Quote:
|
You know, I just re-read that thread and I am not seeing "widely held that it was criminal.". I saw a bunch of different posters chiming in with their state law or personal moral beliefs - like the part where you said you'd shoot someone who had hurt your family whether it was legal or not - which in turn prompted a mod to point out that if it was illegal, you would not really be helping them by going on trial for murder.
|
BM,
The majority that posted concerning that discussion stated something to the EFFECT that it was criminal or at least close. "Widely" as I used it, was intended to mean majority...which is the term that I should have used.
For the record, it is legal in my state to shoot a fleeing felon if you have knowledge that he is responsible for a forcible felony to include grievous attack.
wide·ly
Adverb:
To a large extent or occurring in many instances or places
My posting this thread was not an attempt to reopen or rehash an old thread, it was mostly because after the thread that you referenced, I had really come to the conclusion that regardless of state law, that if this happened, the shooter would be charged and I was surprised that just recently that I had read of the 2 instances where this happened and the person was not charged.
There has never really been any doubt in my mind that in most instances if this happens, the shooter will be charged. However, I do not think that it is clearcut and, I think, therein lies the dilemma.