If this doesn’t make sense I’ll leave this tangent alone.
You said in post #32 referring to Castle Doctrine “That’s Castle Doctrine, basically. Doesn’t apply to public places like a store owner on his premises, or the pharmacist in the example.”
I contend that Castle doctrine does apply to public places and store owners on their premises.
You challenged me to "try explain how Castle Doctrine applies to you standing in the middle of Wal Mart. "
To respond, I cited one state’s law regarding castle doctrine and standing your ground. Parts of that statute apply to your home and vehicle. Other parts, (3) that I quoted, apply to any place where the person has a right to be. That would include walmart.
Your claim that castle doctrine doesn’t apply to public places is therefore rebutted. The correct statement would be that there are some places where castle doctrine doesn’t apply to public places (I believe NY and NJ for example), however in many states it does.
Good grief - why not? A man attempting flight isn’t threatening your life. He’s attempting flight. You may well prefer that he remain for the police, but the threat to your life is over. Using deadly force against a man with his back turned and running away is not cool.
There needs to be a distinction here. The guy in the video tries to kill the officer by shooting him in the face before fleeing. That cop was doing his job by protecting the public from a criminal fleeing with two deadly weapons after committing attempted murder, should of never seen a jury job well done as the jury confirms.
As for the Pharmacist if I was on the jury I would not find him guilty of murder but would find him guilty of manslaughter. The robber “victim” created the situation which got himself killed.
Edit: “manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation.”
This has nothing to do with self-defense, it’s attempt legalize vigilante killing as punishment. This is about a millimeter away from an attempt to legalize lynching.
What happens when a pharmacist thinks he’s being robbed and shoots some guy holding a black cellphone who was coming up to ask if he should take his medicine with meals?
Then he’s broken the law, obviously. Why is it that when debating whether a law should or should not exist, people like to make up scenarios that aren’t covered by the law and pretend that they apply?
I realized that. I didn’t do that, but I can live with a rule that says agreeing with allowing something is the same as wishing it to happen. Which is why I, apparently, wish everyone in the country over 18 was smoking marijuana, and all pregnancies resulted in abortions.
I bow to your excellent and successful effort at derailing the legal issues aspect to this discussion. The subsequent race and personal issues certainly were not all your fault.
Isn’t that exactly what happened in the linked video from post #69? By “not cool” do you mean anything more than that? Should it be criminal? Does the fact that the person involved was a police officer affect your response?
I think the officer in the video should never have been charged and that his actions were commendable. If a store owner faced a similar situation where a bad guy tries to rob him, and the owner is able to draw his own weapon forcing the bad guy to flee, I say firing immediately after the fleeing begins should be permissible and immune from prosecution both criminal and civil if the owner injures the bad guy. If the proposed law was crafted to make that the law, I’d support it.
The thought expressed at the end of that second paragraph is disturbing in that you are speaking in favor of a law that would take the decision of guilt out of the hands of a jury and place it in the hands of a killer. And no, I’m not talking about the guilt of the dead guy, although that would be true as well. I’m talking about the survivor, who would presumably simply have to tell the police “I shot him because I was afraid he would hurt someone, at some time, in some way” and then, according to what you wrote, he would not even be allowed to be prosecuted. The matter of his guilt would solely be up to him to proclaim or declaim, as the only other person who might testify as to the circumstances surrounding the death would be dead and unable to speak.
That isn’t justice, it isn’t an examination of facts, and it doesn’t allow society (in the form of a jury) to speak about the events and whether or not society wants to condone or condemn those actions.
Do you need someone to explain why that would be a bad idea?
Immune from prosecution was a poor choice of words on my part. Replace that with whatever term would be appropriate so that it would be a defense against conviction. Basically, make what the officer in the video did legal, and what Ersland did illegal.
Or do I understand you wrong and you think what the officer did should be illegal?
