Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/4/2006 5:49:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 5:51:53 PM EDT by USAF_Hop_N_Pop]
Not sure how other states allow for the use of deadly force, but in FL it says that it can be used to prevent "death or great bodily injury, and to prevent the commission of a forcible felony" and goes on to define "forcible felony" as rape, robbery, burgulary, or kidnapping.

My question is: does that justify me to shoot someone simply for robbing me without presenting any threat to me?

The scenario to consider: I am walking out to the parking lot and come upon someone breaking into my unoccupied car. Since the value of the car is >$3000, it is a felony to steal it. If this person who is stealing my car makes no threating act to me, do I still have the right to shoot him, or at least draw my weapon? (FL law makes very little distinction between pointing a gun at someone and actually pulling the trigger)

ETA: This question is more geared toward LEO's and lawyers. If you dont know, don't simply post "I'd shoot the scumbag!"
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 6:13:55 PM EDT
In Indiana you must be able to articulate that you were in fear of yours or another persons life if you use lethal force against another person. It can only be used to prevent death or seriously bodily injury. I wish it were not so restrictive. If you could shoot someone for breaking into your car or garage we would have a lot fewer burglaries.

Our LEOs must meet the same criteria but can also use deadly force to prevent the escape of a felon if they can articulate that the escape of that felon poses a serious threat of death or seriously bodily injury to the public.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:33:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 7:36:23 PM EDT by ORinTX]
I'm no lawyer or LEO, and generally I have zero clue what I'm talking about. Others will vouch for that fact.

The way I look at it is paying a lawyer for an indictment hearing is going to cost me at LEAST 5k. There are few material items that I'd shoot someone over.

I have read of several cases where people have shot bad guys simply for felony robbery in Texas as well as Oregon (and other states), and not gone to jail. Then again, some have gone to jail. You're at the mercy of a jury, and juries seem to rarely follow the instructions they're given.

But like I said I'm a dumbass, so you've wasted your time if you've read this far.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 7:33:18 PM EDT
No. If no other person is at risk then you may not shoot just to protect property.

If another person is at risk, and if you were in their shoes and felt fear of great bodily harm or death then yes. ie: someone is being robbed at gunpoint.

I am not a lawyer.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:07:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/4/2006 8:09:52 PM EDT by danpass]
This is a good read (I'm still going thru it)

CHAPTER 776

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:13:05 PM EDT
The way it was explained in my ccw class was a robbery and a burglary are two different things. Robbery being a crime against you and your stuff (holding you up with a shank and taking your watch), burglary a crime against your stuff (stealing your watch off the table while you are away from home).

Someone stealing your unoccupied car is buglary, someone jacking your car at a stoplight is robbery.

In states with a law that allows deadly force to protect property (such as alaska) you could smoke the guy for trying to steal your car. In states without that law you would just have to watch the guy drive off. Yelling at him or such could be judged as escalating the situation.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:30:24 PM EDT
florida law lists some crimes that are considered to be forcible felonies and robbery and burgulary are both specifically mentioned in that list.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 8:31:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By anomad:
The way it was explained in my ccw class was a robbery and a burglary are two different things. Robbery being a crime against you and your stuff (holding you up with a shank and taking your watch), burglary a crime against your stuff (stealing your watch off the table while you are away from home).

Someone stealing your unoccupied car is buglary, someone jacking your car at a stoplight is robbery.

In states with a law that allows deadly force to protect property (such as alaska) you could smoke the guy for trying to steal your car. In states without that law you would just have to watch the guy drive off. Yelling at him or such could be judged as escalating the situation.



You're exactly right on the distinction between robbery and burglarly, that's an important detail to note.
Link Posted: 1/4/2006 9:04:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By USAF_Hop_N_Pop:
florida law lists some crimes that are considered to be forcible felonies and robbery and burgulary are both specifically mentioned in that list.



treason also

<­BR>
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 6:39:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 6:47:40 PM EDT
There is no such thing as use of deadly force when not threatened. If you use deadly force, you were being threatened. I swear officer.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 6:51:27 PM EDT
Hotwireing your car while you were in the Mall isn't a forcible felony. Carjacking is a forcible felony.


Hope you like the roomate in the Joint. Cuz he likes you.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 7:28:59 PM EDT
Not so sure how you figure it is a robbery either....the guy stealing your car is not "robbing" you unless FL has a different definition of robbery.

Although it is a felony crime where you are the victim, drawing down could easily be articulated. As for actually shooting, the scenarion is not even close.

Drawing down may just be a deterrent or an advantage since your weapon is already out in case the suspect is armed.
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 7:31:14 PM EDT
but officer, he had a crow bar!
Link Posted: 1/8/2006 7:47:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2006 7:56:06 PM EDT by ORinTX]

Originally Posted By RDP:
Not so sure how you figure it is a robbery either....the guy stealing your car is not "robbing" you unless FL has a different definition of robbery.

Although it is a felony crime where you are the victim, drawing down could easily be articulated. As for actually shooting, the scenarion is not even close.

Drawing down may just be a deterrent or an advantage since your weapon is already out in case the suspect is armed.



I wouldn't draw down in that scenario. If it escalated and I shot the guy I'd be explaining to a jury why I shot him over a material item.

It's a comon mistake to confuse robbery, burglary, and larceny. It's our job as CCW licensees to know these legal definitions.

Don't shoot anybody for anything less than aggravated assault if you enjoy your freedom, even if he's commiting a felony. Remember, you have to face a jury, and the DA will spend great amounts of energy convincing them that the gang banger you shot was a choir boy who on his way to hand out bibles found your car broken into and decided to lock it up for you.

I also have no intention of shooting anybody in order to protect an unknown third party except in extreme scenarios, where a very violent crime is clearly taking place. I carry to protect myself and my family, not some schmuck who didn't take it upon himself to carry. I'm not a cop and I'm not going to risk my freedom for someone else.

ETA: Now, I personally think it ought to be totally acceptable to shoot someone for stealing your car while you're not in it, and I know the law SAYS you can shoot people for felony theft in some states, but the fact is that juries aren't always reasonable and sadly they don't always vote the law. They vote their emotions, and DAs are experts at manipulating the emotions of jurors.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 11:04:39 AM EDT
A very interesting thread. I wonder... What if to keep him from making off with it, You shot the car? Ha ha ha ha! I am wondering as I sit here if you catch somewon stealing your car as you come out of the mall if you are actually obligated to do nothing? Here in NY where the liberals roam, I would definitly wave goodbye to him and figure out what kind of new car I'm getting tommorow. I'm amazed at the state of things these days. It used to be if you stole a horse they hangd you....Hog
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 9:49:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ORinTX:
Remember, you have to face a jury, and the DA will spend great amounts of energy convincing them that the gang banger you shot was a choir boy who on his way to hand out bibles found your car broken into and decided to lock it up for you.



I asked clarification on this in another thread--

If that is actually how it is where you are, it isn't like that anywhere around here...... The police investigate, shake your hand, and process the scene.

I have been around for several incidents where good people shot at or killed bad guys. One was even an old lady and guy shooting a car up where the suspects just broke into their house. They did a good job lighting up the car, but the bad guys got away. Although they were not completely within their legal right to shoot, they were instructed that was not appropriate. The guns were impounded for ballistic comparison when the suspect vehicle was located or in case someone turned up with a bullet wound.

Other incidents we patted the guys on the back and said good job. Still processed the scene and did what we could to prove the good guy right.......no DA or jury is even around. We only submit CRIMINAL cases to the DA's office.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 9:56:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2006 10:19:52 PM EDT by DaveM4P99]

Originally Posted By Hogtruckie:
A very interesting thread. I wonder... What if to keep him from making off with it, You shot the car? Ha ha ha ha! I am wondering as I sit here if you catch somewon stealing your car as you come out of the mall if you are actually obligated to do nothing? Here in NY where the liberals roam, I would definitly wave goodbye to him and figure out what kind of new car I'm getting tommorow. I'm amazed at the state of things these days. It used to be if you stole a horse they hangd you....Hog



actually, although NY is full of crazy liberals, you can use physical force for a lot of reasons. NY actually has very lenient force laws.

Penal Part 1 -
Title C – Defenses:
Article 35 - Defense Of Justification

35.00 - Justification; a defense.
35.05 - Justification; generally.
35.10 - Justification; use of physical force generally.
35.15 - Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
35.20 - Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
35.25 - Justification; use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief.
35.27 - Justification; use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited.
35.30 - Justification; use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.

check out this link, it explains them in more detail: caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a12.html

Don't take my word for it thought, consult a local lawyer or LEO, and take a CCW course.
That being said, I would never shoot someone unless it was to prevent murder or severe injury.
Link Posted: 1/9/2006 10:52:47 PM EDT
Yeah i would just call the police and tell them your car is being stolen. Your not in any danger if you just stay away. Of course if you are feeling stupid and try to stop the guy, then he might try to kill you and then you can use your weapon to protect yourself. But I wouldn't put myself in that situation if i was you. If i can avoid killing someone i would do so just because it is a major pain to go through all the paperwork.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 4:23:36 AM EDT
Nowhere in the United Staes may one use deadly force against a non-deadly force threat. Breaking into a car is a crime against property, no representing a threat to you.
NOW, bad guy turns with crowbar in hand, raises it at you and states, "I ain't going back to jail, motherfucker!" , that represents a pretty clear deadly force threat.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 10:33:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By USAF_Hop_N_Pop:
Not sure how other states allow for the use of deadly force, but in FL it says that it can be used to prevent "death or great bodily injury, and to prevent the commission of a forcible felony" and goes on to define "forcible felony" as rape, robbery, burgulary, or kidnapping.

My question is: does that justify me to shoot someone simply for robbing me without presenting any threat to me?

The scenario to consider: I am walking out to the parking lot and come upon someone breaking into my unoccupied car. Since the value of the car is >$3000, it is a felony to steal it. If this person who is stealing my car makes no threating act to me, do I still have the right to shoot him, or at least draw my weapon? (FL law makes very little distinction between pointing a gun at someone and actually pulling the trigger)

ETA: This question is more geared toward LEO's and lawyers. If you dont know, don't simply post "I'd shoot the scumbag!"




first, I'd like to point out that your scenerio is not a robbery, it's a Grand Larceny Auto. A robbery is when there is force or violence, or threat thereof, either immediate or future.

second, i wouldnt draw down until he does pose an immediate threat to you. If he doesnt, then be a good witness. It's not worth it.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:25:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RDP:

Originally Posted By ORinTX:
Remember, you have to face a jury, and the DA will spend great amounts of energy convincing them that the gang banger you shot was a choir boy who on his way to hand out bibles found your car broken into and decided to lock it up for you.



I asked clarification on this in another thread--

If that is actually how it is where you are, it isn't like that anywhere around here...... The police investigate, shake your hand, and process the scene.

I have been around for several incidents where good people shot at or killed bad guys. One was even an old lady and guy shooting a car up where the suspects just broke into their house. They did a good job lighting up the car, but the bad guys got away. Although they were not completely within their legal right to shoot, they were instructed that was not appropriate. The guns were impounded for ballistic comparison when the suspect vehicle was located or in case someone turned up with a bullet wound.

Other incidents we patted the guys on the back and said good job. Still processed the scene and did what we could to prove the good guy right.......no DA or jury is even around. We only submit CRIMINAL cases to the DA's office.




I'm glad that good guys don't always go to trial. But sometimes they do, undeservedly. It is that scenario that I plan for -- just because I'm in the right doesn't mean I won't at least have to face a grand jury, if not a trial jury.

It does happen, to cops and civilians alike. I love that it doesn't always happen.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:48:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By rifle-cop624:
Nowhere in the United Staes may one use deadly force against a non-deadly force threat.



Well, they sure have news shows about how you can in TX. Only from what I have heard, but night and protecting your property were part of the equation.

And there are times when you can use deadly force against a non-deadly threat....these are the extremes where you life would later be endangered from the act. A simple example is you are out hiking where it is really hot or cold, isolated and noone is around. You have a guy trying to steal your car which contains all your food and water. Although the threat is non-deadly, the ramifications of the case could easily justify a deadly force incident. And we had a case just like that here.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 9:16:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 9:21:07 PM EDT by DaveM4P99]

Originally Posted By rifle-cop624:
Nowhere in the United Staes may one use deadly force against a non-deadly force threat. Breaking into a car is a crime against property, no representing a threat to you.
NOW, bad guy turns with crowbar in hand, raises it at you and states, "I ain't going back to jail, motherfucker!" , that represents a pretty clear deadly force threat.



unless i am understanding this incorrectly, i think you are wrong...these are the laws for NY...not the same in all states, but some...

S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he
reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he
reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such
other person of a crime involving damage to premises. He may use any
degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he
reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use
deadly physical force if he reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson.
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or
attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon
such premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than
deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force in order to prevent
or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as
prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or
attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.

3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or
terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.



there are lots other examples too...
but like i said, i wouldn't shoot unless a life was threatened

and the most important thing is that its all up to a "reasonable jury"...in other words, would another REASONABLE person act the same way in a similar situation.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:09:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 7:10:59 AM EDT by rifle-cop624]

Originally Posted By DaveM4P99:

Originally Posted By rifle-cop624:
Nowhere in the United Staes may one use deadly force against a non-deadly force threat. Breaking into a car is a crime against property, no representing a threat to you.
NOW, bad guy turns with crowbar in hand, raises it at you and states, "I ain't going back to jail, ------------!" , that represents a pretty clear deadly force threat.



unless i am understanding this incorrectly, i think you are wrong...these are the laws for NY...not the same in all states, but some...

S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he
reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he
reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such
other person of a crime involving damage to premises. He may use any
degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he
reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use
deadly physical force if he reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson.
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or
attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon
such premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than
deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force in order to prevent
or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as
prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or
attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.

3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or
terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.



there are lots other examples too...
but like i said, i wouldn't shoot unless a life was threatened

and the most important thing is that its all up to a "reasonable jury"...in other words, would another REASONABLE person act the same way in a similar situation.



There is an old saying in police work. "Do what you can stand"
If you think you can "stand" to shoot a guy for breaking into a house or anything else, rock-on, brotha! I happen to enjoy my freedom, and my good government job. The letter of the law is ink on parchment. Your actions will be judged by a grand jury of flesh and blood, emotionally charged, people.
Again, unless I or another is in actual imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, I can't "stand" the use of deadly force or the legal aftermath. I guess I didn't make that clear in my earlier post.
If you or anyone else can "stand" that kind of heat, you have better lawyers and deeper pockets than I, sir.
Edited to add that articulation is everything.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 7:18:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 7:19:11 AM EDT by 4get_No1]

Originally Posted By rifle-cop624:
Nowhere in the United Staes may one use deadly force against a non-deadly force threat. Breaking into a car is a crime against property, no representing a threat to you.
NOW, bad guy turns with crowbar in hand, raises it at you and states, "I ain't going back to jail, motherfucker!" , that represents a pretty clear deadly force threat.



...and I bet all of them I'll ever meet WILL say that too. In fact, that's about when I would draw and shout "Stop. Stop." twice. Just bring the big black baggie and ask me .
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 8:58:04 AM EDT

Nowhere in the United Staes may one use deadly force against a non-deadly force threat.

As frequently happens, blanket statements like that may be correct in the main, but there are always a few little glitches. There are instances where deadly force is authorized when there is not a deadly threat being posed to you. For a good example, check out the Rodney Peirs case in Louisiana. Having said that, I teach my students to use deadly force only in defense of themselves or someone they lilke a lot because the cost, even when right, can be huge.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 11:32:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By darm441:

Nowhere in the United Staes may one use deadly force against a non-deadly force threat.

As frequently happens, blanket statements like that may be correct in the main, but there are always a few little glitches. There are instances where deadly force is authorized when there is not a deadly threat being posed to you. For a good example, check out the Rodney Peirs case in Louisiana. Having said that, I teach my students to use deadly force only in defense of themselves or someone they lilke a lot because the cost, even when right, can be huge.



Doesn't Texas allow the use of deadly force to protect property? And I thought that Louisiana passed a law a few years ago allowing the use of deadly force against a car jacker if that was the only way to get them out or keep them out of your car.
Link Posted: 1/13/2006 11:39:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 6:29:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By anomad:
The way it was explained in my ccw class was a robbery and a burglary are two different things. Robbery being a crime against you and your stuff (holding you up with a shank and taking your watch), burglary a crime against your stuff (stealing your watch off the table while you are away from home).

Someone stealing your unoccupied car is buglary, someone jacking your car at a stoplight is robbery.

In states with a law that allows deadly force to protect property (such as alaska) you could smoke the guy for trying to steal your car. In states without that law you would just have to watch the guy drive off. Yelling at him or such could be judged as escalating the situation.



Actually, in Florida, carjacking is a seperate charge from armed robbery. It's stupid, because it removes the ability to throw multiple charges at a carjacker. Grand theft auto, armed robbery, aggrivated battery, etc. Instead, now its only one offense, so if the BG can get the jury to say he didn't actually fit the description of a carjacker, he gets off, versus facing multiple charges, and having a higher probability of one of those sticking.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 1:32:12 PM EDT
Check out the Texas Deadly Force statutes.........

Criminal Mischief after dark can get you shot here.


I love being a Texan. We just passed a law that allows concealed firearms in your car even without a permit, it just can't be on your person unless you have a CHL.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 1:39:45 PM EDT
If they are not going to harm someone physically, and you are not 100% sure, don't shoot.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 2:00:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By darm441:
[As frequently happens, blanket statements like that may be correct in the main, but there are always a few little glitches. There are instances where deadly force is authorized when there is not a deadly threat being posed to you. For a good example, check out the Rodney Peirs case in Louisiana. Having said that, I teach my students to use deadly force only in defense of themselves or someone they lilke a lot because the cost, even when right, can be huge.



Glad I'm not one of your "students" The Peairs case is a good example of the mis-application of deadly force. I don't know many of us that can afford a trial like he had and $650,000 payout, even though he was acquitted.

www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/reports/1997/reports/selfdef_rpt_e.asp

Another recent case, this time in Louisiana, also provides some insight into the manner in which armed self-defence is viewed in the United States. On October 17, 1992, Rodney Peairs fatally shot Yoshihiro Hattori, a Japanese high school exchange student who mistakenly approached Peairs' door while searching for a Halloween party (73 Texas Law Review 1041). Peairs' wife opened the door and, frightened by the approaching Japanese student, called out to her husband to get his gun. Rodney Peairs retrieved his .44 Magnum, pointed the gun at Hattori, and shouted, "Freeze" (36 William & Mary Law Review 1). Apparently, not understanding the order, Hattori continued toward the door and was fatally shot.

The case sparked an international furor when the jury acquitted Peairs of manslaughter, concluding that he "acted reasonably as a frightened homeowner" using "deadly force to protect himself from an intruder (36 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1). It is noteworthy, however, that a Louisiana civil court subsequently awarded Hattori's parents a sizable cash award for damages, ruling that the shooting was not justified (95 0144 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/6/95), 662 So.2d 509).

Link Posted: 1/26/2006 4:43:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 4:52:05 PM EDT by ORinTX]
Removed. Not worth the shit storm.
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 4:45:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 4:46:01 PM EDT by Gloftoe]
Link Posted: 1/26/2006 5:25:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2006 5:33:27 PM EDT by sharky30]
in NY the wording of the law allows deadly force to stop an arson, among other things. nothing says you have to be in fear


and he may use deadly physical force if he reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson.



3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or
terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.


caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/nycodes/c82/a12.html
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 6:03:18 PM EDT
Never use your weapon to take a life, only use your weapon to save a life.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 6:05:18 PM EDT
Never use your weapon to take a life, only use your weapon to save a life.
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 10:46:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/29/2006 10:48:06 PM EDT by wildbilljr]
For the burglar issue you have to look at supreme court case Tennessee V Garner. It says it is aginst his Fouth Amendment (if you don't know look it up) rights . The case was a black male burglarized a house and was running away when they got there a cop shot him in the back. It turns out it was a 15 yr old kid. The cop was within state law because of the forceable felonly statute, but the supreme court ruled it was aginst his rights because he was no threat. ect ect No I'm not a laywer but I play one in criminal law class!
Link Posted: 1/29/2006 11:13:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1000yds:
Never use your weapon to take a life, only use your weapon to save a life.



You can say that again.

Oh, wait -- you did!
Link Posted: 1/30/2006 1:08:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By wildbilljr:
For the burglar issue you have to look at supreme court case Tennessee V Garner. -SNIP-
P.S. I don't if only applies to LEO's



Well, the main idea behind this was the fleeing felon rule needed the suspect to pose a threat to society. This dealt with the fleeing side, not the commission of the offense.

You are mainly right with the LEO side. It is a case where the government violated someone's civil rights.

Now, could a citizen cap a guy fleeing??? Well, unfortunately they are probably going to have to show the suspect was a threat to someone.....and it must be clear. Probably similar wording as the TN v Garner.

Citizens have more legal room than LE.....this is good and the way it should be. The people should have more rights than the gooberment.

Link Posted: 1/30/2006 4:14:19 PM EDT
......what are you crazy how, them mace the bitch , after you zip tie his ass up you can put him in the car like your taking him to the
police station. hen but keep you eyes open these scumbags don't allways work alone.
Top Top