| ||||||||
| | | |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#12
10-16-2009, 10:20 AM
| ||||
| ||||
 location location location! Sounds to me like the threat was over if the D-bag was trying to flee. If there was no one between him and the door/exit, and he was actually "fleeing", then deadly force would not be authorized. The clerks were justified in using deadly force while their lives were in danger, but if he was headed for the door and shot in the back.... not good for the clerk. I'm a MI resident and am under the impression that we ARE covered both criminally and civilly. The difference in this case is that, the way it's written, the threat was already over. This sounds more like a retalliation shooting. "My life's not in danger NOW but was a minute ago, and for that, I'm going to shoot you". As much as our emotions may justify that, the law doesn't. I wish, for the clerk's sake, that he could have shot the robber WHILE actively threatening someone. Then again, maybe there was another innocent between the BG and the door. If it was believed that the BG would do harm to the person between him and the exit, then there's a chance in it being considered justified. Otherwise, unfortunately, this doesn't look good for the clerk.  |
|
#13
10-16-2009, 11:31 AM
| |||
| |||
| Don't know about SC but in Texas you can shoot a fleeing felon. Back, front, it makes no difference
__________________ By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7 |
|
#14
10-16-2009, 12:07 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
__________________ Victory rewards not the army that fires the most rounds, but who is the more accurate shot. ---Unknown  |
|
#15
10-16-2009, 05:32 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| I hope that his suit gets tossed and that the judge laughs him out of court. Seriously, more robbers ought to run into resistance like this just so they can see that their occupation is not a safe one to be practicing.
__________________ Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin |
|
#17
10-16-2009, 08:46 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| That is what I love about Florida, Florida "Castle Doctrine" Protects the Innocent Puts Judiciary on the side of crime victims News media gets it completely wrong On March 23, 2005, The Florida Senate passed SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" unanimously, by a vote of 39 YEAS to zero NAYS. They know something about this bill. On April 5, The Florida House passed SB-436, "Castle Doctrine" by a vote of 94 YEAS to 20 NAYS, a margin of better than four to one. On April 26, Governor Jeb Bush SIGNED SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" into law (Chapter No. 2005-27) It takes effect on October 1, 2005. The news media nationwide started in immediately with its “Gunshine State,” blood in the streets, Dirty Harry, vigilante, irrational mass murder nonsense, mythologies, lies and blatant unethical behavior. A great deal of erroneous information has been written, published and spoken about Florida's new "Castle Doctrine" law. Claims that the new law will turn Florida into the Wild West are not only an insult to intelligent people but give a patently false portrait of what the bill actually does. The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things: One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person. Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.] Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force. It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them. In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims. SO -- is this the impression you got from the news? Why not? Aren’t media people impartial purveyors of objective facts, with no bias or spin, faithfully and accurately reporting the news? Everyone who believes that’s an accurate description of the news media please raise your hand. See? No hands go up. Despite their protests otherwise, the news media has, in general, and especially with respect to gun issues, become an outrageous purveyor of agenda-driven nonsense on the dark side of the force.
__________________  |
|
#19
10-17-2009, 08:13 AM
| |||
| |||
| Hey y'all: gotta agree with Glock Fan--you cannot shoot the perp in the back; as much as all of us would like to and I could not agree more, the threat is over and the use of a weapon is not called for anymore. As most have said, many states eliminate civil liability as a possibility in their CCW laws--in this case you get into the issue of whether the store owner had any business shooting and if he should not have the CCW/no civil liability goes out the window. Another example of how very very careful we all must be in examining our responsibilities, as set forth in the law, when having a gun in our possession. |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| robbed, robber, store, sues |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
 |  |
...cool! 
Linear Mode
