Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
To make JPS's day
wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 23:04:37 -0400, Roger wrote: I agree. It's a shame that we are legally better off killing an intruder rather than shooting them in the knees and disabling them alive. It's got to be difficult living with the memory of killing someone even if they were a lifetime loser. I hope I never have to deal with that. Unfortunately you are as likely to be charged with aggravated assault for trying to "arrest" someone as anything. If the bad guy becomes immediately compliant and calmly waits for the police you may be OK but if he suddenly changes his mind, your case starts getting far more complicated. The best you can hope for is they just run away. The longer you spent looking at each other while you were holding them at gunpoint, the farther you get from imminent threat. "Citizen's arrest" is probably the biggest myth in the law. You certainly have no right to use deadly force to affect that arrest. At least be sure you are holding them in the corner so they have to come towards you to get away. You certainly want to shoot them in the front if that is your intent. Hire a good lawyer. Plan on living broke. Zimmerman is still on the hook for about a half million. Wounding someone is the worst possible outcome. Not only might you be charged but you will certainly be sued. And very likely lose the suit. Like the burglar years ago, who fell through the roof breaking in, and sued and won for damages. |
#12
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
To make JPS's day
On 9/1/2014 12:25 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 23:04:37 -0400, Roger wrote: I agree. It's a shame that we are legally better off killing an intruder rather than shooting them in the knees and disabling them alive. It's got to be difficult living with the memory of killing someone even if they were a lifetime loser. I hope I never have to deal with that. Unfortunately you are as likely to be charged with aggravated assault for trying to "arrest" someone as anything. If the bad guy becomes immediately compliant and calmly waits for the police you may be OK but if he suddenly changes his mind, your case starts getting far more complicated. The best you can hope for is they just run away. The longer you spent looking at each other while you were holding them at gunpoint, the farther you get from imminent threat. "Citizen's arrest" is probably the biggest myth in the law. You certainly have no right to use deadly force to affect that arrest. At least be sure you are holding them in the corner so they have to come towards you to get away. You certainly want to shoot them in the front if that is your intent. Hire a good lawyer. Plan on living broke. Zimmerman is still on the hook for about a half million. Wounding someone is the worst possible outcome. Not only might you be charged but you will certainly be sued. And very likely lose the suit. Like the burglar years ago, who fell through the roof breaking in, and sued and won for damages. Accidental breaking and entering while inspecting the roof? |
#13
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
To make JPS's day
Califbill wrote:
wrote: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 23:04:37 -0400, Roger wrote: I agree. It's a shame that we are legally better off killing an intruder rather than shooting them in the knees and disabling them alive. It's got to be difficult living with the memory of killing someone even if they were a lifetime loser. I hope I never have to deal with that. Unfortunately you are as likely to be charged with aggravated assault for trying to "arrest" someone as anything. If the bad guy becomes immediately compliant and calmly waits for the police you may be OK but if he suddenly changes his mind, your case starts getting far more complicated. The best you can hope for is they just run away. The longer you spent looking at each other while you were holding them at gunpoint, the farther you get from imminent threat. "Citizen's arrest" is probably the biggest myth in the law. You certainly have no right to use deadly force to affect that arrest. At least be sure you are holding them in the corner so they have to come towards you to get away. You certainly want to shoot them in the front if that is your intent. Hire a good lawyer. Plan on living broke. Zimmerman is still on the hook for about a half million. Wounding someone is the worst possible outcome. Not only might you be charged but you will certainly be sued. And very likely lose the suit. Like the burglar years ago, who fell through the roof breaking in, and sued and won for damages. You hear about those cases and it always amazes me that the perp wins. How can that happen in a jury trial? |
#14
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
To make JPS's day
Roger wrote:
Califbill wrote: wrote: On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 23:04:37 -0400, Roger wrote: I agree. It's a shame that we are legally better off killing an intruder rather than shooting them in the knees and disabling them alive. It's got to be difficult living with the memory of killing someone even if they were a lifetime loser. I hope I never have to deal with that. Unfortunately you are as likely to be charged with aggravated assault for trying to "arrest" someone as anything. If the bad guy becomes immediately compliant and calmly waits for the police you may be OK but if he suddenly changes his mind, your case starts getting far more complicated. The best you can hope for is they just run away. The longer you spent looking at each other while you were holding them at gunpoint, the farther you get from imminent threat. "Citizen's arrest" is probably the biggest myth in the law. You certainly have no right to use deadly force to affect that arrest. At least be sure you are holding them in the corner so they have to come towards you to get away. You certainly want to shoot them in the front if that is your intent. Hire a good lawyer. Plan on living broke. Zimmerman is still on the hook for about a half million. Wounding someone is the worst possible outcome. Not only might you be charged but you will certainly be sued. And very likely lose the suit. Like the burglar years ago, who fell through the roof breaking in, and sued and won for damages. You hear about those cases and it always amazes me that the perp wins. How can that happen in a jury trial? The good guy has insurance. Jury likes to give away others money. Forgetting that we all pay those premiums. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Please...make it so. | General | |||
Make it so, GOP'ers! | General | |||
Make it fun! | General | |||
Sometimes, you can't make it up... | General | |||
GM Needs to make a Tow Car | General |