IOW, the pool of people potentially needing killed grows by several orders of magnitude. Wonderful. The courts seem to have difficulty deciding what to do with the bad guys. Now we’re giving them a bunch more good guy killers to deal with?
Good luck with that.
Of course not! If you kill a bad guy, there’s obviously not going to be a trial. After all, that’s what the bill in question is for!
Oh, now I get it! The District Attorney gets to decide who lives and dies. Yeaaaaah, that makes sense now.
Yes, there is a subjective judgment. I’m not really troubled by that. Not nearly as much as I am troubled by the idea of a law declaring it open season on disarmed criminals. Ersland shot the robber in the head but decided to shoot him five more times a little later on. I have trouble seeing how he was still threatened at that point.
A potential reason a law like this would be good public policy is if we recognize that at the moment of the crime, the judgment of whether or not the person is a threat may differ than when in the jury room. It could specifically instruct juries as to what is defined as a threat.
Imagine the scenario where a bad guy goes into a store to rob the place with a gun. The store owner is able to draw his own gun. Then the bad guy changes his mind and turns around. Then the owner fires and kills the bad guy and it’s caught on video. Guy is charged with murder (or some related lesser but still serious charge). Wouldn’t this proposed law be a defense for this owner where otherwise he may be convicted of murder?
As far as how much force an armed citizen is entitled to use, I go by the standard of “would you want a police officer to do the same thing?”. In this case, finish off someone lying on the ground? Now it can be debated whether summary execution ought to be the penalty for armed robbery, rape, and horse thieving, but for now anyway we seem to have made the collective decision that it shouldn’t.
Back in the day when video surveillance didn’t exist, a bullet in the back was all the evidence needed to get a guy hanged. Depending of course, on who was testifying to what.
That’s pretty much true still today. You can’t see the problem with that scenario you just outlined?
Does the “bad guy” who has changed his mind, turned his back on the owner and tried to leave the building still pose a deadly threat to the owner? For that matter, is the robber who is disarmed and unconscious on the ground still a deadly threat to the owner?
Not in and of itself, no. I see no problem with that. Once the threat is established, the owner is permitted to defend himself. Simply facing his back to the owner shouldn’t be a shield for the bad guy. He could still be a legitimate threat if holding a weapon, if making credible verbal threats, if he’s seeking more defensive position to attack from, or any sort of scenario.
The coroner will still say the bad guy was shot in the back. That should be okay and this law could clarify the threat window put to rest the idea that the store owner wasn’t being threatened the moment the bad guy turns.
The guy who was shot in the head and disarmed and unconscious is not a threat. If he was simply shot in the head, but still conscious and armed, then I’d say he still a threat and a valid target. That’s not what happened in this specific case however.
Edit: added who I was responding to
I kind of think there’s a qualitative difference between the scenario you quoted and what happened with Ersland. In the split-second, it’s hard to determine whether or not the threat has abated. But Ersland didn’t shoot five shots into the guy in the heat of the moment. He shot five shots into the guy after the danger was well past.
Shooting someone who, just a second before, has brandished a firearm in your direction then changed his mind and is in the process of turning around and leaving is justifiable as self-defense, because the situation is still in transition from alls-well to OMG! back to alls-well, and the human brain doesn’t really make decisions that quickly.
Shooting someone who’s down on the floor, bleeding from a headshot, 30 seconds or more after he went down, is execution.
A would-be armed robber who has “turned,” but is still on the premises, may turn again. He may hurt somebody outside. Look, as long as he’s on his feet and armed, on the property, that’s clearly still an invader.
I’d shoot him, and I’d expect to go unprosecuted, under current law.
The wounded man on the floor is an entirely different situation.-
Gun laws vary quite a bit from state-to-state. There are two issues addressed here known as Castle Doctrine and what is commonly termed something like “imminent threat to great bodily harm or death.” On the first matter, many states allow you to shoot an intruder in your home, with no other qualification. There are issues as to what constitutes an “intruder” but it’s pretty straightforward, for the most part. That’s Castle Doctrine, basically. Doesn’t apply to public places like a store owner on his premises, or the pharmacist in the example.
Imminent threat is for the jury to decide. Hope you have a good lawyer and plenty of money. Personally, I’d have a hard time explaining shooting someone in the back under any circumstances.
The average citizen doesn’t get to decide. The jury does. We’re not debating guilt here; we’re debating what the law should say. I say the pharmacist did no wrong. So the law should reflect that. And in that sense, the average citizen is deciding that burglary/robbery should carry a death sentence…via our elected representatives.
And yes, I’m saying that in the instance of armed robbery, “he needed killin’” is a good thing. I think that not only should shooting a fleeing robber be OK, it should be encouraged. If I rob you with a weapon, and try to run with your purse/wallet, you are ethically obligated to try to kill me.
Why? Because they get away. And then they do it again to someone else. And then they get away again. The cops have a poor record for catching these scum so a little vigilantism goes a long way.
If you kill someone who’s trying to rob you, I’ll buy you a beer and slap you on the back. Good for you, man, good for you.
Try as I might, I just can’t find anything morally reprehensible about killing a rabid animal like the robber. Why would I want to punish that? Why would I want to stop such behavior? I don’t see how it hurts another human being.
What do the police do when a suspect holding a gun refuses an order to drop the gun, and instead turns and runs away?
What about the part where he goes outside the store and shoots down the street? That seems like it’d break a law or two.
Well, good luck getting armed robbery bumped up to a capital crime, then. Maybe we can move murder up a notch to include torture before death, just to keep things in perspective.
I don’t know why this is, Chessic Sense, but somehow your repeated references to a dead, stupid 16-year-old as a “rabid animal” and your frontier justice approach are not convincing me that this law would be a good thing.
They can only chase and try to apprehend him, unless he points the gun. Only then can they shoot.
Oh yeah, the guy was tweakin’ big time.
Exactly!
You weren’t there and simply cannot know.