Haha! Probably! I know they can use deadly force in defense of life or property in Texas, even if the suspect is fleeing. I don’t think that would apply in this case, unless the guy swiped a pen or something.
Wrongful death suit is sure to come.
1 Like
Eh those jurors seem to be confused as to the purpose of pointing a gun at someone.
1st murder was obv a stretch, but it’s still a bullshit reason the jury is feeding themselves so they can feel better about giving a murderer a not guilty verdict
Edit: giving a killer a not guilty verdict***
I’m curious how double jeopardy gets applied. Obviously, being acquitted of a crime doesn’t mean any other charge against me is invalid due to double jeopardy.
If she is acquitted of murder, does that mean she can’t be charged with any other crime from the same incident?
Are we sure about this?
I would still consider this self-defense. It’s just that most states limit their citizens’ right to self-defense.
Where does tthe libertarian party land re: self defense. In this scenario if the man had killed the bondswoman in self defense what would the verdict be?
I have no idea. Probably whatever they deem the most progressive position.
I would say that depends entirely upon who was in the right to begin. If the bondsman had a right to take the guy into custody, then she had a right to use the force necessary to do so. If she had no right(i.e., there was no contract between the two giving her the right to take the guy into custody), then the guy would have the right to use the force necessary to prevent himself from being taken hostage.
I don’t believe so(in this particular incident, I don’t think there was any other crime, though); however, I think the prosecutor is barred from bringing similar charges.
If it were self defense then he would not be guilty of a crime. You don’t give up the right to self defense even when being arrested if the arrest is being carried out unlawfully.
1 Like
Does her govt given right supersede his inherent right to self defense?
I’m asking re: killing an escaping unarmed person. He said he considers deadly force of a fleeing suspect in defense of property “self defense.” This can equate to theft = death sentence to non threatening suspect without a trial being legal and defensible.
So if self defense is an even higher right than due process, the above scenario how could he EVER be in the wrong for defending himself with deadly force against the bondswoman? How does the woman’s govt given right supersede his right to self defense?
He waived his rights when he signed for the bond.
You can wave an inalienable right?
1 Like
Huh?
She(if I’m not mistaken) has a property right in detaining him. He can’t defend himself from her when he has given her the right to take custody of him.
I can’t break into my neighbor’s house and then “defend” myself by shooting him when he confronts me with a weapon.
He waived the right to not be arrested by someone who isn’t a cop. He waived the right to have someone enter his house without a warrant. He still has the right to self-defense if the arrest is carried out unlawfully. Meaning, for example, if he is compliant and the bondsman starts beating him, he can fight back.
If you’re defending yourself by using deadly force on a fleeing suspect to defend property, your right to defending your property must supersede the suspects right to due process. What higher right bracket exists above due process that isn’t inalienable.
You’ll end up getting due process. It’s not like all you have to say is it was self-defense and the cops will not investigate.
1 Like
Huh? I think you misunderstand “due process.” It doesn’t mean that you have to wait for court to decide whether someone was justified in forcibly entering your home and putting your family in danger. I’ll refrain from commenting on “inalienable,” because I don’t view any right as being so(at least as I understand the word).
I also think if you are shooting a suspect, someone you suspect, you have made a big mistake. You don’t shoot someone because you suspect them but because you are sure.
2 Likes
That’s why I was so confused with his agreement in doing that above.
What are you talking about? Maybe I can clarify.