« I suppose there's one comfort for the Solicitor General | Main | Britain to crack down on knife crime »
Robber gets popped...
Hat tip to Jay Printz...
UPDATE: yup, this is a situation where the official legal standard -- you can shoot only if you reasonably believe your own life is in danger at the time -- poses a problem. But it's been my experience that police and, when it gets that far, grand jurors, figure that (1) shooting a robber is a public service and (2) shooting him in the back is the safest way to deal with that situation.
Don Kates has pointed out that the legal doctrines of self-defense have a peculiar background. At common law, you could pretty much always kill a felon (it usually carried the death penalty anyway). So in that setting nobody worried about self-defense. Self-defense evolved outside of robbery, rape, etc., where it usually involved a brawl or similar between two otherwise non-criminal types. In that setting, there was little wrong with considering the two roughly equal, and allowing use of lethal force only if it was "him or you." As applied to a robber, tho, it gets far out of kilter with how most people's values.
Legally, her shot is questionable at best, and will have to cook up some excuse unless everyone overlooks it. But the way 99% of us will look at it -- good, he might have robbed me next, and no sense requiring her to put her life at risk by trying to outdraw him. A back shot on the battlefield is a good shot, why should it be different here? The only questionable action is that if she'd aimed higher, she'd have spared us the expense of a trial as well.
Comments
In my Criminal Law class we were taught that it's generally not self-defense if the robber is leaving. She sure looks like she shot him out of anger, not self-defense (but again, all I see is the edited version).
Posted by: HokiePundit at January 23, 2008 05:57 PM
You know, if a lot more people like the good "gentleman" in the video, who, of course, should be "presumed" innocent until "proven" guilty, were shot at point blank range during (or shortly after) the "alleged" commission of their crime, I'm going to bet that crime would go down. What do you think? Shall we take a vote?
Do you think that the woman who was just robbed might have thought that, just for fun or to eliminate witnesses, the "gentleman" might have reconsidered leaving her unmolested and instead decided to kill her? Not very cricket of her, eh? Hokiepundit, you can second and third guess all you want, but please remember that when seconds (or even instants) count, the police are usually only minutes away. Even if the little sociopath was fleeing, she did right and could well have saved the life of his next victim. That's not vigilantism, what you saw was true justice. The only regret that she should have is that she didn't aim to kill and save the tax-payers the expense of 10 year's worth of room, board and social work. BTW, I think that you should get a refund on the tuition you paid for your criminal law class.
Posted by: Greg Lyons at January 23, 2008 06:44 PM
Greg,
I didn't say that what she did isn't just; I said that it may not be legal. Sadly, the two aren't always the same.
Posted by: HokiePundit at January 23, 2008 07:35 PM
In the self-defense and gun rights bastion we call Illinois, please note the following from the Criminal Code (emphases mine). Sections 7-1 and 7-2 outline use of force in defense of person and dwelling, respectively.
At least on paper, one is justified in the use of deadly force to prevent commission of a forcible felony....last I checked, armed robbery certainly is a forcible felony.
[i](720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. [b]However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.[/b][/i]
Posted by: Carl in Chicago at January 24, 2008 06:03 AM