Is felon the right word here? Are we talking about a ruling about shooting an escaping prisoner? Wouldn’t a felon already have been convicted?
I will agree though that under certain circumstances it would be warranted to fire upon an armed dangerous person. I have avoided saying guilty or not, I am advocating that a trial should happen is all. Let’s find out if the second shot was warranted.
There are no juries in Italy.
Can’t the defense request that type of trial here in the US? I think a really famous Clarence Darrow trial involved him moving to a judge only trial vs a jury. His clients were beyond guilty of a joy killing and torture of an young boy (the question was if they would get life in prison or execution). Darrow figured a jury would go for execution due to mob mentality, but a single person would not want to have a potential mistake that involves an execution. The defendants got life in prison from the judge.
Edit: after googling I found this:
Darrow stunned the prosecution when he had his clients plead guilty in order to avoid a vengeance-minded jury and place the case before a judge . The trial , then, was actually a long sentencing hearing in which Darrow contended, with the help of expert testimony, that Leopold and Loeb were mentally diseased.
This guy was a brilliant defense attorney.
One committing a violent felonious act; i.e. robbing someone at gun point.
Wow… that’s kinda scary.
If the threat was ended by the first shot… this guy calmly walked up to the suspect and issued a coup de grace I’d say it’s unlawful; however, given what we know, I’d say it’s warranted. But Italian law may disagree.
Definition from google dictionary:
a person who has been convicted of a felony.
This really does not matter (how we label the 15 Y/O with the gun). I was just trying to make sure it was not a case of an escaped prisoner.
I am just saying most of us are speculating a bit. A trial seems like a good idea to figure out if it was a warranted or not. Not going as far as saying guilty or not.
Should the policeman have known it was a fake gun? What say you Marine77, is that a realistic expectation?
Nope. That is an absurd request to make of anyone in a life or death situation. I was in a grocery store robbery where a fake gun was used and I would have shot the dude in a second.
We routinely get replica airsoft and BB guns off the streets that are hyper realistic and used for robberies, carjackings, etc… We’ve even seen criminals paint the tips of real guns orange or disguise sawed off shot-guns as Supersoakers to make someone second guess. So, no.
In the North the criminals are elected officials and businessmen.
And the terrorist group, the Red Brigades, were a northern thing.
One doesn’t have to have been convicted to commit a felonious act though. If I witness a murder; a violent felony, I don’t have to wait for a trial and or conviction to act.
Here’s the airsoft pistol Tamir Rice had.
What kind of counterargument is this?
Nothing to disagree with here. Again, I was just trying to make sure the court case you mentioned was applicable. It seems it was.
It would be in America, that is.
even a cap gun can be altered to a point wherein it looks like a legitimate firearm, esp in a dark/dimly lit environment. Flashing around imitation firearms in public, let alone threatening people with them has got to be one of the most idiotic things a person could possibly do.
The guy was shot, that’s a no brainier… can’t think of a singular country wherein such conduct would result in a perpetrator NOT getting shot. The shot to the back of the head seems sus to me though
This cop is being investigated for excessive use of force while in the course of an act of legitimate self defense. No one, not even the dead kid’s family, is questioning the officer’s right to use his weapon in the initial stages of the event; they are questioning whether or not he needed to continue shooting after the suspect started to flee. I read that two shots were fired then there was a pause followed by two more shots. There is supposed to be video.