Quote:
Originally posted by butthead
My friend with special training and knowledge in law enforcement informs: "There is a felony murder rule which states that if an innocent party is injured or killed during the commission of certain felonies as a DIRECT RESULT of the crime or actions of the crimincal the death is considered murder. An example would be if during a carjacking, the carjacker drove away at the speed limit and accidently ran over a child who darted into the street after a ball. Had the carjacker not been involved in the commission of a felony and had he not otherwise been at fault, no crime would have been committed in running over the child. However, since he was involved in the commission of a specified felony, any innocent party who dies as a direct result of his actions (heart attacks from fear do not count) is considered to have been murdered under the felony murder rule. Injuries do not count in this case, only deaths. Injuries might be aggravating factors, but these must involve innocent parties."
|
So it's only killin' that counts, huh? Oh, well. Please ask your specialist if any of what he said is locale-dependant, and in what way. IANAL.
Quote:
|
You argued that this was self-defense or "right" and therfore not worth charging. I had explained how this is not true. Address these points.
|
I did. Ultimately, we don't agree, and I said that too.
Quote:
|
My friend also had this to say: "It was not self-defense. The moment the man pursued the robbers they were no longer a threat to him and he became the aggressor. This is not to say that he was wrong to do so, it's within his rights to pursue them to effect a lawful arrest, and he may use whatever force is reasonable to effect the arrest. However, in this situation it seems his use of force was probably unreasonable and he should be charged with a crime."
|
In Texas, for instance, you can pursue to reclaim stolen goods. Address
that.