Should our laws allow authorities to charge this woman?

[OKTexas]

Wrong answer, in TX you can shoot someone in the back, at night, if they are running away with your property. I don't think you can run them down with a truck though. From what I saw he didn't have any of her property and it was daylight.


.

Her claim was that he still had her purse. Nothing in the story contradicts her claim.

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

Didn't the robber put those people in harms way? Let's get back to why this all started. He started the chain of events. She did what needed to be done and ran the fucker over. No kids were involved so why bring it up?

Because she put the public in harms way, there's a reason citizens are prohibited form engaging in hot pursuit. It's dangerous enough when trained cops do it.


.

 

[Divine Wind]

What if the guy had a machine gun and was about to commit mass murder? Wouldn't she have saved the lives of dozens of innocent people?

Had he displayed a weapon I seriously doubt she would have chased him. And here I thought only regressive deflected to the ridiculous.


.

Hence the problem with people who play "what if" games. "What if a kid...."

Remind me again, who assumed he had her DL and was going to her house to kill her?


.

The report stated the thief had her purse. It's pretty common knowledge women keep their billfold w/ DL in their purses. It's not a stretch, but if you want to believe otherwise, go for it.

The dude didn't have a weapon, why would you assume he was a killer, hell, he ran like a scared rabbit.


.

I don't know if he had a weapon and you don't either.

He ran with her purse.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can't use deadly force to protect property . Only people .

That used to be the law. And that the reaction should not be more lethal than the crime.

More than that, people are so willing to kill over property these days. Somebody steaks a tv or a car and the reaction is to kill. When did things become more valuable than lives?

Given the givens, she's wrong.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

My things are worth taking the life of a scum ball. Who would miss him? You are doing society a favor by eliminating garbage like this.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did the OP just say we need to rewrite our laws to say that running people over should be legal?

He's a terrorist wannabe?

.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Sure, that's what a terrorist is, a person that wants to stop a thief from robbing them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Her claim was that he still had her purse. Nothing in the story contradicts her claim.

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

Didn't the robber put those people in harms way? Let's get back to why this all started. He started the chain of events. She did what needed to be done and ran the fucker over. No kids were involved so why bring it up?

Because she put the public in harms way, there's a reason citizens are prohibited form engaging in hot pursuit. It's dangerous enough when trained cops do it.


.

She didn't chase him down a highway doing 100 Mph trying to pit his car. She drove fifty feet to hit the guy in a parking lot.

 

[OKTexas]

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

What if the guy had a machine gun and was about to commit mass murder? Wouldn't she have saved the lives of dozens of innocent people?

Had he displayed a weapon I seriously doubt she would have chased him. And here I thought only regressive deflected to the ridiculous.


.

Hence the problem with people who play "what if" games. "What if a kid...."

Remind me again, who assumed he had her DL and was going to her house to kill her?


.

I'm kind of thrown by your reaction to this. Didn't expect it.

Personally I think criminals should be held responsible for any injuries connected with their crime. I'm not aware of any State that has adopted that position.

I recall a burgler in MI admittedly went on a guys porch intending to break into the house. He fell though a rotten board on the porch and broke his leg. He sued the home owner and won because the porch was considered a public access area.

Most States only allow lethal force if their is an immediate threat of bodily injury or death. The guy was running away, he was no longer a threat.


.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Okay, so we have some mixed opinions here. So let me present another scenario:

Both parties are in different courts to face their charges. Both courts are presided by liberal judges.

The thief gets two months house arrest and some probation. The victim with a newborn gets four years in prison. Where would be the equity in that?

 

[OKTexas]

You can't use deadly force to protect property . Only people .

You are correct.

I have a Juris Doctorate, so let me explain to the rest of you how the law works. In all jurisdictions the use of deadly force is allowed only when – at the time such force is used – a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself (or an innocent third party). When a suspect is running away he obviously does not pose a such a threat. Even the police have no right to use deadly force to prevent the escape of most suspects including those who have broken into automobiles. The police can use deadly force only to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The law defines a dangerous felon as someone who has inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury. Breaking into a person's automobile does not make a suspect a dangerous felon.

The leading case regarding when the police may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect is Tennessee v. Garner. In this case the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reviewed a Tennessee law which allowed the police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of non-dangerous suspects The particular case involved a man who was suspected of burglarizing a home. The following are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision:

“The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.”.

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Conclusion: the lady broke the law. Her only hope is for a sympathetic jury. This is not debatable.

That doesn't necessarily apply to nongovernmental entities, the government has a duty to protect civil rights, citizens do not.


.

 

[Aletheia4u]

Did the OP just say we need to rewrite our laws to say that running people over should be legal?

He's a terrorist wannabe?

.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Sure, that's what a terrorist is, a person that wants to stop a thief from robbing them.

That is called a vigilante, not terrorist.. A terrorist preys on or terrorizes others.

 

[OKTexas]

Had he displayed a weapon I seriously doubt she would have chased him. And here I thought only regressive deflected to the ridiculous.


.

Hence the problem with people who play "what if" games. "What if a kid...."

Remind me again, who assumed he had her DL and was going to her house to kill her?


.

The report stated the thief had her purse. It's pretty common knowledge women keep their billfold w/ DL in their purses. It's not a stretch, but if you want to believe otherwise, go for it.

The dude didn't have a weapon, why would you assume he was a killer, hell, he ran like a scared rabbit.


.

I don't know if he had a weapon and you don't either.

He ran with her purse.

There was no mention of one in the story from the witnesses or the woman.


.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Her claim was that he still had her purse. Nothing in the story contradicts her claim.

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

Didn't the robber put those people in harms way? Let's get back to why this all started. He started the chain of events. She did what needed to be done and ran the fucker over. No kids were involved so why bring it up?

Because she put the public in harms way, there's a reason citizens are prohibited form engaging in hot pursuit. It's dangerous enough when trained cops do it.


.

Then where were the cops? They should have been there right? Then we wouldn't need to defend ourselves. Yet they were nowhere to be found. The five month pregnant woman took care of it. Problem solved.

BTW- A decent public would have jumped in and helped her.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

What if the guy had a machine gun and was about to commit mass murder? Wouldn't she have saved the lives of dozens of innocent people?

Had he displayed a weapon I seriously doubt she would have chased him. And here I thought only regressive deflected to the ridiculous.


.

Hence the problem with people who play "what if" games. "What if a kid...."

Remind me again, who assumed he had her DL and was going to her house to kill her?


.

I'm kind of thrown by your reaction to this. Didn't expect it.

Personally I think criminals should be held responsible for any injuries connected with their crime. I'm not aware of any State that has adopted that position.

I recall a burgler in MI admittedly went on a guys porch intending to break into the house. He fell though a rotten board on the porch and broke his leg. He sued the home owner and won because the porch was considered a public access area.

Most States only allow lethal force if their is an immediate threat of bodily injury or death. The guy was running away, he was no longer a threat.


.

That's where the laws are wrong. Running way means nothing. You better be faster than a car or a bullet. Doesn't matter if he's a threat he stole your stuff. Kill him.

 

[Divine Wind]

Hence the problem with people who play "what if" games. "What if a kid...."

Remind me again, who assumed he had her DL and was going to her house to kill her?


.

The report stated the thief had her purse. It's pretty common knowledge women keep their billfold w/ DL in their purses. It's not a stretch, but if you want to believe otherwise, go for it.

The dude didn't have a weapon, why would you assume he was a killer, hell, he ran like a scared rabbit.


.

I don't know if he had a weapon and you don't either.

He ran with her purse.

There was no mention of one in the story from the witnesses or the woman.


.

Correct. OTOH, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" and he still had her purse. It's not simply a matter of her rent money was in there, but nowadays with ID theft and emboldened criminals who conduct home invasions, the loss of her purse could be a dangerous thing for her.

Let's not forget she braked before hitting him. If she really wanted to run him down like a rabid dog, she could easily have done so. Instead, she just bumped him to stop him...or possibly just to get him to drop the purse. For the fourth time, let the court figure out what's what, but in the heat of the moment, I don't fault her for her actions.

 

[OKTexas]

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

Didn't the robber put those people in harms way? Let's get back to why this all started. He started the chain of events. She did what needed to be done and ran the fucker over. No kids were involved so why bring it up?

Because she put the public in harms way, there's a reason citizens are prohibited form engaging in hot pursuit. It's dangerous enough when trained cops do it.


.

She didn't chase him down a highway doing 100 Mph trying to pit his car. She drove fifty feet to hit the guy in a parking lot.

Really, was he that slow, she first ran after him, they returned to her car, started it and then pursued him, and he only made it 50 feet in that time? I find that incredible.


.

 

[OKTexas]

That doesn't alter the fact that the threat of physical harm to her was not present.


.

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

Didn't the robber put those people in harms way? Let's get back to why this all started. He started the chain of events. She did what needed to be done and ran the fucker over. No kids were involved so why bring it up?

Because she put the public in harms way, there's a reason citizens are prohibited form engaging in hot pursuit. It's dangerous enough when trained cops do it.


.

Then where were the cops? They should have been there right? Then we wouldn't need to defend ourselves. Yet they were nowhere to be found. The five month pregnant woman took care of it. Problem solved.

BTW- A decent public would have jumped in and helped her.

Laws are written to balance the rights of individuals and public safety, just because nothing happened to an innocent person, doesn't mean she didn't put others at risk.


.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Did the OP just say we need to rewrite our laws to say that running people over should be legal?

indeed

why not

In North Dakota, it could become legal to hit a protester with your car

Hopefully, that would be struck down by SCOTUS.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

why would it be

 

[OKTexas]

Remind me again, who assumed he had her DL and was going to her house to kill her?


.

The report stated the thief had her purse. It's pretty common knowledge women keep their billfold w/ DL in their purses. It's not a stretch, but if you want to believe otherwise, go for it.

The dude didn't have a weapon, why would you assume he was a killer, hell, he ran like a scared rabbit.


.

I don't know if he had a weapon and you don't either.

He ran with her purse.

There was no mention of one in the story from the witnesses or the woman.


.

Correct. OTOH, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" and he still had her purse. It's not simply a matter of her rent money was in there, but nowadays with ID theft and emboldened criminals who conduct home invasions, the loss of her purse could be a dangerous thing for her.

Let's not forget she braked before hitting him. If she really wanted to run him down like a rabid dog, she could easily have done so. Instead, she just bumped him to stop him...or possibly just to get him to drop the purse. For the fourth time, let the court figure out what's what, but in the heat of the moment, I don't fault her for her actions.

I think you should watch the again. And the court will figure it out, I'm sure they'll plea her down to simple assault with a small fine since she didn't seriously hurt the guy.


.

 

[The Professor]

You can't use deadly force to protect property . Only people .

You are correct.

I have a Juris Doctorate, so let me explain to the rest of you how the law works. In all jurisdictions the use of deadly force is allowed only when – at the time such force is used – a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself (or an innocent third party). When a suspect is running away he obviously does not pose a such a threat. Even the police have no right to use deadly force to prevent the escape of most suspects including those who have broken into automobiles. The police can use deadly force only to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The law defines a dangerous felon as someone who has inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury. Breaking into a person's automobile does not make a suspect a dangerous felon.

The leading case regarding when the police may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect is Tennessee v. Garner. In this case the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reviewed a Tennessee law which allowed the police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of non-dangerous suspects The particular case involved a man who was suspected of burglarizing a home. The following are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision:

“The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.”.

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Conclusion: the lady broke the law. Her only hope is for a sympathetic jury. This is not debatable.

That doesn't necessarily apply to nongovernmental entities, the government has a duty to protect civil rights, citizens do not.


.

You are wrong. Read my post again. Not even the police have the right to use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping unless he/she is a dangerous felon, described as someone who has either inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury. The SCOTUS decision I posted made it clear that a law that allowed the police to use deadly force against a non-dangerous felon was unconstitutional. Does the FBI have the right to use deadly force against non-dangerous felons? They don't. Does the CIA? Of course not. Nobody does. If an FBI agent kills a fleeing suspect for breaking into a car, he goes to prison. Period.

While it is true that governmental agencies are charged with protecting citizens they cannot disregard applicable laws in the process. You should know this intuitively. If you think the FBI can kill a fleeing suspect whose only crime was failing to pay parking tickets (or even breaking into an unoccupied vehicle, you are a board certified fool.

As I said, I have a Juris Doctorate (doctorate in law). I am an expert and you obviously are not. You don't tell me what the law is; I tell you. I said the issue was not debatable and it is not.

WARNING TO ANYONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT: If you use deadly force to prevent the escape of a non-dangerous felon, you have committed a crime. If you elect to believe OKTexas, I only hope the day never comes when you act on that belief.

Now, I am done with this your nonsense and with this entire thread. I did my best to keep you guys and gals out of trouble and have nothing more to say.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't know if that's relevant. She was just trying to get her purse back and was physically incapable of doing so. She used her vehicle to get her belongings.

Like I just said, she didn't just put the bad guy in harms way, what if a kid had stepped out from between those cars?


.

Didn't the robber put those people in harms way? Let's get back to why this all started. He started the chain of events. She did what needed to be done and ran the fucker over. No kids were involved so why bring it up?

Because she put the public in harms way, there's a reason citizens are prohibited form engaging in hot pursuit. It's dangerous enough when trained cops do it.


.

Then where were the cops? They should have been there right? Then we wouldn't need to defend ourselves. Yet they were nowhere to be found. The five month pregnant woman took care of it. Problem solved.

BTW- A decent public would have jumped in and helped her.

Laws are written to balance the rights of individuals and public safety, just because nothing happened to an innocent person, doesn't mean she didn't put others at risk.


.

A reckless driving charge could be added?

 

[OKTexas]

You can't use deadly force to protect property . Only people .

You are correct.

I have a Juris Doctorate, so let me explain to the rest of you how the law works. In all jurisdictions the use of deadly force is allowed only when – at the time such force is used – a person reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself (or an innocent third party). When a suspect is running away he obviously does not pose a such a threat. Even the police have no right to use deadly force to prevent the escape of most suspects including those who have broken into automobiles. The police can use deadly force only to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The law defines a dangerous felon as someone who has inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury. Breaking into a person's automobile does not make a suspect a dangerous felon.

The leading case regarding when the police may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a suspect is Tennessee v. Garner. In this case the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reviewed a Tennessee law which allowed the police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of non-dangerous suspects The particular case involved a man who was suspected of burglarizing a home. The following are the relevant portions of the SCOTUS decision:

“The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

“While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.”.

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Conclusion: the lady broke the law. Her only hope is for a sympathetic jury. This is not debatable.

That doesn't necessarily apply to nongovernmental entities, the government has a duty to protect civil rights, citizens do not.


.

You are wrong. Read my post again. Not even the police have the right to use deadly force to prevent a suspect from escaping unless he/she is a dangerous felon, described as someone who has either inflicted or threatened to inflict death or serious bodily injury. The SCOTUS decision I posted made it clear that a law that allowed the police to use deadly force against a non-dangerous felon was unconstitutional. Does the FBI have the right to use deadly force against non-dangerous felons? They don't. Does the CIA? Of course not. Nobody does. If an FBI agent kills a fleeing suspect for breaking into a car, he goes to prison. Period.

While it is true that governmental agencies are charged with protecting citizens they cannot disregard applicable laws in the process. You should know this intuitively. If you think the FBI can kill a fleeing suspect whose only crime was failing to pay parking tickets (or even breaking into an unoccupied vehicle, you are a board certified fool.

As I said, I have a Juris Doctorate (doctorate in law). I am an expert and you obviously are not. You don't tell me what the law is; I tell you. I said the issue was not debatable and it is not.

WARNING TO ANYONE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT: If you use deadly force to prevent the escape of a non-dangerous felon, you have committed a crime. If you elect to believe OKTexas, I only hope the day never comes when you act on that belief.

Now, I am done with this your nonsense and with this entire thread. I did my best to keep you guys and gals out of trouble and have nothing more to say.

I guess you missed my earlier post. It's legal for me to shoot someone fleeing with my property at night in TX.

"There is a Texas law that permits you to use deadly force to recover property that’s taken during a nighttime theft."

Texas man acquitted of killing prostitute who took $150, left w/o sex


.