In Cincinnati the latest debate is whether to charge this 2 people with a crime or if they were within their rights for shooting these criminals, I want to know what do you think?
http://www.wcpo.com/news/2006/local/10/26/self_defense.html
Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters will announce next month whether he will charge either of the two Cincinnati residents who separately killed an alleged car thief and an alleged store robber.
The robbery suspect shot in the head by the owner of the S&S Deli in Winton Place monday night, died of his wounds.
Police said Gary Eden tried to rob the Winton Road convenience store after hitting the store owner with a soda can.
Charges may also be pending against a Kennedy Heights car owner who shot and killed 14-year-old Quavale Finnell.
The owner claimed the homeless youngster was stealing his Ford Taurus from in front of his home Monday morning when the shots were fired.
2006-10-26 16:24:12 · 13 answers · asked by SinCityAngel 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
you have already answered it by the way you presented it
2006-10-26 16:26:26 · answer #1 · answered by blue_eyed_southernman 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would have to say that neither should be charged with murder. When you commit a crime, there are consequences for doing so, no matter how you look at it or frame it. For the store owner, just working in a convenience store already poses a threat, so the people working there are already on high alert. Innocent people have been killed during store robberies, who's to say that it wouldn't have happened to the store owner if he had been knocked down and the gun was taken from him. For the person who killed the 14 year old, as sad as it may be, the young man was committing a crime, age does not prevent you from escaping the law. Yes it may have been a car, but what if next time, it wasn't a car, but a child or someone you love, would you really just let it go? Of course not, and what if the car that the kid was trying to steal had a baby in it. You can never say for certain, but what if the 14 year old, who probably does not know how to properly drive a car, causes an even bigger accident while driving, maybe running over innocent pedestrians, or causing a multiple car pile up with deaths. Would that one boy's death be better than multiple deaths? Regardless, crimes are crimes, and justice, of any form, awaits for those who commit crimes.
2006-10-26 16:40:38 · answer #2 · answered by bloop87 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As long as the facts that you presented are accurate and both are telling the truth, then they should not be charged with murder. However, we all know that there are always at least 2 sides to every story. A person can only kill in self defense if thier life is in danger. If Gary Eden wasn't trying to kill the shop owner, he had no legal right to fire his gun. The same thing is true about the 14 year old.
2006-10-26 16:35:46 · answer #3 · answered by Gypsy Girl 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If self defense is not allowed, then total chaos would develop. Criminals would rule the city, much like they did here in New Orleans, in the early days after Hurricane Katrina. Getting back to the two cases which you cited. I think these two should have used force, but not deadly force. They should have used only the force necessary to bring the situation under control. The can of soda is hardly considered a deadly weapon. The guy who tried to steal the car is not posing lethal threat to the car owner. The DA would be justified in prosecuting these two for manslaughter.
2006-10-27 00:52:47 · answer #4 · answered by WC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In many states (yours perhaps?) you cannot use deadly force and kill someone who is not threatening your personal safety. In the first care in the convenience store, if the soda can was heaved with great force and he was about to throw heavier stuff, he might have a defense. In the second case, if the 14 year old was just trying to steal the car and not threaten the owner, he may be charged.
They may be criminals for trying to steal, but you're a criminal if you take someone's life if they were not threatening you. If they are threatening you, it's self defense.
2006-10-26 16:29:29 · answer #5 · answered by Shelley 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally, I think the city of Cincinnati should have a parade to honor these 2 brave people, but in reality the guy that shot the car theif will probably be charged. If we had more people like this in our country, crime rates would fall dramatically.
2006-10-28 12:02:56 · answer #6 · answered by wood_402 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the case the one who killed the boy was not directly in harms way not self defence in the court of public opinion. The store owner it is iffy. If some one it trying to do you mortal harm and you kill them then it is true self defense.
2006-10-26 16:29:29 · answer #7 · answered by ldygrnleaf 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's pretty sad that the criminals are starting to get more rights than the innocent. No, I definitely don't think they should be charged. It was self defense. Even in the military; it's either them or you.
2006-10-26 16:30:12 · answer #8 · answered by Nancy D 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your question would be replied for the time of the trial that's why we've trials. for each individual who believes it became self protection there is one that thinks it became homicide. i do no longer fake to have the respond, I wasn't there so the main suitable direction is the single they're on. deliver jointly each and all the data, modern-day it and enable a jury come to a decision.
2016-10-16 11:05:15 · answer #9 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Armed robbery? No.
Kid stealing a car, yes. That was no threat to his person. It was Ford Taurus at that!!
2006-10-26 16:43:44 · answer #10 · answered by Hatem 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both those guys ought to get Marksmanship medals and civic commendations.
They rid the street of scum.
BRAVO!!!!!
2006-10-26 16:43:07 · answer #11 · answered by Joey Bagadonuts 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋