Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
He was on his way out of the diner. He was finished robbing people. He had succeeded in that part of his task - to threaten with a (fake) gun and rob them.
He wasn't shot until he had turned to leave the premises. He was shot multiple times in the back. On his way out. What the shooter did, was take the law into his own hands, and shot a man who had already committed his crime and had stopped committing it in order to leave.
In other words - he had ceased threatening anyone at the time he was shot. He was no longer threatening to kill anyone, shoot anyone, rob anyone, steal from anyone, hurt anyone. He had already done what he came to do, at that point, successfully, without anyone being physically harmed.
He should be alive, in prison, and charged with the crimes. He should not be dead by the hands of a civilian who had no authority to shoot someone who was no longer committing the crime for which "protecting" and "defending" would have been appropriate.
|
Trial's in Texas, right? Then it is pretty much a slam-dunk. I heard once that "he needed killin' "is a valid defense in Texas. Maybe Arizona and Oklahoma too. Or it should be.
In a bit more serious vein, this points to what in my opinion is a serious flaw in our way of thinking. It's been mentioned, here and in many other places, that the rights of the criminal seem to take precedence of the rights of the victim(s). As far as I am concerned, if you are killed while engaged in committing a felony against another person or people, then that's it. That guy gave away his right to claim protection under the law when he robbed the first person at gunpoint. Further, there should be ironclad protection against any civil lawsuit(s) on the part of the perpetrator's family in such cases. It is going to take some drastic measures to stop such crimes which have flourished because of the "rights" of criminals being as protected as they are.