Metro Police have captured the teenager after going on a deadly shooting rampage

Status
Not open for further replies.
All this happened in my area. I shop and travel through Rivergate area often. I work in Madison. He was caught very close to my home. I'm more than glad he will not be running loose for a while. I wish the father of the youngster had done a better job with his shooting. Some say we, as a nation, are too civilized for the death penality.I say we've regressed. When criminals are not "dealt with"...are turned back onto the population...we've just gone backwards! There are times when the death penality is the only answer.
Mark.
 
Sadly, becaue he is a minor, that will not happen. He is old enough to kill, but not to be killed.

After all, it isn't his fault. If society had only held him more, given him the things he wanted free of charge, his parents been more supportive of him joining the NFL, none of this would have ever happened. He is a just a kid gone wrong, he doesn't deserve to die for that.


would you feel the same way If he shot your 9 year old in the face?
 
Err, umm, texasguy, I suspect you missed the sarcasm implicit in the comment you quoted.

-twency
 
Well since he was trying to stop a fleeing felon who obviously was a threat to kill or seriously injure himself or another innocent, to me it would be completely justified under the law.
 
The fleeing felon doctrine was made illegal in Tennesse v. Garner (1985) on due process grounds. While you and I know that this miscreant is a threat to public safety, the law is that he has to be an imminent threat for lethal force to be used. If he had been driving away and shooting out the window he would have been an imminent threat. Since he was just running away, a prosecutor would stress that he was no longer an "imminent" threat and therefore the shooter would not be protected under the law.

Yes, most places are full of people that would not convict the shooter. If the shooting happened in a place like Berkeley though....
 
Since he was just running away, a prosecutor would stress that he was no longer an "imminent" threat and therefore the shooter would not be protected under the law.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "[c]alm reflection is not possible in the face of an upraised knife." The citizen saw his child shot in front of him and the shooter fleeing away. Not only could a good argument be made that the incident was still occurring and that the shooter might be afraid that the person who just shot his child would return and/or use the vehicle, but it's extremely unlikely any grand jury will indict or will any jury convict based on these circumstances.

By the way, Garner would have allowed the suspect to be shot. It stands for the proposition that you can't use deadly force to effect an arrest absent other justification for use of said force. If it stood for the proposition you are suggesting, every time a cop fired on a suspect's vehicle, they'd be in violation. This person had shown a reckless disregard for human life, and a reasonable person would believe he posed an imminent and continuing threat to others.
 
Well if he can justify it and articulate that then he is fine. Since the guy then did go on to commit more murders then he obvisouly was making the right choice in firing this time. Now I know hindsite is 20/20 but I don't think that the case would be hard too make considering the way the attack on the little boy was unprevoked.
 
The fleeing felon doctrine was made illegal in Tennesse v. Garner (1985) on due process grounds.

IIRC, this case clarified the fleeing felon doctrine in regards to the police, not the rest of us. Due process only applies to state action and state actors. The fleeing felon doctrine would still protect citizens in this type of shooting, though it is by no means set in stone.
 
Ya know, if my Mother had named me Lavendar... I'd probebly want to kill people too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top