Quote:
|
At which point I always have to ask "why?" What do you hope to achieve by this, other than getting even? You're still going to lose your car (police will impound it), perhaps for a longer time than jsut the carjack, and given that you have shot the guy, I doubt your insurance will cover the damage or pay for a rental car. Throw in the bills for the lawyer, time lost due to court and such, "why?"
|
Because he is still in the commission of a violent felony against you, a person, and some people believe in using Deadly Force to prevent that from happening to them.
Let's use your logic. You come home and a man is raping your wife. I guess you could not use Deadly Force because, hey, he's already raped her and she can't be unraped. You have nothing to gain other than getting even, right? And if you shoot him instead of letting him finish raping her, then you'll just have attorney's fees, time lost due to court, etc. You should not interfere and just let him finish, then shoo him away and let the police catch him later.
Carjacking is NOT a property crime, no matter how anyone tries to spin it. It's Robbery (in this case, Aggravated Robbery because of the gun), which is a crime against a person...the same as Sexual Assault, Murder, etc. And a completely different animal than Car Theft, which is a property crime.
Disclaimer- ***I am not saying if he's already taken your car and is driving away, then you should start shooting. GP said if the guy had a gun and was
still getting into his car, then he MIGHT shoot.