I suspect a lot of this may depend on which part of America you're in. More rural Conservative states are going to have a very different perspective on this than more urban Progressives states. In a Conservative area, they'll be more likely to lay all the blame on the criminal for committing the crime in the first place. (It's a similar logic to the felony murder doctrine, which by the way I do not agree with) Also, in more rural areas it is oftentimes less feasible for the law enforcement to apprehend someone without shooting them, because there is often less people available in the area.
We can all agree they shouldn't use deadly force if it's a petty crime but the question is where exactly to draw the line. I could think of a lot of examples that are in grey areas that we'd likely have disagreement about.
Let me just give you a ridiculous example, to prove my point. Criminal tries hijacking a police car with police officers in it. Would you try to argue that a third officer who is watching is not allowed to use his gun to stop this? (Would you say that robbery = aggression = justification to use deadly force?) Or how about you're in a parking lot, have just opened up your car, and someone grabs the keys out of your hands and pushes you out of the way and enters the car about to drive off with it? When they shoved you out of the way you fell onto the pavement. Even though you could stop them, is it your obligation to just let them drive off with the car? Let's also suppose this is a new very expensive car you just purchased that same day, just to make the hypothetical a little more interesting.
Mostly, yes. On the other hand, I am a gentle soul and so I would be satisfied with seeing bullies horsewhipped until they are thoroughly bloody; but then that's just me.
He's arguing for the rights of criminals. I'm just wondering what types of crimes exactly he thinks people should be able to commit without having force used against them.
Well, I've done that too in the past, but to a lesser extent. I suggested that maybe robbers shouldn't be charged with the same type of murder (lesser murder) if they killed someone out of "self-defense" during the crime (i.e. they had to shoot because if they didn't they themselves would have been shot).
real scummy for you guys to now make this about me. but I guess that's how one debates when they are losing the debate.
A shove to the pavement constitutes the use of deadly force, as it has been demonstrated as being capable of causing either death, or great bodily harm. If it was not attempted murder, it is manslaughter at the very least. Either way the raised point remains the same.
The above case does not apply in this specific incident for three reasons. First, the case cited pertains to the actions of law enforcement officers engaged in the enforcement of laws, not private citizens such as Drejka who are engaged in self defense. Second, the case pertains to the use of deadly force to prevent a fleeing suspect who is merely suspected of doing something wrong, whereas McGlockton initiated conflict and intentionally used deadly force against Drejka, who responded in defense of himself, rather than an effort to stop McGlockton from escaping. Third, the cited case even states that deadly force is reasonable, even in the event of a fleeing suspect, if the law enforcement officer believes it is necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury to others. As McGlockton had already deployed deadly force against Drejka, Drejka would have every reason to believe McGlockton posed a continued threat to himself, or could pose a threat to anyone else he encountered if he escaped. Under the standard of Tenessee v Garner, Drejka would still be justified.
Which pertains to government agents acting in an official capacity. Not private citizens acting in self defense. The two standards are not in any way similar to one another.
https://www.theroot.com/man-who-landed-fatal-punch-after-victim-called-him-the-1824992681 A Virginia man who says he punched a woman because she called him the n-word has been convicted of second-degree murder. On Monday an Arlington, Va., jury recommended that Robert Coleman, 27, serve 10 years behind bars for the death of Fedelia Montiel-Benitez, who died in July. But the circumstances of Montiel-Benitez’s death were hotly contested by the prosecution and Coleman’s lawyers, who expressed disappointment that their client wasn’t given a manslaughter charge. The fateful encounter between Montiel-Benitez and Coleman began at a 7-Eleven. As the Washington Post reports, Coleman had gone into the convenience store to buy cigarettes; Montiel-Benitez, to buy alcohol. The two strangers then got into an argument (it’s still unknown about what), which Coleman’s girlfriend, Nikki Howard, had to break up. Surveillance video shows Montiel-Benitez leaving the 7-Eleven before she turns around to face Coleman again. That’s when she called him the n-word, Coleman told detectives. He snapped and chased Montiel-Benitez outside, throwing a punch at the 39-year-old woman that would put her in a coma. She died in a hospital 10 days later. Prosecutors disputed Coleman’s account, saying that Montiel-Benitez didn’t speak English well enough to use the slur (a claim that ignores how prevalent both the n-word and anti-blackness are), but they also said that even if Montiel-Benitez did use the racial slur, Coleman’s response still wasn’t justified. But Coleman insists that he never meant to kill Montiel-Benitez. In fact, Coleman told detectives that he thought that the victim, who was heavyset and wore her hair short, was a man. Still, Coleman likely didn’t help his case when he fled the scene of the assault. When he was tracked down by a detective, Coleman initially denied any involvement until it was revealed that the woman was in critical condition. During closing arguments, prosecutor David Lord told the jury that “words alone” shouldn’t be a reason to kill someone. Coleman’s defense had hoped that the jury would see the incident as manslaughter, emphasizing that their client hadn’t intended to take Montiel-Benitez’s life. Both second-degree murder and manslaughter apply to killings that weren’t premeditated or planned—the major distinction between the two is that manslaughter charges are typically applied in instances where the assailant was acting under extreme duress (in other words, where the assailant was provoked to act in an unreasonable or disturbed way). Judging by the charge the district attorney hit Coleman with, being called the n-word doesn’t fit that kind of provocation. As the Post reports, a judge is expected to formally sentence Coleman on May 24 and will likely adhere to the jury’s 10-year recommendation. The maximum punishment for second-degree murder is 40 years in prison.
Attempted manslaughter then. The shove to the pavement constituted deadly force, and McGlockton both knowingly and deliberately engaged in the use of such force without legitimate reason. From a legal standpoint it would be no different than if McGlockton had opened fire on Drejka with a handgun, even if he didn't manage to hit him.
I agree, but taking a step back is not retreating and sometimes in a situation where you were violently attacked it takes a second or two to come to your senses, accidents happen and guns can accidentally go off in the example you site, neither party acted appropriately, one paid with their life, the other will forever be a public outcast (would you hire him) and probably sued into oblivion
In my state you do? Pretty sure Florida is the same way. I’m allowed to shoot fleeing felons in the back. Guy walks in robs a gas station with a knife, runs out, I can legally put 2 rounds in his back before calling the police. Same thing with home invaders.
Has nothing to do with the pettiness of the crime, but the violence of them. Breaking into an occupied house in FL is considered a violent felony. It is a crime in which you forfeit your right to life. Any violent felony in FL can be defended against using lethal force.
The occupation of the handicapped parking spot by an unauthorized individual was the petty crime. The felony battery committed by McGlockton as a result of such was not.
IMHO, it wasn't a felony battery. Everything I've read was that it was a misdemeanor battery at most, as it was in defense of his girlfriend and kids.
