Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredguy123
A robber enters a restaurant and goes from table to table pointing a gun at every diner and steals their money. Then, another diner pulls out a gun and shoots the robber dead. He returns the money to the customers. It was all captured on video. Now, the state is considering charging the guy who killed the robber with a crime. Really? I would give the guy a medal. They better not put me on the jury.
|
For what it's worth, the well known criminal defense attorney Mark Garegos (of California) gave the news media his view that the man will never be charged, let alone prosecuted and found guilty. One interesting question from the media was "would the fact the perpetrator was shot in the back be significant" ? Garegos said that was highly unlikely; due to the laws covering "protection of others". He explained that even though the man was fleeing and had his back to the shooter, that would not be the deciding factor since there were other customers sitting near the entrance and the shooter would have every "right" to assume those innocent customers would be shot by the perp as he fled the scene. I would say that was a distinct possibility ! It was, however, found that the gun used by the perp was NOT real, but Garegos explained that would NOT effect the circumstances due to the doctrine of "having every reason to believe the weapon was real"; again, makes sense. Most victims never get the time to examine the weapon held by an assailant ! One has to make a split second decision, as Garegos explained.