Good Samaritan chases, kills robber

[hefdaddy42]

How about this:

Guy sees woman getting assaulted and robbed.
Thug runs off with purse.
Woman looks basically okay. Guy chases thug.
Thug turns around, pulls out gun.
Guy also pulls out gun.
Both fire. Multiple times. Thug goes down.

Guy was not "the aggressor" IMO, not if the thug pulled his piece out first.
Guy definitely felt threatened at that point.
Guy definitely did not have opportunity to "retreat" at that point.

I vote self defense.

This.  There is a guy dead because he was a deadbeat punk who robbed someone.

[Perpetual Change]

Deadbeat punk or not, the reasons why it's not OK to shoot a deadbeat punk in the back while he's running away are probably the same reasons why we don't send deadbeat punks to deathrow when they do get caught.

Again, I'm not pretending to know what happened, who drew first, etc...

[73109]

Pretty much what PC said. My theory hold just as much weight as anyone else's and until we know more, we can't really go anywhere.

[hefdaddy42]

Deadbeat punk or not, the reasons why it's not OK to shoot a deadbeat punk in the back while he's running away are probably the same reasons why we don't send deadbeat punks to deathrow when they do get caught.

Again, I'm not pretending to know what happened, who drew first, etc...

You certainly are implying to know what happened.

The punk was a criminal, and the other guy had a legal permit to carry & conceal his weapon.  He is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm not talking morality, or whether it is ever morally right to kill someone.  I am simply talking about the law.

[73109]

If you want to talk law, odds are, the dude acted within the confines of the law. If you want to talk right, wrong, morality, what should be law, etc...there is a distinct possibility this dude is just as much of a jackass as the thief.

[ClairvoyantCat]

I wouldn't be so sure, as far as the law is concerned.  The use of deadly force against criminal suspects definitely needs its reasons.  All this legally depends on is whether or not the robber was still posing a real threat to the guy's life or others. 


Completely circumstantial.  We'll have to wait for more. 

Morally, AFAIC, if the robber pulled the gun, shooting was justified.  Maybe going after the guy wasn't the best course of action, but certainly not a punishable one in that case. 

If the so-called vigilante pulled the gun first and/or fired the first shot, there is definitely blame to lay on him for the way things went down.  I don't see any justification for weighing the odds of even a criminal's life and a woman's purse and choosing to save the purse. 

[Scheavo]

Just to bring it back to what I mean by bringing this up, is that I think it's wrong to cast blame on the guy for his good intentions of stopping a purse robbery. He couldn't predict the future, he had no idea that the robber would have a gun, and it's baseless to assume that the guy ran after the robber because he himself had a gun.

Is it equally baseless to assume that when the guy shot the robber he had run down, he had a pretty good idea that the robber might die?

It's baseless to assume that the guy "ran him down" in order to shoot him. What you're describing is full out murder, and there is absolutely no reason to think that was the guys intent, or that's what actually went on.

Deadbeat punk or not, the reasons why it's not OK to shoot a deadbeat punk in the back while he's running away are probably the same reasons why we don't send deadbeat punks to deathrow when they do get caught.

Again, I'm not pretending to know what happened, who drew first, etc...

You're not pretending to know what happened, but you jut so happen to know that the guy was shot in the back while running away? I'm sorry, but there is no reason to think that's the case (for one, the thief shot back, so you're already off base).

Basically, you two are creating up a possible scenario, blaming the guy for that possible scenario, ignoring the circumstances on the ground, and assigning him guilt. It's completely without merit, and thankfully I doubt any court in the country would accept such reasoning.

And ya, I can imagine scenarios where the vigilante is at fault. But he's innocent until proven guilty.

[Perpetual Change]

Deadbeat punk or not, the reasons why it's not OK to shoot a deadbeat punk in the back while he's running away are probably the same reasons why we don't send deadbeat punks to deathrow when they do get caught.

Again, I'm not pretending to know what happened, who drew first, etc...

You certainly are implying to know what happened.

No more than anyone else in this thread. I think I've been fairly honest, like in the post you quoted, that how I imagined this went down is just one possibility out of many.

[kirksnosehair]

Making absolutely no assumptions about anything here, what I know about cases like this (based on the personal experience of a family member) is that most lawyers will tell you that "self defense" is easier to maintain if you did NOT shoot someone in the back.  We don't know where the alleged robber was shot here, since there are not a lot of details provided in the OP, so really everything is just speculation at this point.

[bosk1]

If I witnessed some woman being assaulted and robbed, I like to think I'd jump in and do something.  I gotta admit, if there's two or more of them, the odds aren't good.  One-on-one, maybe.  If the guy pulls a gun, I'm outta there, but in this case the Samaritan had his own gun, so that would seem to indicate that he's the type of guy who'll take matters into his own hands. 

So clearly I can't choose the wine in front of me.

[yeshaberto]

 

[hefdaddy42]

If I witnessed some woman being assaulted and robbed, I like to think I'd jump in and do something.  I gotta admit, if there's two or more of them, the odds aren't good.  One-on-one, maybe.  If the guy pulls a gun, I'm outta there, but in this case the Samaritan had his own gun, so that would seem to indicate that he's the type of guy who'll take matters into his own hands. 

So clearly I can't choose the wine in front of me.

I love you.

[bosk1]

[7StringedBeast]

If I witnessed some woman being assaulted and robbed, I like to think I'd jump in and do something.  I gotta admit, if there's two or more of them, the odds aren't good.  One-on-one, maybe.  If the guy pulls a gun, I'm outta there, but in this case the Samaritan had his own gun, so that would seem to indicate that he's the type of guy who'll take matters into his own hands. 

So clearly I can't choose the wine in front of me.

Brilliant post Herr Bosk

[ResultsMayVary]

If the robber drew the gun first, then the witness is in the right here. If the witness drew first, he should be facing homicide charges.

[lordxizor]

If the robber drew the gun first, then the witness is in the right here. If the witness drew first, he should be facing homicide charges.

Is it murder if the "good samaritan" pulled out his gun, told the bad guy to freeze and wait for the police, but was forced to shoot when the bad guy pulled his gun and started shooting? It's more about who shot first than who drew first IMO.

[7StringedBeast]

If the Samaritan draws first then says "freeze" and tries to get the guy to wait for the cops, and the robber then pulls out a gun, I'd say the Samaritan is in the clear to fire off a round or 2 to subdue the robber.

[gmillerdrake]

The conceal carry class I took the instructor and lawyer who trained and taught us the law really talked at length to us about a 'third' party involvment scenario like this. If you were to happen upon a situation like described. It is really very touchy and not as clear cut as per say my wife and I were walking down the street and a man approached me....demanded my money or my wifes purse. I'm not trusting a thug/thief that once I hand it over he's not going to kill us just to eliminate witnesses so it's pretty easy for me to say that I would make every effort to exercise the rights given to me.
  But a third party entry like this was taught to us to be handled in a very careful manner and you simply had to be utterly convinced your life was in danger as well. A last ditch resort so to speak. As has been menioned, the details of this particular case are scarce but They went over multiple cases of similar scenarios where the conceal carry permit holder and shooter was convicted due to the 'vigilante' atmosphere and circumstance to them.

[Orbert]

That makes perfect sense.  I would presume that they don't just grant permits to anyone who applies; there must be some kind of process, including a course such as the one you took.  If civilians are going to be out there carrying firearms, as is our Constitutional right, they should at the very least know that it's not carte blanche.  There are definitely laws governing how it all works.

And that's exactly why I predicted that if there are no other witnesses to the shooting part of this little episode, the Samaritan will claim that he had no choice, there was no time, etc.  We will probably never know what really happened, but I'm pretty sure the guy isn't just going to say he shot down the thug in cold blood.

[gmillerdrake]

That makes perfect sense.  I would presume that they don't just grant permits to anyone who applies; there must be some kind of process, including a course such as the one you took.  If civilians are going to be out there carrying firearms, as is our Constitutional right, they should at the very least know that it's not carte blanche.  There are definitely laws governing how it all works.

  I can only speak for the course I participated in, but, it was very informative and really impressed upon me how drawing your firearm in public should be the very last resort. Again, you have to be fearing for your life or families life/safety.
  I have known of and had heard of people not being granted thier permit due to something in thier past. I know there is both a State and Federal background check and you have to have a pretty clean record. And by that I mean no felonies. It has been my experience that those of us who go through the procedure and take the time and spend the money to aquire the permit really aren't the individuals people should be worried or concerned about. 
 

[PraXis]

Two phrases come to mind after reading this thread:

"When seconds matter most, the police are just a few minutes away."

"I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6."