Posted on 06/23/2004 9:43:05 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
SILVER SPRINGS, Nev. (AP) - A teenage girl shot and killed her father Wednesday after he kidnapped her and two sisters at gunpoint and shot their mother in the face, authorities said.
The man was found dead in his car near a park about 30 miles east of Carson City, authorities said. He apparently had been drinking heavily and fell asleep, giving the girl the opportunity to shoot him.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.tbo.com ...
Charging the girl would be improper harassment of a victim.
No one was murdered. The dead man did attempt to murder the mother, but she survived. He is not a murder victim.
Any bets O'Reilly goes after the judge in this one. And the left will bitch that he was unarmed.
They'd have to prove that Dad was really sleeping to bring charges against this young lady. No way! Even if they did bring charges, they'd have to run for the hills or be run out of town. These girls are safe from the authorities.
Oops, now I got to the end of the thread.
Gracious acquiecence.
No one was murdered. The dead man did attempt to murder the mother, but she survived. He is not a murder victim.>>>
Only a jury of 12 can say so officially. Until then, the door always remains open.
Charging the girl would be upholding the law.
Mind you, I'm not expecting they will or would under the circumstances. But they COULD. And the law would back them up.
Not a chance. There will be a fair and impartial investigation with a scheduled exoneration at the end.
No jury would convict them.
This is a great place when people can disagree without being nasty. I've developed my opinion on some topics, added importances on some other and changed my mind completely on others.
Welcome to Free Republic. You should have a great time here if you stay as gracious as you have on this thread.
peace,
-todd
There is law that prohibits a young kidnapped rape victim who watched her abductor shoot her mother, and is held against her will with her sisters as he attacks them and threatens them with a gun from saving herself and her siblings from certain death by shooting the captor and making their escape?
Who the hell passed that law?
There is law that prohibits a young kidnapped rape victim who watched her abductor shoot her mother, and is held against her will with her sisters as he attacks them and threatens them with a gun from saving herself and her siblings from certain death by shooting the captor and making their escape?
Who the hell passed that law?
>>>
No, you don't understand my meaning. Nobody has a right to shoot in "self defense" unless they are under an "immediate bodily threat of death." It is possible that this applies here. It is possible that it may not. By "upholding the law" I mean in the larger sense--making someone who uses deadly force in claimed self defense accountable to their fellow citizens. A prosecutor who fails to prosecute is using his discretion not to--and good on him if he doesn't. But he is not in violation of any law, neither does he do ill, if he demands that she defend her actions in front of a jury.
I'm all for not prosecuting under these circumstances; I'm just saying that the prosecutor could decide to prosecute nevertheless, and violate neither law nor justice in doing so. Particularly if he determines that the man presented no active threat to the girls for reasons we may not be aware of.
Ronly Bonly Jones is right.
If the law requires an "immediate bodily threat of death" for the girl to shoot father then an idiotic and suicidal DA could choose interpret the girl's situation as not being an immediate bodily threat, ask for an idictment and press charges. This would be lawful but stupid.
Keep in mind, however, District Attorneys are usually elected. Any DA pressing charges agains the girl better have something lined up in the private sector.
As should Justice of the Peace William Rogers who reduced Ball's bail from $250K to $100K making it possible for him to make bail.
The only way she could shoot her attacker and safely make an escape is by seizing an opportunity to do so. Does the circumstance of an "opportunity" mean she is no longer under immediate threat of death and therefore cannot follow through?
Your semantics are silly.
He is an attacker. He is not a murder victim. She is not a murderer. Murder charges would uphold no law.
Does the circumstance of an "opportunity" mean she is no longer under immediate threat of death and therefore cannot follow through? >>>
PRECISELY.
My analysis is NOT "silly," that is the law.
Then the law does prohibit use of deadly force as self-defense for anyone, because any opportunity of having the upperhand and winning freedom from attack is negated by your flawed definition of immediate threat of death.
Sorry, but self-defense laws do not prohibit self-defense. They protect it.
The law in Nevada regarding self defense, Justice of the Peace.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/Search/nrsquery.cfm
NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:
1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and
2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.
[1911 C&P § 137; RL § 6402; NCL § 10084]
NRS 4.010 Qualifications of justice of the peace.
1. A person shall not be a candidate for or be eligible to the office of justice of the peace unless he is a qualified elector and has never been removed or retired from any judicial office by the Commission on Judicial Discipline. For the purposes of this subsection, a person shall not be ineligible to be a candidate for the office of justice of the peace if a decision to remove or retire him from a judicial office is pending appeal before the Supreme Court or has been overturned by the Supreme Court.
2. A justice of the peace must have a high school diploma or its equivalent as determined by the State Board of Education and:
(a) In a county whose population is 400,000 or more, a justice of the peace in a township whose population is 100,000 or more must be an attorney who is licensed and admitted to practice law in the courts of this state.
(b) In a county whose population is less than 400,000, a justice of the peace in a township whose population is 250,000 or more must be an attorney who is licensed and admitted to practice law in the courts of this state.
3. Subsection 2 does not apply to any person who held the office of justice of the peace on June 30, 1999.
[Part 2:108:1866; A 1953, 711; 1955, 459]—(NRS A 1987, 438; 1999, 94, 1347)
Welcome, glad to have you here. This place can become addictive, don't say you weren't warned.
Be polite, be professional........:o)
And just be civil and agree to disagree. Your points are valid if your DA has a history of looking the other way for his good old boy networks crimes but then a "system" of LEO's and citizens will keep that turd afloat till someone smells it. If such was the norm in your arena.
Stay safe !! and keep each other honest !
Subj: Justification and Excuse -- Self-Defense
(d) Imminence of Attack. Case law and legislation concerning self-defense require that the defendant reasonably believe his adversary's unlawful violence to be almost immediately forthcoming. Most of the modern codes require that the defendant reasonably perceive an "imminent" use of force, although other language making the same point is sometimes to be found. Very few of the self-defense provisions in the modern codes fail to address this point explicitly.As a general matter, the requirement that the attack reasonably appear to be imminent is a sensible one. If the threatened violence is scheduled to arrive in the more distant future, there may be avenues open to the defendant to prevent it other than to kill or injure the prospective attacker; but this is not so where the attack is imminent. But the application of this requirement in some contexts has been questioned. "Suppose A kidnaps and confines D with the announced intention of killing him one week later. D has an opportunity to kill A and escape each morning as A brings him his daily ration. Taken literally, the imminent requirement would prevent D from using deadly force in self-defense until A is standing over him with a knife, but that outcome seems inappropriate. * * * The proper inquiry is not the immediacy of the threat but the immediacy of the response necessary in defense. If a threatened harm is such that it cannot be avoided if the intended victim waits until the last moment, the principle of self-defense must permit him to act earlier -- as early as is required to defend himself effectively."
However, the question of whether there I should be an imminence-of-attack requirement and, if so, how it should be characterized, is most dramatically presented in the context of a homicide by a battered wife. It sometimes occurs that a wife who has repeatedly been subjected to serious bodily harm by her husband will take his life on a particular occasion when there was not, strictly speaking, any immediate threat of repetition of the husband's conduct, though the wife knew with virtual certainty that more severe beatings were in the offing. Such a state of affairs often comes about, experts have testified, because of what is known as the "battered woman syndrome" : "a man physically and psychologically abuses a wife or loved one, gains her foregiveness, seeks her love and reconciliation and then repeats the cycle over and over so many times that the woman, at all times hoping the relationship will last, is reduced to a state of learned helplessness." Some have argued that the "battered wife thus is literally faced with the dilemma of either waiting for her husband to kill her or striking out at him first," and that consequently the "imminency" requirement should be abolished or loosely construed so that on such facts the battered wife's self-defense claim will prevail. Others just as fervently contend that the battered wife case shows just how essential the "imminency" requirement really is, as especially in such circumstances the law must encourage resort to alternatives other than the taking of human life.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-200.html#NRS200Sec200
NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:
1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and
2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.
[1911 C&P § 137; RL § 6402; NCL § 10084]
--------------------
NRS 200.275 Justifiable infliction or threat of bodily injury not punishable. In addition to any other circumstances recognized as justification at common law, the infliction or threat of bodily injury is justifiable, and does not constitute mayhem, battery or assault, if done under circumstances which would justify homicide.
(Added to NRS by 1983, 519)
NRS 200.120 “Justifiable homicide” defined. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein. [1911 C&P § 129; RL § 6394; NCL § 10076]—(NRS A 1983, 518)
--------------------
NRS 200.130 Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required. A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, shall not be sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.
[1911 C&P § 130; RL § 6395; NCL § 10077]
--------------------
Update -
http://rgj.com/
Decision to lower suspect’s bail comes under fire
Silver Springs: Sheriff’s captain, DA are reluctant to criticize move.
Ball: Rape suspect was shot and killed by one of his daughters.
Steve Timko (more stories by author)
RENO GAZETTE-JOURNAL
6/24/2004 11:35 pm
A sheriff’s captain and the district attorney in Lyon County said Thursday they wished a Dayton justice of the peace had not lowered the bail on a Silver Springs rape suspect who shot his wife in the face and kidnapped three daughters before one daughter shot and killed him.
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040625/NEWS/106250012
Mother of kidnapped teens feared husband would seek revenge
The day before a Silver Springs father shot his estranged wife in the face and was killed by one of his teenage daughters, the woman told prosecutors she was fearful he would go free on sexual assault and incest charges and come for revenge.
Full stories at links
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.