Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sho Nuff
He was attempting to leave the store when they locked him in meaning that he was fleeing before they stopped him. In that case the cause the violent confrontation in a non-violent sntach and grab. If they respond with lethal force vs an unarmed suspect in a situation they caused I dont know if the law stands behind them.
|
In my opinion, the point at which he attacks them is the point at which he can no longer be considered to be fleeing. Had he not attacked them, then sure, the store owners would have had no right to respond with violence. The store owners locking him in is no excuse for him to attack them as they were perfectly justified in doing so.
__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln
|