Posted on 02/26/2008 8:25:44 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
I guess we need a concept of collective threat. When he ran the guy down, he saved the next victims. Just like when we put people in prison.
When I was a kid my neighbor cop told me if you are going to shoot someone in your backyard make sure you always drag his body into your kitchen and then call the police
You’re from Chicago too?
"When the threat ends" is not as bright-line a distinction as the people who write these laws would have it.
In this case, there is a man who is trying to kill this guy's wife. The husband doesn't know who he is, or why he's trying to kill her.
It is reasonable for an adrenaline-charged righteous defender to conclude, "If he tried it here, he could come back".
By terminating the assailant, the protector guarantees his wife's safety.
Now, you or I (or the husband, for that matter), sitting in safety, adrenal glands pumping out picograms of maintenance adrenaline, no threats visible anywhere, can probably reflect on this situation and conclude that the threat was over when the guy with the knife split.
But that was not the situation which the husband was in when he disposed of this trash. Not at all.
I have not understood that most aren’t wired to kill in this circumstance. I would shoot right into him without conflict I do believe. Maybe I am wrong. But it drives me nuts when I hear women say “I couldn’t shoot someone no matter what, even if they were in my house”. Hell, I could shoot ‘em in the yard if they were a threat. Now I wouldn’t shoot them on the street from the house unless they were really coming at the house with a pointed gun.
Man should not have fired a warning.
Does this mean his wife worked at the Pizza joint?
If she does, the guy was still a threat.
Even if she doesn't work there, she is still in danger if she ever goes back.
Criminals many times come back to take revenge on someone that fouls their plans.
The guy was still a threat.
Won't hold up in court, but it's true.
“As for the knife guy, toss him in jail to recoup from his injuries.”
You mean the sucka isnt dead? How do you get run over 3X by a GMC Yukon and live? Was he the Jeepers Creepers guy?
Unless of cause we now live in a Police State.
The police can't pursue the perp and run over him three times either.
They can pursue and arrest him.
The husband could have arrested him too, but he can't legally hunt him down and kill him.
Why fire a warning shot? Deal with the threat permanently....and legally.
With his arm around your wife's neck from 25 feet away?
Damn, you're a good shot.
How are you with your adrenaline running out of your ears?
That's movie stuff, not real life.
He pulls a knife, you pull a gun
He puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue
That's the Chicago way....
You can't be serious.
In THIS case, firing to kill the perp ran an excellent chance of killing the wife instead.
AND, in this case, the "warning shots" DID work - they made the perp run away.
I have not understood that most aren’t wired to kill in this circumstance. I would shoot right into him without conflict I do believe. Maybe I am wrong. But it drives me nuts when I hear women say “I couldn’t shoot someone no matter what, even if they were in my house”. Hell, I could shoot ‘em in the yard if they were a threat. Now I wouldn’t shoot them on the street from the house unless they were really coming at the house with a pointed gun.I think you're making a mistake by thinking you're a representative sample. Most people are not killers, it's just that simple. By the time that they figure out what's going on and made their decision, they're either dead or the danger has passed.Man should not have fired a warning.
I have not understood that most aren’t wired to kill in this circumstance. I would shoot right into him without conflict I do believe. Maybe I am wrong. But it drives me nuts when I hear women say “I couldn’t shoot someone no matter what, even if they were in my house”. Hell, I could shoot ‘em in the yard if they were a threat. Now I wouldn’t shoot them on the street from the house unless they were really coming at the house with a pointed gun.I think you're making a mistake by thinking you're a representative sample. Most people are not killers, it's just that simple. By the time that they figure out what's going on and made their decision, they're either dead or the danger has passed.Man should not have fired a warning.
“When I was a kid my neighbor cop told me if you are going to shoot someone in your backyard make sure you always drag his body into your kitchen and then call the police”
VERY bad advice. If you do that you are sure to go to jail whether the shoot was justified or not. Never move the body. It’s very easy to detect and proves you are guilty.
Really?
Think that one through for a minute.
Is it possible that the husband could mistake someone else for the perpetrator during the pursuit? What if he sees someone who looks the same from behind and starts emptying his .45 into the guy's back, only to find that it's the wrong guy?
Come on people! There are reasons for the whole arrest-evidence-trial-jury thing!
Would you feel the same way if the perpetrator looked a lot like you and jumped your fence during the pursuit?
There are loads of potential problems when you start the vigilante, hunt 'em down and kill 'em, justice system going.
Even if your husband's body was between your gun and the perp?
You can’t legally chase and kill the guy who’s running away. That’s revenge. Even if he just killed your spouse.
But it is morally and ethically justified to chase him down, break his nougats, beat his face to a pulp and pour hot acid down his throat while spraying fast-drying paint into his eyes.
I totally agree with you. Now, I would not have done what this guy did because I know the law and know I would probably be arrested. But the law is wrong on this matter, AFAIC.
That the “Law says self-defense ends when threat ceases” is sound, it’s the interpretation of “threat ceases” that is wrong. First there was the “attack” and then the attempted escape. There was still a known “attacker” running around with a knife. He did it with forethought and still possessed a deadly weapon. What has change to prevent him from planning another attack? Nothing! The known “threat” should be taken out before he attacks again.
It may be against the law, but it shouldn’t be. But if it wasn’t against the law you would have to be damn sure you got the right guy. Not an issue here, but, you get the point.
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.