Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Using a vehicle as a weapon...

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 6:08:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I stumbled upon an article,

http://abc13.com...

... in which the victim of a robbery used his own vehicle to hit the robbers after following them. In this article, Rio Rancho police Capt. Paul Rogers said: "You're never excused when you're using your vehicle as a weapon."

I disagree with his statement.

There are two defenses that I see immediately - Vigilant Justice, and Self-Defense.

In this case in particular, the victim was robbed at gunpoint before the robbers took off on foot. The victim then followed them in his car and proceeded to literally run them over a few blocks from the initial scene of the crime.

I'd like to discuss this. What are your thoughts on the matter?
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 11:48:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 6:08:37 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I stumbled upon an article,

http://abc13.com...

... in which the victim of a robbery used his own vehicle to hit the robbers after following them. In this article, Rio Rancho police Capt. Paul Rogers said: "You're never excused when you're using your vehicle as a weapon."

I disagree with his statement.

There are two defenses that I see immediately - Vigilant Justice, and Self-Defense.

In this case in particular, the victim was robbed at gunpoint before the robbers took off on foot. The victim then followed them in his car and proceeded to literally run them over a few blocks from the initial scene of the crime.

I'd like to discuss this. What are your thoughts on the matter?

It can't really be self defense if you are actively following your assailants. Was the car used as a weapon? Sure! Was the act justified on a personal level of satisfaction? Sure! Will a jury convict him for this? Maybe? I wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that a good prosecuting attorney couldn't letter of the law a jury into a corner for a conviction.

There are supposed to be channels in place in which one engages proper authorities to enable you to get your property back, along with ensuring the bad guys are blah blah blah, but... I am a firm believer in handling things at the lowest organizational level. If this individual had the means and ability to thwart future attacks as well as recover his stolen goods, then... well, peachy. Do it to it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2015 1:38:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 6:08:37 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I stumbled upon an article,

http://abc13.com...

... in which the victim of a robbery used his own vehicle to hit the robbers after following them. In this article, Rio Rancho police Capt. Paul Rogers said: "You're never excused when you're using your vehicle as a weapon."

I disagree with his statement.

There are two defenses that I see immediately - Vigilant Justice, and Self-Defense.

In this case in particular, the victim was robbed at gunpoint before the robbers took off on foot. The victim then followed them in his car and proceeded to literally run them over a few blocks from the initial scene of the crime.

I'd like to discuss this. What are your thoughts on the matter?

It's not self defense, and vigilant justice is a very dangerous thing.
Tell me, would you excuse this person from running them over if they were innocent?
My work here is, finally, done.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 1:16:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 11:48:12 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/14/2015 6:08:37 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I stumbled upon an article,

http://abc13.com...

... in which the victim of a robbery used his own vehicle to hit the robbers after following them. In this article, Rio Rancho police Capt. Paul Rogers said: "You're never excused when you're using your vehicle as a weapon."

I disagree with his statement.

There are two defenses that I see immediately - Vigilant Justice, and Self-Defense.

In this case in particular, the victim was robbed at gunpoint before the robbers took off on foot. The victim then followed them in his car and proceeded to literally run them over a few blocks from the initial scene of the crime.

I'd like to discuss this. What are your thoughts on the matter?

It can't really be self defense if you are actively following your assailants.

Yep, that's true. Good point.

Was the car used as a weapon? Sure! Was the act justified on a personal level of satisfaction? Sure! Will a jury convict him for this? Maybe? I wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that a good prosecuting attorney couldn't letter of the law a jury into a corner for a conviction.

There are supposed to be channels in place in which one engages proper authorities to enable you to get your property back, along with ensuring the bad guys are blah blah blah, but... I am a firm believer in handling things at the lowest organizational level. If this individual had the means and ability to thwart future attacks as well as recover his stolen goods, then... well, peachy. Do it to it.

I'd probably have done that same thing as the guy, minus hitting them so hard that they literally fly in the air. Then again, I conceal carry, so they'd probably have caught a bullet in the head if they tried to run up on my car.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 1:20:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 1:38:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/14/2015 6:08:37 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I stumbled upon an article,

http://abc13.com...

... in which the victim of a robbery used his own vehicle to hit the robbers after following them. In this article, Rio Rancho police Capt. Paul Rogers said: "You're never excused when you're using your vehicle as a weapon."

I disagree with his statement.

There are two defenses that I see immediately - Vigilant Justice, and Self-Defense.

In this case in particular, the victim was robbed at gunpoint before the robbers took off on foot. The victim then followed them in his car and proceeded to literally run them over a few blocks from the initial scene of the crime.

I'd like to discuss this. What are your thoughts on the matter?

It's not self defense, and vigilant justice is a very dangerous thing.
Tell me, would you excuse this person from running them over if they were innocent?

No, not if they were simply innocent bystanders. I honestly don't know how I feel about this scenario, hence why I brought it here. On one hand, it wasn't right to use the vehicle to retaliate in such a violent way, on the other I can put myself in the drivers shoes and understand the blind rage and adrenaline that took over after having his own life threatened at gunpoint.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 2:04:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/15/2015 1:20:28 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 8/14/2015 1:38:21 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/14/2015 6:08:37 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I stumbled upon an article,

http://abc13.com...

... in which the victim of a robbery used his own vehicle to hit the robbers after following them. In this article, Rio Rancho police Capt. Paul Rogers said: "You're never excused when you're using your vehicle as a weapon."

I disagree with his statement.

There are two defenses that I see immediately - Vigilant Justice, and Self-Defense.

In this case in particular, the victim was robbed at gunpoint before the robbers took off on foot. The victim then followed them in his car and proceeded to literally run them over a few blocks from the initial scene of the crime.

I'd like to discuss this. What are your thoughts on the matter?

It's not self defense, and vigilant justice is a very dangerous thing.
Tell me, would you excuse this person from running them over if they were innocent?

No, not if they were simply innocent bystanders. I honestly don't know how I feel about this scenario, hence why I brought it here. On one hand, it wasn't right to use the vehicle to retaliate in such a violent way, on the other I can put myself in the drivers shoes and understand the blind rage and adrenaline that took over after having his own life threatened at gunpoint.

No, I mean assume the people he ran over were not the muggers, but two people who happened to be wearing the same hoodie. If I shoot my adult child who came into my home unannounced and unexpected, it is not legally murder if I reasonably believed he meant me harm (i.e. thought he was a burglar). So, applying the same idea to vigalante justice, are you willing to let someone kill another who he honestly thought was the guilty party, or thought was guilty but really wasn't?

Further, if you like the idea of vigilante justice, then who gets to measure what is appropriate punishment? Can I run you down with my car if you kill my wife? If you mug me? If you break my window? If you step on my lawn? Can I stab you if you punch me or only if you break my nose?
My work here is, finally, done.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 2:55:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 6:08:37 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I stumbled upon an article,

http://abc13.com...

... in which the victim of a robbery used his own vehicle to hit the robbers after following them. In this article, Rio Rancho police Capt. Paul Rogers said: "You're never excused when you're using your vehicle as a weapon."

I disagree with his statement.

There are two defenses that I see immediately - Vigilant Justice, and Self-Defense.

In this case in particular, the victim was robbed at gunpoint before the robbers took off on foot. The victim then followed them in his car and proceeded to literally run them over a few blocks from the initial scene of the crime.

I'd like to discuss this. What are your thoughts on the matter?

The general rules goes something like self defense is allowed, revenge/retaliation is not.

The threat had ended, but the fact that the person then followed them and ran them down with his car says payback not self defense.

So yeah legally he is screwed, but hey maybe he will get a jury that will let him off.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fly
Posts: 2,042
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 5:59:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 6:08:37 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I stumbled upon an article,

http://abc13.com...

... in which the victim of a robbery used his own vehicle to hit the robbers after following them. In this article, Rio Rancho police Capt. Paul Rogers said: "You're never excused when you're using your vehicle as a weapon."

I disagree with his statement.

There are two defenses that I see immediately - Vigilant Justice, and Self-Defense.

In this case in particular, the victim was robbed at gunpoint before the robbers took off on foot. The victim then followed them in his car and proceeded to literally run them over a few blocks from the initial scene of the crime.

I'd like to discuss this. What are your thoughts on the matter?

This is a tough one to call. It was not self defense, as has been pointed out, but I can also see the man having charges dropped or being acquitted later.

Police officers are able to use force, even lethal force, on a fleeing suspect if they believe the person poses a threat to public safety. These armed robbers did pose a threat to public safety, but the man driving the car wasn't a police officer. But no police were around, so...

It's taking me in circles...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 11:12:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
So it's ok to run someone over if they are a thief? I'm all for that, but there should be a lower limit to how much is stolen before it is ok to back over them if you only maim them.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2015 11:26:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I stumbled upon an article,

http://abc13.com...

... in which the victim of a robbery used his own vehicle to hit the robbers after following them. In this article, Rio Rancho police Capt. Paul Rogers said: "You're never excused when you're using your vehicle as a weapon."

I disagree with his statement.

There are two defenses that I see immediately - Vigilant Justice, and Self-Defense.

In this case in particular, the victim was robbed at gunpoint before the robbers took off on foot. The victim then followed them in his car and proceeded to literally run them over a few blocks from the initial scene of the crime.

I'd like to discuss this. What are your thoughts on the matter?

It's not self defense, and vigilant justice is a very dangerous thing.
Tell me, would you excuse this person from running them over if they were innocent?

No, not if they were simply innocent bystanders. I honestly don't know how I feel about this scenario, hence why I brought it here. On one hand, it wasn't right to use the vehicle to retaliate in such a violent way, on the other I can put myself in the drivers shoes and understand the blind rage and adrenaline that took over after having his own life threatened at gunpoint.

No, I mean assume the people he ran over were not the muggers, but two people who happened to be wearing the same hoodie. If I shoot my adult child who came into my home unannounced and unexpected, it is not legally murder if I reasonably believed he meant me harm (i.e. thought he was a burglar). So, applying the same idea to vigalante justice, are you willing to let someone kill another who he honestly thought was the guilty party, or thought was guilty but really wasn't?

The same idea, though, is that you are defending your home in one scenario, and the other that you are actively in pursuit of the bad guys. The 2 really can't be compared on equal footing.

Further, if you like the idea of vigilante justice, then who gets to measure what is appropriate punishment? Can I run you down with my car if you kill my wife? If you mug me? If you break my window? If you step on my lawn? Can I stab you if you punch me or only if you break my nose?

Brass tacks/tax of the situation is that self defense is of itself a form of vigilante justice. The assailant has set the bar in terms of aggression. If I mug you, is it unreasonable for you to seek to immediately get your property back? Depending upon regular channels of authority indulges the criminal element. It works in their favor, not specifically the victims.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2015 6:39:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/14/2015 6:08:37 AM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I stumbled upon an article,

http://abc13.com...

... in which the victim of a robbery used his own vehicle to hit the robbers after following them. In this article, Rio Rancho police Capt. Paul Rogers said: "You're never excused when you're using your vehicle as a weapon."

I disagree with his statement.

There are two defenses that I see immediately - Vigilant Justice, and Self-Defense.

In this case in particular, the victim was robbed at gunpoint before the robbers took off on foot. The victim then followed them in his car and proceeded to literally run them over a few blocks from the initial scene of the crime.

I'd like to discuss this. What are your thoughts on the matter?

That guy will get off. Even the police who were forced to arrest him, think he shouldn't have been arrested. (According to some unconfirmed rumors, don't ask). So the prosecution will likely need to use some hostile witnesses.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2015 6:41:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I see a loophole anyway. Cotizens are allowed to detain felons for a citizens arrest in most places, if they witnessed the felony. If it took the use of a vehicle to secure these felons, than he should be okay.