Shooting of theft suspects may test self-defense law

[natty bumppo 297]

Which is why in this instance the police repeatedly told the guy to stay out of the way...right? Or, did I miss the bit where they suggested that he should go outside and take them out?

I don't know what kind of society you want, but I am certainly not in favour of every tom, ####### and harry being able to decide what's a crime and what's not which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Yes, there are a small percentage of instances where it's a case of do something now before it's too late but for the most part, the sensible advice is call for the police and keep out the way.

One instance does not make the statement "and law enforcement don't take very kindly to the untrained person stepping in either".

Yet "every tom, ####### and harry" does decide ... every USC tom, ####### and harry elects people who make the laws.

I pray that you are never caught in the position of being a victim ... and dependent on 911 to protect you at that one moment.

[Peikko 1,575]

Electing people to make laws is quite a different thing from making decisions as to whether a particular person is or isn't committing a crime on the street. Occasionally it might be fairly obvious, (someone getting beaten) but again, a civilian stepping in without the proper training could lead to a situation becoming much more difficult/dangerous as well.

There is limited scope for the average Joe to step in when a crime is being committed.

Thank you for your kind thoughts re my being a victim. I very much hope I am never a victim of violent crime either it's not something I would wish on anyone. What this has to do with the topic of this thread though, I have no idea.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Purple_Hibiscus

[Sheriff Uling 3]

In Cali, that equals ARRESTED with probable charges of 2nd Degree Murder to Manslaughter...

[Caladan 19]

Do you think there is no case to answer then?

Seriously, I don't get that. The guy wasn't in any danger in terms of his personal safety, he was repeatedly told not go out and shoot. The police handled the situation really well, trying to keep the guy calm, trying to persuade him this wasn't worth getting into danger for. He didn't listen. Of course, the police know a lot more from what happened on the scene as well as this tape, but it just seems wrong to me when the police where on their way.

...Does it say anywhere why the police didn't get to the scene before the guy started shooting? I know 6 minutes isn't that long of a time though.

It's going to depend on the state. Most states say it's okay to shoot to kill (while I agree with Scott & Lai that it's definitely happier if it's 'shoot to incapacitate', once you draw the gun, you are committed to at least the possibility of taking someone's life. Drawing a weapon is crossing the Rubicon.) if a reasonable person would have believed their life (or person, or someone else's person) was in immediate danger.

Usually, you can't shoot someone just to protect property. Where it gets hairy is when it's at night; common law has long recognized that a victim startled at night is going to be justified in a wider range of actions than they would if surprised in broad daylight.

This case seems weird because the guy is already on the phone with the cops, being counseled not to pursue or fire and the burglars are fleeing. Not self-defense at this point, just revenge. Whether he'll be legally culpable depends on the statutes in the state, but whatever it is, it ain't self defense.

[natty bumppo 297]

Electing people to make laws is quite a different thing from making decisions as to whether a particular person is or isn't committing a crime on the street. Occasionally it might be fairly obvious, (someone getting beaten) but again, a civilian stepping in without the proper training could lead to a situation becoming much more difficult/dangerous as well.

There is limited scope for the average Joe to step in when a crime is being committed.

Thank you for your kind thoughts re my being a victim. I very much hope I am never a victim of violent crime either it's not something I would wish on anyone. What this has to do with the topic of this thread though, I have no idea.

I know

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you think there is no case to answer then?

Seriously, I don't get that. The guy wasn't in any danger in terms of his personal safety, he was repeatedly told not go out and shoot. The police handled the situation really well, trying to keep the guy calm, trying to persuade him this wasn't worth getting into danger for. He didn't listen. Of course, the police know a lot more from what happened on the scene as well as this tape, but it just seems wrong to me when the police where on their way.

...Does it say anywhere why the police didn't get to the scene before the guy started shooting? I know 6 minutes isn't that long of a time though.

It's going to depend on the state. Most states say it's okay to shoot to kill (while I agree with Scott & Lai that it's definitely happier if it's 'shoot to incapacitate', once you draw the gun, you are committed to at least the possibility of taking someone's life. Drawing a weapon is crossing the Rubicon.) if a reasonable person would have believed their life (or person, or someone else's person) was in immediate danger.

Usually, you can't shoot someone just to protect property. Where it gets hairy is when it's at night; common law has long recognized that a victim startled at night is going to be justified in a wider range of actions than they would if surprised in broad daylight.

This case seems weird because the guy is already on the phone with the cops, being counseled not to pursue or fire and the burglars are fleeing. Not self-defense at this point, just revenge. Whether he'll be legally culpable depends on the statutes in the state, but whatever it is, it ain't self defense.

That's how it seems.

[Peikko 1,575]

...This case seems weird because the guy is already on the phone with the cops, being counseled not to pursue or fire and the burglars are fleeing. Not self-defense at this point, just revenge. Whether he'll be legally culpable depends on the statutes in the state, but whatever it is, it ain't self defense.

It's a case to be watched, that's for sure.

[Drew and Tik 0]

I agree, nobody can really argue that it was self defense.

[natty bumppo 297]

Do you think there is no case to answer then?

Seriously, I don't get that. The guy wasn't in any danger in terms of his personal safety, he was repeatedly told not go out and shoot. The police handled the situation really well, trying to keep the guy calm, trying to persuade him this wasn't worth getting into danger for. He didn't listen. Of course, the police know a lot more from what happened on the scene as well as this tape, but it just seems wrong to me when the police where on their way.

...Does it say anywhere why the police didn't get to the scene before the guy started shooting? I know 6 minutes isn't that long of a time though.

It's going to depend on the state. Most states say it's okay to shoot to kill (while I agree with Scott & Lai that it's definitely happier if it's 'shoot to incapacitate', once you draw the gun, you are committed to at least the possibility of taking someone's life. Drawing a weapon is crossing the Rubicon.) if a reasonable person would have believed their life (or person, or someone else's person) was in immediate danger.

Usually, you can't shoot someone just to protect property. Where it gets hairy is when it's at night; common law has long recognized that a victim startled at night is going to be justified in a wider range of actions than they would if surprised in broad daylight.

This case seems weird because the guy is already on the phone with the cops, being counseled not to pursue or fire and the burglars are fleeing. Not self-defense at this point, just revenge. Whether he'll be legally culpable depends on the statutes in the state, but whatever it is, it ain't self defense.

That's how it seems.

Nighttime opens a whole 'nother can of worms in TX.

You draw the gun .. it is for terminal use. Imagine trying to "wing" someone in real life with your adrenalin pumping ... life is not "hollywood"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you think there is no case to answer then?

Seriously, I don't get that. The guy wasn't in any danger in terms of his personal safety, he was repeatedly told not go out and shoot. The police handled the situation really well, trying to keep the guy calm, trying to persuade him this wasn't worth getting into danger for. He didn't listen. Of course, the police know a lot more from what happened on the scene as well as this tape, but it just seems wrong to me when the police where on their way.

...Does it say anywhere why the police didn't get to the scene before the guy started shooting? I know 6 minutes isn't that long of a time though.

It's going to depend on the state. Most states say it's okay to shoot to kill (while I agree with Scott & Lai that it's definitely happier if it's 'shoot to incapacitate', once you draw the gun, you are committed to at least the possibility of taking someone's life. Drawing a weapon is crossing the Rubicon.) if a reasonable person would have believed their life (or person, or someone else's person) was in immediate danger.

Usually, you can't shoot someone just to protect property. Where it gets hairy is when it's at night; common law has long recognized that a victim startled at night is going to be justified in a wider range of actions than they would if surprised in broad daylight.

This case seems weird because the guy is already on the phone with the cops, being counseled not to pursue or fire and the burglars are fleeing. Not self-defense at this point, just revenge. Whether he'll be legally culpable depends on the statutes in the state, but whatever it is, it ain't self defense.

That's how it seems.

Nighttime opens a whole 'nother can of worms in TX.

You draw the gun .. it is for terminal use. Imagine trying to "wing" someone in real life with your adrenalin pumping ... life is not "hollywood"

Who said it is?

Question is whether or not the guy used 'justifiable force' under the law. Its not clear that he did - hence the grand jury.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

double-post

Edited November 17, 2007 by Number 6

[natty bumppo 297]

Do you think there is no case to answer then?

Seriously, I don't get that. The guy wasn't in any danger in terms of his personal safety, he was repeatedly told not go out and shoot. The police handled the situation really well, trying to keep the guy calm, trying to persuade him this wasn't worth getting into danger for. He didn't listen. Of course, the police know a lot more from what happened on the scene as well as this tape, but it just seems wrong to me when the police where on their way.

...Does it say anywhere why the police didn't get to the scene before the guy started shooting? I know 6 minutes isn't that long of a time though.

It's going to depend on the state. Most states say it's okay to shoot to kill (while I agree with Scott & Lai that it's definitely happier if it's 'shoot to incapacitate', once you draw the gun, you are committed to at least the possibility of taking someone's life. Drawing a weapon is crossing the Rubicon.) if a reasonable person would have believed their life (or person, or someone else's person) was in immediate danger.

Usually, you can't shoot someone just to protect property. Where it gets hairy is when it's at night; common law has long recognized that a victim startled at night is going to be justified in a wider range of actions than they would if surprised in broad daylight.

This case seems weird because the guy is already on the phone with the cops, being counseled not to pursue or fire and the burglars are fleeing. Not self-defense at this point, just revenge. Whether he'll be legally culpable depends on the statutes in the state, but whatever it is, it ain't self defense.

That's how it seems.

Nighttime opens a whole 'nother can of worms in TX.

You draw the gun .. it is for terminal use. Imagine trying to "wing" someone in real life with your adrenalin pumping ... life is not "hollywood"

Who said it is?

Question is whether or not the guy used 'justifiable force' under the law. Its not clear that he did - hence the grand jury.

Who said what is? Sorry question needs a little more detail ...

If your question is about nightime vs daytime ... google is your friend.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Do you think there is no case to answer then?

Seriously, I don't get that. The guy wasn't in any danger in terms of his personal safety, he was repeatedly told not go out and shoot. The police handled the situation really well, trying to keep the guy calm, trying to persuade him this wasn't worth getting into danger for. He didn't listen. Of course, the police know a lot more from what happened on the scene as well as this tape, but it just seems wrong to me when the police where on their way.

...Does it say anywhere why the police didn't get to the scene before the guy started shooting? I know 6 minutes isn't that long of a time though.

It's going to depend on the state. Most states say it's okay to shoot to kill (while I agree with Scott & Lai that it's definitely happier if it's 'shoot to incapacitate', once you draw the gun, you are committed to at least the possibility of taking someone's life. Drawing a weapon is crossing the Rubicon.) if a reasonable person would have believed their life (or person, or someone else's person) was in immediate danger.

Usually, you can't shoot someone just to protect property. Where it gets hairy is when it's at night; common law has long recognized that a victim startled at night is going to be justified in a wider range of actions than they would if surprised in broad daylight.

This case seems weird because the guy is already on the phone with the cops, being counseled not to pursue or fire and the burglars are fleeing. Not self-defense at this point, just revenge. Whether he'll be legally culpable depends on the statutes in the state, but whatever it is, it ain't self defense.

That's how it seems.

Nighttime opens a whole 'nother can of worms in TX.

You draw the gun .. it is for terminal use. Imagine trying to "wing" someone in real life with your adrenalin pumping ... life is not "hollywood"

Who said it is?

Question is whether or not the guy used 'justifiable force' under the law. Its not clear that he did - hence the grand jury.

Who said what is? Sorry question needs a little more detail ...

If your question is about nightime vs daytime ... google is your friend.

Thanks for tonight's dose of patronisation

I'm not going to go there with you - but thanks anyway.

[natty bumppo 297]

Who said what is? Sorry question needs a little more detail ...

If your question is about nightime vs daytime ... google is your friend.

Thanks for tonight's dose of patronisation

I'm not going to go there with you - but thanks anyway.

sorry you feel that way ... it was not intended.

the data is there to be viewed ... and yes I've even experienced the nighttime factor in TX first hand ... the perps ... well they were still spewing stories after I left the scene.

[Scott & Lai 12]

It's going to depend on the state. Most states say it's okay to shoot to kill (while I agree with Scott & Lai that it's definitely happier if it's 'shoot to incapacitate', once you draw the gun, you are committed to at least the possibility of taking someone's life. Drawing a weapon is crossing the Rubicon.) if a reasonable person would have believed their life (or person, or someone else's person) was in immediate danger.

I didn't say "shoot to incapicitate," it's "shoot to stop." The point being that the purpose of shooting an attacker is not to kill them, but to stop the attack. It may be necessary to kill them, but that is not the goal. Merely incapacitating them would be fine if it can be achieved, but as was pointed out, life isn't Hollywood... In handgun defense training we are taught to first order an attacker to freeze and drop their weapon. If they don't obey and continue their attack, we fire two shots to the center of body mass, then assess the situation. If the attacker is still a threat, then it's one shot to the head.