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.

[4c4sale]

---

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

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.

---

Your words:

"I can readily see someone running down a JW or Mormon who interrupted their nap."

You didn't state whether such an imaginary individual would run down an unarmed young person with a gun or car, but to compare those who support a man giving chase to a home invader to one who would murder young missionaries?

As a bit of constructive criticism, I wouldn't make such outrageous comparisons in a serious discussion.

As far as what's evident, it's evident that you've provided grossly insufficient and grossly biased information in an attempt to lead people to what you feel is the *ONLY* correct conclusion.

You've been asked for a link to the story, and to provide full details, but you haven't done so.

It's evident to me that if you wish serious answers and a serious discussion, you'll provide this basic information.

This man (did you make him up? can't find anything in a Google search) may or may not have been justified in what he did, but no rational person can properly answer the question without full, minimally biased details.

Please provide these if you wish a serious exploration of the issues involved.

Thanks.

[katymatey*]

---

@pollysd wrote:

It is in the U.S......not sure about Australia?

---

As far as I know in Australia it is like for like. In other words if the intruder has a gun and is pointing it at you, and you also have a gun you can defend yourself with it. If the intruder has a rock and you have a gun, if you shoot him, then you have used excessive force and could be charged.

I don't know about you though, I think I might take the risk. Surely the vulnerability of the home owner should be taken into account. An elderly person is much more likely to be overpowered and killed or injured than a fit young man is. I am not going to stand around and compare weapons.

[ruloinfovoter]

I like this one, "the scenario is based on the information provided".  ???

That's good.  

[pollysd]

I don't know about you though, I think I might take the risk. Surely the vulnerability of the home owner should be taken into account. An elderly person is much more likely to be overpowered and killed or injured than a fit young man is. I am not going to stand around and compare weapons.

Yeah, especially when you only have a few minutes to decide.....how would you know if someone breaking in had a gun or knife....especially if it was dark? And good point about the elderly or infirm. I'm not a gun owner or an advocate, but if someone is breaking in to ones home and threatening their life I believe it's their right to defend themselves by any means possible. But there definitely need to be laws and accountability for those that go beyond defending.

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

Those are the only details provided.  There have been no updates, only  that an "alleged" trespasser (their words) was discovered in a citizen's house, fled on foot, and was chased by the homeowner in a pickup.  The pickup struck the man and he was pronounced dead at the hospital/

[4c4sale]

---

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

Those are the only details provided.  There have been no updates, only  that an "alleged" trespasser (their words) was discovered in a citizen's house, fled on foot, and was chased by the homeowner in a pickup.  The pickup struck the man and he was pronounced dead at the hospital/

If you are unable to google results, I'm not prepared to hold your hand, and your attempts to initiate an interpersonal dispute are no doubt noted by other posters.

Fellow posters, ask yourself why would someone come over from the American boards and immediately initiate a hostile discussion.

---

Please provide full, consistent, unbiased details and a link so people can intelligently engage with the topic.

Thanks.

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

In the US, many states have "stand your ground"  and "castle doctrine" laws that provide a degree of immunity for those killing an invader.  The problem is, in certain states people have taken it to ridiculous extremes.........a guy shoots a loudmouth in a pizza parlor and claims self defense........a guy goes over to his neighbors house with a gun because the neighbor is playing music too loud, shoots him, then claims self defense..........a guy parks next to some black teenagers who are playing music too loud, shoots one of them, then claims.......you guessed it, self defense.

Fortunately, juries have sent each of these individuals to prison, but it keeps on happening.

[4c4sale]

Can we get a link to the Oklahoma incident you referenced, or are you saying it was made up as some kind of imaginary extension of these other incidents to hammer in a point?

Probably a good idea to let people know when you're making things up vs. citing an actual incident, but there's always next time - onward and upward!

If it DID happen, how about a link?

Thanks.

[ruloinfovoter]

I mean with a scenario you at least get written details of the plot, right?

I don't understand this either.

What is the point?  Just a bunch of what ifs?

Or did this happen?

[katydidthat]

Self-defence-not available if death inflicted to protect property or trespass to property

420 Self-defence-not available if death inflicted to protect property or trespass to property

This Division does not apply if the person uses force that involves the intentional or reckless infliction of death only:

(a) to protect property, or

(b) to prevent criminal trespass or to remove a person committing criminal trespass.

===

There's some more NSW law ... self-defence (generally) includes defence of property, as well as oneself or another person, but if defence of property goes as far as to result in the death of a person, then the defence of "self-defence" does not apply.  

So, under NSW law, at least, the home-owner/occupier would not appear to have a leg to stand on - both because the "invader" was fleeing, and because of the above section.  

===

Interesting topic, Band.  Thanks for posting 🙂