail you as such. Some of them are heartless beasts and I don't relish the thought of being the star attraction at a grand jury accused of killing some sleezeball for stealing apples off a tree so to speak. On the other hand I'm so damn sick of guilty scumbags getting off on a technicality!
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Heat of the moment should be a legit defense. Good thing where I live we can just practice SSS and avoid such problems.
Paddle faster!!! I hear banjos.
Reason for editing: correcting my auto correct
I am already on record here advocating denying the perpetrator of a crime any initiative regarding the actions of his victim, even if he turns and runs in the middle of it all. But how shall we define in law the rights of the victim so that he is immune from prosecution even after using extreme or deadly force, and even if it is all out of proportion to the force employed by his attacker?
The criminal should be charged with "Incitement to self defense." Any criminal physical action that motivates an otherwise peaceable person to a physical response out of fear would qualify. Fighting words and insults would not - the incitement must be a true threat to life, limb, companion/service animal, or property. Any action in response to a true threat would be protected. Punishment for conviction to be determined.
When a true threat is ended, and the perpetrator attempts to flee the scene, and is shot anyway, the victim should be protected by the claim of "Self defense of Passion ." Just as a crime of passion is forgivable, a self defense of passion should also be. Civilian citizens are not trained and indoctrinated as LEOs are, and must not be held to the same high standard of conduct. A far lower standard should apply.
So, with Incitement to Self defense we get the criminal coming, and with Self Defense of Passion we get him going. No rest for the wicked. Politicians would never enact such legislation, it would have to be achieved through the initiative and referendum process. Anybody wanna sign my petition?
I totally agree with you on this. Unfortunately, that's not how most laws are written.
IMO, if he doesn't manage to escape you, he should still be fair game.
Luis
Really?
George Carlin
Yes!!! You are forced into a situation where you are fighting for your life I would see anyone who did that as a threat until they could no longer move wether restrained or dead. once engaged by someone else in a fight there should be almost no limits on what a non professional can do in defense of their lives. Crap anytime police snuff a civvy no matter the circumstances it is almost always ruled justified even if they were cuffed in the backseat or had their hands up in their doorway. Once someone engages you in a deadly force encounter there should be no limits on your justification. Also I would never trust the"justice system" where I live if I had to defend myself.
Paddle faster!!! I hear banjos.
Reason for editing: correcting my auto correct
:roll:
Jerry
Sorry, but if I've heard of a dumber defense, then the memory escapes me. Heat of the moment? I think I get what you're trying to say, but don't we argue on a fairly regular basis against such a defense? No, either self defense is required, or it is not. Legitimizing 'heat of the moment' does nothing more than open the floodgates for lawyers across the country to use such an argument for their 'clients'. Sure, sometimes the lie will be an obvious one, but are you willing to leave that up to the mouth breathers that commonly man jurist panels?
Yeah, heat of the moment is a non-starter for me.
George Carlin
At least that's the way I think it is in Texas. I could be wrong -- often am -- and of course other states have different interpretations of the way they deal with manslaughter. By definition, and I think I'm right here, "manslaughter" is the intentional taking of a human life, regardless of whether it's justified.
For example, if you shoot & kill a guy who's threatening your life and he's armed and all that, and you are correctly defending yourself in accordance with the law and also morally, it's still technically termed manslaughter by legal definition, but in this case it would be ruled "justified manslaughter" and you'd not be charged. The term "homicide" is reserved for the illegal taking of a life.
I think I'm right on that. But nevertheless, in this event that started the thread, I agree that the circumstances are suspicious, that they "knew one another" and so on. It may be later determined that the shooting was malicious (that is, intentionally unlawful and illegal). This particular case has too many loose ends for it to serve as an example of "correct" behavior, regardless of whether some think that shooting a fleeing felon is justified.