7 posts • Page 1 of 1
If I saw a prostitute being attacked by a homeless man in a public park and I intervened and stopped the attack by shooting the unarmed homeless man because I felt he posed an immenent threat to the prostitute's life, would a jury of my peers convict me? I'm curious to know what life is worth protecting in the public's eye.
according to the law you would be justified. Somethings to consider tho are, could you have used lesser force to stop him. Could you have picked something up and hit him with that rather than shoot him, or even used your firearm to pummel him without taking his life? All life is worth protecting, even animal life, just ask PETA.
your scenario is a good one that would present a good case to watch. You do need to understand other factors like race and your intent would be brought in also. Were you trying to kill the homeless guy or just make him stop his assault? Why were you carrying? Had you been drinking? What was your state of mind at the time. All of this would be brought before the jury to think about.
also the jury makeup is to be considered. who are they and what is their backgroound.
USMC 1981-2001 Semper Fi
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Not sure why her being a prostitute is a factor?
Thank you for replies. The prositute scenario is only for a "bias" theory. I work in Richmond and see them all the time. I was just wandering what general society would feel about this scenario. I agree with Scott about the multitude of factors. The particular episode I was thinking about was if a homeless man was choking (to death, in my opinion) a prositute. I would not have enough time to stop the choking if I was a passerby. So to stop this I would obviously have to use lethal force from a distance. I carry because I always carry. I've not been drinking, I'm not intoxicated on any illegal substances and it's happening in plain sight. As far as the jury, I feel the people on this site can help in determining a general societal opinion. We that go to work, have families that care about us and are generally good citizens have the luxury to hire attorneys that are good at their jobs. The homeless and others that cannot have to depend on a handout from the gov't that nobody trusts (court appointed attorney). In general, would I be justified to protect a stranger who in all honesty is a less desirable member of society? I say yes and I'd be able to lay my head on my pillow and sleep.
Defending a prostitute from a homeless guy is one thing. I understand that a prostitute is " a less desirable member of society", but so is the homeless guy. I really doubt that many people would care one way or the other. I think that most jurors would probably let you off without much thought, if for no other reason than to just get back home.
But, what if we replace the homeless guy with someone of more prominence? What if the hooker was getting strangled by a doctor or lawyer? Or someone a little more blue collar, like an electrician or a plumber?
That would make it a bit more interesting, I think.
"God Almighty created simplicity. Complexity, inspired by the Great Deceiver, tends to be the province of men. " S. H. M., IV
I'm an American-American
7 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Registered users: Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]