Gang robs man, he chases them & rams their car. One robber dies now he is charged with murder

[SirGalahad]

@Loach

And maybe next time he wipes out a van full of nuns on their way to feed orphans. Potato, potatoe.

If the Nuns are just feeding the kids potatoes, they won’t get a balanced set of nutrients for their young growing orphan bodies. Bad Nuns. Also, those Nuns are anti-abortion, which is why they have so many darned orphans to watch over. Do we really care about those hateful Nuns who want to ban abortion and are also, by the way, against Gay marriage? I know I don’t.

I’m concerned about the creeping anti-self reliance that seems to be slowly eating away at man’s independents spirit. We’re afraid of the good guys, but really, not so much of the bad guys, because, for some weird reason, it’s portrayed as more likely that an honest citizen defending themselves with a gun, or re-acquiring their stolen property with a truck are more serious threats than the criminals and home invaders that trigger these responses.

I spent most of my life a vegetarian, and all of it an artist, a hippy, and basically a pacifist. I hate that there are people desperate enough, and amoral enough, to threaten anyone’s life and safety … to steal, rape, or murder. I also hate that the acts of defiance on the part of victims is viewed with much the same detached judgement as the actual crimes. My pacifism, unfortunately, winds down at the point some brain-donor decides my life has no value, and imposes on me … that act of defiance on my part, to not willingly sacrifice my self for the potential safety of hypothetical bystanders, is being cast as anti-social by the very authoritarians who sanction Swat-style “legal” home invasions to enforce warrants for such things as Marijuana related crimes. They’ll kick down the door, shoot the dog and terrorize the family, maybe of the next-door neighbor, (oops), and arrest or kill whoever objects, but … don’t you (as a private citizen) stand up for your own life and home, because you aren’t part of the ruling class.

Regarding a driver chasing a crook, I’m considering that on a case by case basis. If the truck smashes into the bad guys on a gravel driveway or empty road, that’s different than if he chases him through a school zone at 2:30 pm. If no one else get’s hurt but the home invader, I say give the hero a reckless driving ticket and let his insurance pay for the thief’s car.

[lawbuff]

@Broomstick

You are incorrect in this, SirGalahad. I live in Indiana which has “castle law” and have had to defend my property by force. The rule is pretty simple - in your own home you are allowed to use force to defend yourself, your family, AND your property.

Once the Bad Guys leave/retreat, though, you can NOT pursue them.

So the robbery victim could have legally killed the robbers in his own home or on his property, it was the PURSUIT of those robbers after they fled that has lead to murder charges. It’s a subtle distinction but a crucial one. You are allowed to defend yourself, but chasing the bad guys once they’re off your property is the job of the cops.

That depends, the “Fleeing Felon” rule, according to cites listed in this case, permits citizens to use deadly force, in fact specific/state cases, not citing Indiana though.

25. See State v. Cooney, 320 S.C. 107, 463 S.E.2d 597 (1995) (holding that a private person may use reasonably necessary force to make an arrest and rejecting trial court’s determination that using deadly force upon an unarmed fleeing felon is per se unreasonable);  People v. Hampton, 194 Mich.App. 593, 487 N.W.2d 843 (1992) (holding that, if necessary, private persons may use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon).

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nv-supreme-court/1329010.html
To address the poster, in Ohio we have a law called RECKLESS homicide, a 3rd degree felony. RECKLESS, by definition, the culpable mental state, was probably what the pursuer was, as a comparitive example.

[VinylTurnip]

@friedo

Yeah, self-defense is one thing, but you don’t generally get to chase and vehicularly murder someone who robbed you.

Baby steps.

[Loach]

@SirGalahad

We’re afraid of the good guys, but really, not so much of the bad guys, because, for some weird reason, it’s portrayed as more likely that an honest citizen defending themselves with a gun, or re-acquiring their stolen property with a truck are more serious threats than the criminals and home invaders that trigger these responses.

That is hardly the case here. The guy they are getting to testify against the others is getting a 40 year sentence. 40 years. And that’s the plea bargain. They are hardly treating the other guys with kid gloves.

[SirGalahad]

@Loach

That is hardly the case here. The guy they are getting to testify against the others is getting a 40 year sentence. 40 years. And that’s the plea bargain. They are hardly treating the other guys with kid gloves.

That’s a fair point, but I was referring to the reactions of the cliche “Liberal, won’t-someone-please-think-of-the- children, guns are more dangerous to the owner than to the attacker, hand wringing, safety for me and my family everywhere and always, too bad you got robbed and beaten, but hey, better you than me” posters that always populate these kinds of threads. I know the legal system will probably deal sternly with violent home invaders … my beef is with whomever overestimates the degree of the threat to Society posed by the lone victim who fights back and is labeled as similarly hostile and dangerous.

[mhendo]

@Shakes

Screw that! That’s bull shit.

I seriously doubt his intention was to kill the guy.

From the original crash report (PDF):

D1 initial statement to Deputy Corn when asked to give details of how his vehicle came in contact with V2 was “I rammed them, I was trying to kill them.” D1 went on to indicate that he did not remember much else concerning what occurred after the crash.

D1 then stated to Deputy Anson that he was in pursuit of V2 traveling north on SR 65. D1 stated he observed V2 run off the right side of the roadway. D1 stated he then lost sight of V2 due to the dust and darkness. D1 stated the next thing he knew his vehicle collided into the rear of V2 on the roadway. D1 stated he did not intentionally collide into the rear of V2.

[lawbuff]

@SirGalahad

I know the legal system will probably deal sternly with violent home invaders … my beef is with whomever overestimates the degree of the threat to Society posed by the lone victim who fights back and is labeled as similarly hostile and dangerous.

My belief is the person should be charged with some type of manslaughter/vehicular homicde, not murder. I assume he was in a “rage”, which is a degree of X type of manslaughter.

A person always has a legal right to puruse and restrain the perpetrator of thier liberty/ and or arrest them, when they have been a victim.

However, Due diligence for law and safety must be exercised when doing so.

Oh, to add, just read post 26 on the INTENT.

[Maastricht]

We had a very, very similar case in the Netherlands a couple years back. Public opinion was deeply divided.

In the end, the woman was judged to 180 hours of community service and her drives licence was revoked for 6 months.

[lieu]

To me this is one of those cases where yeah, obviously you can’t give the entire general public carte blanc to lash out when they’ve been violently assulted but here I’d wag my finger in his face, say “Don’t ever do that again, Buster” and give him a friendly swat on the ass as he heads back to his home to try and re-establish some sense of security again.

Laws have to be designed for the masses. I get that. Doesn’t mean I won’t quietly celebrate the occasional instance of poetic justice. Give whatever sentence the law demands but by all means probate it too.

[VinylTurnip]

@SirGalahad

That’s a fair point, but I was referring to the reactions of the cliche “Liberal, won’t-someone-please-think-of-the- children, guns are more dangerous to the owner than to the attacker, hand wringing, safety for me and my family everywhere and always, too bad you got robbed and beaten, but hey, better you than me” posters that always populate these kinds of threads.

And here I was, worried that you might have some preconceived notions that could affect your objectivity.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

[QUOTE=Carmady;16648932
I would have a very expansive definition of “temporary insanity” for someone who went through that ordeal. Did he chase them the next day or something?[/QUOTE]

I agree… If I was this man’s lawyer I would:

• request a jury trial, then be quite selective in who I challanged and who I let on
• talk extensively about the home invasion and how violent it was. I’d show pictures if available.
• call experts on temporary insanity, especially that caused by rage when your loved ones are hurt and threatened.
• try to make the case that he intended to chase/follow them, and did not intend on using his car as a weapon. He had not formed any intent to kill.

I don’t think this guy will spend any time in jail.

[Loach]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I agree… If I was this man’s lawyer I would:

• request a jury trial, then be quite selective in who I challanged and who I let on
• talk extensively about the home invasion and how violent it was. I’d show pictures if available.
• call experts on temporary insanity, especially that caused by rage when your loved ones are hurt and threatened.
• try to make the case that he intended to chase/follow them, and did not intend on using his car as a weapon. He had not formed any intent to kill.

I don’t think this guy will spend any time in jail.

I’m not sure you know how this works.

[YogSothoth]

@SirGalahad

It seems to me that the law- makers and law enforcement have established a policy that mere citizens will not engage in activity that threatens the dominance of the authorities.

And what is wrong with that? If you don’t like it, become an authority. I’d rather the likes of the police help me than some random vigilante. Unless its Batman. Batman can always help me

[SirGalahad]

@VinylTurnip

And here I was, worried that you might have some preconceived notions that could affect your objectivity.

One man’s objectivity is another man’s poison.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Loach

I’m not sure you know how this works.

The guy gets a trial and has representation who tries to ensure that he does not spend time in jail?

[Pixel_Dent]

@lieu

To me this is one of those cases where yeah, obviously you can’t give the entire general public carte blanc to lash out when they’ve been violently assulted but here I’d wag my finger in his face, say “Don’t ever do that again, Buster” and give him a friendly swat on the ass as he heads back to his home to try and re-establish some sense of security again.

Laws have to be designed for the masses. I get that. Doesn’t mean I won’t quietly celebrate the occasional instance of poetic justice. Give whatever sentence the law demands but by all means probate it too.

Well, he should be charged with something. How about improper disposal of a hazardous substance?

[Loach]

@Euphonious_Polemic

The guy gets a trial and has representation who tries to ensure that he does not spend time in jail?

Well sure. But I don’t think you know how it works.

1. You only have a certain number of challenges.
2. It’s not up to the defense to determine how much of the robbery would be relevant. I would guess that if the defense tried to make it all about the robbery it will be shut down by the judge.
3. Getting an affirmative defense such as insanity into a trial isn’t quite as easy as you think it is.
4. He said “I was trying to kill them.” That’s pretty clear.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Loach

Well sure. But I don’t think you know how it works.

1. You only have a certain number of challenges.
2. It’s not up to the defense to determine how much of the robbery would be relevant. I would guess that if the defense tried to make it all about the robbery it will be shut down by the judge.
3. Getting an affirmative defense such as insanity into a trial isn’t quite as easy as you think it is.
4. He said “I was trying to kill them.” That’s pretty clear.

I’d use all my challenges and try to get a jury that was as much like my client as possible.

Not ALL about the robbery, but obviously that has to be brought into it, as the guy did not just randomly run these guys off the road.

OK, maybe forget the formal insanity defense.

No, no no. He said “I was wanting to GRILL them”. He merely wanted to ask them some tough questions. The officer misheard him. Was there a recording of his statement?

(Thank God I’m not a lawyer. I would suck)

[Marley23]

@SirGalahad

It seems to me that the law- makers and law enforcement have established a policy that mere citizens will not engage in activity that threatens the dominance of the authorities.

That’s a rather biased way to look at it. A more sensible way would be to say that as a society, we think you should be qualified in order to do certain jobs. That’s especially relevant when you’re part of something like the criminal justice system, but it applies in other fields, too. Doctors don’t want laypeople practicing surgery and lawyers don’t want just any jerk to set up a law practice either. On the one hand, yes, this is to the benefit of people established in those professions. On the other hand it’s also a benefit to society because it’s intended to make sure people meet professional standards. A police officer has done that, and we expect they’ll be able to handle difficult situations. A guy who fends off a home invasion and tries to kill some people with his car doesn’t have any training or anything else. That’s a great reason to leave it to the police. I don’t want random people chasing and attacking criminals if they’re not threatened any more than I want them decide I look suspicious and shoot me.

[drewtwo99]

Not knowing all the facts of the case, but based on what I have read here, I’d find this guy guilty of manslaughter if I were on the jury, and if I were the judge I’d give him the minimum sentence possible. It’s situations like this for why we have open sentencing and various degrees of “just how much did you kill him” and such.

The guy was definitely wrong, and should not have chased them down and rammed them with intent to kill. But his life had just been threatened and he had been pistol whipped in the head for a period of a few minutes, and his shit had been stolen. He wasn’t acting rationally, and this was definitely a crime of rage/passion or whatever, so manslaughter.