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]

---

@lealta wrote:

Did someone intentionally run someone down?

(The apparently forgotten topic of diccussion here.)

---------------------------

Did the victim chase the criminal down with the intent of killing him, or was his intent to apprehend, and the death an accident precipitated by the home invader's criminal act? 

I don't believe the OP said the home-owner intentionally ran over the burglar.  Here are his exact words:

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.

He never used the word intentional at all.  And he did ask the question, that if this man caused a death, should he be charged with at least 2nd degree murder.  He threw this topic out for discussion.  Not to be attacked.  Not to start a fight.  But to discuss.  Unfortunately some people want to do nothing but start interpersonal disputes.  Day in and day out.  Sad.

---

Intentionality is, in fact, the primary focus of the OP, as apparent in the large section you did NOT quote about the OK pharmacist killing a helpless intruder.

The possibility of the OR burglar's death being an accident related to some negligence on the part of the victimized driver was a focus as well, but not the primary one.

As far as the OP's intent in posting, we have no more insight into this than into the minds of the individuals cited in the OP's comments. To claim otherwise is preposterous.

I would say that the OP had a strong opinion and powerful bias at the very least, and was attempting to steer us into accepting his views without further questioning of his methods or views.

Things didn't progress that way, but good to see we're somewhat back on topic.

[sineaterdoodah]

"a helpless intruder"..could you explain that,please?

[4c4sale]

---

@sineaterdoodah wrote:

"a helpless intruder"..could you explain that,please?

---

Read the thread/see the links to the OK story.

[sineaterdoodah]

helpless? not a chance.

[lealta]

Intentionality is, in fact, the primary focus of the OP, as apparent in the large section you did NOT quote about the OK pharmacist killing a helpless intruder.

My comment has to do with the very first comment in this thread.  It is not about a shooting. It is about a home invasion.  And your comment about INTENTION, focuses on the person who RAN over an individual, not the one who SHOT the person in OK.  You asked the question, Did the victim chase the criminal down with the intent of killing him, or was his intent to apprehend, and the death an accident precipitated by the home invader's criminal act?  

This comment could only be in regards to the home invasion situation in Oregon, where you reference chasing someone and running them over...NOT shooting someone.  So you can split hairs all you want...the OP did not mention the intentional killing of anyone when he started this discussion and you comment is incorrect.  As far as the robbery in OK.  Once again, in the OP, nowhere did he state HIS opinion of what happened.  He presented the facts as they were reported in the news.

As far as the OP's intent in posting, we have no more insight into this than into the minds of the individuals cited in the OP's comments. To claim otherwise is preposterous.

My opinion as to why the OP posted this story is NO DIFFERENT than your OPINION as to why he posted it.  I would say that the OP had a strong opinion and powerful bias at the very least, and was attempting to steer us into accepting his views without further questioning of his methods or views.  Why is it preposterous for me to state an opinion, but not for you to state yours?  Discussions in many cases, usually revolve around people's opinions of things. 

[4c4sale]

His gross bias is clearly evident, and it may or may not have informed his intent.

Intentionality is the primary focus, with accidental death related to negligence the secondary focus.

I'm happy to discuss the topic.

But as you said, some aren't here to do that.

Sad.

[lealta]

His gross bias is clearly evident, and it may or may not have informed his intent.

I think you mean formed his intent, not informed.  Informed means to give information.  Form in verb form means to conceive of something.

Intentionality is the primary focus, with accidental death related to negligence the secondary focus.

That is just your opinion.  It doesn't make it so.  Again, the OP never said one thing about an intentional crime.  He didn't even use the word intent or intentional.  The  person I believe, who brought up the word intentional, was Katy not bandcamp.

[4c4sale]

I expressed myself as intended.

If you're here to discuss the topic, I'm happy to do that.