theyarecomingforyou Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 In People v. Crouch (1990) the Michigan State Supreme Court held that a citizen may use deadly force when restraining a fleeing felon in a criminal matter. This formalized Common Law practice going way to before statehood. It was codified into the Michigan Code sections covering self defense, stand your ground, and the castle doctrine. Extra points if they were caught committing a felonious act like robbery, aggravated assault, sexual assault, or Home Invasion which is a felony consisting of aggressively breaking and entering a legally occupied residence or its chattels and posing a perceived threat to the occupants. I'm not disputing that such behaviour is legally permissible in the United States, where defending your possessions is considered more important than a human life. My point is that I consider such behaviour as wrong as the criminal act being committed. Killing a fleeing robber isn't justice. James123 and Noir Angel 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 If it isn't justice (which our legal system says it is) it is certainly prevention. Look at it as retroactive abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dead.cell Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 The way I see it, both men made stupid choices and are now facing the consequences for their actions. Maybe you don't believe in taking justice into your own hands, but you cannot deny that he got what he had coming. If you want to walk the line between life and death, you must be prepared to face whatever consequences await you. He made his decision, he lost the bet, end of story. As for the shooter, while I might side with his actions, that much is irrelevant. He still messed up, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 In People v. Crouch (1990) the Michigan State Supreme Court held that a citizen may use deadly force when restraining a fleeing felon in a criminal matter. This formalized Common Law practice going way to before statehood. It was codified into the Michigan Code sections covering self defense, stand your ground, and the castle doctrine. Extra points if they were caught committing a felonious act like robbery, aggravated assault, sexual assault, or Home Invasion which is a felony consisting of aggressively breaking and entering a legally occupied residence or its chattels and posing a perceived threat to the occupants. Ex: if you pass an alley and witness a rape in progress you legally have the option to call them out for surrender or just shoot. Depends on your perception of the risk to the victim. Before you think this SYG/Castle legislation was a right-wing Republican initiative, think again - this was passed by a Democrat legislature and signed by a liberal Democrat governor. Some of its biggest supporters were the Democrat Black Caucus members from Detroit whose constituents were living in gang combat zones with little help from city police. That might be true in cowboy land, but this didn't happen there so quit trying to apply US laws to a country with a completely different culture. Noir Angel and theyarecomingforyou 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Meanwhile if this reduced crime like certain vigilante supporters claim, why is crime and repeat crime rates 3+ times as high in America? Evidence seems to point to the fact that vigilante justice and death penalties have no positive effect and most likely a negative effect. On top of that, what happens when you allow vigilante justice like this ? 2 things 1. All criminals will be armed with guns when doing robberies. 2. Criminals will pre-emptively kill the shop owner to prevent this from happening. Kind of like how your awesome 3 strike rule causes an increase in violent crime and killings. Also known as the nothing to lose law. It's the polices job to catch criminals and bring them to justice through a fair and balanced justice system, and make sure that when they get out of the justice system they are rehabilitated. Well that's what the civilized world aims for, in America it's more like, if you can kill a suspected criminal go for it, if the police can shoot instead of arresting then go for it, criminals should be punished and hardened in prison and absolutely not rehabilitated, that would result in less legal killing for the enjoyment of vigilante and cops the nation over. James123 and Noir Angel 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Meanwhile if this reduced crime like certain vigilante supporters claim, why is crime and repeat crime rates 3+ times as high in America? > 1) recidivism is high because bleeding hears insist on turning the SOB's loose before old age prevents them from repeating their old ways.2) the violent crime rate is now lower than its been in almost 50 years, most of the drop since gun liberalization in ~1991 let people shoot back, but because the population has more than doubled the raw numbers are high. Most of this violent crime is also concentrated in large cities; Chicago, Detroit, NYC, Newark, Baltimore, Cleveland etc. Demographics and gang warfare matter kimosabe. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 So why is recidivism lower in Europe, despite shorter sentences, no life sentences and most countries actually serve sentences in parallel not in series like you. Oh yeah that's right. You don't care about helping them and thus helping the society, just as I speculated in the earlier post, you're just interested in torturing and punishing them so the cycle will continue. And maybe one awesome day you will get to shoot one of the bastards and you get to kill someone all legal like.... It may be lower, but I was comparing your crime rate to earlier US rates, I was comparing to European. And you still cling to your unproven causality. James123, Noir Angel and theyarecomingforyou 3 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 19, 2013 Share Posted September 19, 2013 1) get your facts straight - most US sentences are served in parallel (concurrently is the term.) Only in severe cases do sentences get assigned to be served consecutively, and that's the judges decision. 2) we have high recidivism because we have a higher proportion of career criminals, often in organized crime organizations which is what most gangs are now. Drugs, extortion, murder, you name it. They get recruited in middle school and know nothing else. If they don't join they and their families are victimized. Attempts at reforming them meet with very limited success and yes it is tried. Most all prisons have programs, but if the prisoners refuse to partake.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Yes, only an American would consider it reasonable to take a person's life because of property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Rain Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 This. I can understand shooting somebody in the heat of the moment, especially if they pose a significant risk to somebody's livelihood, but it is another thing entirely to shoot somebody as they are fleeing the scene. Should they be charged with murder? Of course not, but they shouldn't escape without charge. People have the right to defend themselves up to the point where the assailant is fleeing the scene. Why? It is not like the owner used a sniper rifle and aimed at the head (confirmed shoot to kill). He shot to prevent a robbery (from him nonetheless). Unless they can prove he shot to kill, he should be discharged honorably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Why? It is not like the owner used a sniper rifle and aimed at the head (confirmed shoot to kill). He shot to prevent a robbery (from him nonetheless). Unless they can prove he shot to kill, he should be discharged honorably. Because it's against the law in France to shoot a criminal who's fleeing the scene, that's why. It really is that simple. Attempt to justify it all you like, but the law is the law. You can only shoot in defence if you're in immediate danger. theyarecomingforyou 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Why? It is not like the owner used a sniper rifle and aimed at the head (confirmed shoot to kill). He shot to prevent a robbery (from him nonetheless). Unless they can prove he shot to kill, he should be discharged honorably. I oppose shooting people to protect personal possessions, so I couldn't care less whether he was intending to kill or not. Two wrongs don't make a right. Noir Angel 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Why? It is not like the owner used a sniper rifle and aimed at the head (confirmed shoot to kill). He shot to prevent a robbery (from him nonetheless). Unless they can prove he shot to kill, he should be discharged honorably.Actually, in the concealed carry classes you are taught to shoot "center of mass" - to kill - as its the most certain hit and least likely to pass through, miss or ricochet & hit an innocent party. These are state sanctioned classes & curricula and often taught by current or former cops and police officials. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Yes, we know Americans like to kill people with little provocation, but my understanding is that this crime still happened in France, and not in Michigan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Comparisons are often made by Europeans regarding US incidents so turn about is fair play. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Angel Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 And ironically those comparisons are still proving the same point: Americans love hurting people, even when they cease to be a threat. Thanks for confirming what we already know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Its not that we love to hurt people, I'd much rather the idiot stop. It's also that taking a low percentage wounding shot is risker to others. Sometimes that results in no shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Actually, in the concealed carry classes you are taught to shoot "center of mass" - to kill - as its the most certain hit and least likely to pass through, miss or ricochet & hit an innocent party. These are state sanctioned classes & curricula and often taught by current or former cops and police officials. Those same cops who, in other threads, you've essentially said couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from 10 paces? :p That's really engendering confidence, that is. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 The classes are generally taught by supervisory personnel with gobs of training & experience. The problems are with the younger, lower experience ranks who didn't grow up with firearms experience starting in grade school. Most of them couldn't find their own ass with both hands and navigation equipment. psmoked 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 The classes are generally taught by supervisory personnel with gobs of training & experience. The problems are with the younger, lower experience ranks who didn't grow up with firearms experience starting in grade school. Most of them couldn't find their own ass with both hands and navigation equipment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Dup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 DUP post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seta-san Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 a person who steals a CD from a store is probably no threat. a person who goes throught the trouble to break into someone's private home is a threat to everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacer Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 The young man killed, 19-year-old Anthony Asli, had been in trouble as a juvenile and was freed about a month ago from his most recent stint in detention, shedding his own electronic bracelet and moving in with a longtime girlfriend who is pregnant with their child. Asli's family described him as impressionable and immature. "The family's not condoning the robbery. They're not condoning it and they're not excusing it. It was Anthony's fault. But did he deserve to die in these conditions?" their lawyer, Olivier Castellacci, said Tuesday. "We don't have, in France, the notion of taking justice into your own hands. The family is revolted by that." more Yes, yes he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 oh NO!! he's been in trouble as a juvenile. he definitely deserved to be shot down as a dog, you're absolutely right. trouble as a juvenile obviously means he was out raping old ladies, naturally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts