Fleeing Felons

[230RN]

         FLEEING FELONS

I've long wondered about the fleeing felon changes over the centuries.

I'm waiting for some Courts to start deciding that "to stop the threat" can legally be extended "to stop likely future threats."

So many of our legal principles (eg. "profiling,"redline" banking laws,etc) are or were based on purely statistical evidence that I'm surprised that the concept of "once a crook always a crook" can not be applied legally.  I believe it's California that applies it, in principle, to imposing life sentences on "three time losers."

Threaten my life to jack my car, and it strikes me that's likely to occur again with the next carjacking.

Yeah, "innocent until," but a present here and now threat virtually guarantees a future threat. 

For myself, I don't know how to deal with that except to let the flee-er flee.

Still, "go, and sin no more" does not seem to be relevant to either carjacking or raping.

Terry, 230RN

REF:
John 8:11

[WLJ]

I've often wondered how many of these "shot in the back" "fleeing" felons the MSM and activists get so work up over weren't fleeing but were moving to cover to shoot from there. Somewhere along the way the MSM and to a large part the courts got it in their mind that fleeing ALWAYS equals end of threat when in fact it often equals continuation of the treat either from a protected location or at a later date.
Seems to go hand in hand with the tendency of activists and MSM to portray criminals as the victim and the person trying to protect him/herself family, property from that criminal as the criminal nowadays

[MechAg94]

It seems to me that I have heard of people that have an attitude that as long as you are alive, it was no real harm done.  Sometimes they want to overlook that you are paralyzed or have some other very serious injuries.  They forget that prison is a punishment.  Rehabilitation is something we can try to do in addition to that, but some seem to want to take away the punishment.  The injuries and damage done to victims even without physical injury is significant.  However, since criminals almost never have anything worth a civil lawsuit, we rarely see that done.

That said, I would also add that we should disallow civil lawsuits for injuries or damages that occur while the plaintiff was committing a crime.  That would take away a lot of the liability risk to have real security or taking action against criminals.  If the homeowner or business owner goes too far, it should be a criminal issue only.

[WLJ]

  If the homeowner or business owner goes too far, it should be a criminal issue only.

Trouble is any action on the part of the victim is going too far to them nowadays.
Look at the Rittenhouse case. You had several people on video no less trying to kill him and yet they still tried to convict him of murder.
Or the St. Louis couple.

[MechAg94]

I would have to go look, but I thought the old Mosaic law said action taken against thieves in the moment or the same night, were not punished, but you couldn't go hunt them down the next day.  I know the wording was different; I need to go look. 

Either way, I think we should move that direction with significant leeway allowed for the victims of crime.  One thing I dislike about the way it is often handled is very tight line between legal self defense and years in prison.   

The main time you are really given a lot of leeway in Texas is when you are in your home.  Step outside and that can change. 

[MechAg94]

Trouble is any action on the part of the victim is going too far to them nowadays.
Look at the Rittenhouse case. You had several people on video no less trying to kill him and yet they still tried to convict him of murder.
Or the St. Louis couple.

I think it needs to change on both civil and criminal sides. 

[230RN]

"That said, I would also add that we should disallow civil lawsuits for injuries or damages that occur while the plaintiff was committing a crime."

I thought that was called "the clean hands theory."

[HankB]

If the police and/or the DA's office and courts keep persecuting crime victims for fighting back too hard while the crime is actually in progress, how long will it be until the population at large begins to view the "authorities" as accomplices - partners in crime, if you will - with the bad guys? And hence, not WORTHY of receiving the respect they demand?

Things can get ugly.

[MechAg94]

If the police and/or the DA's office and courts keep persecuting crime victims for fighting back too hard while the crime is actually in progress, how long will it be until the population at large begins to view the "authorities" as accomplices - partners in crime, if you will - with the bad guys? And hence, not WORTHY of receiving the respect they demand?

Things can get ugly.

Been going on for decades in some places here and even more in Europe.  Things could get ugly, but they haven't. 

[MechAg94]

"That said, I would also add that we should disallow civil lawsuits for injuries or damages that occur while the plaintiff was committing a crime."

I thought that was called "the clean hands theory."

https://www.upcounsel.com/clean-hands
Never heard of that so I had to look it up.  It seems to fit what I am looking for, but this site doesn't seem to apply it to criminals or families of criminals suing victims.  Is this just a common-law principle? 

[230RN]

I think the link you provided explains it well.

Origin?  Dredging into my muddy memories I think it was originally an expression used in a SCOTUS case, but can't put my finger on it.

Origin notwithstanding, the principle is clear, I think, and applicable to the fleeing felon discussion as it has developed in this thread.

My conception is that "immediate fear of death or great bodily harm" does not go far enough in terms of justification. 

Swiping someone's car is certainly a major harm, both economically (insurance notwithstanding) and in terms of coping with the loss of one's means of transportation.  In olden days, supposedly the stealing of a horse was a hanging offense because of the value in terms of both money and survival in the great western areas.  Now let's not get sidetracked by that -- I used it as an example of "great bodily harm" without direct immediate injury and blood spillage.

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

I think the link you provided explains it well.

Origin?  Dredging into my muddy memories I think it was originally an expression used in a SCOTUS case, but can't put my finger on it.

Origin notwithstanding, the principle is clear, I think, and applicable to the fleeing felon discussion as it has developed in this thread.

My conception is that "fear of death or great bodily harm" does not go far enough in terms of justification. 

Swiping someone's car is certainly a major harm, both economically (insurance notwithstanding) and in terms of coping with the loss of one's means of transportation.  In olden days, supposedly the stealing of a horse was a hanging offense because of the value in terms of both money and survival in the great western areas.  Now let's not get sidetracked by that -- I used it as an example of "great bodily harm" without the "bodily" part.

Terry, 230RN

I agree with bolded portion. 

I was thinking along the lines:  If you act to stop a theft in progress and shoot, injure, or beat the perpetrator, that should be legal.  If they made it blocks away or have driven off, you can't go hunting them down.  IMO, just because they might turn and run a few steps away doesn't end that justification.  I am tempted to draw the line at "within sight".  Also, how do you cover an issue where the perpetrator has surrendered and someone continues to beat them?  Not sure how to draw the line on that as I see too many videos showing crooks continue to fight police even after surrendering.  I am not sure if there needs to be a line drawn on either issue.  Criminals should fear their victims.  The scales of justice in the heat of the moment should tilt wildly in favor of the victim.

Would this make it open season on package thieves?  Perhaps.  Do I care?  Not much.  If the news did a few stories of package thieves getting legally shot, there would be fewer people tempted to do that.  The law doesn't allow that so just thinking of ideas. 

Just a thought exercise on this.  I am trying to play devil's advocate with myself on this, but can't think of any good exceptions that might come up.  Anyone is perfectly able to stop short of what is allowed and only do what they feel is morally correct.  And this is a case where you witness the criminal in the act which shouldn't have to be stated, but lawyers are gonna be lawyers. 

[WLJ]

Both government and criminals should be in fear of the people for largely the same reasons. Lately it seems like government and criminals have joined forces to turn that the other way around

[RocketMan]

Both government and criminals should be in fear of the people for largely the same reasons. Lately it seems like government and criminals have joined forces to turn that the other way around.

It seems that many in government are criminals.

[Bogie]

One of the reasons why so many people were up in arms with Rittenhouse was that he fired into a crowd of peaceful black protesters with his machine gun.
 
And yeah, there are folks who still think that is what happened.