We have a 'test case'....

[Muss Muggins]

On the way home, a 90-year-old woman pulled out of the driveway of her apartment complex, crossed four lanes of traffic without signaling, and struck my car just forward of the driver's door.

This presented an enormous ethical conundrum for my professor. She felt personally responsible , thanks to her whacky, hippy-dippy understanding of causality.

You think she wasn't?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Someone comes armed to steal a car, sounds like to me they are willing to kill to steal it.

 

[federali]

It Could Be A One-Two Punch

The legal aftermath of a use-of-force situation does not necessarily end with a "no true bill" from the grand jury. You may still be sued in civil court where the proof requirements are the preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Even without a jury award against you, your legal fees will probably break you.

 

[susieqz]

i guess it's not politically correct, or even popular here, for me to assert that our right to use lethal force has bee improperly limited.

 

[blues7]

The legal aftermath of a use-of-force situation does not necessarily end with a "no true bill" from the grand jury. You may still be sued in civil court where the proof requirements are the preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Even without a jury award against you, your legal fees will probably break you.

Again, it depends on the state and the circumstances.

Though the statute below is from NC and involves defense in one's home (as well as a few other environs), I bring it up simply to illustrate the protections offered by some states:

§ 14-51.3. Use of force in defense of person; relief from criminal or civil liability.

(a) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that the 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 in any place he or she has the lawful right to be if either of the following applies:

(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.

(2) Under the circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S. 14-51.2.

(b) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from civil or criminal liability for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman who was lawfully acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer or bail bondsman identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer or bail bondsman in the lawful performance of his or her official duties. (2011-268, s. 1.)

 

[pittpa]

You think she wasn't?

the hippy professor was not at fault for the old lady running into his car. By keeping class 5 minutes late, she prevented him from being run over by the gasoline tanker that ran the red light 5 minutes earlier.

 

[DavidWJ]

Not a clue as to whether he acted improperly or committed a crime. ...

I have no clue either...

Our laws have clearly become so convoluted that right and wrong depend not upon facts or truth, but on how good a lawyer one has. Translation: the one with the most money and political connections wins...

Come to think of it, have things changed at all?

 

[rwsmith]

Well, I certainly.....

i guess it's not politically correct, or even popular here, for me to assert that our right to use lethal force has bee improperly limited.

Well, I certainly appreciate your opinion, your right to assert it and admire that you state it even though it could be unpopular.

I think that where and how we grew up makes a difference of how we feel about lethal force in a case like this.

 

[Rpg]

This isn't a 'test case'.

It's a dummy with a gun and a back yard full of pot.

I don't envy his future.

 

[Pef]

I don't intend to judge, I'm curious and anticipating what trail this will take. Will he be charged with a crime? What will the results be? How will we as gun owners be affected?

Understood. As for the bolded question, I've long since stopped worrying about this. An isolated incident does not reflect on all of use (no matter how the anti-gun media try to spin it).

 

[federali]

Sobering Thought

On occasion, one could tell by the tone of a post that the writer is a gun battle waiting to happen. I do not detect that here so please don't anyone make false assumptions.

However, once taken, a human life cannot be restored. For that reason, I believe that the taking of human life should be limited to those situations where your life literally hangs in the balance.

While some may feel that we should have a bit more liberty to use deadly force, we must remember that, someday, it could be your loved one who is in somebody else's sights in a questionable circumstance.

 

[10ring]

Has that case been resolved? If not keep us posted.

The guy has been arrested and charged with first degree murder; being held without bond until trial. Won't know outcome until he pleads out or goes to trial. Significant risk he will spend the rest of his life (or most of it anyway) in state prison based on what I have read (no personal knowledge). Not judging him, just stating reality.

I am not sure, but pot plants may well have been legal. Not that it matters. I am guessing he wishes he had let the kids steal his pot.

 

[jack the toad]

Someone comes armed to steal a car, sounds like to me they are willing to kill to steal it.

Kinda what I think. And not to appear cold and uncaring but don't have to wonder about any repeat offenses from the 15 y/o.

 

[pittpa]

Take the case of the hiker in AZ who was attacked and defended himself with a 10mm. He spent two years in jail for 'excessive force' for using a such a 'deadly' gun.

10mm? That's extra deadly. Good thing it wasn't a fifty. What was he attacked with?
EDIT, looked it up. Looks like the case but this guy got 10 years and the guy he shot was unarmed.
Hiker who shot man says he'd do it again

 

[SevenMilePete]

In Spartanburg County, SC a man shot and killed a 15 year old who was attempting to steal his car. A 13 year old fled and was shot at. A gun was found near the body. They have identified the 13 year old and apprehended him. The homeowner said that somebody had already stolen a car from the residence a day before and figured that the perps came back for more. The Sheriff is to contact the solicitor for advice on how to pursue the case. He also said that bringing a gun to the crime scene gave indications that he may have attacked the home owner. (Home invasion was the words he used)

Below are my thoughts...

I feel that the homeowner used excessive force. He should have called 911 and yelled that the police were on their way. Of course they could have shot at him. I pretty sure that in many states he would be in big trouble for shooting someone in his yard when not physically threatened himself. I will be anxious to see how this plays out. Though I'm sorry that a 15 year old had to learn the hard way, stealing cars and carrying guns is not smart. I believe that the homeowner may have to answer this beyond just making a statement, but will probably be cleared. Now what the community thinks may be a different thing. Somebody may blow this up into a *** story and turn it into a cause.

He's toast. Maybe not for the kid with the gun, but definitely for the one fleeing, and posing no threat.

 

[Wise_A]

the hippy professor was not at fault for the old lady running into his car. By keeping class 5 minutes late, she prevented him from being run over by the gasoline tanker that ran the red light 5 minutes earlier.

That was my solution to her ethical predicament--that I might have been mowed down by a drunk crossing the street otherwise.

Them's the breaks when you abandon traditional ideas of intended-vs-unintended consequences, reasonable outcomes, etc.

However, once taken, a human life cannot be restored. For that reason, I believe that the taking of human life should be limited to those situations where your life literally hangs in the balance.

Precisely the issue. From an ethical perspective, you run into big-time problems later on when you start equating the value of human life in terms of personal property.

i guess it's not politically correct, or even popular here, for me to assert that our right to use lethal force has bee improperly limited.

Undoubtedly. For instance, I have a problem with any legal duty to retreat--although I would suggest that in many instances, retreat may be the ethical choice.

The Constitution says I get to keep my stuff. Not a bumper sticker warning. Leave me alone. I'll leave you alone.

To start with, your examples are strawmen. Two are clear self-defense issues, and you are very careful to use the phrase "risk your life". I also agree that breaking into people's houses is a risky activity! Bad things happen.

The question is how far a private citizen may go in protecting property, not life.

The accused--fortunately, as armed citizens are frequently accused--also has rights. The right to due process, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, proportionality in punishment, the right to face one's accuser, etc.

Constitutional property rights dealt with taxation and seizure on the part of the government. Ironically, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide protection for property rights without due process, but namely, life and liberty.

In the question of confronting a criminal not posing a threat to life, but only property, I would characterize it as "legal, but ethically and tactically unwise". However, I would also suggest that to what degree it's a bad idea depends on the location. When you dial 911, are the police 5 minutes away, or 25 minutes away? It makes a difference.

If a criminal is shot in the commission of a crime, as I said, I believe that they are culpable to differing degrees in their own demise. For some crimes, I would suggest that they have committed the ethical equivalent of suicide--the potential consequences of their actions are clear, and the crime itself heinous in nature. The person who took their life had as much choice in the matter as the bullet.

Then again, you might have some really nice stuff.

 

[jmace57]

Every state's laws are different in that regard. In Texas you are justified in using force including deadly force to protect your property at night. I'm not sure why the law specifies at night, but it does. The law during daytime is more restrictive in that a reasonable person must believe that he (or another) is in danger of death or serious bodily harm in order to use deadly force.

Yes - I recall about 25 years ago here in Houston, a guys car alarm went off in the middle of the night. He was in a second story apartment...went to his bathroom window and saw a guy breaking into his car. He took out a .22 rifle and shot the guy and killed him from about 50 yards away. He was no-billed.

 

[rwsmith]

People used to steal melons....

The guy has been arrested and charged with first degree murder; being held without bond until trial. Won't know outcome until he pleads out or goes to trial. Significant risk he will spend the rest of his life (or most of it anyway) in state prison based on what I have read (no personal knowledge). Not judging him, just stating reality.

I am not sure, but pot plants may well have been legal. Not that it matters. I am guessing he wishes he had let the kids steal his pot.

...And rock salt was the accepted load. I wonder if they'll make children's books about trying to steal a lid of old man McDonald's pot?

Seriously, though. I didn't even think about the plants being legal and therefore have value and could make them worth defending. But you right. Doubt if it will sway many people concerning the level of response, though.

 

[rwsmith]

Clarify....

The 13 year old was shot at but not hit. He was arrested later. He would probably be in deep Kimchi had he hit the running kid. Fortunately in this case he didn't.

 

[Inusuit]

Nothing I have is worth me killing you to keep it. Nothing I have is worth your dying trying to take it if in the process you threaten me or my family.