I think violent home invasions are bad for society as a whole, as are pistol whippings of innocent homeowners. The injured party captures the criminal … the only real threat is to the authority of the police.
No, it is a threat to the system that says you can’t punish someone until he or she has been adjudged guilty by society as a whole.
That’s a great way to encourage people to do reckless stuff and inadvertently hurt others. It’s not workable because it judges vigilantism entirely on the outcomes.
Detaining someone in a “citizen’s arrest” and holding them until the property authorities arrive is perfectly acceptable.
Acting as Judge Judy and executioner under the Bronson Doctrine isn’t. Unless you live in Florida.
IANAL, but I’d say a “heat of passion” defense would be the way to go. If it doesn’t work, it’s a VERY solid groundwork for proving it wasn’t premeditated.
That contradicting mix of “I rammed them, I was trying to kill them.” and “stated he did not intentionally collide into the rear of V2.” Sounds very much like somebody suddenly realizing what they’ve done.
Of course, to be fair, it also sounds like somebody suddenly realizing they could get in big trouble for what they’ve done and trying protect themselves.
So far as I know, this is rarely a complete defense to a charge of murder. It can only be used to try to persuade a court to reduce the sentence after conviction.