http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews/pm16850_20031022.htm

Part of me is apalled that this happened... but another part of me is filled with glee that the jackarse with the pipe was stopped from seriously injuring that girl and possibly others.

What do you think?

I think killing was too much. Maybe shoot him in the legs and call the police, or stop him yourself. But then who knows, maybe the guy had his own gun and it would have been the vigilante dead.

You never know in these cases.

The only good thing is that the girl and others were not hurt more.

The problem is, the courts have basically ruled that shooting to kill is the only way to go. Any other way, and the courts will rule in favor of the guy you shot. They'll say you didn't think the other person or yourself was in mortal danger.

If that drive-by shooter had aimed to maim and got caught, the person he shot could sue them and win a bunch of money. Just like the burglar that sued the owners of the house he was trying to break into. Fell through some window or something and got injured. He won the case.

The drive-by shooter would most likely be charged with premeditated murder (Murder One) in this case. He cannot claim self defense because he was not directly threatened, nor did he give the person any type of warning to back away. The fact that he fled the scene would also play heavily into the case.

No matter how "cool" renegades may sound in the TV sense of the persona, more often than not, vigilantes are just as, if not more dangerous than their "victims".

Except that vigilantes prey on the scum of society and the normal thugs prety on honest and decent people. That gives them a couple bonus points over normal thugs.

woo... did not mean to post that >.<

Actually, the article linked says that in certain cases, this kind of vigilante justice is warranted and the shooters would not be charged with any crime. I guess it would have to depend on the local law in the area though.

Maybe shoot him in the legs

That breaks the first two rules of citizen firearms safety/use.

1) Never point a gun at someone unless you are going to shoot him.

2) Never shoot at someone unless you are trying to kill him.
(and you nailed why)

He cannot claim self defense

I don't know about other states, but here in California, if you perceive another's life is in immediate danger you can use deadly force. Self defense can be attributed to another person, and is called justifiable homicide.

And you don't have to give any warning. There is no legal requirement to try and 'reason' with someone you suspect is trying to kill you or someone else.

The vigilante's defense would be lengthy and probably costly(unless some pro bono attorney took it for publicity sake). Though I doubt that this particular person is a completely innocent good Samaritan or model citizen, at least from the story.

California Gun Laws (http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/cfl.pdf)

THE USE OF FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF LIFE AND PROPERTY

The question of whether use of a firearm is justified for self-defense cannot be reduced to
a simple list of factors. This section is based on the instructions generally given to the jury
in a criminal case where self-defense is claimed and illustrates the general rules regarding
use of firearms in self-defense.

Use of a Firearm or Other Deadly Force in Defense of Life and Body

The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the
attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person
in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit
a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being
accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to
save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime.
Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.

Self-Defense Against Assault

It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend himself or herself from attack if he or
she has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will
suffer bodily injury. In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a
reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent
great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon
in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the
same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great
bodily injury.

It is lawful for a person who has grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that great
bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon another to protect the victim from attack. In so
doing, the person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent the injury.
Deadly force is only considered reasonable to prevent great bodily injury or death.

NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal
penalties.

Originally posted by Stormhaven
The drive-by shooter would most likely be charged with premeditated murder (Murder One) in this case. He cannot claim self defense because he was not directly threatened, nor did he give the person any type of warning to back away. The fact that he fled the scene would also play heavily into the case.

No matter how "cool" renegades may sound in the TV sense of the persona, more often than not, vigilantes are just as, if not more dangerous than their "victims".

The "self defence" claim can also be used when defending someone else.

And if my sister was being beaten by a man with a metal pipe I'd pay anyone who shot the man beating her.

I'd buy the guy a beer if it was a family member or good friend. Heck, throw 'em a party.

The "NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal penalties." is the catch all.

IE: You can claim self defense, and depending on what political force is in office, you could get:
A: Praised for doing good and doing that whole "good Samaritan" thing.
B: Thrown in jail because you're a danger to society and just undermine the legal system which is in place.

You're especially in danger of the above if you leave the guy alive, that much is true. Sorry, but if you do own a gun, a CHL, and you point that sucker at someone, like it or not, you shoot to kill. The legal system in the US is just screwed up enough to the point where you could get civil charges leveled against you for defending yourself and your life.

Even if you kill the guy, you're still in trouble of legal retribution from the person's existing family.

Thrown in jail because you're a danger to society and just undermine the legal system which is in place.

Actually what is more likely is that you will have a DA prosecute you for all the related minor criminal violations, ie carrying concealed, carrying without a permit, discharging a firearm in a residential area, or of noise abatement regulations.

Additionally it is likely that if you possess any licenses which allow one to operate certain business, they will be revoked.

And lastly the family of the the 'so called' victim will more than likely file a "wrongful death" suit against you. Which invariable they will lose, but the resulting costs of defense will bankrupt you.

So no, I don't think that a person, even the Good Samaritan, will escape unscathed. But most of the law abiding people I know who do carry firearms make that decision, and take it seriously. One can lose his/her money, family, and house, but actual jailtime is a rarity. They just assume that risk, we all know what happened to the original Good Samaritan right?

Stormhaven said:
“The drive-by shooter would most likely be charged with premeditated murder (Murder One) in this case. He cannot claim self defense because he was not directly threatened, nor did he give the person any type of warning to back away.”

In many places this is not a requirement (I do not know about Illinois). What is required (in many places) is that the shooter was in eminent fear for his life OR the life of another and that the fear was justified, lastly that the force was justified (a lesser force would not be sufficient to stop the aggression).

Araxx said:

“I think killing was too much. Maybe shoot him in the legs..”

Deadly force is deadly force, doesn’t matter where your target is on the body, just what your justification is.

Stormhaven said:

“The "NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal penalties." is the catch all.”

The key word here is EXCESSIVE force. Justifiable force is a different matter all together. It is also important to note that in many jurisdictions, self defense is an affirmative defense NOT a prohibition on prosecution. Therefore it is a matter raised at trail. In short you still go through the processes of indictment and trial and do not escape unscathed. Fleeing the scene does create doubt as to the intention of the shooter, and will likely hurt him in any trial.

Most importantly DO NOT take my ramblings as legal advise nor should you make any assumptions concerning legality of any action without consulting your attorney.

Deller