Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not if the law views a vehicle as a deadly weapon.
The burden of proof is on the city. It makes no difference how a vehicle is defined. Prove he tried to kill him as opposed to simply detain him against the fence.
Arms aside, (heh) what kind of business is it to buy shoes and then resell them? Does the guy buy them retail? Isn't that what shoe stores are supposed to do? Does the guy sell them at jacked-up prices?
I don't feel bad for the robber, but I don't see this ending well for the driver. The rate of speed at impact would make me believe it was intentional and malicious. I would have to enter a guilty verdict based on the video.
Exactly, I hate to admit but the driver should be charged. He was no longer in danger and did not act in self defense. He purposely ran the thug down and attempted to kill him. Both of them deserve to go to jail. I think they should be cell mates.
Shouldn't we use the same burden of proof as the NY courts have approved? In which case there was an imaginary car that ran an imaginary thug over. After all, no real thugs go out and use a firearm in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to rob someone and when it does happen people who wanted to defend themselves are held to a standard which 99.9% of people cannot meet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.