Shooting an unarmed fleeing felon is a no go, unless it is known that the subject will go and inflict harm to another person. Tennessee vs Garner case many years ago determined when you can or cannot use DPF(Deadly Physical Force). If they were struggling for the weapon and it was used to defend yourself is one thing, but when the struggle ends and the bad guy is fleeing,then it’s up to the jury to decide. I hate these scum criminals, but this is the system we have.
Yep, otherwise it would be impossible to deliver every man his just due, if the application of law were uneven.
.
You need to read the surety agreement that was in effect to make that statement.
If bail agents didn’t have the power to control the bailee, they would never post bail.
.
The Tennessee vs. Garner case was with a police officer shooting a fleeing felon. Here in the state of Washington, “citizens” (not cops) have more leeway in what is a legal shoot. However, it is still pretty vague about the fleeing felon rule.
One guy was shot in the butt with a hunting arrow as he was walking back to his car with the stolen TV. The prosecutor said the “shooting” was justified - but if the thief had been killed it wouldn’t have been. (!!???)
Most other cases the shooter has gotten off because “I thought he pointed something at me.” One deceased bad guy was a 14 year-old kid shot in the back from 100 feet from a shotgun after robbing a store of some belt buckles and taking off on his bike at 3 am.
BUT - most of these cases have no doubt cost the victim of the crime a lot of money and court time, and jail time in some cases as they await the verdict. And there always seems to be a prosecuter somewhere that is trying to make a name for themselves.