Sorry, but I think that statement is incorrect according to the T.J. Hooker Act of 1986, AKA the “Loose Canon Doctrine”. The law specifically states:
"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked or otherwise the victim of a forcible felony has the right to pursue, capture and possibly kill his or her attackers by whatever means necessary, including, but not limited to automobile, boat, helicopter, airplane, hot air balloon or parkouring across rooftops.
Any collateral damage or injury resulting from such pursuit, including but not limited to explosions, fires, damaged vehicles, smashed store fronts, ruined produce, or plate glass windows broken while carried across the street by two men shall be deemed the responsibility of the party or parties committing the original felony, and the pursuing party shall be absolved of all blame or responsibility, so long as the felons are apprehended or killed in a suitably public and spectacular manner (such as tossing off a bridge, building or other high structure (possibly onto a sharp object), exploding, colliding with a larger vehicle or shooting between the eyes, so long as the words “Don’t. It’s not worth it” are invoked by a third party).
In the event the pursuing party is a member of a law enforcement agency and fails to apprehend or kill the party who committed the felony, they may be subject to actions ranging from a stern rebuke to confiscation of their issued firearm and badge/shield until such time as they capture or kill the felon as a private citizen."
I think the law is very clear on this.
So I could just blow your head off, and when the police arrive I can just tell them, “It’s fine officers, he took my thing.” You guys really don’t see any problems with this?
This is a case of bad or good facts making bad law. I know you can’t have a bright line rule here, but citizens need more guidance on whether they can chase a fleeing felon: not just “Go for it so long as you don’t hurt someone.” The difference between a pat on the back and a murder conviction is huge.
I’m sympathetic to this guy, but if you let him off, the next guy might run over a pedestrian doing it.
The robbery, as a robbery, no. The attendant physical and psychological effects of repeated whacks-to-the-skull and plausible death threats, yes. See below
The effects of concussions on rationality are well documented. The immediate emotional effects of trauma on rationality are well documented. I wouldn’t think it would be hard to produce reasonable doubt - or exculpatory mitigation - sufficient to hang a decently selected jury. <– I say this with no law training and an equal number of trials under my belt
Stupid thing said in the heat of the moment by a distressed victim; see above. How many victims have said, “I want to kill them” or the like in the immediate aftermath? How many have been hit with uttering threats?
Yes, on the internet and in life. The law may say that this was excessive, and the law may be right, but I think most people would say that immediate vengeance is not only acceptable but warranted.
I think he should be hit for driving offenses and danger to the public but the actual death should be a pass.
I’ve read recently that only something like 10% of burglaries are solved. The assailants had masks, surprise and concussions on their side. Chances of escape seem fairly good to me.
I thought the rule, in some states at least, is that you are culpable for any “crime” coming as a direct result of a felony you were involved with. For example:
I steal a car and the owner comes out guns-a-blazing’ causing the death of an innocent. I am guilty of the death because had I not stolen the car the owner would not have fired and the death would not have occurred.
there is a big difference between, “He stole my Ipod” and “The five of them jumped me, robbed and beat me and threatened to kill my wife and I.”
The next victim of a pistol-whipping may hit a bystander … but the fellow who got killed by the homeowner’s truck in the OP will NEVER invade anyone’s home. I risk it.
That’s funny. I’m only answering to be polite … but that’s funny. You could line the civilians up facing forward and get as many of them as possible on your way to the robber. You’d need a big car … oh yeah, you probably have a pick-up. Wait til he gets to Disneyland and you could really get dozens of 'em, then go on some rides afterward.
Why do they have to be civilians, couldn’t they be heroes?
“Sir, why did you end the lives of so many police and firefighters in your quest to hurt that robber?”
Well, I just have to ask, do you have a cite for a victim of home invasion and a beating running over dozens of civilians while trying to catch a criminal immediately after the crime? We have at least one example of a homeowner capturing one robber and killing another with no collateral deaths. I wonder if most grown-up courageous homeowners would make a judgement call and curtail their chase if bystanders were in the way?
I was picturing this kind of chase happening dozens of times, not one person running over a dozen people. The more this happens, the more innocent people would be hurt.
Plenty of victims say that. I bet i’d probably say it, or at least think it, if my family and i had been victims of a crime like this. But here’s a basic question for you, and your answer will help me determine whether you’re grasping the issue here:
Scenario 1: victim of a home invasion says “I want to kill them.”
Scenario 2: victim of a home invasion says “I wanted to kill them” when asked by police why he ran a vehicle off the road, killing one occupant and injuring the others.
Do you understand the difference between these two scenarios? Do you believe that they are functionally equivalent, for the purposes of this discussion?
I can imagine plenty of situations where, as the victim of a crime, i might want to kill or injure the person responsible. But that’s why, in a rational and civilized society, we don’t let distressed victims in the heat of the moment decide what constitutes a just punishment for crime. If someone hurt my wife, i’d want the person dead, but i also recognize (and like to think that i would still recognize, even if that happened to me) that i am not the person best qualified to evaluate the situation and carry out the punishment.
Sorry, it’s already been argued that his defense should be that he wasn’t in his right mind because of injury and the trauma of the event. But now we are to believe he will have the judgement to break off if it gets too dangerous to others? Can’t have it both ways.
I know, but the image of a crazed conservative gun owner plowing through a crowd to get to the robber was too good to pass on. He could be leaning out of the window and shooting indisciminately all the while.
But seriously, I think the results of each individual instance of rabid vigilantism should be judged on it’s own merits. We may find that most homeowners will give up the chase if bystanders are present. Someone, perhaps not you, should endeavor to compile a list of cites that prove (or challenge) your position that innocent lives are lost during citizens’ arrests involving home invaders and victims giving chase in automobiles. Where are the studies?
Thankfully it doesn’t happen often enough for there to be a lot of data. There are however plenty of cases in which innocent bystanders have been killed during police chases. That’s with trained personnel who are not blinded by emotion and thoughts of vengeance. There is a reason why police chases are highly controlled and usually ordered to be stopped except under extreme cases in most states.
If it doesn’t happen very often, then there’s no reason to make an example of this particular victim and no reason, IMO, to even address the potential for dozens of civilians’ lives being senselessly risked by pick-up driving vigilantes.
Could be that police tend to be so self-confident after all their specialized training that they have insufficient self restraint to engage in safe and effective car chases.