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.

[softail-joanie]

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

I don't know, I wasn't there, if I was, it would probibly be me that was indicted for, 2nd degree murder or otherwise arrested and charged with something, Police would convience that other guy to say i did it. Broke into his house, ran the guy over, ect.

[tall_bearded01]

The only facts provided are home owner give chase and the burglar got run-over.

Firstly, in most cases simply giving chase would be a lawful act. Exemptions would be if the chase involved speeds in excess of the speed limit and/or reckless endangerment to others, but simply giving chase doesn’t fall within the definition of reckless endangerment.

Secondly, the burglar was run over. This means that at some point, they had to have gotten out of the getaway vehicle.

This then raises the question, why did they get out. Was it make a run for it though peoples yards and over the back fence. Or was it so he could confront the homeowner.

This then gives rise to the question, how was the burglar run over. Was it a case of the burglar making a run for it, the owner’s car was still travelling at speed, and then lost control;  or was it a case of the burglar threatening the homeowner whilst they were still in their car, and the homeowner panicked and accidently ran over the burglar.

therefore, to date, insufficient detail has been privided to allow any reasonably minded person to draw any informed conclusions.

[katymatey*]

OK, so if the car jumped the kerb, and struck a building then he probably  lost control of the car. That is different to deliberately running the bloke over. Circumstances make a huge difference to the outcome. He may still be charged with manslaughter though, as it was his action that caused a death.

[chuk_77]

a jury would have more info than you have provided here

[pollysd]

If the burglar was killed while attempting to enter the house or while inside it, I would say that it was a clear case of self defense and it would not be murder. However, if you're chasing down a suspect, you are no longer defending your home but seeking your own justice and or revenge. It becomes murder then....or if hitting him with is car was accidental, a clear case of manslaughter.

[chuk_77]

is it even legal to use force to defend your home?

[4c4sale]

---

@tall_bearded01 wrote:

The only facts provided are home owner give chase and the burglar got run-over.

Firstly, in most cases simply giving chase would be a lawful act. Exemptions would be if the chase involved speeds in excess of the speed limit and/or reckless endangerment to others, but simply giving chase doesn’t fall within the definition of reckless endangerment.

Secondly, the burglar was run over. This means that at some point, they had to have gotten out of the getaway vehicle.

This then raises the question, why did they get out. Was it make a run for it though peoples yards and over the back fence. Or was it so he could confront the homeowner.

This then gives rise to the question, how was the burglar run over. Was it a case of the burglar making a run for it, the owner’s car was still travelling at speed, and then lost control;  or was it a case of the burglar threatening the homeowner whilst they were still in their car, and the homeowner panicked and accidently ran over the burglar.

therefore, to date, insufficient detail has been privided to allow any reasonably minded person to draw any informed conclusions.

---

Pretty much.

Initially we were presented with information cherry-picked to lead us to a particular conclusion, and both the selection of the information and its presentation were grossly biased.

We were told to base our conclusion on these grossly insufficient, grossly biased details selected and presented in an attempt to lead us to the desired condemnatory conclusion.

Then contrary to the OP's established parameters of discussion, new details were introduced by him, and those who felt there might be extenuating circumstances were said to advocate the "running down" (by car or gun or ?) of Jehovah's Witnesses! 

If a serious discussion is sought, a serious and comprehensive initial presentation of the details is necessary.

[4c4sale]

---

@joz*garage wrote:

A JW knocking on the door isn't the same as a home invasion....

"An individual who alledges he interrupted a burglary at his home"

have you got a link to the story?

---

Can't find anything via Google.

Perhaps the entire scenario is being concocted as the discussion continues?

[pollysd]

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

[ruloinfovoter]

---

@4c4sale wrote:

---

@joz*garage wrote:

A JW knocking on the door isn't the same as a home invasion....

"An individual who alledges he interrupted a burglary at his home"

have you got a link to the story?

---

Can't find anything via Google.

Perhaps the entire scenario is being concocted as the discussion continues?

---

See why they had to change it from Liberal to Progressive?