Maybe that's a bad question. I've seen this sort of issue in the news before and it is pretty clear that you do not have the right to kill someone simply because you were robbed by them. Once they are fleeing, it is not self defense.

In DC some years back a jewelry shop was robbed at gun point and the robber fled in a car. The shop owner pursued, caught up with the robber and shot him dead. The shop owner was arrested for murder, I don't know what happened after that as I didn't
read the paper every day.

More recently a man was robbed at gunpoint at an ATM and the robber fled. The victim fired shots at the fleeing vehicle. He didn't know at the time, but one of his shots entered another vehicle and killed a 9 year old girl. The police have not
arrested the shooter.

To me, both of these acts were horrendous. We do not have capital punishment for robbery, no matter how much the amount or whether they are armed at the time. We do tend to hold people responsible for their actions, even when the result is not
intentional.

In the first case it was clear that the robber did not need to be shot. The shop owner could have simply gotten a license plate number and reported that to the police.

In the second case the robbery victim was out a couple of hundred dollars and maybe the credit cards. Now a family has to deal with the loss of a 9 year old daughter. Most likely the shooter will end up in prison for manslaughter or even second degree
murder.

There is not much good about guns, but this is not about guns. Guns just make it much easier to overreact. This is about people thinking it is OK to escalate a situation in the heat of the moment. The law says differently.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Rick C" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

Maybe that's a bad question. I've seen this sort of issue in the news
before and it is pretty clear that you do not have the right to kill
someone simply because you were robbed by them. Once they are fleeing, it
is not self defense.

It's not even about the fleeing. The issue with self-defense is do you feel
in imminent danger of physical harm or death. You can have your pocket
picked and if the robber hangs around and laughs at you but does not show a weapon or in any way cause you to feel imminent danger of harm or death, you cannot kill the robber and claim self-defense. On the other hand, if you
are robbed at gunpoint and the robber leaves but keeps the gun pointed at
you as he is leaving, I think you could legitimately shoot if you feel the robber could still shoot you at any time. So it's not a matter of whether
the assailant leaves or hangs around, but whether you feel in imminent
danger at any point that you could be shot or seriously harmed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 12:33:47 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:

"Rick C" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Maybe that's a bad question. I've seen this sort of issue in the news >before and it is pretty clear that you do not have the right to kill >someone simply because you were robbed by them. Once they are fleeing, it >is not self defense.

It's not even about the fleeing. The issue with self-defense is do you feel in imminent danger of physical harm or death. You can have your pocket
picked and if the robber hangs around and laughs at you but does not show a weapon or in any way cause you to feel imminent danger of harm or death, you cannot kill the robber and claim self-defense. On the other hand, if you
are robbed at gunpoint and the robber leaves but keeps the gun pointed at
you as he is leaving, I think you could legitimately shoot if you feel the robber could still shoot you at any time. So it's not a matter of whether
the assailant leaves or hangs around, but whether you feel in imminent
danger at any point that you could be shot or seriously harmed.

I believe you are mistaken. The issue is not how you "feel", it is how a reasonable person would feel.

You can try to cherry pick the details, but the fact remains you do not have carte blanc to kill someone based on how you "feel".

Once a robbery victim starts shooting at the robbers, do the robbers then have the right to defend themselves and return fire? Someone made an argument that in places where guns are openly carried, people are very polite! lol Once shooting breaks out
in such a place, is everyone justified in shooting everyone else because they "fear" for their lives? Do bystanders in the crossfire have the right to defend themselves by shooting everyone else shooting?

So what about the real case of the ATM hold up and the robbery victim firing shots at the fleeing robbers, only to kill a 9 year old girl in another vehicle. Do you think the robbery victim was justified in shooting? If he is judged as having a
reasonable fear of harm and the shooting justified, does he have any responsibility for not killing innocent bystanders?

You can believe you are justified in shooting someone if you are "afraid", but the real world is very different.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Rick C" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 12:33:47 AM UTC-5, Rick wrote:

"Rick C" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Maybe that's a bad question. I've seen this sort of issue in the news
before and it is pretty clear that you do not have the right to kill
someone simply because you were robbed by them. Once they are fleeing,
it
is not self defense.

It's not even about the fleeing. The issue with self-defense is do you
feel
in imminent danger of physical harm or death. You can have your pocket
picked and if the robber hangs around and laughs at you but does not show
a
weapon or in any way cause you to feel imminent danger of harm or death,
you
cannot kill the robber and claim self-defense. On the other hand, if you
are robbed at gunpoint and the robber leaves but keeps the gun pointed at
you as he is leaving, I think you could legitimately shoot if you feel
the
robber could still shoot you at any time. So it's not a matter of whether
the assailant leaves or hangs around, but whether you feel in imminent
danger at any point that you could be shot or seriously harmed.

I believe you are mistaken. The issue is not how you "feel", it is how a >reasonable person would feel.

That's a valid point. I believe the way many statutes are worded is that
you need an "objectively reasonable fear of injury or death."

Interestingly, my state (Florida) has slightly different wording. Florida statute states: “a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or
herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” That extra little wording "or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony" defines circumstances where you can commit force without having that
imminent fear of physical harm or death.


--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 17:21:51 -0800, Rick wrote:

a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity

But who defines "unlawful activity" at the moment of shooting ? Or are
trials considered too old fashioned nowadays ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)