Justifed? Yes? No?

[red dawn]

I don't believe a jury would ever convict him. If it actually would go to trial think of all the publicity it would get.......

Movie deals, photo ops, time to write that book etc....

No one in their right mind would hold the person accountable. Morally,

if you feel bad send flowers. There is an inherent danger of being killed while performing an armed robbery. Robber gets killed, sucks for him.

i agree. If someone is being robbed, they have no idea what the robber is thinking or how serious he is about shooting the gun. and when i boils down to the robbers life or yours...which one are you going to pic? All these laws in place to protect the robber...Now I'm not saying I would go crazy if that happened, but I would do what I needed to do protect my life or the lives of others. Those people who lobby those laws and lawmakers have obviously never been put in the situation where because of the robber, they had to take extreme measures for their life. We should never side with thieves.

[Tef]

I'd say the Black belt wouldn't get anything.

If he used a martial arts technique to disable and then harm to robber, that'd be another story, but the BB hit the robber on the head. As a former poster said, anyone could do it.

Also, in California, self-defense means putting the attacker, who may be creating danger to you or others, in a position that they cannot do any more harm. It takes very little energy to pull a trigger and fire a gun, so the only way to subdue the robber would be to knock him or her out.

FREE BLACK BELT JOE!!!

[lordtariel]

This would be iffy, but I would think it would most likely turn out on the side of BB Joe. In Oregon as well, you are allowed to act in defense of another person. That being said, say Joe knocks this person in the head. The gun discharges and blows a hole in the cashier's head. Is he now responsible for the cashier's death?

[username8517]

That being said, say Joe knocks this person in the head. The gun discharges and blows a hole in the cashier's head. Is he now responsible for the cashier's death?

Yes he would be. I forget the legal term used but basically if you cause Event A (hitting the robber on the head) which causes a foreseeable Event B (gun discharging), then yes you are legally responsible for the end result (cashier being shot).

However, if the cashier would have been killed in an event that would be out of the normal realm of possbilities (robber's getaway driver sees you attack his buddy and comes in guns blazing or the robber shoots at you and the bullet richocets and kills the cashier) then you would not be liable for the death.

And it's not limited to an A causes B which results in C. It can be a whole string of events as long as its logically foreseeable.

It would be like having your mechanic not fix your breaks on your car when he knows it needs to be done or short-cuts the repair (event A), you cause a wreck a week later (event B), two other cars slam into your wrecked car (event C), and the person in middle car dies (result). Because the mechanic could logically foresee that failing to fix your brakes could cause an accident, he/she might be liable for the wreck and all the effects (obviously depending on the circumstances surrounding the wreck to begin with)

[mmljpp]

yes because the robber could have harmed him or somone else

[The BB of C]

So here is our scenario...

Joe is a Black Belt who is in a store purchasing some stuff. In walks a robber who is so pumped up that he doesn't even notice Joe standing on the other side of the store. The robber pulls a gun on the clerk and demands money. Joe then runs up to the robber and hits him in the head knocking him unconcious. The robber falls down and cracks his skull open. He dies.

This is coming from me of all people, but I think he is justified. It was a freak accident basically. However, he should probably still repent.

[tallgeese]

Completely justified, morally and legally.

Where I live, deadly force can be used to protect your life or anothers. In this case, the baddie has a gun pointed at the clerk. He's already considered a leathal force threat and thus, force likely to cause "death or great bodily harm" can be applied immediately.

Morally, it's simply an extension of self defense.

[marmaduke]

yes

he was defending someone else in a life threatening situatino. the black belt is irrelevant in this case.

I just found this thread. I'd like to offer my 2 Cents. And a few questions. The black belt is irrelevant? I don't think so. Would he have attacked the robber if he was NOT a black belt? Would he have had the same confidence? The fact that he was a black belt was probably a contributing factor to the robbers death.

[tallgeese]

I think I see your point here, and I can agree with it to a certain extent.

The skill that the black belt brought to the conflict certainly mattered in his ability to produce results. They were outcome related.

As to the situation itself, however, the skill level of the defender (in this case a black belt level MAist) dosen't matter. All that matters is that deadly force was justified. No matter who applies it or how it is applied. This is the standard that the law will look at in judging the incident.

So from a situational standpoint the blackbelt level is irrelivent. However, from a functional standpoint of actually applying force, it counted for quite a bit.

[bushido_man96]

Well put, tallgeese.