Posted on 11/09/2007 9:21:36 AM PST by SergeiRachmaninov
Bunch of reckless criminal-pampering bleeding hearts!
They were “fleeing felons”. Obviously with equipment being found in the car of the crooks, they had already broken in and nearly gotten away with his property.
He did nothing other than block the vehicle. It appears the bad guy was trapped behind his OWN vehicle. Wow. I can’t see Mr. Reid having ANYTHING happen to him, unless the living perp sues him for “emotional distress” of having to watch his crime partner die. Tough. I hope the other perp spends the rest of his life re-living that incident and can’t sleep due to post traumatic stress syndrome.
Theft of property when the owner is present IS a justifiably perceived threat of personal harm.
You make a good point.
Not being a lawyer, I've never thought much about strategies aimed at jury nulification (beyond that great, old, anti-PC Jack Lemmon film, How to Murder Your Wife). I can see where it might be very useful to give the jury something to at least pretend to believe.
Case closed.
Well I guess they'll stop the OJ trial in Vegas and let the crook go home to Florida then.
Little something in law called after the fact and before the fact. If they charge the man, the jury will never know about the stolen part. Bad deal!
OMG...you are probably right. The law truly is "a ass."
Thanks for posting that law. It makes it pretty clear that the homeowner had better be *inside* his dwelling to be taking lethal force into his hands.
The one change I would make would be to eliminate the section you bolded. Are homeowners supposed to read minds in the midst of a home invasion? Or is the commission of the felony of breaking and entering enough to lead one to reasonably believe that further felon offenses will be committed once the intruder gains entry?
This law could be made simpler and clearer for the homeowner(s):
“YAnyone who forces their way into your residence without the authority of law operating under a warrant to search or arrest may be presumed upon gaining entry to have intentions of inflicting death or great bodily harm to one or more of the occupants. Any lawful occupant is justified in using any degree of force to stop the intruder inside the dwelling.”
Period, end of discussion. Simple, clear, bright line at the threshold of the door. If he’s outside and you’re inside, no shooty. If he opens the door and steps inside, commence firing.
A distinction without a difference. If his intent was to pin the car to the gate, and he could see a person standing between the car and the gate, he's on the hook. If he didn't see the guy, he could argue that his intent was to hit the car and the injury and death of the perp was an accident.
You are full of liberal shhite if you think a jury of 12 will send this guy to prison. His intent was to capture the thief, not to kill. This case can be made by any competent Defense Attorney.
Depends on the circumstances. If you hot-wire my car, and I run out the door to see it drive away, I'm not justified in giving chase and using deadly force. If you kick in my door, on the other hand, it's your a$$.
Selma, North Carolina.
Nonsense. There is a “distinction with difference” here. He was stopping a fleeing criminal. Period. It wasn’t HIS fault the guy ran between the fence and the perp’s own car.
He stated he accidentally hit the gas. Truthfully, I don’t think there is a chance in hell Reid is going to be charged with anything.
It’s very OBVIOUS the guy died accidentally.
Even so, the guy was BREAKING the law, stealing, trespassing, and who knows what else? Who is to say he didn’t have a weapon on him? Not me, not you. No one has said yet. Whether he did or didn’t *I* am going to assume someone with the balls to enter my property to take something is ARMED. He’d better be.
Never bring a brown sedan to a farm pickup truck fight.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I watch an unhealthy amount of Law & Order, and I watched the OJ Simpson trial. The defense doesn't have to prove its case, just to create a reasonable doubt in the mind of one or more jurors. I've seen enough human behavior to know how people respond to a half-baked theory that they want to believe about a sympathetic individual.
Not what happened in this case.
Even a state as leftist as NJ was toying with the idea of ‘shoot the criminal’outside your immediate home up to the edge of your property. That was over 10 years ago, and I’m not sure where that stands.
But to me, I’m going to err on the side of self defense if someone who breaks into my home. If they have the dementia or criminal disposition to break in, I assume they have no problem killing me if they see me first.
Property is acquired through trading money for that property. Work is how we acquire the money. Work requires sacrifice of part of our life for the money earned. Hence, Life=Work=Money=Property. In other words: that property represents part of our life. In my opinion anyone who steals property forfeits their claim to their life due to their disregard for the life of another.
You noticed that too, eh?
The question would be whether he could see, or reasonably foresee, that the guy was between the cr and the fence when he rammed it.
He stated he accidentally hit the gas. Truthfully, I don’t think there is a chance in hell Reid is going to be charged with anything.
Agree. Unless there's something we don't know -- for example, if Reid was yelling to his buddies at a bar the week before that he was going to run down the next guy who robbed his place -- I agree it's highly unlikely he'll be prosecuted. There's enough reasonable doubt that I don't see a chance of a conviction, and DAs don't like to waste their time.
It's possible Reid could plead guilty to some misdemeanor with a suspended sentence just so both sides can make the case go away.
It’s very OBVIOUS the guy died accidentally.
It looks that way to us armchair quarterbacks based on one news story. How it looks to the law is another matter.
Even so, the guy was BREAKING the law, stealing, trespassing, and who knows what else? Who is to say he didn’t have a weapon on him? Not me, not you. No one has said yet. Whether he did or didn’t *I* am going to assume someone with the balls to enter my property to take something is ARMED. He’d better be.
Again, what you assume isn't necessarily what you're legally entitled to assume and act on.
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.