No charge for Texas dad who killed daughter's rapist
Discussion
I'd like to think this would be the case over here too. I kinda think it would be. Not sure anyone would stay in control of themselves in this instance (or these circumstances) and I think the UK courts would take a similar view?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18522383
The beast (or whatever you wanna call him) sure got what was coming to him though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18522383
The beast (or whatever you wanna call him) sure got what was coming to him though.
Reminded me of the Gary Plauche case,
Video is NSFW but is not the gory one you can find online if you look. Still it does show a man being shot.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7f5_1281036313
Video is NSFW but is not the gory one you can find online if you look. Still it does show a man being shot.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7f5_1281036313
I'm not sure that a similar decision would not have been reached in this country. I'm not even sure it would have got as far as committal.
When joining a firearms unit I had a lecture or two about the use of 'deadly force' by some barrister. Whilst the general view is that police can only shoot someone who is threatening the life of another this is, in law, incorrect. One question was about rape: would that be a sufficiently serious offence for an officer to shoot the suspect.
The answer was shrouded in qualification, the chap was a lawyer after all, but the simple answer was that it could be.
In this specific case the chap found the offender committing/about to commit a serious offence, one which is repulsive in the vast majority of people's minds. Reasonable force can be used by someone in such a situation as this one. The seriousness of the offence raises the level of reasonable.
The defendant would not want the offender to be able to recover in sufficient time to mount an attack on the chap and carry on with the dreadful offence so the chap was entitled to use a considerable degree of force. He will have said, no doubt, that he did not intend to kill the chap, and to support this he had his emergency call.
As long as there was no intent to kill from the start the chap has a clear defence, at least in this country.
As to whether the CPS would have proceeded with an indictment is another matter. I'm sorry to say that in my experience they are open to political pressure, although this was always a fault of those in charge not of the guys on the shop floor. One could see certain circs where the easy option of putting it to a jury would be the 'best' option.
When joining a firearms unit I had a lecture or two about the use of 'deadly force' by some barrister. Whilst the general view is that police can only shoot someone who is threatening the life of another this is, in law, incorrect. One question was about rape: would that be a sufficiently serious offence for an officer to shoot the suspect.
The answer was shrouded in qualification, the chap was a lawyer after all, but the simple answer was that it could be.
In this specific case the chap found the offender committing/about to commit a serious offence, one which is repulsive in the vast majority of people's minds. Reasonable force can be used by someone in such a situation as this one. The seriousness of the offence raises the level of reasonable.
The defendant would not want the offender to be able to recover in sufficient time to mount an attack on the chap and carry on with the dreadful offence so the chap was entitled to use a considerable degree of force. He will have said, no doubt, that he did not intend to kill the chap, and to support this he had his emergency call.
As long as there was no intent to kill from the start the chap has a clear defence, at least in this country.
As to whether the CPS would have proceeded with an indictment is another matter. I'm sorry to say that in my experience they are open to political pressure, although this was always a fault of those in charge not of the guys on the shop floor. One could see certain circs where the easy option of putting it to a jury would be the 'best' option.
Derek Smith said:
As to whether the CPS would have proceeded with an indictment is another matter. I'm sorry to say that in my experience they are open to political pressure, although this was always a fault of those in charge not of the guys on the shop floor. One could see certain circs where the easy option of putting it to a jury would be the 'best' option.
Now, what "political pressure" would that be?Edited by WhoseGeneration on Wednesday 20th June 23:53
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff