Posted on 04/10/2014 5:53:29 PM PDT by narses
Section (2) says “In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence...” “Upon” sounds like something that poses a direct physical risk to him, but if so, “in his or her presence” seems unnecessary. (Also it’s rather difficult to become a slayer of a someone without both of you being in each other’s presence — apparently it forbids handing him a time bomb for explosion later.)
That part does sound as if it’s restricting the homicide to criminals who are committing felonies that pose a direct risk to the slayer, though, because it uses a comma and “or” to include “upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is”. That seems to imply that you can shoot someone who’s damaging your home or taking possessions from it, but only if you are in it too at the same time. If you come home and, when outside, see someone taking possessions out of your house, you can’t approach and kill him.
Gerlach’s vehicle, being outside his abode, wouldn’t seem to be covered under that provision. Because he said he thought the man was pointing a gun at him, though, he could be acquitted on the ground of self-defense. In any case I believe the law is so unclear that it’s hard to determine what it means.
“turn life around” must be some sort of code for
freebie SUV when finally caught stealing.
We live in a banana republic of judges, lawyers, politicians, and law enforcement.
Nice to see the jury get this right.
Perhaps this will send a message to the out of control prosecutors.
These are out of control prosecutors. The prosecutors should be sanction and the judge should be investigated for abuse in not dismissing.
Odd hose a car is a “dangerous instrumentality” except when politically inconvenient.
On second thought I wish I’d just said the law is confusing rather than taken the time to exemplify it in such detail.
“On second thought I wish I’d just said the law is confusing rather than taken the time to exemplify it in such detail.”
You DID say you were not a lawyer! I just had to sign what should have been some pretty simple papers from a lawyer. I think they make it complicated just so they are hired so they can interpret them. I’m sure the wording in the law is they are trying to be “precise” - but it sure doesn’t come across like that.
There was a case in Yakima, Washington where some gift shop(?) was getting robbed all the time. So the owner started sleeping at the store. Sure enough, some teenager broke in and started grabbing stuff. The owner woke up and the kid was already on his bike riding down the street by the time the owner was up and ready.
The owner opened up with his shotgun and killed the thief from 150 feet as he was riding away. He had a few handmade belts and western buckles in his jacket. Not Guilty. The local gang population and their mom’s were not happy about that of course.
“300K for a case like this? Cheap.”
I wouldn’t know what’s customary, but I’d bet that any reasonable man could cut it way back.
The insurance company could file
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.