RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Crush -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/1/2009 6:02:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Hey Crush, do not try and apply that in North Carolina, as they have some of the strictest vigilante laws in the country. Many years ago, I almost got into a bad situation, while escorting one of my clients to a convention there. I would never have thought that rather than be proactive, as private personal security I was only able to be reactive. Even if body language, verbal language, and physical aspects showed that someone was about to be aggressive, I was told that I had to wait until an attack was initiated. The exception being if a weapon was obviously visible. Since it was only for a weekend, and it was a minor incident, I never followed up on how personal security of celebrities and such got away with some of the things they do. Too true, Orion. One reason I always consult http://www.handgunlaw.us and make a map of the states I have to travel through. Was a real b*ch when I went "Nawth" and had to unload and stow my pistol for the few miles I had to travel through South Carolina. Now, Fla/SC reciprocate recognition of CCWs, but you still have to abide by each state's CCW laws as you travel in it. Like in Nevada, two years ago I couldn't carry in the casino, but last year I could. Not so much for the casino, but for the trip through the parking garage, etc. (Though casinos have had a few incidents the past couple years with gang bangers & robbers!) --- Fortunately, I'm in the "gunshine state" and we're recip with many states, including NC. But yeah, the standards will vary...hence the quote of the Fla Statute. Our Class G license folks( and related security licenses) do have other, hmm, impediments, on how they can react in certain situations. But the average citizen isn't so limited. People in Florida can even have one in their glove compartment without having a CCW. No duty to retreat; castle doctrine. You almost feel like maybe the state government wants you to be responsible for yourself unlike many other state legislatures. And as you pointed out, if you are in fear for your life or the life of others, the use of deadly force is justified ( in non-nanny states like Illinois) to defend yourself. Even if the perp is running away, he can turn and shoot at you. Or, as my FBI contact showed, can fire blindly backwards under his arm, putting not just yourself, but potentially others, as risk of serious injury or death. But yeah, as you stated Orion, you don't get to go vigilante and cruise around hoping to find a bad guy you can take on in "Mortal Combat." That way definitely lies jail time. And should. It is only when "shit happens" and you happen to be standing in the bowl at the time that you get to defend yourself. One of my favorite self defense sayings is "if you fight a fair fight, you are a fool." It isn't a boxing match. It is protecting oneself against harm or death.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/1/2009 7:00:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Which goes back to what I said about castle doctrine, but the majority of states have not adopted those laws, so in those states a duty to retreat if possible is still the prevailing law. What is your source for this claim? Castle Doctrine Map The NRA. Take note that your link specifies the data accurate as of of June 21st while the NRA link was from November 20th. You gotta watch out for those bloggers. Especially second-year law students who know just enough to be dangerous. The key phrase was "some form of Castle Doctrine law" while he doesn't define what he considers "some form" to be. NRA-ILA :: Big Wins In The States In 2008 • “Castle Doctrine” laws, which affirm the right to respond with force in self-defense and protect victims from lawsuits by criminals or criminals’ families, were adopted in Ohio, West Virginia and Wyoming. Twenty-three states now have such laws.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/1/2009 7:20:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Well, if you look back in the thread I believe I did offer support by citing Oklahoma law, which is where the matter in question happened. So, I'm not sure what Kentucky has to do with this, but let's go with it. You made an absolute statement about the scenario not being justifiable homicide in any state. I showed otherwise, that is all I was showing there. quote: I searched every legal database available and the only corresponding case I found titled Gill vs. Commonwealth involved a murder in which a party to the event did not take action to prevent it. That is a far cry from requiring any citizen to intervene in a crime in progress as the author of your link seems to believe. I also was not able to find any Kentucky statute that supports what the writer claimed, so if you can find a link to that I would like to read it. Actually it listed the statute in the section of the Kentucky Constitution. Well there is a Georgia case, which I cannot find any reference to, where the defendent was aquitted with a defense of justifiable homicide. I am not worrying about it anymore, you seem to only see that which supports your claim. All I am offering is that the law is not as absolute as you originally put it to be. That is all. Have a good evening.

Kirata -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/1/2009 8:47:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife You gotta watch out for those bloggers... The key phrase was "some form of Castle Doctrine law" while he doesn't define what he considers "some form" to be. But Wikipedia does, with links to the relevant statutes: 13 states with stand your ground laws (no duty to retreat anywhere) 19 states with castle doctrine laws (no duty to retreat in the home) 6 states with "weak" castle laws (duty to retreat, but deadly force may be used to end invasion of home without presence of immediate lethal threat). K.

Kirata -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/1/2009 10:19:00 PM)
~ FR ~ Since everyone is doing so much speculating anyway, let's speculate.... Let's speculate that the kid is laying there making friendly small talk, like, "I'll be out of jail tomorrow, mutherfucker, and the first thing I'm going to do is kill your wife and daughter, and then I'm going to kill you." Remember, this is not just some irritable guy, possibly drunk, spouting difficult to evaluate threats. This is a criminal you just interrupted in the commission of a violent crime without concern for the life of his victims, and who you believe means it. Do you consider that the threat has been eliminated because he's down? Or do you thank him for his forthrightness, and empty the rest of the clip into him? K.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/1/2009 10:45:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Do you consider that the threat has been eliminated because he's down? Or do you thank him for his forthrightness, and empty the rest of the clip into him? I am not the kind of person who could do such a cruel thing as you suggest. So therefore, no - I would not inflict unnecessary mental anguish by thanking him first.

TheHeretic -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/1/2009 11:35:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Do you consider that the threat has been eliminated because he's down? Or do you thank him for his forthrightness, and empty the rest of the clip into him? I am not the kind of person who could do such a cruel thing as you suggest. So therefore, no - I would not inflict unnecessary mental anguish by thanking him first. Gotta go with Panda on this. In these days of hate crime legislation, if you are going to end someone, it is best to do it without saying a word. [;)]

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/2/2009 9:30:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf You made an absolute statement about the scenario not being justifiable homicide in any state. I showed otherwise, that is all I was showing there. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife I searched every legal database available and the only corresponding case I found titled Gill vs. Commonwealth involved a murder in which a party to the event did not take action to prevent it. That is a far cry from requiring any citizen to intervene in a crime in progress as the author of your link seems to believe. I also was not able to find any Kentucky statute that supports what the writer claimed, so if you can find a link to that I would like to read it. Actually it listed the statute in the section of the Kentucky Constitution. Well there is a Georgia case, which I cannot find any reference to, where the defendent was aquitted with a defense of justifiable homicide. I am not worrying about it anymore, you seem to only see that which supports your claim. All I am offering is that the law is not as absolute as you originally put it to be. That is all. Have a good evening. No, I'm honestly not trying to see only what supports my claim, which is why I asked you for more information. The Kentucky statutes he cited in the article I have not been able to find and the case he cited as support had little to do with his argument. So either his citations are wrong or I'm looking in the wrong places. And I've never argued that there was not such a thing as justifiable homicide. What I argued was that your hypothetical and the pharmacist's actions did not qualify as such.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/2/2009 10:51:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata But Wikipedia does, with links to the relevant statutes: 13 states with stand your ground laws (no duty to retreat anywhere) 19 states with castle doctrine laws (no duty to retreat in the home) 6 states with "weak" castle laws (duty to retreat, but deadly force may be used to end invasion of home without presence of immediate lethal threat). K. The wikipedia link includes many states as having a castle law which do not. There has always been a recognized right to self-defense under the law to prevent imminent bodily harm. Castle doctrine takes it a step further by allowing the presumption that any intruder into your home has that intention, therefore permitting the use of self-defense. Which I think is where the discrepancy is between the NRA statistics and this. If you read through many of the statutes listed in the link as castle laws they clearly are not in that they still require the duty to retreat if imminent physical danger is not present. Besides, considering the NRA's support for these laws why would they try to downplay the number of states with them? Castle law protects home owners from recrimination The “castle doctrine” is the principle that one’s home and residence is a place where one is protected from intruders and trespassers and has the right to use force, even deadly force, to defend that place and ensure that protection. In general, a “castle law” recognizes this principle and authorizes a homeowner or occupant to use physical force to repel a home invasion without fear of resulting criminal charges or civil liability. A castle law shifts the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner or occupant and the burden of proof to the intruder or assailant. Without some form of a castle law, the home occupant must prove that his or her conduct constituted self-defense. A castle law reverses the roles and provides the home occupant with the presumption that his or her conduct constituted self-defense.

zenny -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/2/2009 10:56:09 AM)
Which is ironic because one of the supposed fundamental premises of our law system (as taught in grade school + ) is that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Not the accused. In either case, this would be the intruder or state.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/2/2009 11:02:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ~ FR ~ Since everyone is doing so much speculating anyway, let's speculate.... Let's speculate that the kid is laying there making friendly small talk, like, "I'll be out of jail tomorrow, mutherfucker, and the first thing I'm going to do is kill your wife and daughter, and then I'm going to kill you." Remember, this is not just some irritable guy, possibly drunk, spouting difficult to evaluate threats. This is a criminal you just interrupted in the commission of a violent crime without concern for the life of his victims, and who you believe means it. Do you consider that the threat has been eliminated because he's down? Or do you thank him for his forthrightness, and empty the rest of the clip into him? K. I guess that would be your choice, as long as it comes with the realization that is still considered murder, despite what threats have been made.

beargonewild -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/2/2009 2:09:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Castle law protects home owners from recrimination The “castle doctrine” is the principle that one’s home and residence is a place where one is protected from intruders and trespassers and has the right to use force, even deadly force, to defend that place and ensure that protection. In general, a “castle law” recognizes this principle and authorizes a homeowner or occupant to use physical force to repel a home invasion without fear of resulting criminal charges or civil liability. A castle law shifts the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner or occupant and the burden of proof to the intruder or assailant. Without some form of a castle law, the home occupant must prove that his or her conduct constituted self-defense. A castle law reverses the roles and provides the home occupant with the presumption that his or her conduct constituted self-defense. After reading this, it leads me to ask especially regarding this statement: "authorizes a homeowner or occupant to use physical force to repel a home invasion without fear of resulting criminal charges or civil liability." Repel being the operative word, does repel specifically mean to subdue the criminal in a manner to incapacitate the perpetrator or does that also include incapacitation and possibility of using deadly and fatal force against the criminal? As it seems to me that to interpret what repel means is using enough force to subdue or incapacitate the wrong doer without crossing that line into it being fatal to the wrong doer so that the police are able to respond and apprehend the criminal.

Crush -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/2/2009 2:27:07 PM)
bear, It means you can repel them with deadly force, if necessary. See the 2nd paragraph in the link that rulemylife posted: The “castle doctrine” is the principle that one’s home and residence is a place where one is protected from intruders and trespassers and has the right to use force, even deadly force, to defend that place and ensure that protection. In general, a “castle law” recognizes this principle and authorizes a homeowner or occupant to use physical force to repel a home invasion without fear of resulting criminal charges or civil liability. A castle law shifts the benefit of the doubt tot he homeowner or occupant and the burden of proof to the intruder or assailant. Without some form of a castle law, the home occupant must prove that his or her conduct constituted self-defense. A castle law reverses the roles and provides the home occupant with the presumption that his or her conduct constituted self-defense.

beargonewild -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/2/2009 2:39:01 PM)
Thanks Crush, I did read that though somehow misread what rule posted and my brain interpreted it differently. Even when I take into account that castle law does allow a private citizen to use deadly force, I still can't help but question why use that option when subduing and incapacitating a criminal will usually serve the same purpose and doesn't result in a loss of a person's life? I'm just trying to understand the concept of deadly force being a viable option as being Canadian, we have no such law that I know of and our system of laws are different than American.

WyldHrt -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/2/2009 6:14:04 PM)
quote: Even when I take into account that castle law does allow a private citizen to use deadly force, I still can't help but question why use that option when subduing and incapacitating a criminal will usually serve the same purpose and doesn't result in a loss of a person's life? The answer, from my point of view, has to do with risk. I live at the back of a large property, and therefore do not have neighbors close to me that would hear a ruckus should someone break in. Should such a break in happen whilst I am at home, I'm probably not going to attempt to subdue or incapacitate the criminal, as failing such an attempt would put me in a very dangerous position (not only is a criminal committing a felony in my home, said felon is now also extremely pissed off at me). I'm more likely to go directly to "game over" for the person breaking in, unless there is a damned good reason not to. Attempting to subdue a criminal, esp one who is armed, sounds good on paper, but the reality of it can be much different if the criminal gets the upper hand.

Kirata -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/2/2009 6:59:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Do you consider that the threat has been eliminated because he's down? Or do you thank him for his forthrightness, and empty the rest of the clip into him? I guess that would be your choice, as long as it comes with the realization that is still considered murder, despite what threats have been made. So your answer is, you'll do whatever I say? K.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.2773438