You are not logged in. You will need to login to post messages. | Create an account
TheGeekhouse.com BBS
Law
Please wait.
Loading from the database...
Loading from the database...
|
Chains
|
[quote]Posted: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 2:38 am EST
hate telemarketers? sue them!
|
|
Saint
|
[quote]Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 9:24 pm EDT
I don't think that protecting a truck would justify taking a human life. Typically the only time that I'm aware of when deadly force is justified to protect property is if a) it's a priceless artifact (like the Edvard Munch paintings that were recently stolen and recovered), b)it's an exorbitant amount of hard cash (like from a casino heist), or c) if it's million's of dollars worth of jewelry or the like.
|
|
Quade
|
[quote]Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 5:12 pm EDT
so she could probably testify that they were both in danger, if that's the case. so it sounds like he should be ok.i know that in order to shoot an intruder in your home he has to be inside the house (even just walking in the front door counts). and you can shoot people in some circumstances to protect property with a visible weapon (shotgun, bat, etc). Does protecting the truck count with a concealed weapon? |
|
Saint
|
[quote]Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 1:37 pm EDT
Yes, the woman was a witness to the shooting... she actually ran up to the truck prior to the assailant and was seeking safety with the truck driver (whether or not she knew the driver beforehand, I don't know).The investigators were looking into whether or not safe retreat was possible by asking questions on whether or not the truck was running at the time, if it was blocked in or had to back out first, etc. Personally, I think if the driver could actually see the bad guy's weapon while the bad guy was demanding the truck, etc, then he should be justified in defending himself. |
|
Quade
|
[quote]Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 12:37 pm EDT
Or if you do get drunk with Pooh, you pull a Han Solo, and make sure you shoot first (and then lie about it later, and make it out that Greedo shot first). Was the old lady a witness to the shooting? What's the inquisitors view of what constitutes the ability to withdraw to safety? |
|
StArLeTz
|
[quote]Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 11:07 am EDT
Ok in other words, don't get drunk with Pooh. 
|
|
Dr. Pooh
|
[quote]Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 10:31 am EDT
Here is a situation where that rule may apply. Let's say you and I get drunk, and get we both have a hellacious bad temper. We get into an arguement and it comes to pulling guns on each other. If I shoot you, I'm going to get in trouble for it. My means of escape was that you are a friend and we could have worked it out. Drunk or not. Maybe that clause was meant to cover all basis, but some situations would have to be worked out with a panel, or jury or something.
|
|
StArLeTz
|
[quote]Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 10:28 am EDT
That's what I loved about Texas, if someone was breaking in your private residence, you could shoot them square between the eyes even and it would be called self defense. None of this "attempt to get to safety first" crap. Of course, like our own lawmen here in Arkansas follow their own rules, I mean, they dropped a mentally challenged guy without so much as a warning shot on a case of mistaken identity. So I guess the moral of the story would be, if you're going to be a victim, pack both a revolver for defense and a white flag for surrender. |
|
Saint
|
[quote]Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 9:53 am EDT
Those are good points. Obviously, there must be a significant risk to justify the use of deadly force (no capping of bums asking for money). But I'd like to see something like a "criminal beware" clause that says if the citizen reasonably believes the criminal is about to use some kind of violence or deadly physical force that, even if there is a means of escape, the citizen doesn't have to take it. I don't necessarily think that would lead to a bunch of amateur Clint Eastwoods around here, but I do see how that argument could be made. I would hope that it would give the would-be criminal a moments pause to consider what the possible outcome might be. However, if they are about to commit a crime, they're probably not thinking rationally in the first place.
|
|
Dr. Pooh
|
[quote]Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 8:57 am EDT
When there is a gun involved, there is no safe way to escape. If the intruder had a bat, and the driver shot him dead, that's a different story. Let's hope they are doing this just to go through proper procedure.
|
|
Quade
|
[quote]Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 7:10 am EDT
I think those are long sentences.I also think that the phrase "with complete safety" is there to prevent people from acting when there are safer alternatives -- to prevent hung-ho gun nuts from jumping into a fray and making it more volitile and dangerous for bystanders. However, if someone is rushing you with a gun, I don't think there's a safe alternative. If you turn your back to run, or to step into a truck, or whatever; you're putting yourself at risk of being shot in the back. |
|
Saint
|
[quote]Posted: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 12:48 am EDT
So there was this story that was printed in the ArDemGaz not too long ago which I have been following, the gist of which is that this 20 year old up-to-no-gooder decides to rush a man in a truck and attempt to steal the vehicle after attempting to rob a lady immediately prior to that. (good lord, that was a long sentence) Well, the bad guy, 20 year old Jason Jones, was waving around a gun when he was demanding the truck and the driver of that truck was a licensed concealed weapon carrier. Jason got shot about 4 or 5 times and later died. The truck driver, however, is being reviewed for if he acted appropriately because Arkansas Code Annotated 5-2-607 (source is the ardemgaz) says that "deadly force can be used if a person reasonably believes that an attacker is about to commit a felony involving force or violence or if the attacker is using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force." Here's the rub: "the same law also states that deadly force cannot be used in self-defense in situations where an individual can retreat 'with complete safety.'"What I am wondering from you fellow Geekhousians is what you think about that last part. I don't care that Mr Jones got killed, (I'm glad he did) but... should any citizen who is lawfully where he or she is entitled to be and engaged in lawful practices be forced to retreat from one who is unlawfully attempting to use "deadly force?" That notion, at least to me, seems to protect the person acting unlawfully. I don't think that anyone who is where they have a legal right to be and engaged in any activity to which they have a legal right or privilege should be required to budge one inch from someone who is attempting to commit an unlawful act against them. They should have full right to stand and react with the same degree of force as is being presented by the one acting unlawfully, and to escalate that force if necessary for their own defense. What do you guys think? |
|
Quade
|
[quote]Posted: Monday, December 13, 2004 at 10:43 pm EST
well, yeah. good golfer = good person. you know that, right?
|
|
Dr. Pooh
|
[quote]Posted: Monday, December 13, 2004 at 5:01 pm EST
Quote:"Nobody feels ... that if Scott Peterson was a good golfer, that if Scott Peterson was a Cub Scout, that eases the murder of Laci and Conner," defense attorney Mark Geragos said. good golfer!?! 
|
|
KnocK
|
[quote]Posted: Monday, December 13, 2004 at 4:50 pm EST
Death verdict for Peterson.
|