Man senteneced to 12 years after shooting burglar hours after the burglary

[MillCreek]

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110825/NEWS01/708259776


Tragic case for all involved.  Victim has his house burglarized, goes out armed looking for the burglar hours later, and shot him as he attempted to flee.  The first trial acquitted him on murder but deadlocked on manslaughter.  The second trial found him guilty of manslaughter. 

Lots of interesting comments. 

[zxcvbob]

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110825/NEWS01/708259776


Tragic case for all involved.  Victim has his house burglarized, goes out armed looking for the burglar hours later, and shot him as he attempted to flee.  The first trial acquitted him on murder but deadlocked on manslaughter.  The second trial found him guilty of manslaughter. 

Lots of interesting comments. 

He might should have claimed he was making a citizen's arrest, although I'm not sure what the current status is of the "fleeing felon" rule.  Would be a lot stronger claim than self-defense, if applicable.

Too late for a do-over.  And 12 years is probably just.

[CNYCacher]

He might should have claimed he was making a citizen's arrest, although I'm not sure what the current status is of the "fleeing felon" rule.  Would be a lot stronger claim than self-defense, if applicable.

Too late for a do-over.  And 12 years is probably just.

I believe the fleeing felon rule, where it applies, usually has an implied time limit.  For example, in NYS it is worded as ". . . or to prevent the immediate egress of . . . ". 
My emphasis on "immediate"

[MillCreek]

In Washington state, if the victim uses deadly force against the perpetrator of a property crime, it is pretty much guaranteed that you are going to jail for a while.  We have lots of appellate law on this subject.

[zxcvbob]

I believe the fleeing felon rule, where it applies, usually has an implied time limit.  For example, in NYS it is worded as ". . . or to prevent the immediate egress of . . . ". 
My emphasis on "immediate"

Yes, but wouldn't the "immediate" start when he attempts the arrest (hours after the burglary.)  The kicker might be had the felony occurred in  our hero's presence?  I think that's a requirement for a citizen's arrest, but IANAL

[CNYCacher]

I guess my memory was rusty with the actual wording (egress), but here it is right out of the book.  It's pretty clear that normal force is justified to make the citizen's arrest after the fact, but deadly force is not.

 4. A private person acting on his own account may use physical force,
other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the
extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an
arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he
reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has
committed such offense; and he may use deadly physical force for such
purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
  (a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes
to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
  (b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
sodomy and who is in immediate flight therefrom.

According to my (and a 24-yr retired NY Police officer I know) interpretation of the entire article, arrest powers between a citizen and a peace officer only differ in that a peace officer can make an arrest based on probable cause (or is it reasonable suspicion?), whereas a citizen must witness the actual crime.

But, this is just NYS, YMMV.

ETA: Link  http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm

[roo_ster]

Too bad for the cause of justice.

[MechAg94]

Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that police were completely uninterested in looking into a burglary?

[Bigjake]

Crying shame that a man does time for ridding the world of scum.  I hate thieves.

[zxcvbob]

Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that police were completely uninterested in looking into a burglary?

Past experience?

[Chuck Dye]

"His body was discovered two days later."

Has no one else noticed that little tidbit?  I am unwilling to draw any hard conclusions from such a brief article, but that detail makes me suspect Earhart is getting off lightly.

[MechAg94]

Past experience?

Not me, but otherwise things like that can drive otherwise law abiding people to take things into their own hands. 

[brimic]

"His body was discovered two days later."

Has no one else noticed that little tidbit?  I am unwilling to draw any hard conclusions from such a brief article, but that detail makes me suspect Earhart is getting off lightly.

He forgot the 'shovel' part of the equation.

[MillCreek]

He forgot the 'shovel' part of the equation.

I missed this earlier.  No, how and when they found the body is of no ominous significance.  The final fatal confrontation took place at night in an overgrown area.  It took the Sheriff's office searching for a while to find the body. 

[HankB]

This reads like one of those cases where, while I wouldn't conduct myself the same way the defendant did, neither would I convict him of anything were I on the jury.

[Chuck Dye]

I missed this earlier.  No, how and when they found the body is of no ominous significance.  The final fatal confrontation took place at night in an overgrown area.  It took the Sheriff's office searching for a while to find the body. 

A poke at earlier articles makes that clearer.  I will read more tomorrow in town where I have broadband access, 24 kbps here at the end of the road isn't doing much for me.  A warning shot?  To the heart? 

[wacki]

Why do I have this sneaking suspicion that police were completely uninterested in looking into a burglary?

Past experience?

I've been robbed twice.   Both times the cops didn't even stop by.  They just called and asked questions.

[BryanP]

If events are as described in the article, he got off light.