He was qualified to be a victim, I think he knows at least as much about administering sudden and severe justice, having been a witness to his own beating and robbery, so as far as I can tell … stopping the bad guys, offing one of them … if he’s not an expert, he’s a talented amateur.
Nope. He’s welcome to an opinion, but not to inflict punishment himself when he’s not in danger. That was lies savagery.
Give this individual the prize, they have won the internet.
I’m curious about your ideology, can we fill in some gaps?
[ol]
[li]If there was no violence committed during the robbery, say they pointed a gun at him while robbing him but did not physically assault him, would you still see this as justice?[/li][li]If instead of using a car he took his 12 gage shotgun and blew their heads off in the parking lot of a gas station, is this copacetic?[/li][li]I didn’t read the case, but let’s say one of the assailents was uncomfortable with what was happening and tried to restrain his fellow criminals from harming their victim but otherwise went along with the crime, is it just that this is the gang member that died?[/li][li]If instead of chasing the criminals, he instead saw them at home depot a week later, can he ram them in the parking lot and kill them then?[/li][li]If I key your car what should my punishment be? probation? 1 week in jail? Beating/flogging? Execution? [/li][li]What crimes are justly punished by death by ramming?[/li][li]Should we rewrite the constitution so that instead of a jury of their peers, people are tried and judged by their victims?[/li][/ol]
For myself, if I were on the jury I would find him guilty of a crime, manslaughter most likely though murder 1 is a possibility. I would probably want less than the maximum sentence due to the extenuating circumstances. But he made his decision, and would need to live with the consequences. If someone hurt me and mine, raped a family member say, I might very well decide to impart a bit of vigilante justice fully expecting to go to jail afterwards. It is understandable, but we have a constitution for a reason and everyone should abide by it, no one is above the law.
I’m simply not entertaining hypothetical questions like that … they are irrelevant. I’m OK with a man, attacked and robbed, stopping the attackers during or soon after the attack and subduing them with extreme prejudice. Interpret that any way you like.
To me, it’s the same thing as the Battered Wife Syndrome, whereby a woman can kill her wife while he is sleeping for whatever abuse he had inflicted on her.
A person robbed should, after being terrorized/brutalized, and robbed on top of that, should not be held accountable for what he does to a terrorist-robber. His life was fucked up, and a little payback should be expected.
- Yep.
- Yep
- I’d bet my right testicle that this scenario is 100% what didn’t happen, and hasn’t it the last 50,000 committed robberies in America.
- Yep
- You tell me. What is fair for keying a car, and stop trying to act as if it has any bearing on a robbery
- Death by ramming is death, so, what crimes are punishable by death? Apply same to your question. Rather than killing a robber while the felony was ongoing, the killing was delayed by the thieves flight.
- Nope. But, maybe more simple. So, let’s change the nope to the maybe. And, the whole Constitutional thing about trial by peers wasn’t created for ‘vigilantes’, it was a directive for state/court behavior. Irrelevant to this thread.
The fucks had it coming, and justice was served. Why should the prosecutor force his wrath onto the victim?
There’s little question that in a court of Internet Tough Guy law, “the fucks had it coming” is a defense even more iron-clad than an alibi.
Heh, yeah, and sentenced to six months somewhere nice. Maybe the Cayman Islands, Hawaii or Bermuda. Then given a full discharge and keys to the city for taking four violent criminals off the streets. If they’d got away with it once, the ‘Get Money Boys Gang’ probably would’ve done so again.
Of course, the ridiculous assumption behind this post is that, had the guy not run them off the road with his car, they would have gotten away with it.
True that is a crazy assumption. After all, no one has ever gotten away with armed robbery before. 
I didn’t think it was possible for the definition of terrorist to be deformed any further, and I thought wrong.
Yikes. 4 especially scares me. Is there a statute of limitations in your world?
Should we just change the penalty for robbery from 10 to 20 (or whatever it actually is) to death?
If he gets convicted of murder, wouldn’t the armed robbery be a felony where a death occurred, making all the other participants also eligible for charges of murder?
I know in some other instances the driver or someone only involved in a part of a crime has been charged with murder when someone died in the crime, even if it wasn’t one of their members that pulled the trigger. Would this be a similar case?
The Felony murder rule is say you kidnap a person and while in commission you “accidentally” kill them, meaning, legally, not meaning to kill them. That is felony murder.
I do know, and I believe it was a bank robbery case, the SC ruled the NON trigger man in a death resulting from it, can not be charged with murder if it can be proven he had no prior knowledge of it, unlke the tigger man.
Okay. I thought I remembered seeing an article where a man was charged for the death of his accomplice who was gunned down by the police while resisting arrest, as well, so I wasn’t sure where the lines were drawn.
I don’t know a lot about the law, but from what little I do know I know that you don’t want anyone to die, you don’t want to have guns, and you don’t want to have drugs involved in crimes you are involved in.
Oops, my error, the case was the NON trigger man could not get the death penalty, but could still be charged with murder, sorry!!
…When the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982), the Court drew a line. The Court held that no criminal defendant who did not kill, intend to kill or attempt to kill could be put to death for felony murder. Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 797, 102 S. Ct. 3368, 3376, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1140 (1982) Mr. Enmund had been convicted of driving the getaway car for two accomplices who had actually killed the two victims in that case. The Court recalled that each individual defendant must be examined individually. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), The Court found that this required an examination of each criminal defendant’s mental culpability and actual criminal acts. These inquries were relevant to the question of whether or not that person could become death eligible. As such, the Court examined Mr. Enmund’s mental state and specific actions surrounding the murders as part of the inquiry into whether or not he should be put to death. The Court found that Mr. Enmund did not intend to kill, attempt to kill or actually kill anyone. Under this standard, Mr. Enmund was not death eligible. …
And they would’ve gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for that murdering skid!
Well, having been sworn in a court of law before I wrote it, you make a lot of sense in pointing this out. Thank you, Your Honor.
Well, we don’t all have the iron courage that you would do, to laugh in the face of being robbed (see dictionary for definition of: robbed) with a gun, so, pussies such as me will say that there may be some modicum of terror involved. OK, OK, I’m a bitch, but, well, something about being brutalized by a gang turns me into jello.
I’ll be happy to relent and say let’s change 'terrorized/brutalized" to ‘being the honored guest at the party’. My bad.