“Your honor, the jury has decided the victim gets to shoot the defendant.”
Any problems with that?
Not necessarily. (cf. Landmark Supreme Court case: Tennessee v. Garner)
I’d just like to get paid on my BET in that thread with a now banned member.
Chessic Sense, you are only convincing me that you have no idea what you’re talking about, or what this proposed law is about. IMO, it should not be legal to kill an unarmed, incapacitated, unconscious person; that is what this proposed law seeks to legalize.
Yoshihiro Hattoriwas shot and killed by a shit-for-brains redneck in Louisiana in 1992, then was acquitted by a jury made up of equally stupid rednecks, thanks to Louisiana’s “Kill the Burglar” statute. Apparently deciding that the statute didn’t go far enough, a few years later the state passed a “Kill the Carjacker” statute.
From now on, every state should just have a ‘kill the pickpocket’ ‘kill the shoplifter’ ‘kill the jaywalker’ ‘kill the speeder’, and so on. In fact, every crime should be punished with death, and we don’t need juries to work it out - no, we’ll just let every Joe Blow Redneck with a gun handle it! If the guy is dead, clearly it’s because he was a threat, or was about to be a threat, or could have been a threat, or something - and the dead body’s my evidence.
What a dumb question. Yes, a million times, yes!
This doesn’t make sense. The FL statute doesn’t require forcible or unlawful entry under section 3 that I quoted. You said castle doctrine doesn’t apply to your place of business in the same post where you said gun laws vary state to state. That statement was incorrect.
I’m not sure I follow; the link says that the SC ruled that police can’t use deadly force just to stop a suspect from fleeing.
Interestingly, the link mentions that
I brought up something like this in a recent thread when I said
It sounds to me like Chessic Sense believes that the older standard should prevail: that any injury someone suffers in the course of committing a violent felony is their just desserts.
I remembered this video I saw earlier which is quite apt:
In the video, an officer during a traffic stop has the bad guy pull a gun on him. After a misfire on the badguy’s part, he attempts to drive away. The officer then proceeds to fire at the fleeing suspect eventually killing him. Bad guy was shot in the back. Jury acquitted the officer.
//off topic mode on//What doesn’t make sense is a FL statute snippet shedding any light on the Castle Doctrine concept for the purpose of this discussion. I don’t know if you are a lawyer or not, but I challenge you to explain how even the FL statues would exonerate a customer shooting somebody in the middle of the day in Walmart under any circumstances, based on Castle Doctrine alone. It can’t be done.//off topic mode off//
As if cops getting away with killing people for no good reason is anything new? :dubious:
No, they ruled that the police in that case could not use deadly force under that particular set of facts. However, the outcome of the case is not the important part (which often happens in Supreme Court rulings). What’s important is that the SCOTUS developed a rule for when a police officer may constitutionally shoot a fleeing felon. If you look at the sidebar on the wiki page and read where it says “Holding,” you will see the following:
Understood, however in this particular case you are wanting to try ‘the good guy’ for over-reaching his self defense actions.
I’d say in order to do so, you would need much more to go on than mere video. If the guy actually comes out and testifies that nothing was said or he didn’t feel threatened then by all means he should be prosecuted.
But until we know more detail, you(all) jumping to conclusions about him ‘shooting him 5 more times after already hitting him in the head’ is a reach.
I love tis part “probable cause to believe…”
That’s what juries are for, and that’s why anybody can get away with anything if you can just convince the jury. Sometimes that’s easier to do than others. 
For the people following the Tennessee v. Garner hijack, on to a hypothetical:
A crazed gunman goes into a Mall, shoots a Congresswoman and a few other people. Police arrive and he throws down the gun and starts to run away. May the police shoot him in the back as he flees?
Answer: Probably under Tennessee v. Garner. The police can see that he has shot several people in a public place. He can presumably re-arm himself. And, if he gets away, he poses a significant deadly threat to other people. The criteria set out by the SCOTUS seem to be met, meaning it would be okay for the police to shoot him in the back to prevent his escape.
Look, I’m on board with the sentiment, but that wasn’t the case there. That cop was acquitted because he shot and killed a guy who was driving drunk, had shot at an officer, and then attempted to flee with 2 weapons (his truck and a still-loaded gun). The officer had several good reasons to shoot at the fleeing perp.
BUT that case is in no way comparable to the proposed law or to what Mr. Ersland did. Mr. Ersland executed an unarmed, incapacitated, possibly unconscious person well after the robbery attempt was over. This proposed law would legitimize that conduct.
The guy fired out the cop…
Did he then throw his gun out the window? Do you need for the cop to be shot to death before you will allow him to fire back?
Kind of reminds of a joke my friend used to pull in middle school. He’d hit me and then promptly put on his glasses and say “you wouldn’t hit a guy with glasses now would you?”
I wonder how much if this is based upon a commonly held belief that when you shoot someone, you better kill them or they can come back to sue you.
What Ersland did (if the reports are accurate) was criminal IMO. What the officer did, was justified. The law should seek to criminalize Ersland and it should be a defense to the officer. I think expanding the determination and actions considered self defense is a good thing if it could be crafted to do that. Do you agree? That video is basically the same hypothetical scenario I crafted above.
In CA at least, I have no doubt in my mind that a non police officer behaving as the officer did would be convicted of murder or a lesser but still serious felony. That is why the comparisons to officer behavior and non-officer behavior are not on point.
Apropos of nothing: a friend of mine in high school wrote a parody of the old “Dragnet” show (“Drag-It”), in which detective Thursday would gun suspects down on sight, and then yell “Stop or I’ll shoot!”.