Posted on 06/02/2020 5:07:34 PM PDT by Impala64ssa
Yep, just as I thought, Amish yutes.
I hope you’re right. In Texas that would not be a justified shooting. It was in the daytime and her life was not in danger at that point. I hope I’m wrong because they got what they deserved. Just saying.
*If* it was as stated, they were driving off in her car when she shot. That's not stand your ground.
Maybe we'll get a followup with more details.
One would need to look at the "fleeing felon" law in Florida. I'm pretty sure that police officers can't shoot a fleeing felon unless an immediate threat to others.
I imagine that just because someone used a gun in carjacking doesn't mean they are an immediate threat.
And while the fleeing felon rule is more liberal to non-police, it will depend on the state's laws, and even if the state law allows it, some District Attorney might use the shooting as an excuse to push his name and liberal adgenda.
As the two left the scene in the Veloster, Louise Ornduff fired a shot, striking Singletary. Coleman drove the car to Mease Countryside Hospital, where Singletary was pronounced dead
Here is more detail from a Tampa Bay Times piece, also from the same time. I was unable to find any further news stories on it. But the last 3 paragraphs give us some useful information from a legal beagle:
https://www.tampabay.com/news/Shot-killed-while-fleeing-Is-this-a-case-of-stand-your-ground-_161744026/
But Bill Loughery, a former chief assistant prosecutor for Pinellas and Pasco counties, saw it differently.
He said the fact that investigators charged Coleman with second-degree murder indicates they believe he was killed during the commission of a crime, which Loughery said can include a portion of time after the crime happens. Plus, he said, bringing forth charges would complicate Louise Ornduff's likelihood to testify as a witness in the incident.
"I think it would be unlikely that they would make charges against her," he said. "By virtue of the fact that they're suggesting the bad guy was killed during the commission of an armed robbery, there's really no legal charges against her that would be legitimate."
I agree 100%. I hope she has a good lawyer, and, almost as important, good people in the police/DA's office.
And additional riots by the black supremacists start in 5... 4... 3... 2...
No, it doesn’t. The reasoning is that private citizens are not expected to understand the complexities on the use of deadly force.
It the criminal statute for the state of Washington in response to the Garner case, the Legislature specifically stated the use of deadly force by a private citizen is broader than a law enforcement officer.
If a person uses a gun during a carjacking, they are an immediate threat to others. There is case law on this situation, but I’m not going to look it up right now.
You are joking, right?
If someone robs you and you shoot them in the back as the are running away do you think you wouldn’t be charged?
No; I’m serious. My screen name stands for Washington State Supreme Court watcher.
I currently live in Texas, since 2009.
Is the picture on your home from the drag strip in Baytown?
If it was an armed robbery, you are not getting prosecuted, especially in Texas.
LOL! Read the statutes. What is allowable is specifically spelled out.
Besides this if FL.
First it was a USSC decision now it is a Washington state statute you are misrepresenting. You are really making me do my homework!
Good to know - thanks!
Here is the section on Justifiable Homicide by a police officer in Washington State. (There is another section for non-police).
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.04
At the bottom it states:
Legislative recognition: “The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens’ permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers.” [ 1986 c 209 § 3.]
Hmm. That link gets you to the law website but then screwed up. The law is in: 9A.16.046
I think it happened at 8 pm.
Cleared Out, Florida is more like it. Two down, more to go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.