Is This Legal?

[fimbulwinter]

Corollary to the Corollary Thread:

guy jacks me with a knife, I give him my cash etc., he takes off.

I immideately pull a pistol and shoot him dead. legal?

what if i shoot him in the stomach/legs?

what if i walk back to my car, get a rifle and shoot him from a distance?


lawyers out there?

fim

[spamuell]

I am not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that in the UK all of these are clearly illegal once you are no longer in danger and I'd hope it's the same anywhere.

[squeek12]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that in the UK all of these are clearly illegal once you are no longer in danger and I'd hope it's the same anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone steals your car by threatening you with a weapon, I think you should be able to shoot to kill, even if he is trying to get away. Damn left-wingers will have you believe that the reason he is stealing is because he grew up in a bad neighborhood and he was disadvantaged... this is BS. He is stealing because he sucks at life, and gives up his right to live when he threatens to kill others.

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that in the UK all of these are clearly illegal once you are no longer in danger and I'd hope it's the same anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone steals your car by threatening you with a weapon, I think you should be able to shoot to kill, even if he is trying to get away. Damn left-wingers will have you believe that the reason he is stealing is because he grew up in a bad neighborhood and he was disadvantaged... this is BS. He is stealing because he sucks at life, and gives up his right to live when he threatens to kill others.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm...

[KingDan]

No. My friend's dads friend owned a local convenience store. He got robbed, and someone took off with a lot of money. He had a gun under the register, and shot the guy as he was inthe parking lot. It hit the robber in the back, and now he can't walk. The robber sued the owner, as the owner was no longer in danger. The owner of the store pays $$ monthly, which far exceeds how much the original robber stole.

A cop said, half-jokingly "should have just pulled him back into the store."

[spamuell]

Damn left-wingers will have you believe that the reason he is stealing is because he grew up in a bad neighborhood and he was disadvantaged... this is BS. He is stealing because he sucks at life, and gives up his right to live when he threatens to kill others.

No. I have no idea why he is stealing. I do believe, however, the following which makes me think it is extremely wrong to shoot this person:

1. It is not the responsibility of the victims of crime to appropriate punishment (and that's what this is, punishment and revenge, you're no longer in any danger).

2. The legal consequences of a criminal's actions should be proportional to the crime (isn't this in your Consitution somewhere?). I don't think death or even serious injury should ever be the cost of stealing property.

I don't care if the person grew up in a rich home, with loving parents and friends, plenty of opportunities and no need to steal, they still don't deserve capital punishment.

Which of these do you disagree with?

[squeek12]

Very well-done and thought out. I do not object to what you have said, and after further thought, you are right. If the criminal threatened the victim with a weapon, he ought to be brought to a room, an unloaded gun put to his head, and scared out of his wits. Then he should should have to pay the victim back twice what he stole to compensate for emotional damage and inconvenience.

BTW, I moranically came out and used the term "left-wingers," but you replied very thoughtfully, instead of just calling me some conservative zealot (I consider myself libertarian). NH sir, you have earned my respect.

[spamuell]

Awesome. I respect you a lot more now as well, for actually changing your mind in a discussion on the internet.

[-Skeme-]

I don't know about the others, but I'm fairly certain that leaving the scene to get a weapon makes it assault, not self defense.

I'll venture a guess and say that shooting someone in the back also doesn't qualify as self defense. He's cleary running away and you're really not in much danger anymore. Not to mention shooting someone is much more lethal than say tackling him and taking your cash back.

[xorbie]

I think there was a case in Texas about this, that may have gone to the supreme court. Something like a guy caught someone stealing from his toolshed and shot him dead with a shotgun. Google is thy ally.