Posted on 11/09/2007 9:21:36 AM PST by SergeiRachmaninov
I agree with that.
Well, Sherman Logan, it’s ok if someone comes in your house and steals something of value to you, but as long as he makes it to the street curb and beyond your “legal grasp” he is good to go then, right?
And he’s 1) Unknown to you, 2) You’re not able to easily later identify him, 3) You didn’t SEE him steal it but know he has it... all these things are ok with me too, if they rob your property.
I say let the perps get away with it then.....
This isn’t a cut and dried case by any means.
I’m not sure of the value of the post hole digger, but if its value puts it over the line causing the theft to be a felony, lethal force MAY be allowed to stop the perps from fleeing the scene.
After listening to the 911 call, it would be iffy in my opinion to claim the land owner was trying to use lethal force. It seems more an incident where he ramed the other car as the perp chose to leave the car, and the unfortunate timing of the events caused the perp to receive a fatal injury.
I don’t believe the land owner is liable for trying to prevent flight.
The sheriff’s tone seems to be one of NOT seeing this as a murder investigation.
This guy may get off without charges being filed.
When you enter someone’s property to steal, you should be in fear of your life IMO. I’m sorry, but this land owner did not seek out victims. They sought his property out and invaded it with evil intent.
If they would have stayed home or applied themselves to worthwhile enterprises, none of this would have transpired. I’m not glad the guy was fatally injured, but them’s the chance you take when you engage in this type of activity.
What would you fear if considering entering another person’s property and taking their equipment? I’ll bet you’d be in fear or serious injury or death. I would be.
The perps knew the risks and unfortunately for them, one of them realized the risk literally.
I have very little sympathy for people who steal, and quite a bit of tollerance for people who wish to prevent people from stealing from them.
Let’s see—SELMA.
Black man killed by white man, regardless of reason.
Expect the Rev-u-rund Jackson and Al Sharpton and the NAACP to be there before sunset, claiming racist premeditated murder on Mr. Reid’s part!!
(no, there’s no /sarc because I’m telling the truth...)
Colorado allows the use of force, including deadly force to defend yourself, a third party and to some degree property. If NECESSARY to defend the property, for example against someone intent on setting it on fire (First degree arson).
You can defend yourself, or a third party through the use of deadly force if it is reasonable to believe the perpetrator is intend on doing the same to you, or you believe that you or the third party will be in danger of great bodily harm.
§ 14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(a)A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b)A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
(c)This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)
I guess everything will depend on if the felony (stolen property found in the perps car) will justify the action of the property owner. It may not since he only had a feeling something was wrong with the whole situation he found as he pulled into his drive. The lawyers for the defence will have a field day with this one. That is if it goes that far.
Yup, I think they were on his property. I think they should throw this guy a parade. Think of all the money he saved the state for jail time and etc.
There are risks to the CHOICE of a criminal lifestyle. You cannot assume people who are being robbed (and he was) will be NICE back.
Some of you lawyers: Can the perp who was unharmed be prosecuted under the felony murder rule?
Right on. You don’t find many ninnies in Texas.
Exodus 22:2 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
2 “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;
Did you watch the video at the link? From what I saw, it looks like the perp WAS on Mr. Reid's property.
Another point is that the perp was pinned to the post by his car, not Reid's. That is, Reid didn't directly run him over.
That's why he claimed "My foot got stuck on the accelerator!" This will get him off.
"Undoubtedly" is too strong. Likely, sure, but I don't know enough about the surrounding terrain to know if they could blend in and disappear before the cops arrived, and I dont' know whether the car was registered to one of the perps and could be tracked back to him, or it was stolen.
I guess my sympathy with protecting property would stop a little short of what Reid seems to have done -- deliberate ram a man on foot (not buying the old foot-stuck-on-gas-pedal story).
What's relevant isn't whether you buy that story, but whether a jury will buy it. Or will choose to believe it so they don't have to convict (i.e. jury nullification). Or if a prosecutor will conclude that the jury is so likely to do so that prosecuting would be a waste of time. It only takes one person who believes the wrong-pedal story to hang a jury.
That is a GOOD THING!!!!!!!!!
I don’t disagree.
I was just stating where I personally draw the line.
Elli1, some of these folks are nothing but hysterical trial-lawyer-deifying whiners. (chuckle! Used the new Liberal Insult Generator for that one!)
Good on the homeowner, and good riddance to a bad guy!
That's right up there with "the dog ate my homework."
It would have been more plausible if he had said, "I guess I got stuck on stupid."
(Apologies to Mr. Reid...I really have huge sympathy for him. He is in a lot of trouble, though. As others have mentioned, Sharpton will be coming to town if the DA does not go after Reid.)
The law covers the justifiable use of force "to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry." When Reid arrived on the scene, the thieves were not attempting to enter the house; they were attempting to flee the grounds. Sorry, but I don't see how this law could be stretched to apply to this case.
The insurance industry thanks you.
The Bible has lots of laws passed long ago that we no longer follow. Good thing, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.