3 home intruders shot dead in Albuquerque

[Art Eatman]

What I'm seeing in this thread is people making judgements based on their states' laws, which may or may not apply to other states' laws.

Oregon law apparently is set up differently than that of Texas. In Texas, in your home at night, you're pretty much the Big Dawg about whether or not the intruder survives, and the law is written that way.

In Texas, if somebody is fleeing with stolen property, at night, shame on 'em. If they're armed, they can be shot in the back if a "reasonable and prudent person is reasonably convinced" (words to that effect) that they would be an ongoing threat to the community.

Note that Georgia has a castle doctrine, no retreat needed law, so don't go into somebody's house there. In Florida, now, there is no duty to retreat if threatened with deadly force.

It's state by state, so don't get into "one size fits all" mode.

Art

 

[lawson]

things sure do get tricky when it becomes a matter of legality vs. morality. i wouldn't shoot a fleeing man, unless he had just recently hurt me or mine. legality aside, i just don't like the thought of it. i can get new stereos, i have insurance, but taking a man's life is something you'll have to live with until you shove off for good. being justified means you can live your days with a clean conscience, as i'd like to do.

 

[tellner]

In Oregon the statutes specifically permit you to use deadly force against someone attempting to commit a burglary against a dwelling. It doesn't have to be at night. But there is nothing in the ORS that permits one to use deadly force if the person isn't attempting to commit a violent felony or has ceased to burgle. There are provisions for police using deadly force in making an arrest. There are provisions - if memory serves - for private citizens who have been temporarily deputized ("Holy bleep! Take the shotgun and start pumping!"). Nothing that says "A person who tried to commit a crime but isn't anymore and is trying to escape is a mad dog. Cut him down with impunity."

 

[HKUSP45C]

I would restate the premise. The aggressor has declared war on his victim. "Society as a whole" is not the point. The victim is the point. "Society" has no justification for doing anything, except in the name of the victim. The victim IS the only justifiable "judge, jury, and executioner." "Society" has no legitimate moral authority, except as the victim's proxy. Otherwise, "society" is some sort of god, with a "higher" morality than the individual.

Well put. I defer to your grasp of the argument. Further, I agree with your conclusion.

Note: clarification as requested, I'm arguing moral, natural law, not legal.

As I said eairlier, I wouldn't do it based on the critera of "fleeing robber with my property" alone. Actually there are far more scenarios in which I wouldn't shoot than the opposite. I also wouldn't call someone who did a murderer.

The war analogy is an excellent one in this case. What right does the aggressor have to call off the war when he's losing? Why would the law/society sanction such a one sided withdrawl? Does killing the enemy during his retreat conflict with natural law?

I'm pondering. I'll reply when I've decided.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

ilcylic

Malum Prohibitum: I do not know the fleeing felon rule, please explain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

The Tennessee law on caturing felons in 1985 said "if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."

The Supreme Court in 1985 held that it violated the Fourth Amendment.

White wrote the opinion. The wicki entry sufficiently describes his opinion.

White examined the common law rule on this matter and its rationale. At common law, it was perfectly legitimate for law enforcement personnel to kill a fleeing felon. At the time when this rule was first created, most felonies were punishable by death, and the difference between felonies and misdemeanors was relatively large. In modern American law, neither of these circumstances existed. Furthermore, the common law rule developed at a time before modern firearms, and most law enforcement officers did not carry handguns. The context in which the common law rule evolved was no longer valid. White further noted that many jurisdictions had already done away with it, and that current research has that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public.

The Tn. v. Garner opinon was so blatantly wrong that even the liberal O'Connor dissented. This is just another case of activist judges substituting their own opinions for the law. The Founders had no intention of doing away with the fleeing felon rule when they wrote and ratified the Fourth Amendment, nor did anybody in the late 1700s understand it to do so (nor did anybody until a majority of the Supreme Court "discovered" it in 1985).

Anyway, the point was that the fleeing felon rule was the common law rule for hundreds of years, until 21 years ago.

 

[ilcylic]

Thank you for that explaination.

At the time when this rule was first created, most felonies were punishable by death, and the difference between felonies and misdemeanors was relatively large.

(emphasis mine)

I can't say I would object too much to that becoming the case once more.

"Felony Jaywalking" destroys the moral weight that declaring someone a felon once had.

In Dutch law police may shoot a fleeing felon so long as they make an attempt to shoot the person in the leg.

Oh, I see that Dutch lawmakers don't know anything about firearms any more than ours do.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Or they do not know anything about anatomy? Femoral artery? What femoral artery?