Should our laws allow authorities to charge this woman?

[Montrovant]

For those who advocate killing thieves, let me ask some questions.

If a person steals your watch and runs away, do you think you are justified to shoot them in the back to retrieve the watch?

If a person steals a piece of gum from you and runs away, does the same apply?

If a child steals your wallet, does the same apply?

Basically, I'm asking just what circumstances you consider lethal force to be a valid response to a thief running away from a person. Who does it apply to? Does the value or type of stolen object(s) matter?

A further question: Does a person have to have stolen for lethal force to be acceptable, or is it only the perception that a person stole that matters? In other words, if you believe that someone just stole your wallet, is it acceptable to kill them to get it back, if it later turns out you were mistaken about them having stolen from you? What would constitute proof that the person had stolen from you, would they need to be convicted of the theft to make any attempted use of lethal force legal?

I could be wrong, but I get the impression a lot of the responses in this thread are of the quick, emotional sort, rather than well-thought-out opinions.

 

[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?


.

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?

I doubt they will. I think they will put this one to bed quietly.


.

 

[Juicin]

When I heard median I was expecting her to have chased this guy through a 4 way intersection or something

IN a parking lot at relatively low speeds

Was pretty funny, probably guilty. But no way a jury convicts her

 

[Crixus]

You know, Muslim (shiara law) countries allow deadly force like this . Righties are so like them. The irony .

Don't know about you, but most folks don't like their stuff stolen. Sure, the lady did leave her purse and valuables in her car, still, the guy should not have committed burglary. Now, say the little tweaker had pulled that stunt in Saudi or UAE. Do you really think he would have gotten off so easy? Your comment was dumb. You decied to break the law you face the consequences.

 

[Crixus]

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

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.


.

Yes, but she didn't know what property of hers he might still have. Exigent circumstances would cover her decision on that matter IMO.

It wasn't night and she didn't have time to check if he actually got something. And it wasn't TX.


.

Can you imagine if it were? Oh man all the Clara Harris jokes would be awesome.

 

[JoeMoma]

Many of y'all are arguing that it's not okay to use.leathal force in this situation. Well, the guy is not dead, thus the lady did not use leathal force.

Next question, can she be charged for using excessive, but not leathal force!

I beleive that if charged, a decent lawer will win the case for her.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

How dare you introduce facts into an emotional debate.

She was wrong but I'd be sympathetic. If I was on the jury I'd push for the minimum. I believe laws are far too easy on criminals, I'm not for sawing hands off but taking property from people should be afar worse crime than it is. If they have no assets to reimburse then it's hard labor.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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?

Exactly. The piece of subhuman filth who commits a crime, such as robbery, is fully and solely responsible for anything bad that happens as a result of that crime. In choosing to commit the crime, he takes on full responsibility for all of the adverse consequences thereof.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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?

Things can be tied to survivability.

It used to be a hanging offense to steal a horse. Why? Because depriving a man of his horse might mean depriving him of his ability to survive. It might deprive him of his ability to make an a living, or even leave him stranded in a bad place where he might die if he can't get home.

A TV is one thing. If someone steals your TV, and you have to do without, that's survivable. If someone steals your car, your identification papers, your financial instruments, your work tools, or other things that you need just to go about the business of surviving, then that's a direct threat to your safety and well-being, and plenty of justification for the use of any amount of force, up to and including deadly force, for the one who was thus robbed to try to recover that property or to prevent it from being stolen in the first place.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

He ran with the woman's purse—with her identification papers, her credit cards, and who knows what else. At that point, if he didn't want to be run over, he should have given them back.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

He ran with the woman's purse—with her identification papers, her credit cards, and who knows what else. At that point, if he didn't want to be run over, he should have given them back.

one cant blame her for putting an end to his criminal activity and keeping him there until the cops arrived

 

[Bob Blaylock]

For those who advocate killing thieves, let me ask some questions.

If a person steals your watch and runs away, do you think you are justified to shoot them in the back to retrieve the watch?

If a person steals a piece of gum from you and runs away, does the same apply?

If a child steals your wallet, does the same apply?

A certain amount of common sense applies. I think obviously not over something as frivolous as a piece of gum. If my wallet contained cash that I needed to pay my rent, and someone stole it, putting me at risk of homelessness, then absolutely, yes. If someone steals my car,or my tools, or other things that I need in order to make a living,then absolutely, yes. If someone steals identification papers that can be used to target me for identity theft,or to stalk me to my home and attack me there, then absolutely, yes.

But the bottom line ought to be, if you don't want to be attacked,and possibly even killed, by an in tended victim, then keep your filthy hands off of stuff that doesn't belong to you.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

. Now, say the little tweaker had pulled that stunt in Saudi or UAE. Do you really think he would have gotten off so easy? Your comment was dumb. You decied [sic] to break the law you face the consequences.

Don't they amputate the hands of thieves in those places?

 

[Crixus]

. Now, say the little tweaker had pulled that stunt in Saudi or UAE. Do you really think he would have gotten off so easy? Your comment was dumb. You decied [sic] to break the law you face the consequences.

Don't they amputate the hands of thieves in those places?

Typically after a decent beating. Sometimes just the beating. The guy walked away. He is pretty lucky in my book.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Revenge isn't legal. She seems to be outraged that he broke the law but she wants no consequences when she broke the law.

She attempted to kill him and I would guess she'll get 3-5 years in prison minimum or more. It's the same if she had a gun in her purse and chased the guy down and shot him in the back. Angry revenge is not legal. If he attacks her and she pulls out a gun and kills him, self defense and case closed. If she pulls out the gun and he immediately runs and she chases him and shoots him in the back, attempted murder and if he dies 2nd degree murder.

People get this weird idea that if they are wronged and angry about it they have cart blanche to then do whatever they like.

Don't like the law, change it.

Want to place a bet on that?

No jury will convict her!

 

[easyt65]

When the individual fled he became 'no longer a threat'. If someone tries to break into your house, you catch them in the act, and they run down the street trying to get away, you can not legally grab your gun or car, chase them down, and try to kill them. That's not how the law works.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

From your posts, I would say you probably can barely handle real estate closings and probably need help with that from a good paralegal.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

When the individual fled he became 'no longer a threat'.

As long as he was in possession of her identity documents and negotiable instruments, and whatever else was in her purse, he was a very real threat to her and her family.

 

[easyt65]

As long as he was in possession of her identity documents and negotiable instruments, and whatever else was in her purse, he was a very real threat to her and her family.

Sorry, but NO. 'Identity Theft' is not a legal 'threat' justifying running them down and killing them.

'Stand Your Ground' - Yes.
'Hunt Them Down' - No.

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Let's think about this briefly. A law is created that you can run people over with your car.

What do you think will happen next? More or less people being run over with fancy excuses?

more protesters will get the fuck out of the road

if a few become panny cakes

--LOL

problem solved

More people in general will be ran over and called protestors or bad people. And since they'll be dead, just call them "protesters" or even "bad people" and its cool? As long as you're physically able to call them a name?

Sounds good