Just remember once the criminal starts losing, then you have no self-defense rights. Have I mentioned how much I like Red California lately?
Update: I should note, I agree with Xrlq and Kaltes that the act of shooting a fleeing burglar does take one outside of self-defense. However, my point was that in parts of California (like where Kamela Harris is DA) you would get prosecuted. In other parts (Red California) you probably wouldn't, and my point was, this seems like a good place to exercise prosecutorial discretion. After wrestling down a criminal (who appeared to have the gun), and taking the gun from the criminal, I think most people would be running high on adreniline and auto-pilot.
Posted by Joel at July 22, 2004 06:34 AM | TrackBackThere are plenty of good reasons to hate California, but I'm not sure this is one of them. AFAIK, shooting a fleeing burglar who isn't even on your property anymore would be a crime in any state.
Posted by: Xrlq at July 22, 2004 08:36 AM (Permalink)you're right xrlq. one the guy runs away, shooting him is not defense, it is vengeance.
not that I think it is particularly wrong to do so, and if I served on a jury in this case I would be strongly tempted to nullify and aquit the guy even though he might be clearly guilty of a crime, after all I WANT criminals to be killed when they invade a home at night with a deadly weapon. poetic justice.
but the law is blind to who the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' are. whether that makes the law better or worse is up to you.
at least we know there is 1 less criminal invading homes at night with deadly weapons, and we know who to thank for that.
Posted by: Kaltes at July 22, 2004 11:27 PM (Permalink)