Civil versus criminal law. And the complete lack of specifics for any actual case or cases means I can’t really respond to this generalized statement.
But you can sue nearly anyone for nearly anything in many States. And you may win, since civil cases are not decided by the qualifiers “beyond a reasonable doubt or moral certainty” - what is the expression instead: “preponderance of the evidence”, I think.
And it still has nothing to do with my point. I’m quite certain, as you well know, that a civil jury would take into account the character and (admissable) history of any person suing in civil court, and you can bet that it would have some serious influence on their decision. You just can’t un-ring that bell once it’s admitted in open court.
I’ve got a problem with the concept of defending illegal commerce with force, be it legal or illegal, yet can see the point you raise. The situation in my OP is outside of that situation-two people are minding their business, doing their jobs, and find themselves at gunpoint.
If no crime of robbery had been attempted, then the rest of the matter would be rendered moot. If the illegal weapon were not present, then the families of those employees would likely be arranging for funerals. Admittedly, I am not cognizant of the laws in the City of New York or those of New York State regarding firearms ownership and possession.
IANAPO, however my understanding is that in PA, unless the weapon is modified, e.g. sawed-off shotgun, serial number removed, fully automatic machine pistol, it is lawful* for a business owner to possess a firearm and use it in defense of perceived deadly force.
*unless prohibited under §6105 PA Crimes Code-this section generally refers to persons having been adjudicated guilty of serious offenses such that they may not have access to firearms.
I don’t know that I would necessarily overlook the gun law violation, but at the same time I think people who work at businesses like that should be allowed to have a gun with them. These people would likely be dead now if they didn’t have a gun.
Well, the OP was overlooking it in the sense of “not seeing it,” or so it seemed. And december was just commenting on the appropriateness of the term “vigilante.” But you’re right about bump, so I stand corrected on that score.
If that chap’s only getting charged with the gun offence, he can count himself lucky. Here in the UK farmer Tony Martin was sentenced to life for murder, because he shot a burglar. It’s the most farcical, contemptible, travesty of ‘justice’ I have ever seen. Thankfully it was later reduced by the appeals court to an only-slightly-less-insane five years for manslaughter.
Tony Martin shot these burglars in the back (with an illegally-held pump-action shotgun) as they were trying to make their empty-handed escape. Hardly reasonable force.
He was involved in several gun-related incidents previous to this; once he’d shot at a car – this incident led to his licence being revoked. He has shown zero contrition for the death of Fred Barras.
Some feel the travesty was the reduction from murder to manslaughter, I have very little sympathy for him.
The Martin case is a classic example of why the courts have to take all aspects of a situation into account. Contrary to some people’s belief, it is not illegal in the UK to defend yourself, with proportionate and reasonable force, if you are under attack or threat of attack. Did Tony Martin use proportionate and reasonable force? The court heard the evidence, and said no.
I have some sympathy for Martin in that he was driven to despair over thieving toe-rags repeatedly robbing him. He seems to be a bit of a odd character, but he’s due as much security and privacy in his home as anyone else.
However, he went on to turn his house into a thief trap and shot dead an unarmed teenager in the back with an unlicensed shotgun. In no way can this be considered self defence or reasonable force. If we are going to permit any householders to take action like this we might as well give up on any notion of a fair and reasoned judicial system and declare every one for themselves.
An unarmed teenager who’d already been arrested 26 times and convicted 2, 3 times? Reuben, thanks for that refreshing look. And now what, the idiot Fearon is suing for pain and suffering from jail? Bollocks!!
Oh, so what would you (meaning the three dopers above BF) have done in his place? Strolled right up to the murderous villains, who outnumber you and who are (as far as you know as you sit there quaking in the dark with your imagination working overtime) probably armed to the teeth and totally desperate, tapped 'em on the shoulder and said it was a fair cop and to come quietly? You’d have got a knife in the guts for your trouble, devil a doubt.
The key to it all is what constitutes reasonable force, and I’d say that using a gun (or any other weapon to hand) in such circumstances to be entirely reasonable. I bet you would too, if you were in the position he was. Everyone seems to think that they know better, or would have handled it differently whilst somehow avoiding death or at least serious injury. I can see that it’s easy to think so… we’re in our armchairs, thinking about it quietly and at our leisure. He was scared out of his wits, in the dark, being robbed, and had to make split-second decisions.
If Tony Martin had caught and tortured his burglars, then there’d probably be something for him to answer for. As it was, it was a panicky situation in the dark that was entirely brought about by the two criminals themselves. I know the stupid boy was only 16, and if I could call him back to life I would for the sentence on him is too high, but the random chaos that they engineered didn’t work out that way and we are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong to punish Mr Martin so hard for it.
It isn’t vigilantiism, but the linked article doesn’t say the perp was shot while pointing a weapon at the employees.
The perp could have been shot in the back of the head while trying to flee the store, making the arrest understandable and appropriate. We need more info.
The court heard the evidence in the Martin case - the evidence, not a selection from the evidence orchestrated to a tune of tabloid rabble-rousing - and decided that, in this case, the homeowner exceeded the definition of “reasonable force”, and punished him accordingly. It’s astonishing how many problems I utterly fail to have with this.
In other cases, presented with other facts, courts have decided differently. Heck, in other cases, the case for self-defence has been sufficiently obvious that the CPS never pressed the case … it is a mistake, IMO, to look at the Tony Martin case and conclude from this that the English householder has no right of self-defence in law.
Oh, sorry didn’t know that. In the light of this, obviously, he deserved to die. :rolleyes:
A split-second nothing. He had arranged his house as a trap. He had obtained and kept an unlicensed gun he knew he was expressly forbidden to have. It was also extremely unlikely the intruders would be armed. He was the one in control of the situation and the people in most danger in that house were the burglars.
How the fuck do you “arrange a house as a trap”? All I’ve heard in this line is that he removed a couple of stairs from his staircase so a burglar would trip and he would so be more likely to know he was being burgled.
The way you say it you’d think he’d dug a covered pit in his hallway, with some poisoned spikes at the bottom for good measure. Ridiculous. And so bloody what if he actually had?
