[wat0n]

And was therefore no longer a direct threat to anyone.

Yet this doesn't mean the felony-murder doctrine would be inapplicable, right?

The robber could have reasonably foreseen that he may be shot while attempting to flee the scene.

[Potemkin]

Yet this doesn't mean the felony-murder doctrine would be inapplicable, right?

The robber could have reasonably foreseen that he may be shot while attempting to flee the scene.

But he could not be reasonably expected not to return fire if he was being shot at. And his assailant had no legal justification for shooting at him, since he was fleeing the scene and was therefore not a direct threat to anyone.

[ingliz]

Yet this doesn't mean the felony-murder doctrine would be inapplicable, right?

The Attorney General's Office must have deemed it inapplicable or they'd have charged him with felony murder.

[wat0n]

The Attorney General's Office must have deemed it inapplicable or they'd have charged him with felony murder.

But is it clearly inapplicable? I guess that's my question.

@Potemkin I don't think that's relevant when it comes to felony murder - as in, it doesn't matter if the clerk used deadly force legally or not.

[ingliz]

@wat0n

The Robber:

The original aggressor has the right of self-defense if he withdraws from the conflict in good faith.

The Store Clerk:

The right to self-defense arises from necessity and ends when the necessity ends.

[Puffer Fish]

Maine law is harsher against vigilantes than Cali...

You have a right to defend yourself, in your home, only as long as there is a definite threat. Any pursuit can easily land you in legal trouble.

I would say there is a difference between an attempted burglary and armed robbery.

The worse the crime, the more reason there is to immediately chase after them.

You would agree, for example, that if someone had just carried out a mass murder, that it would be appropriate for someone with a gun to chase the criminal down and shoot them to prevent them from getting away?
Of course that is an argument from extremes, but it proves the point.

Armed robbery is not murder, but it is somewhere in the grey zone.

The Robber:

The original aggressor has the right of self-defense if he withdraws from the conflict in good faith.

The Store Clerk:

The right to self-defense arises from necessity and ends when the necessity ends.

That assumes the criminal is not going to commit armed robbery again, doesn't it?

Imagine there are two criminals, one of the criminals gets shot and killed, and the other robber is allowed to get away because the store clerk doesn't feel he has the legal right to chase him. If you were that store clerk, wouldn't you be worried about that other robber possibly later coming back another day to seek revenge?

[wat0n]

@wat0n

The Robber:

The original aggressor has the right of self-defense if he withdraws from the conflict in good faith.

The Store Clerk:

The right to self-defense arises from necessity and ends when the necessity ends.

I agree that the clerk wouldn't have had a right to self-defense had he killed the robber.

But I'm not sure you can say that, just because the robber was trying to flee, the robbery had ended. You could say the robbery had not ended yet, since he had not yet left the scene. And so, the clerk was killed during the commission of a felony.

I'd also compare this with Kyle Rittenhouse trying to leave the scene of the Kenosha riots after pointing his gun at protestors (at first) and then after killing someone (later). Are these two incidents fundamentally different?

[Puffer Fish]

I agree that the clerk wouldn't have had a right to self-defense had he killed the robber.

But I'm not sure you can say that, just because the robber was trying to flee, the robbery had ended.

Was it "self defense"? No, but it could be argued that it was defending the rest of society. How much difference is there really between those two things?

When someone goes around committing armed robbery as a career, there is a high chance someone innocent is eventually going to get shot. We can agree on that, right?


If you believe that a robber has the right to shoot a store clerk who is chasing him out of the store he just robbed, why would you not believe a robber has the right to shoot back at police who are chasing him?

[wat0n]

Was it "self defense"? No, but it could be argued that it was defending the rest of society. How much difference is there really between those two things?

When someone goes around committing armed robbery as a career, there is a high chance someone innocent is eventually going to get shot. We can agree on that, right?


If you believe that a robber has the right to shoot a store clerk who is chasing him out of the store he just robbed, why would you not believe a robber has the right to shoot back at police who are chasing him?

The store clerk was not a cop. It's not his job to go and arrest criminals.

[late]

You would agree, for example, that if someone had just carried out a mass murder, that it would be appropriate for someone with a gun to chase the criminal down and shoot them to prevent them from getting away?

Of course that is an argument from extremes, but it proves the point.

It doesn't prove a damn thing, with the sole exception being that you don't understand how law works.

[Rich]

2. Shooting at an armed robber. Why risk your life to defend somebody else’s property?

That's a pretty odd thing for a Marxist to say. Isn't pretty much the whole of Marxism about recovering the property of the "International Proletariat" that has been stolen according to Marxist theory?

But he could not be reasonably expected not to return fire if he was being shot at.

How's that any different from being fired on at the premises of the robbery?

And his assailant had no legal justification for shooting at him, since he was fleeing the scene and was therefore not a direct threat to anyone.

His assailant was trying to apprehend the robber. Some might consider this, the victim's, or a citizen acting on behalf of the victims right. He was wanted "dead or alive" as George W Bush would say. The principle, I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, is that when you engage in armed robbery, you are responsible for any deaths or injuries resulting from that robbery. I believe some take this to the extreme of even charging you for murder, for the deaths of any of your co conspirators. Yes he was in a tight spot. He had a seriously challenging problem, how to save his own life without taking another, but some might argue that was a problem entirely of his own making.

Anyway as I always say its better to nail the simple stuff, before moving on to the hard. The apprehension of criminal suspects is a complex matter. But once they have been apprehended you shouldn't torture them or enslave and cage them for the rest of their lives without trial. Even if they are foreigners. Most Americans are too stupid or too nasty to grasp even this simple point.