Guy chases burglar outside and shoots him away from the house.

The other factor...

... is that if the prosecutor believes the original felony did occur, then he is likely to interpret that action as having robbed the decedent of the right to SD against the resulting pursuit.

So, while the BG may not have lost his rights yet, the end result could well be that the prosecutor opts to bring no charges against the decedent's killer(s), due to an assumption that the BG would eventually have been found to have had no right to use violence against his pursuers.

We'll see what happens.

For all I know, the brothers chased the guy with the intent of making an example of him, thinking they could. But, for all I know, they could have had every intention of either effecting arrest, or providing the police with info. Just don't know.
 
Outcast: Sure, your nads want to say "good Job" But your brain already knows better.
Click to expand...

Haha, yeah, right now the boys are sayin "rahrah yaay clean the gene pool good shoot rah" but I'm thinkin, "uhh... huh?"

Personally I don't think they should be charged with anything but I do think they went a little further than they should have, definitely further than I would have. I'm very leery of the complications of being involved in a self defense shoot outside my home... not too sure how that's gonna pan out when I get my CHL but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
 
Bad guy attempts home invasion. Homeowners halt home invasion and pursue Bad guy. Bad guy pulls gun on homeowners. Homeowners gun down Bad guy. One less Bad guy around to attempt more home invasions. Sounds good to me!
 
One less Bad guy around to attempt more home invasions. Sounds good to me
Click to expand...

Mathematically it sounds great... but I've always hated math and we're not dealing with numbers here, we are dealing with lives... living, breathing, human beings. Justice is about balancing punishment against the crime. The only way this was a justifiable and clean shoot in my mind is if the pursuers intent was something less violent than what actually occured (something along the lines of giving the guy a good lecture and maybe a slap upside the head). Unfortunately there is now way to discern the purseuers' original intent other than taking their word for it.
 
So if this scenario actually ended with a police officer seeing the fleeing suspect, chasing the suspect down, suspect drawing gun, and officer fatally shooting the suspect is it a bad shoot?
 
Haha, yeah, right now the boys are sayin "rahrah yaay clean the gene pool good shoot rah" but I'm thinkin, "uhh... huh?"

Personally I don't think they should be charged with anything but I do think they went a little further than they should have, definitely further than I would have.
Click to expand...

^^ The force is strong with this one^^


Look inside yourself and know what is true, do not succumb to the dark side...:D

Seriously , your gut is leading you to the truth. ;)
 
So if this scenario actually ended with a police officer seeing the fleeing suspect, chasing the suspect down, suspect drawing gun, and officer fatally shooting the suspect is it a bad shoot?
Click to expand...

You are comparing the actions of a sworn officer, as compared to a homeowner. the comparison is not equal.(apples to oranges)

A police officer follows one set of laws, a homeowner another.(though I am sure some will argue this point)
A gun does not give you the same powers or protections as a badge.
 
First, burglary is NOT a felony, and second, you cannot make a "citizens arrest" for a crime that is NOT a felony, sorry. It quit being a crime when the guy ran. Simple B&E .
Click to expand...

First, burglary was a felony at common law, and I would be very much surprised if breaking and entering an occupied dwelling (night or day) was not a felony in any state. It certainly is in CA. But maybe TX has a more liberal attitude toward the underprivileged criminals than we have here in CA. "Simple B&E" is normally a felony, and one considered inherently dangerous to human life.

Second, you can make a "citizens arrest" for a crime that is not a felony, at least here in CA.

CA Penal Code §837 provides:

A private person may arrest another:

1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence.

2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not
in his presence.

3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable
cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=42351616480+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

To arrest for a non-felony offense, the offense must be committed or attempted in the citizen's presence. So Outast's statement would have been correct if he had said "you cannot make a "citizens arrest" for a crime that is NOT a felony UNLESS it was committed or attempted in your presence."
 
it appeared that the guy kicked in the door, and the chase began, whether the decedent entered the residence will be he deciding factor I reckon.
Click to expand...

If the BG kicked in the door and a portion of his foot went past the threshold, that would probably suffice to constitute an "entry" for the purpose of burglary.

Even if there were no entry, there was an attempt, and the statute I quoted allows a citizen's arrest for an attempted offense.
 
You are comparing the actions of a sworn officer, as compared to a homeowner. the comparison is not equal.(apples to oranges)

A police officer follows one set of laws, a homeowner another.(though I am sure some will argue this point)
A gun does not give you the same powers or protections as a badge.
Click to expand...

So it would be your contention that the police officer had more rights (by law) to kill the fleeing suspect?
 
I think it's important to distinguish between self-defense. Once the BG fled, there was no issue of self-defense.

The occupants were legally privileged to pursue the BG. At least in CA, and again, I can't imagine TX is more restrictive.

CA Penal Code §839 provides:

Any person making an arrest may orally summon as many persons as he deems necessary to aid him therein.

CA Penal Code §844 provides:

To make an arrest, a private person, if the offense is a felony, and in all cases a peace officer, may break open the door or window of the house in which the person to be arrested is, or in which they have reasonable grounds for believing the person to be, after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.

A vigilante is a person who violates the law to exact what they believe to be justice from criminals. Pursuing someone who attempted to enter your home to turn him over to the cops is not vigilantism. And anyone who says it is simply doesn't know what the word "vigilante" means.

Once the BG used deadly force by exhibiting a gun, the pursuers were legally privileged to use deadly force (not to make an arrest but in self-defense).

If you pursue a purse snatcher who snatched some old lady's purse, the thief is not the "victim" and you are not an "aggressor" against who he is entitled to use force. The BG here had no right to self-defense any more than he would if he were being chased by a cop.
 
So if this scenario actually ended with a police officer seeing the fleeing suspect, chasing the suspect down, suspect drawing gun, and officer fatally shooting the suspect is it a bad shoot?
Click to expand...

No, but the police officer is sworn to uphold (enforce) the law. That means he is not only legally justified in following the subject but also legally obligated to do so. An officer in the process of upholding the law being forced to take a life is worlds different from Tom and Huck pursuing Joe Thug to have words with him and then because of that finding themselves in a situation where they had to defend themselves.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have defended themselves. Once put in that situation it is the only acceptable course of action. I'm questioning the legality, morality, and reasoning regarding their pursuit of Joe Thug in the first place.

Of course they knew the guy, maybe not on favorable terms but they knew him. Common sense would say that you would be able to go talk to the guy and give him a piece of your mind (common sense might also say you wouldn't need a gun to do that but then again the smart money says to always be prepared).

One little piece of info I think we need is who had their weapon drawn first? If the two shooters had their's drawn first it may be self defense but in the dead guy's favor (not that it's going to do him much good).
 
Last edited:
A point of clarification.

I have been assuming for the purpose of the discussion that the occupants chased the BG to turn him over to the cops. If they were chasing him to beat him and teach him a lesson, that would be vigilantism.
 
I have a couple of thoughts.

First, there is a profound dearth of reliable information on this case, so it's way too early to make any determination as to whether the shooter's actions were justified, somewhat justified, or entirely unjustified.

Second, I don't agree with those who assert that one should *never* pursue a fleeing bad guy. There may be no immediate danger to you, but could be extreme danger to others in the vicinity. I liken this to, for example, an active shooter in a mall. The shooter runs past you, therefore there is no immediate danger to you, but there is extreme danger to everyone else in the shooter's path. Is the best course of action really to stay your ground and do absolutely nothing? My opinion is no.

Hopefully we'll learn more about these events, the shooter's actions and the entirety of the circumstances preceding the shooting. Until then, I'm going to reserve judgement about the shooter's culpability, if there be any.
 
No, but the police officer is sworn to uphold (enforce) the law. That means he is not only legally justified in following the subject but also legally obligated to do so. An officer in the process of upholding the law being forced to take a life is worlds different from Tom and Huck pursuing Joe Thug to have words with him and then because of that finding themselves in a situation where they had to defend themselves.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have defended themselves. Once put in that situation it is the only acceptable course of action. I'm questioning the legality, morality, and reasoning regarding their pursuit of Joe Thug in the first place.

Of course they knew the guy, maybe not on favorable terms but they knew him. Common sense would say that you would be able to go talk to the guy and give him a piece of your mind (common sense might also say you wouldn't need a gun to do that but then again the smart money says to always be prepared).

One little piece of info I think we need is who had their weapon drawn first? If the two shooters had their's drawn first it may be self defense but in the dead guy's favor.
Click to expand...

So the question I would have is... when "Tom and Huck" began their pursuit:

a) Was it a crime to do so?
b) Did the act forfeit their right of self defense?

I will add that I think it was monumentally stupid to chase after the guy but... do their positions as citizen vs. a police officer materially affect a decision to act with deadly force?

Even if it was a crime to pursue the BG... did "Tom and Huck" deserve to die because a BG decided to be their judge and jury?

All this assumes the BG did indeed escalate by drawing his gun first. If that isn't the case then this is, no doubt in my mind, vigilantism.

btw... I'm fairly sure a police officer is not "legally obligated" to pursue the subject. I'm pretty sure that police only have a general duty to protect with no guarantee to do so in any specific situation.
 
This is how i see it, strictly just my opinion. This scenario is pretty simple the BG fled, they wanted revenge and justice because they knew the guy.
Click to expand...

They may have wanted revenge because they knew the guy, but I'm glad you also mentioned they wanted justice.

The reason it isn't so simple is because chasing and apprehending a fleeing felon isn't necessarily illegal. If the chasing of the felon was legal, though tactically unsound, maybe the felon should assume responsibility for pulling a gun and forcing the GOOD guys to defend THEMSELVES.

Hey, they were boneheads for chasing the guy, but sometimes, in the face of violent criminal activity, the good folks don't always do the right thing in the ensuing SNAFU that tends to follow. Doesn't mean they belong in prison. Looks like the Police might agree.
 
lol the criminal that runs off turns into a "victim" I can't stop laughing about this.
The argument can and will be made that because they knew him, they felt he was still a danger to them because he knew exactly where they were staying so he could come back another time
 
Again my Composer friend:

(QUOTE): "If you blantantly chase a bad guy down, it's vigilantism"...

To make that broad statement for everyone is just irresponsible.
It is a quick reaction to what just happened, (someone just broke down your front door).
That may be your personal belief (and maybe others as well) but did you ever consider the possibility of the bad guy coming back again and finishing what he started? Could be worse for the home owner next visit. One thing is for sure, "He eliminated the repeat offender"!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top