Fleeing suspect shot...

[secret_agent_man]

a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has committed such offense

Hooboy! I would not rely on that statute. Talk about a two edged sword that could cut you bad.

 

[highvel]

I wonder how many have been cut by that sword, oh, that's right they probably can not log on and discuss it from prison

And there are other aspects of a questionable shoot, like money that you used to have, or would have made in the future.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

That clause is but one of many reasons why I say it's almost always a bad idea.

 

[jimpeel]

The perpetrator is not fleeing FROM this crime, he is fleeing TO his next one. More will suffer if he is allowed to do so.

 

[ftttu]

peetzakilla, sorry for not quoting your post but I've forgotten how to do it. But I'm not wrong. You do not have a right to physically discipline your children. Using force against anyone has to be justified. I'm a 20 year veteran law enforcement officer and I have to deal with the use of force every day in the field and in the courtroom setting. If you had a "right" to physically discipline your children, you could whack them anytime, anywhere. Here is the statute below:
Sec. 9.61. PARENT-CHILD. (a) The use of force, but not deadly force, against a child younger than 18 years is justified1) if the actor is the child's parent or stepparent or is acting in loco parentis to the child; and(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote his welfare.

So, if I get called to a child abuse call and mama told me that she slapped her son for accidently spilling milk at the table, charges may be filed. If mama reasonably spanked little son for running after a ball into the road and a car was coming, putting the child in danger, no charges at all. Both cause physical injury but only one was "justified".

 

[jimpeel]

You do not have a right to physically discipline your children.

We have a law that allows the spanking of children in Colorado. The sad part is that we needed to write a law at all. Corporal punishment of your own child is not a crime. Unfortunately, parents are fearful of disciplining their children because they are afraid some busybody will have CPS waiting on their doorstep when they get home.

I am a cashier at a large retailer and we go through the issue of unruly, destructive, undisciplined children raging through the store almost daily. Screaming fits, throwing merchandise, breaking merchandise, you name it. The parents do nothing and the rest of the public pays for the destruction. They are afraid to do anything and we cannot do anything either. We just clean up the mess and raise the prices.

 

[youngunz4life]

laughing

jimpeel, will you admit that maybe that's a slight over-exaggeration?

 

[hogdogs]

Florida allows any force up to and including lethal force to stop this fleeing person who committed a "violent felony"

Brent

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

jimpeel, will you admit that maybe that's a slight over-exaggeration?

Exaggeration!? Hardly. I deal with it daily in my pizza shop. I've had kids look me right in the eyes, dump a glass of soda on the floor, smirk and say "Oops"... then walk out the door. Their mother sits there screaming "sit down! Shut up! Knock it off! Shut up! Get over here!" SHE might as well sit down and shut up, all she does is add to the chaos.

 

[jimpeel]

jimpeel, will you admit that maybe that's a slight over-exaggeration?

Not an exaggeration, slight or otherwise. I live this every day. The parents let the kids ride tricycles through the store that they have no intention of buying. They let them play with the toys and then hand them back to us at the register covered with drool and whatever the kid has been eating. We have to claim out those products.

The parents are as bad as the kids.

The other night I had a couple with two kids. There was one in the basket lying on a Rockies souvenir pillow that costs ~$25. She said "I have to give you the pillow. He's sick and I needed something to lay him on." The kid was obviously feverish and was sweating. She hands me the pillow after the sale concludes and leaves. I had to claim the pillow out as contaminated. Would you want your child lying on that pillow after it has been contaminated? We lost that profit and it has to be made up elsewhere.

The kids pick up products and the parents take it away and place it wherever they happen to be standing. We have to put it all back. That costs labor.

The parents are just as bad. Someone took chewed food out of their kid's mouth in a paper towel and then put it in a candy display. I had to claim out all of the candy as contaminated. One day, I found an eight pound ham in the candy that is displayed at the register. I had to claim out the ham and all of the candy on which it leaked.

These are just a few examples of what we find every day. All of this costs profit which must be made up elsewhere and you pay for that.

Did I mention the Code Adams? We have at least two each week. The kids run off and the parents panic. They are the ones at fault but we spend resources looking for their lost kids.

And then there are the "Lost Mommy" pages when we find some wandering child and take them to Customer Service. Sometimes we have to page numerous times; and then there are the pages which must be repeated in Spanish because the lost mommy doesn't speak English and can't understand the page about their kid. Sometimes it takes ten minutes for Mommy to come get their kid.

So, am I exaggerating? Not in the least.

 

[highvel]

Every child needs discipline period.
But I wouldn't shoot em in the back either.

 

[csmsss]

FYI...in Texas it is legally permissible to shoot a fleeing offender, even if he/she poses no threat to you. Specifically, you are permitted to shoot in order to stop a nighttime burglary. If you are able to demonstrate that the other party was engaged in nighttime burglary, you not be required to prove any of the threat elements in your defense.

 

[jimpeel]

This happened a few years ago and the press went nuts. This guy shot a repo man who was towing away his car. The guy lobbed a round at the tow truck but didn't think he hit the guy until the next morning when the truck was found in a ditch with the dead driver inside.

The guy was not charged as he was acting within the law which goes back to the horse rustling days. When the press asked what repo men were to do about this kind of response, the sheriff said "I'd suggest they get into another line of work."

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

FYI...in Texas it is legally permissible to shoot a fleeing offender, even if he/she poses no threat to you. Specifically, you are permitted to shoot in order to stop a nighttime burglary. If you are able to demonstrate that the other party was engaged in nighttime burglary, you not be required to prove any of the threat elements in your defense.

Here is Section 9.42 of the Texas Penal Code which contains the section you are referring to:

Sec.*9.42.**DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1)**if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2)**when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A)**to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B)**to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3)**he reasonably believes that:
(A)**the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B)**the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

A couple of points, if it is burglary, then it doesn't matter what time of day it is. The restriction to night time only applies to criminal mischief and theft. Second, you can only shoot at some fleeing if you meet both 9.41 and 9.42.

I know of at least two store clerks and one CHL who were convicted of felonies when they shot a thief/burglar who was fleeing. The question of whether the property can be recovered by other means can get tricky.

 

[Hardcase]

It seems to me that the bottom line is that you can't call that bullet back. Regardless of the law, if you pull that trigger, you'd better be damned sure that it's for a very, very good reason. If you've got to rely on the letter of the law for your defense, it seems that you may be walking an extremely fine line. If you're using the law to find a reason to shoot somebody, that may be crossing it, at least morally.

It may be that the guy you shoot isn't worth the air that he was breathing, but dead is dead.

 

[highvel]

Exactly!

Pulling the trigger is the Most important decision you will Ever make!
I myself, DO NOT take it lightly, and pray I never find myself in a situation where I have to make such a decision!

Shoot someone?
Yes I can!
Spend 20 years or so in prison for making a bad judgment call?
Not so much!

 

[jimpeel]

Then we have TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) 471 U.S. 1 in which the SCotUS ruled that the law allowing an officer to shoot a fleeing suspect was found to be unconstitutional.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=471&page=1

So even the police are not allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect if that suspect is not believed to pose a danger or is not thought to be armed.

 

[imthegrumpyone]

Lock & Load, there only has to be one liar living when the dust settles.

 

[Mello2u]

Since the story was about an incident in Warner Robins, GA; GA law should apply.

The following quote is of the applicable GA statute (in part) which should apply to this set of facts.

§ 16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution


(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

From a reading of the article and applying the standard of the statute quoted, the 28-year-old Paresh Patel could be in for some legal troubles, if the government prosecutor decides to prosecute. I did see not an imminent use of force or threat to him or his father if the bad guy was merely fleeing; even though the bad guy committed at least two felonies § 16-8-41. Armed robbery and § 16-5-21. Aggravated assault.

The article reports:

Meanwhile, 28-year-old Paresh Patel heard his father’s cries for help, ran out of the home and shot the suspect as he was fleeing.

Anger and/or revenge is not legal justification to use deadly force in Georgia.

TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) 471 U.S. 1 ( cited in jimpeel's post #37) can be distinguished from this report in that the bad guy could be classified as both armed and dangerous (unlike the deceased in the SCOTUS case) as he had shot someone (the father) only seconds before the son shot the bad guy.

 

[MLeake]

Seems to me that if the fleeing felon had been shooting at people, and still had the firearm, that the protection of third parties and prevention of forcible felony components of the Georgia law might arguably apply.