Yes, but is the charge appropriate? Is he on the same field as a guy that stalks his prey and then commits some elaborately heinous murder?
I think we need to deal with this in a harsh manner. I am not prepared for the bloodbath that would occur if the standard of justifiable homicide were prevention of crime rather than defense of life. When one notices a crime occuring the appropriate solution is to call the police. No matter how much we like movies about cowboys and superheroes, there is no room for vigilantes in a democratic society.
I could live with 2nd degree murder.
Incidentally, I think it should be noted that it’s not unusual for prosecutors to initially over charge a defendant simply as a plea bargaining tactic. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the prosecutors in this case are simply starting out with the maximum in order to try to scare the guy into pleading guilty to something lesser that will still send him to prison but will save the state from a trial.
No, in his statement, the person isn’t a danger to him…they’re simply stealing his girlfriend’s vehicle. Indefensible attitude. He’s a danger to civilized society simply by believing this is a justified response to grand theft auto and having the ability to own a gun. This is exactly the person society needs to fear. A macho man with an overblown ego.
I agree (gasp!) here. It appears that 2nd degree Murder or even Manslaughter woudl be the correct charges, but that the DA is “over charging” to get the dude to plead out.
Once in a while this backfires. Here in Santa Clara County, a bouncer and his biker buddies killed a guy in a fistfight in a stripclub. Since the bouncer was a Hell’s Angel, the police and DA overreacted, charging 1st degree murder, and going way overboard on searches- including shooting two dogs. Anyway, even though Manslaughter was a “slam dunk” (IMHO) the jury found reasonable doubt that the bouncer meant to kill the dude, so they aquitted on Murder 1. :eek:
Shoot, I was getting ready for a three page blowout. 
Society exists. Therefore I don’t carry out my actions, since I’d be penalized for it (and I don’t have a gun, but am thinking of purchasing one due to the recent events in France). I don’t know what I’d do if society didn’t exist, but if it broke down the only thing preventing me from acting in that manner would not be the propriety of my actions providing they are trying to take my stuff, but my second thoughts as to if they are. As others have said they very well may be strong enough to prevent me acting on my bluster.
I’m strongly against the death penalty, and against vigilantism for the same reason: it’s hard to tell for certain if someone’s guilty of a felony. But that doesn’t mean I think most violent felons and thieves ought to live. I just think 1st degree murder is too harsh for defending your property (unless, I guess, you went out of your way to place your vehicle in an unusual spot where thieves were more likely to steal it, then hiding in wait around that spot overnight, then gunning them down when they just touched your car.)
Dude, the fact that you feel morally justified in taking lives of thieves means you are wrong-thinking in my book. Whether or not you act on it is one thing. The basic thought process you employ is another. And it’s not attractive.
Legally, it’s hard to tell from the limited information available – possibly nothing (if any of the thieves acted in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to draw a gun), possibly as much as manslaughter.
Morally, if I were on the jury, I’d note Not Guilty.
If I might defend Ludovic, he seems to be saying that in a state of nature he would be justified in using deadly force to protect his property, since that would be the only way to protect his property.
However, we do not live in a state of nature, but rather have courts and police officers. Although the courts and polcie do not protect our lives and property perfectly, they do a much better job than the result of each of us acting alone. Therefore, for prudential reasons we all agree not to act on our natural right to protect our property, since the cops and courts provide us with a much better result.
In some states, it is perfectly legal to shoot suspected thieves in the back if they run away from you:
All the charges should be dropped and he should be given a community award for helping clean up the environment.
I think it would help to look to the Wiconsin statutes for guidance:
Sec 940.01 says that “(a) Except as provided in sub. (2) , whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class A felony.”
Sub. (2) is a list of mitigating circumstances, only one of which could be deemed relevant in the absence of evidence that the victims attacked the defendant: 940.01(2)© states that it is an affirmative defense that “death was caused because the actor believed that the force used was necessary in the exercise of the privilege to prevent or terminate the commission of a felony, if that belief was unreasonable.”
If that can be proven, the charge would be reduced to 2nd-degree intentional homicide.
The entry into a locked vehicle is not a felony under Wisconsin law. Wisconsin Statute Sec. 943.11 says that entry into a locked vehicle is a Class A misdemeanor. The burglary statute lists several different types of locations at which a burglary may occur; however, a vehicle (that’s not a motor home) is not one of them (Wisc. Statute 943.10).
Now, Wisc. Stat. 943.20 (Theft) says that if someone illegally takes the moveable property of another, if the value of the property at question is more than $2,500, the theft becomes a felony. The severity/class of the felony increases as the value of the property increases. Under $2,500, the theft is a misdemeanor.
So…
There are two questions that need to be answered:
- Was the value of the car more than $2,500?
If so, - Was the defendant privileged to prevent or terminate the commission of that felony?
If the answers point to the defendant NOT being privileged to prevent the commision of a felony, he should be charged with 1st degree intentional homicide.
I’ll try to find some case on point later; I have to go now, unfortunately.
Oh, sorry about the lack of links to the statutes; I used LexisNexis. You can look at Wisconsin’s official site to find the statutes, I’m sure.
It depends. I’d feel perfectly justified in taking my gun, pointing it at the felons, and telling them to “put their hands up”. And *if, * that’s a big **IF ** mind you- they made any hostile actions towards me, I’d feel justified in opening fire. But if they did put their hands up, or just ran; then no.
I’d only fire if they ran IF they were a “clear and present danger”. Such as they had just commited a hienous murder and still had their weapons out or something. But not for simple car theft. Property is not worth a life.
I have to admit that if they said something REAL stupid like “we’ll be back to get you and your kids”; I’d be tempted to fire even if they were fleeing at the time.
I wouldn’t kill anyone over simply trying to take my property, but nor do I think I’m legally bound to stand there like a sheep while someone robs me.
For example I was working in my uncle’s grocery store in high school when some redneck ran in and grabbed a case of beer and ran out. I chased after him, tackled him to the ground, and held him down while waiting for several other people to run out to me and help detain him until the police arrived. I used some degree of force against the man, and I certainly think it was justified as I don’t think we should have a society in which people are expected to do nothing while someone steals from them. When the police arrived they didn’t even suggest I could be in any remote form of legal trouble for the minor injuries the guy suffered in his theft attempt.
That’s a far cry from killing a guy for taking your stuff. Anyone who feels “justified” in killing someone over a car has an overblown sense of self-importance and seriously needs to be taken down a peg or two.
Exactly what should be done to those who commit these crimes to prevent them from doing so in the future and to make those of us, who would like to have been able to use force to stop them, feel good about not using deadly force?
Are current penalties for such crimes enough of a deterent?
Is a class A misdemeanor enough of a charge?
Why not make all theft a felony with harsher penalties?
That would put these thugs away longer and give pause to otherwise law-abiding citizens from using force to stop them.
This is even more mind boggling. You live in Orlando (presumably Florida; correct me if I’m wrong). And you want to buy a gun to protect you from shit happening in France? :dubious:
Dude. I’ve enough guns to whup ass on the local National Guard outfit (that really ain’t saying much), and even I’m not that paranoid.
Ummm…okay? What did you have in mind? :dubious: