Here's A Situation........

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

An individual who alledges he interrupted a burglary at his home, jumped in his vehicle, trailed the fleeing perpetrator for a distance, then ran him over...........fatally.  Some folks on facebook laud him as a hero, far too few bother to examine the consequences of his actions.  He had already notified the police, and he was in no fear for his life.

Do you think, with the information provided, he should be indicted for, at least, 2nd degree murder?

Back a few years ago,  armed gunmen entered a drugstore in Oklahoma.......the manager wounded one, then chased the others outside.  He returned, went into the back room to obtain another weapon, then pumped five more shots into the first thug, who was laying on the floor.

A jury found that he was justified in the first shot, but the following five shots constituted murder, and the manager was sentenced to life in prison.  That same week, the other robbers were convicted of murder and sentenced also.

[boris1gary]

---

@love*today wrote:
I wouldn't 🙂

---

You might have when you found out his circumstances, saw him in the paper about 10 years ago and he was doing some great work with troubled kids - was tempted to try and contact him but decided he probably wouldn't appreciate the reminder.

[love*today]

Again no I wouldn't.

[4c4sale]

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

So, if some Jehovah's Witnesses come up to your front door, you feel you have the right to pursue him and end his life?  Interesting, because that's about how far the trespasser got............

How does anyone other than the victim of the home inavasion know whether the victim feared for his life?

Let's see........the trespasser was fleeing down the road, the killer was in his pickup truck chasing him.......I would imagine it was the dead man fearing for his life, and I'm sure a grand jury will see it that way.

---

There's that roaring bias.

Shooting a Jehovah's Witness?

Impossible to take you seriously.

As far as what a Grand Jury might hear, they might not hear anything at all.

But for all anyone knows, the home inavader told the victim he'd be back in 20 minutes with 5 ex-cons to torture and murder the victim and his family, and this gave rise to the chase and perhaps accidental death, all of which were the fruit of the home inavader's initial criminal actions.

We just don't know, and substituting bias for that lack of knowledge is ludicrous.

[cherry*135]

---

@joz*garage wrote:

and how is it this law abiding citizen was unable to dodge this homeowner's vehicle?

i reckon i could flee into somebody's property, exist... stage right, do a zig zag

---

That is what I was thinking. Why run down a roads/treet or footpath/sidewalk when being pursued by a person in a vehicle?

The alleged intruder would have had a head start on the homeowner as well. Could have jumped over back fence or neighbours fence and disappeared out of sight.

[village_person]

It is always better to be judged by 12 people than to be carried by six people at your own funeral. Want to come into my house: try knocking on the door like most people do.

[chuk_77]

it states he ran him over. Did he try and stop but had no time?

Did the home invader run from the path into the oncoming car?

Was the car speeding?

Did the car mount the gutter to run him over?

There is absolutely not enough info to comment.

BUT if the home invader did not attempt to break in/damage/break the law. He may not be dead now

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

There's that roaring bias.

Shooting a Jehovah's Witness?

Impossible to take you seriously.

But for all anyone knows, the home inavader told the victim he'd be back in 20 minutes with 5 ex-cons to torture and murder the victim and his family, and this gave rise to the chase and perhaps accidental death, all of which were the fruit of the home inavader's initial criminal actions.

Speaking of taking someone seriously.........Oh, and show me where I mentioned shooting a JW........

As I said in the OP, the scenario is based on the information provided.  It's evident you feel he's justified in killing a fleeing man...........I don't, and neither did the jury in Oklahoma.

[j*oono]

It's pretty easy for me because I don't believe in the death penalty.  If I was been attacked physically I would do everything possible to stop the assailant,  but not chase them down and get revenge.

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

Was the car speeding?

Did the car mount the gutter to run him over?

Apparently the pickup jumped the curb, and actually struck a building.

[ruloinfovoter]

---

@4c4sale wrote:

---

@this-one-time-at-bandcamp wrote:

An individual who alledges he interrupted a burglary at his home, jumped in his vehicle, trailed the fleeing perpetrator for a distance, then ran him over...........fatally.  Some folks on facebook laud him as a hero, far too few bother to examine the consequences of his actions.  He had already notified the police, and he was in no fear for his life.

Do you think, with the information provided, he should be indicted for, at least, 2nd degree murder?

Back a few years ago,  armed gunmen entered a drugstore in Oklahoma.......the manager wounded one, then chased the others outside.  He returned, went into the back room to obtain another weapon, then pumped five more shots into the first thug, who was laying on the floor.

A jury found that he was justified in the first shot, but the following five shots constituted murder, and the manager was sentenced to life in prison.  That same week, the other robbers were convicted of murder and sentenced also.

---

Too little information to say.

Also, your account is so grossly biased, and your mind so clearly made up that the homeowner/burglary victim who pursued the home invader is a murderer, that expending too much energy trying to change your mind seems a waste of time. *shrug*

---

Yup, 4c, some folks can't be trusted.

My bolding in 4c's reply.