Nazi Germany wasn’t a secret, stateless organization, clandestinely planning terrorist attacks with Hitler as its unseen leader. It was the ruling party of a recognized nation, with Hitler as its very open leader, conducting open warfare on its neighbors. We didn’t need to interrogate the top brass to find out where they’d hidden Berlin. There weren’t secret little German cells still running concentration camps and annexing Sudetenlands around the world after the war ended.
What effect capturing Hitler would have had on either the Axis or the Allies would be an interesting debate topic, but I think it would be significantly different from the effect on Al Qaeda of capturing ObL.
The ‘unorganised militia’ defence would fail, because even the militia has to observe due process of law. You might do better claiming that your homicide was justified as being necessary to prevent the dead man’s imminent commission of a heinous felony, but strictly speaking you ought to have arrested rather than killed him if possible.
But although you would be guilty of murder, in practice no DA would press charges, any jury would nullify itself, any judge would sentence you to a suspended sentence, and any governor would pardon you. The USA is treating the pursuit of bin Laden as a feud, not as a prosecution.
Heck, even I’d take a shot at Osama, and I’m a panty waisted liberal gun regulator. Hell, I’d empty the whole clip. And the multi million dollar reward would have nothing to do with the motivation.
If prosecuted, I’d demand a jury trial, represent myself, take the stand and demand the jury acquit me anyway. Wheee! Jury nullification as it was meant to be!
Not Naziism, necessarily, but obtaining the information he was privy to might have helped in the cleanup. Of course if he’d been captured during the war, then yes, I bet he would have been able to provide us with information that could help us fight.
I don’t totally buy this “any D.A. would refuse to prosecute and any jury would acquit” line of reasoning. I don’t mean to say that I have an airtight case against it, but I just find it hard to believe that any murder case, no matter who the victim, would really be completely thrown out like that. Osama or not, due process is due process.
Isn’t it? Are there any examples of cases being thrown out simply due to the fact that public opinion didn’t agree with the law?
It’s called ‘jury nullification’. How common it is I can’t say.
I read about a case on Orange County CA in which a jury acquitted a man who had shot dead a burglar, and then treated the defendant to lunch, but I can’t provide a citation.
What federal murder law is violated by this action? The mere fact that the federal government is offering a reward, or wants him for federal charges, does not make shooting him a federal crime.
The reward is being offered for evidence leading up to his apprehension/conviction. It doesn’t say anything that leads one to believe that killing him in the streets of the US is legal.
Self-defense (assuming there is no lying in wait situation). After all, he’s a known killer and you were scared n stuff.
As a side note, the “he needed killing” defense here in texas has gone out of style over the last decade or so. It’s rarely used anymore. Still, if you are able to convince the jury that the victim did, in fact, need killin’ … you can often get first degree dropped down to manslaughter.
Since he’s an international terrorist/outlaw, and a wanted criminal with a death sentence on his head, and a HUGE reward out for him, I’d say you’re covered. Don’t forget, the president has issued an order to have him brought in DEAD or ALIVE. ( I prefer dead as it will save us taxpayers a huge legal bill), If you can prove you’re life was threatened, ( which it would be since he’s declared and proven that he wants to kill ALL Americans), and you can reasonably prove you were in fear for your life, ( not a hard sell, considering who and what he is), I’d say it’s a safe bet that you would walk away not only an American hero, but considerably more wealthy to boot. Of course, there would be a formal investigation, and no doubt the anti-gun lobby would probably raise hell, ( but that’s to be expected), however, after your aquittal, you’d be fine. Also, think of the money you’ll make just selling the movie rights, not to mention the book deal, and the public speaking engagements.
Remember, true gun control is being able to hit what you aim at.
IMHO, the prosecutors would make a few solemn statements about due process of law, present the matter to the grand jury with a knod and a wink, the grand jury would proceed to “no-bill” you, i.e. refuse to issue an indictment, and that would be that.
