Posted on 07/23/2004 7:07:35 PM PDT by Mulder
From the shooters point of view, it could have looked like the perp was climbing ing the get-a-way vehicle. Might throw your presumption of innocence argument in the trash.
True but irrelevant. Logan's culpability is not the issue here.
2) Criminals are now using the police non-pursuit regulations to commit more crimes and drive away faster and eventually kill more people.
Prove it. And even if so, the police are morally responsible for their actions, including when they incite accidents.
3) Beck had already been shot.
So, if I've been shot, I can shoot you with impunity?
4) There is no evidence to prove that the perp attempted the carjacking solely because of Beck.
Given the evidence in the record, it's the most likely interpretation. It's not necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, since the standard in a civil case is simply preponderance of the evidence.
5) some situations just plain suck, you will be victimized, and you can't cash in on them.
Yes, that's true--as Beck can certainly tell you from personal experience.
He could just as easily have killed her. By shooting her, he put her in at least as much danger as Logan would have--and there is no reason to believe that Logan would have attempted to carjack Denmark's van, but for the actions of Beck.
Counselor, you are trained in twisting both the facts and the law to conform to which ever side of a case you are on, and are doing a good job of that here. My hope is the civil jury is as astute a the Grand Jury and this whining bureaucrat doesnt get a dime from Mr. Beck.
"However, Mrs. Denmark is fully entitled to civil compensation by Mr. Beck for her injuries, pain and suffering."
All responsibility should fall upon the thug, Logan. Of course, Logan doesn't have any money. Mr. Beck's employers however have insurance and "deep pockets." The lawyers will dictate who gets sued by whom.
LOL!
I have a feeling this was an after thought by his attorney...a good one I must admit. I think Mr. Beck actually dodged two bullets in this deal. It sounds like he got a little wild with the chase and the shooting but all things considered, I'm glad he got the perp and avoided prosecution.
Yep, it doesn't matter how good you are at the range. No one knows how they will react in that situation unless they've gone through it. I'd say this guy did quite well, and he definitely has a set of brass ones for going after the perp. This guy is no sheep.
"Beck is partially responsible for Logan's apparent attempt to carjack Denmark's van, because he was forcing Logan to run for his life"
Connor Peterson is partially responsible for Scott Peterson killing his wife, Laci, because he was forcing Scott to deal with his phobia of family. (Note: If Scott
Peterson is innocent, disregard)
Better yet: I as an American am responsible for the human garbage that killed thousands on September 11, because I voted for the president that perpetuated the cruel policy of oppressing terrorists.
Nobody has any personal responsibility anymore. It's so obvious the freaking armed robber should be held criminally and civilly liable for Ms. Denmark's injuries and pain. And if the stupid law books don't say that, they should be re-written by people who haven't spent years immersed in liberal entitlements.
People writing law books are no longer capable of this kind of clear and rationale thinking
There is every reason to believe that, had Logan not been forcibly put out of action, he would have continued to rob and shoot people until he was. While is quite likely that had Logan not been pursued, he would not have tried to carjack Ms. Denmark, he almost certainly would have robbed and shot someone else (if not many more people).
If Logan hadn't cold-bloodedly shot Beck, one might judge Beck's actions as excessive. But since Logan demonstrated a willingness to kill without provocation, Beck's shooting clearly (almost certainly) saved innocent lives.
If the lion had clearly demonstrated that it would maul anyone it could, and that such a tendency was not a result of the defendant's actions, then unless there was some reason to believe that the lion would have harmlessly stayed put I see no basis for blaming the defendant for chasing it away. Further, if the lion was clearly in a position to pounce on someone else, I would think shooting at the lion might be justified even if doing so would endanger the person about to be mauled, if the shooter reasonably believed that such action would be less risky than inaction.
This logic is brain-dead. By definition, self-defense is the exercise of your right to defend yourself through the use of FORCE to stop another individual from harming you. It necessarily requires you to violate the other party's right. Point in fact, it is possible for a person to FORFEIT his right by course of action. If you violently attack me you FORFEIT your right to live when I exercise my right to self-defense. THIS IS WHY THE LAW PERMITS THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN CASES OF SELF-DEFENSE.
This logic is brain-dead. By definition, self-defense is the exercise of your right to defend yourself through the use of FORCE to stop another individual from harming you. It necessarily requires you to violate the other party's right. Point in fact, it is possible for a person to FORFEIT his right by course of action. If you violently attack me you FORFEIT your right to live when I exercise my right to self-defense. THIS IS WHY THE LAW PERMITS THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN CASES OF SELF-DEFENSE.
I think you misunderstand; sourcery's point was that self-defense does not imply the right to endanger the lives of innocent people. And to a significant measure he's right. On the other hand, risk is usually a quantitative rather than qualitative phenomenon. Nearly anything one might do in many self-defense situations would pose some non-zero risk if injuring or killing an innocent person. Even if one has a clear shot at an attacking criminal, if there's also an innocent person nearby there's a non-zero chance that one's gun might explode, injuring that person. To be sure, such a risk would probably be very slight, but it would nonetheless be non-zero.
I would suggest that a reasonable guiding principle would probably be to consider whether the risk imposed to innocent parties as a result of one's action was greater than the threat posed to them by inaction. If a wild animal is severely mauling someone, someone might be justified in shooting at the animal even if they had a 20% chance of hitting the person being attacked, since the alternative would probably be a 100% certainty of the person being killed.
>>I don't believe people should be prosecuted for innocent mistakes made in good faith. Nor should they be prosecuted for defending their lives.<<
I agree. Logan was still armed even though he didn't shoot back at Beck. Denmark would have had an armed robber in her vehicle if Beck hadn't shot him.
Gun owners have the same responsibility as doctors - "First do no harm."
You don't spray bullets in the general direction of a perp in an urban setting where innocent people could be injured or killed unless you are a member of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms or a member of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team.
Self defense Property ownership is a right, but that does not justify exercising it in such a way so as to violate the rights of others, no matter how great the need. Such is true of all rights.
At issue is a conflict of rights. That Property Rights should always trump has not been justified from what I have seen so far.
What this illustrates to me is the wisdom of the advice I was given in my Nevada CCW class: when the police arrive, say nothing more than "I've done nothing wrong here and fully intend to cooperate with your investigation, but I intend to say nothing about this incident until I have spoken with my attorney. I'm sure you understand".
Do you wish to argue that my right to life justifies my stealing your food?
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.