TangSooGuy Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 I've had seminars on this one by law enforcement agents...this one could go either way.In my state (pennsylvania) you are allowed to respond with lethal force if you believe your life OR the life of someone else is in danger.So the question here is: was the clerk's life in danger?As you describe it...it seems that the clerk's life wasn't really ever in any danger, but the use of a gun almost automatically indicates intent to use it.It would be a tough on eto prove either way.If you can show the clerk's life was in danger, then use of deadly force was justified.Also, you have some murkiness in that you could argue that "deadly force" wasn't really used, but instead that his death was actually aresult of the trauma from the fall...in which case you get very cloudy very fast...so this particular scenario could very easily go either way depending on the people involved if it went to trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 yeah thats a good point actually tangsooguy....bout the fall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menjo Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Justified because I think the fact that he was in the store with the gun drawn, endangers the black belts life as well...I know thats in effect in some places around but depends where the store is i guess. "Time is what we want most, but what we use worst"William Penn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belasko Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 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 ect.... 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 would like to agree with Shotochem about no one in their right mind convicting this person. However, after working in the ICU and dealing with a large variety of injuries brought about by an incredible number of situations, I truly believe that common sense is not all that common. So how many people are actually in their "right mind?" Getting a blackbelt just says you have learned the basics and are ready to actually study the form as an art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 what is my "right mind" or anyones.... hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaminari Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 It was justified, as it was in the protection of the lives of others. The fact that he studies martial arts is irrelevant, as anyone can clock someone in the head hard enough to knock someone unconscious, but, in reality, even the death is not directly his fault, as he did not nor did he mean to kill the robber, merely to incapacitate him. It's justified in my opinion, but not often seen that way by the judicial system. Often the ruling will be against the martial artist as he is seen to be competent in terms of fighting, and "should have known that the robber might die from this or that", etc. etc. So, it all depends on your point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martial_Artist Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 In the state of Arizona: 99% justified. I cannot speak for other states. Also, I say 99% simply because you may think you know the judicial system and foresee the outcome of a case, but sursprises are always prevelant. Just to be safe, 99% justified.I would have most likely done something similar. Except, I carry a gun so I most likely would have simply shot the BG. "I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination.Imagination is more important than knowledge.Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ItalianMuayThai Posted July 4, 2005 Share Posted July 4, 2005 legally id bet my money hed catch something. But morally i think he was correct ~ You first mistake is to underestimate ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 yeah really depends on where you are.... and what sort of evidence is available.... CCTV etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menjo Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 I know it depends but im guessing he wouldn't get in trouble as long as a video camera was there and he could prove that the clerk's life was in danger. "Time is what we want most, but what we use worst"William Penn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now