In Court right now, A restaurant owner is held up while in his car. The robber points a gun to his head (later, a pellet gun) and demands money. The owner has $2,015 (but is able to hide $2,000) -- the robber takes him inside restaurant but owner is able to lock robber out. Robber runs away. Owner calls 911, but then gets in car and tracks robber down 4 blocks away. He runs robber over and kills him.
TWO PART:
(A) Is he guilty of manslaughter?
(B) Would you do the same thing or something else?
2006-08-02 01:53:31 · 13 answers · asked by jpr_sd 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If you are interested, this case is on CourtTV and airs daily...
2006-08-02 02:52:47 · update #1
The Court will look at the facts...
The Restaurant owner did not need to shoot and kill the robber. He locked him out of the restaurant. As far as the law goes that should have been the end of it. Instead, this dumb a** goes after the guy and runs him down him for $15.
He should have stayed at the restaurant:
1. He was not acting in self-defense (in order for it to be self-defense the restaurant owner must prove that he felt like his life was in imminent danger).
2. The robber only took $15 from him (petty theft).
3. He intentionally pursued the robber, hunted him down and ran over him. (Intent to harm/kill - some would even say premediatated. Remember - premediatated means he pursued the man with the intent to harm him).
4. He should have let the police handle it.
Yes, he is guilty!
No, I would not have done the same thing!
2006-08-02 03:12:24 · answer #1 · answered by Lodiju 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A. He is guilty of second degree murder. He hunted and killed this person in an act of vigilantism. He had already removed himself from the scene of the crime, and retreated from danger. The first act of robbery has nothing to do with the act of killing the robber, except to show a motive of malice.
I would not have done the same thing. Assuming that I had not killed the robber with my own gun, I would have, after successfully gotten away from the crook, I would have stayed put and let the cops do their job. The man should get the maximum penalty for murder 2.
I am definitely a law and order type, but there is a different between law and order of the state and vigilantism.
2006-08-02 02:08:02 · answer #2 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A) YES. If the owner had killed the robber while the gun was pointed at him he could claim self defense. ...but he waited until AFTER the robber ran away and at that point the owner was safe. The owner took the law into his own hands by killing the robber.
B) NO I would not have gone after the robber, would have let the police handle it.
2006-08-02 02:24:22 · answer #3 · answered by ModelFlyerChick 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He did the world a favor by removing the idiot from the gene pool. He will most likely be convicted of at least manslaughter. I am surprised he is not being tried for murder. From the moment the robber fled he was no longer justified to use deadly force. Unfortnuately, if you injure an assailant you will most likely be sued in civil court so killing them is the only way to prevent them from either coming back or suing you.
2006-08-02 02:10:22 · answer #4 · answered by jonfmadd 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A) yes, unless he intended to kill the robber in which case he is guilty of murder based on reasonablness of means used. If only intending to detain robber, and he ran him over inadvertantly in an attempt to detain him which he has the right to do (citizen's arrest DURING felony commited in presence) may be guilty of nothing, unless means used were excessive. however if the robber was fleeing, the use of deadly force is at least manslaughter.
B) for $15 bucks out of a possible 2015, I would let it go and consider myself lucky.
2006-08-02 02:14:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question--here in Florida that's a difficult call. We have had lately more robberies and killings and people are getting nuts. You can shoot some one if you feel threatened ( that's a new law here) so you watch out for road rage because you could DIE!! However the situation you are talking about is a toss up. He should not have chased him and run him down for $15. I would say he's guilty of something but in Florida you never know!!
2006-08-02 02:08:27 · answer #6 · answered by olderandwiser 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably not, and this poor guy will no doubt be charged with manslaughter or something. Yet we have to consider his state of mind. If a gun were pointed to your head, would you not "lose it" for a while. Would you know the difference between a pellet gun and a regular gun? I would not - and I'm sure it would be many moons before I calmed down.
2006-08-02 01:59:56 · answer #7 · answered by TheHumbleOne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's guilty of a lot more than manslaughter if he went out to intentionally do that. I might go find the guy and call the cops, but you cannot take deadly force action unless your life or another innocent person's is in danger and there's no way to avoid the confrontation.
2006-08-02 02:01:14 · answer #8 · answered by rumplesnitz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, he is guilty simply because the altercation had already ended. He can't hunt the man down and kill him. That is the job of the police. The danger to his personal property and himself had passed.
No, I would not do that same thing. I would allow the police to take care of finding the man by giving them as much information as I could.
2006-08-02 02:13:20 · answer #9 · answered by Mary J 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A NO WAY. Robbers are let off so easily and the victims suffer. B hell yes
2006-08-02 02:01:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋