Kill us A-OK, kill the police while committing the same crime. Not ok. Got it.
Not saying I agree, just saying that’s the law
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Kill us A-OK, kill the police while committing the same crime. Not ok. Got it.
Agree that an armed person is a threat however per the article the clerk pursued the guy in order to continue shooting at him - that's where the problems come in.On the ground or not, the robber was still such a threat that he was able to shoot back. A self defense case where the other person has a gun is completely different than when a person has a bat, knife etc and distance minimizes or negates the threat. Distance doesn’t make an armed person a non threat
Only in CA. That would’ve been a good shoot in Texas.Unfortunately a good call.
The threat ended when the victim pursued the the guy and continued to fire.
Not clean but self defense all day long.
I'm not sure since Texas' property defense law isn't one I've looked into but I thought it was personal property not commercial (not that that should matter, if someone robs you with deadly force, you should be able simply put one behind the ear to discourage the next DINDU from trying out their personal rap star career)Only in CA. That would’ve been a good shoot in Texas.
ConcurI think the store clerk was morally justified
True, but there is more.There is a reason why bankers are told to just hand over the money during a robbery, someone else's money can be replaced, shot bullets cannot be taken back.
""The legal distinction is clear: when your property and life are being threatened, an individual is legally justified in using deadly force in self-defense," she added. "However, once the threat of harm has dissipated, the victim of a property crime cannot then use deadly force to reclaim stolen property.""
So, instead of compiling an adult response to criticism, you come up with that. Jackass.And you obviously have spent too much time patting yourself on the back and not enough time reading what people have written - so GFY.
Good for you. That notwithstanding, your posts were wrong. And obviously so to anyone who had actually read any of Branca's material. Also interesting that you continue to insist that you're correct, despite your selected expert stating opinions to the contrary. As I noted before, you're a jackass.My posts were based on the information contained in the linked article and were posted before Andrew Branca's video was available.
I also caveated my position as evidenced in my response to jkelly1229.
It isn't until this post that Branca's video was even available (but I haven't yet watched it so I don't know what other information he presents that was not available in the linked article)
And in that post I made it clear that my position was based on the limited information given and only that information spelled out why I held that position (which is correct)
What part of "My speculation" are you having a problem with? As noted (and quoted by you), it's "speculation".Please expound on how you came up with this and specifically what you mean by it.
And a second juvenile response to criticism. Seriously, if you can't argue as an adult, consider not playing.If you feel vindicated on a win or whatever makes you rub yourself to sleep, have at it
Again, go back and refer to the Branca video at 44:50. Your analysis is clearly incorrect per your selected expert. It's no excuse that you started reciting nonsense before his analysis was available. It was wrong then and it was wrong now, as was apparent to anyone who has read his book.Given the information in the article my point stands that even though Jackson had robbed the clerk, the clerk looses the right to deadly force as soon as Jackson flees the scene. If the clerk gives chase in order to continue the use of deadly force then the clerk opens himself up to legal action for the unjustified use of deadly force.
Even police are not allow to just shoot you if you are fleeing.
Agree that an armed person is a threat however per the article the clerk pursued the guy in order to continue shooting at him - that's where the problems come in.
Had the clerk shot Jackson and Jackson fell right there with the gun still in his possession then that is a continued threat giving the clerk the legal right to continue his use of deadly force.
If you take the articles account at face value where the clerk pursued Jackson who was attempting to flee with the merchandise then the act of pursuit extinguishes his right of legal deadly force since the pursuit does not meet avoidance or reasonableness.
Jackson however has lost innocence by the fact that he initiated the initial deadly force attack - given the lack of clear information in the article an inference can be made that the DA had information leading him to believe that Jackson regained innocence when he attempted for flee and the clerk then chased him for the purpose of continuing the use of deadly force.
I don't agree with Jackson not being charged with at least second-degree murder (California homicide law - 6 crimes you could be charged with)
I haven't watched Andrew's video so I don't know if he introduces information not contained in the article
True, but there is more.
Banks virtually always have working cameras, multiple manners in which silent alarms are triggered and the full force of local, state and federal investigation if they are robbed. The chances of getting away with a typical "I have a gub" [classic movie reference] bank job are very slim. Unlike bank jobs, they spare little effort in tracking down the perp even if the job is completed without any shooting on injury.
Bank employees are never hard working immigrants whose lively hood, and ability to support their family, is threatened if the bank's cash is taken. Ever notice how these things tend to happen at independent and not chain convenience stores?
police can use lethal force to stop someone from fleeing, the plebs don't.So I hold up a bank. As I am fleeing, the police start shooting at me. I return fire and kill a police officer.
I am arrested and at the end of the trial I win because my counsel said I was defending myself.
What in the Holy hell is going on in California's injustice system?
California limits the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects more than other states:police can use lethal force to stop someone from fleeing, the plebs don't.
Not generally, no. Even the "fleeing felon" rule requires a likelihood of danger to others.police can use lethal force to stop someone from fleeing, the plebs don't.