View Single Post
Old September 22, 2017, 08:28 AM   #27
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,915
I have to say thinking of someone saddled with all these legal expenses for what was clearly an act for the good to stop a robbery is deeply disturbing.
Don't be misled, or confused.

It is most unlikely that anyone will ever be prosecuted for an act that "was clearly ... to stop a robbery." The chances of a civil suit are slightly higher--that because of the lower burden of proof.

No plaintiff or prosecutor (the man is not out of the woods on the criminal aspect) is likely to contend that the initial use of force, even deadly force, was not justified in this case--it certainly does appear from what we can see in the video that it was immediately necessary.

No, that's not it at all.

The problem arises when we see the man repeatedly stabbing the man in the back as he tries to make it to the exit, and appearing to try to hold him down.

I can see no way in which a defense attorney could argue with a straight face that that had been necessary.

Heck, even when we have a case in which a perp has been shot in the back, the defense can bring in expert witnesses to explain how quickly a person can turn, and that there is no clear evidence that the defended intended to shoot the person in the back.

It is a fundamental legal principle in a defense of justification that the act is justified only insofar as the defendant used no more force than had been necessary.

Sometimes that is very much a matter of judgment, but I cannot see how the defense could make that case in this incident.

"Saddled with all the legal expenses"? That could be the least of the man's worries.
OldMarksman is offline  
Page generated in 0.03216 seconds with 8 queries