What do you think? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

What do you think?

D_G Avatar
banned5y, 10m agoPosted 5 years, 10 months ago
I was watching the FBI files last night and a man was robbed at gunpoint. He put up a struggle and for his efforts was shot by the robber in the chest. as the robber was making his getaway(on foot) the victim managed to draw his gun and fire shots at the fleeing criminal. On arrival the police secured the scene etc and the robber who had been shot was taken to hospital were he later died. HOWEVER the VICTIM was charged with MURDER because he took the law into his own hands.

Fair?
D_G Avatar
banned5y, 10m agoPosted 5 years, 10 months ago
Options

All Comments

(69) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
#1
Yes, robber was running away and was no longer a threat.
1 Like #2
NO, the robber got what he deserved!
3 Likes #3
Well it wasn't self defence if the robber was running away, so yeah I suppose it is murder.

Whether that's right is entirely different.
1 Like #4
Surely that counts as manslaughter not murder. Hardly premeditated was it?
#5
MAIA
Surely that counts as manslaughter not murder. Hardly premeditated was it?


Picking up a gun and shooting someone has to be murder doesn't it, just because it was 'planned' doesn't make it manslaughter.

Edited By: greg_68 on Jan 13, 2011 14:43
banned#6
yes I see your point Greg but to be charged with murder is extremely harsh I thought. I mean he is probably looking at 30+ years now.
banned 1 Like #7
Would it have been ok if it had been a policeman shooting the fleeing robber... of course it would so why is this man accused of murder?
#8
I guess it's why the Police have to wait to be in danger before shooting someone, they can only shoot to protect their own / others lives, not sure they can just shoot a fleeing criminal in the back etc.

Edited By: greg_68 on Jan 13, 2011 14:47
#9
Guess its murder, not fair but just, but perhaps he could claim he was just trying to wound him and stop him getting away or perhaps he was frightened he might come back to kill him.
banned#10
greg_68
I guess it's why the Police have to wait to be in danger before shooting someone, they can only shoot to protect their own / others lives, not sure they can just shoot a fleeing criminal in the back etc.

Seen a few cases of it hapening in America where this happened.
#11
A police officer has the authority to shoot a fleeing criminal if he has a weapon drawn and he believes he poses a threat to the public. Now a member of the public doescnot have this authority and can only defend yourself using reasonable force and if you believe your life is at risk, as said above contry to what we may think he was running away so no longer posed a threat.
banned 2 Likes #12
I could perhaps understand if the victim didn't get shot, then it would have just been armed robbery. But it was armed robbery + attempted murder, the gunman clearly happy to kill to get what he wants and in my eyes the victim shouldn't be punished.
1 Like #13
DangerGod
I could perhaps understand if the victim didn't get shot, then it would have just been armed robbery. But it was armed robbery + attempted murder, the gunman clearly happy to kill to get what he wants and in my eyes the victim shouldn't be punished.


totally agree!!!
1 Like #14
I do agree , if i had been shot i would wanna put a bullet in the guy who did it aswell fleeing or not , shame the law doesnt see it this way , I also think it depends on the judge too.
1 Like #15
dc7911
A police officer has the authority to shoot a fleeing criminal if he has a weapon drawn and he believes he poses a threat to the public. Now a member of the public doescnot have this authority and can only defend yourself using reasonable force and if you believe your life is at risk, as said above contry to what we may think he was running away so no longer posed a threat.


Who's to say the robber wouldn't have run on to another shop and attempted to rob someone else.

You've just been held up at gunpoint and shot in the chest, I would imagine that 99% of people would have shot him running away or not, I know I would have!
#16
The US Supreme Court changed that with the landmark case Tennesse v. Garner. Now, an officer can only shoot a fleeing suspect if they can articulate allowing the person to escape would be a danger to society.
Source(s):
Law enforcement since 1991

Again it is a grey area as to whether he is still a threat once he is running away.
banned#17
Bah the law is an ass. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have said good day to you sir hope you recover quickly. As long as there were witnesses or proof this is what happened.

The guy who was shot first could have been trying to mug the other guy who defended himself then ran away only to be shot dead.

But yeah i would have shot him too even if i knew i would be put away.
banned#18
Yes was all on cctv,was in a petrol station parking lot. Didn't get To see the footage the narrator just explained the situation.
#19
Best time to shoot someone isn't it when they are running away. Second only to them standing still!
#20
Sounds like it wasn't self-defence. If you carry arms, and you draw and shoot someone when it isn't in self-defence, you face the consequences. I doubt his sentence will be as long as a premeditated murder due to the extenuating circumstances, but he should be punished, he took the law into his own hands and murdered someone...
1 Like #21
jah128
Sounds like it wasn't self-defence. If you carry arms, and you draw and shoot someone when it isn't in self-defence, you face the consequences. I doubt his sentence will be as long as a premeditated murder due to the extenuating circumstances, but he should be punished, he took the law into his own hands and murdered someone...


he was almost murdered himself, I hope he gets off. He did the right thing!
#22
As the saying goes....two wrongs don't make a right.
#23
the guy would have gotten away, prob never to be caught.
#24
No, he did the wrong thing, he isn't from an anarchic state and people aren't allowed to take the law into their own hands. Given by some of the comments here, I'll just say I'm glad were in a country where people aren't allowed to carry loaded firearms with them public..
1 Like #25
you can easily claim Hydrostatic shock from his wounds and that the fact he hit the robber was incidental as his shooting was to scare the assailant away to avoid anymore wounding
1 Like #26
greg_68
MAIA
Surely that counts as manslaughter not murder. Hardly premeditated was it?


Picking up a gun and shooting someone has to be murder doesn't it, just because it was 'planned' doesn't make it manslaughter.


I have always understood that the crime is manslaughter unless it can be proven that there was an intention to kill. As this was a spur of the moment decision to pick up a gun and shoot, then there was no premeditation and proving intention to kill very difficult. Manslaughter is a far lesser offence than murder. If he is prosecuted for manslaughter, all the circumstances can be taken into account so that he has a chance of a fair outcome.
banned#27
Unfortunately that's the way America is, guns are far to easily accessible for everyone. But if you are robbed and shot in daylight thus left to die (I know he didn't but he wasn't to know at the time) and your final action is to stop a fleeing murderer, I don't agree that he should be punished. What if the victim had died and we knew he had an opportunity to shoot? Would we have then said he should have fired?
#28
He's only getting charged with murder as it would open the door to vigilantes if they let him off.
#29
DangerGod
Unfortunately that's the way America is, guns are far to easily accessible for everyone. But if you are robbed and shot in daylight thus left to die (I know he didn't but he wasn't to know at the time) and your final action is to stop a fleeing murderer, I don't agree that he should be punished. What if the victim had died and we knew he had an opportunity to shoot? Would we have then said he should have fired?


i'm with dangergod on this one!
#30
^^ it's not about what we think is right it's about what is legally right, I agree he should have blown his nuts off and got away with it but the law says differently. DG asked if it was right that he was prosecuted and in the world we live in and the laws we stand by he should be. As I put in post#3

Whether that's right is entirely different.
#31
MAIA
greg_68
MAIA
Surely that counts as manslaughter not murder. Hardly premeditated was it?


Picking up a gun and shooting someone has to be murder doesn't it, just because it was 'planned' doesn't make it manslaughter.


I have always understood that the crime is manslaughter unless it can be proven that there was an intention to kill. As this was a spur of the moment decision to pick up a gun and shoot, then there was no premeditation and proving intention to kill very difficult. Manslaughter is a far lesser offence than murder. If he is prosecuted for manslaughter, all the circumstances can be taken into account so that he has a chance of a fair outcome.


If it is as described, then the act of aiming a gun at someone and shooting is probably enough proof of intention to kill in itself. In this case, there is probably grounds to attempt to claim manslaughter on the grounds of provocation and perhaps imperfect self-defense, but it would
#32
Who is to say the Victim was not sure if the Robber was running to his car to get more Bullets :-/
#33
WheresMeNuts
Who is to say the Victim was not sure if the Robber was running to his car to get more Bullets :-/


Well then he should have waited for him to come back and then blown his head off, when he was coming towards him. :)
#34
DangerGod
Unfortunately that's the way America is, guns are far to easily accessible for everyone. But if you are robbed and shot in daylight thus left to die (I know he didn't but he wasn't to know at the time) and your final action is to stop a fleeing murderer, I don't agree that he should be punished. What if the victim had died and we knew he had an opportunity to shoot? Would we have then said he should have fired?


No. In that case, there would be one dead person (the victim), instead of two (the victim, and the robber). If they both had died, then his final act would have been to murder a fleeing murderer. I don't see that as a better outcome, and neither does the state.

WheresMeNuts
Who is to say the Victim was not sure if the Robber was running to his car to get more Bullets :-/


The 'victim' is to say that, in his defence. If it is true, then hopefully that will come out during the prosecution\trial and taken into account.

Edited By: jah128 on Jan 13, 2011 15:51
banned#35
jah128
DangerGod
Unfortunately that's the way America is, guns are far to easily accessible for everyone. But if you are robbed and shot in daylight thus left to die (I know he didn't but he wasn't to know at the time) and your final action is to stop a fleeing murderer, I don't agree that he should be punished. What if the victim had died and we knew he had an opportunity to shoot? Would we have then said he should have fired?

No. In that case, there would be one dead person (the victim), instead of two (the victim, and the robber). If they both had died, then his final act would have been to murder a fleeing murderer. I don't see that as a better outcome, and neither does the state.

WheresMeNuts
Who is to say the Victim was not sure if the Robber was running to his car to get more Bullets :-/


The 'victim' is to say that, in his defence. If it is true, then hopefully that will come out during the prosecution\trial and taken into account.


But who's to say the robber wouldn't then go on to rob/shoot/stab others because I'm sure he would have if he wasn't caught.
#36
When do we find out the outcome of the trial......please don't tell me we don't get to find out after all this detective work.
banned#37
no idea Greg only caught it on the tv, my point was should he have been charged with murder. (which he was)
#38
DangerGod
But who's to say the robber wouldn't then go on to rob/shoot/stab others because I'm sure he would have if he wasn't caught.


You can't have members of the public killing people willy-nilly on the grounds of what they think someone might do in the future. That isn't justice. Your certainty that this person would go on to shoot and stab other people is based on what exactly? A 30 second piece of narrative on TV?
#39
I just wonder how differently people would feel if their son/daughter/mother etc etc was the victim.

Would you still say that they should be charged with murder?
#40
Rhianne
I just wonder how differently people would feel if their son/daughter/mother etc etc was the victim.

Would you still say that they should be charged with murder?


And if your son/daughter/mother etc was the robber - would you still be saying that the 'victim' did the right thing?

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!