|
rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (6/1/2009 5:33:29 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
" Justifiable homicide can also involve one person killing another for the purpose of self defense. If a person reasonably believes that s/he is in imminent danger of losing their life or suffering great bodily injury at the hands of another person, any self defense that results in death may be considered justifiable homicide. Usually for self defense to be considered justifiable homicide, there is a general duty to retreat if it is possible to do so (with the exception of the state of Louisiana where there is no duty to retreat). A duty to retreat may not be necessary if the justifiable homicide took place in the defendant's home or place of business. "
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/justifiable.html
Which is exactly what I said, and exactly the link I used earlier. And exactly why your scenario of Joe Citizen would result in Joe's arrest.
Shooting a fleeing felon in the back is not justifiable homicide.
quote:
" In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile. "
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/self-defense
Which goes back to what I said about castle doctrine, but the majority of states have not adopted those laws, so in those states a duty to retreat if possible is still the prevailing law.
Again as I pointed out earlier, Oklahoma has a very strong castle law. So for this man to be charged says a great deal.
quote:
Also here is a link to oppose your unsupported claim that a private citizen cannot kill a fleeing felon, as at least one state supports it:
"Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible. (See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.)
Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.) "
http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm
If you read the Kentucky law, a private citizen is under obligation of law to stop a felony if they are able to do so.
Well, if you look back in the thread I believe I did offer support by citing Oklahoma law, which is where the matter in question happened.
So, I'm not sure what Kentucky has to do with this, but let's go with it.
I searched every legal database available and the only corresponding case I found titled Gill vs. Commonwealth involved a murder in which a party to the event did not take action to prevent it. That is a far cry from requiring any citizen to intervene in a crime in progress as the author of your link seems to believe.
I also was not able to find any Kentucky statute that supports what the writer claimed, so if you can find a link to that I would like to read it.
What I did find was this and I think the paragraphs highlighted here apply to your hypothetical situation as well as to the subject of the thread:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Newby’s first crime was dealing crack. On appeal, Mattingly contends in his reply brief that
“trained police officers know that drug dealers, especially crack cocaine dealers, usually carry guns.”
Reply Br. of Appellant, at 5 (citing United States v. Swafford, 385 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 2004)).
Mattingly seems to imply that a general notion that crack dealers are dangerous, rather than a
particularized and supported sense of serious danger about a particular confrontation, justifies the
use of deadly force. The Supreme Court and this court have never accepted such a sweeping
generalization. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11-12; Dickerson, 101 F.3d at 1162. We will not do so today.
Newby’s second crime was resisting arrest and fleeing the scene. It cannot reasonably be
contended that physically resisting arrest, without evidence of the employment or drawing of a
deadly weapon, and without evidence of any intention on the suspect’s part to seriously harm the
officer, could constitute probable cause that the suspect poses an imminent danger of serious
physical harm to the officer or to others. Cf. Garner, 471 U.S. at 11 (“It is not better that all felony
suspects die than that they escape.”).
|
|
|
|
