Unwarranted Lethal Force

Status
Not open for further replies.

Craig_AR

Contributing Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
1,183
Location
Arkansas
We have the training over and over: use your gun only for defense against a threat to life or major harm, and do not pursue or continue when the threat is no longer present. Clearly, this applies for any means of force, not just firearms.
Sadly, a Bronx resident in NYC provided another example of getting this wrong, as he is being charged with manslaughter for killing a possible burglar by beating with a pipe, having chased the burglar for two blocks from his house. No immediate threat to life, and the threat itself had left the area. Very sorry for him, his family, and the ne'er-do-well midnight prowler.

I am posting this for the obvious legal awareness. The legal situation is identical to what we face with our guns, even though no firearm was involved. I doubt it needs a lot of discussion, so will not be surprised or bothered if a Moderator closes the thread.

NY Post article:
Bronx homeowner chases would-be intruder down, beats him to death: cops
 
Well he got it wrong. You cannot should not chase anyone and kill them. Once the threat stops that should be the end. Unfortunate for all involved. The only time I see this as acceptable is if I catch someone molesting/raping my kids. If I do that's the end of whom ever it is. But that's just how I feel. I feel no mercy should be given to those that harm children.
 
LEGAL deadly force is about stopping or preventing the imminent commission of a very serious crime. It is not about punishment or retribution. It may be legal to use deadly force to keep someone from committing a very serious crime (depending on the circumstances), but it is never legal to use deadly force to punish someone or to retaliate against them for something that happened in the past.
 
LEGAL deadly force is about stopping or preventing the imminent commission of a very serious crime. It is not about punishment or retribution. It may be legal to use deadly force to keep someone from committing a very serious crime (depending on the circumstances), but it is never legal to use deadly force to punish someone or to retaliate against them for something that happened in the past.

Sure it is. You just have to be authorized to do so by the government. Lots of people waiting for a needle in their arm as punishment for a past act.

Once again the government reserves a behavior for itself that the people are not allowed. Not to say it's a bad thing in most cases, but in certain cases where the criminal shows an almost Terminator-like insistence to harm someone there is an argument to be made for what old mountain people called the "he needed killing" defense.

Edit: this is most definitely NOT legal advice, just rambling commentary. I fully understand why revenge killing is illegal.
 
Last edited:
Sure it is. You just have to be authorized to do so by the government. Lots of people waiting for a needle in their arm as punishment for a past act.
The criminal justice system has the right to perform executions, only after the suitable, and lengthy legal process involving many tightly controlled procedures, has been carried out--you do not. You can not legally carry out a trial, you can not legally confine people in prison before execution, you can not legally acquire the specific materials required for a legal execution, you can not legally administer them even if you have them.
Once again the government reserves a behavior for itself that the people are not allowed.
1. This is an absolutely necessary fact of government in many cases. Imagine the chaos if people could levy taxes on each other, exempt themselves from laws, create their own laws and enforce them, make treaties with other countries, imprison others, carry out their own trials, issue their own search warrants, confiscate other's property, etc.

2. The latter part of the sentence: "...that the people are not allowed." is, of course, an admission that you understand perfectly what I meant in my post and also that you agree that what I said was true.
...in certain cases where the criminal shows an almost Terminator-like insistence to harm someone there is an argument to be made for what old mountain people called the "he needed killing" defense.
A defender is absolutely allowed to keep shooting an attacker for as long as necessary, while aiming at whatever anatomical parts of the attacker are believed to offer the best chances of ending the attack. There is absolutely nothing that prevents a defender from dealing with a "Terminator-like" attack since doing so is a preventive measure required to stop/prevent a deadly attack and is therefore fully consistent with the legal use of deadly force in self-defense.
 
The only time I see this as acceptable is if I catch someone molesting/raping my kids. If I do that's the end of whom ever it is. But that's just how I feel. I feel no mercy should be given to those that harm children.
Acceptable maybe, but you would likely go to prison for manslaughter and see your kids occasionally through glass for many years. State laws vary but running someone down and killing them makes you the aggressor in most if not all instances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top