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.
This is confusing me........ be patient, I'm not American. Say, for instance I have stolen something from a shop, and I run away from a policeman who has arrested me for said crime. Can he legally shoot me? I am unarmed of course, and not threatening people around me.
This is confusing me........ be patient, I'm not American. Say, for instance I have stolen something from a shop, and I run away from a policeman who has arrested me for said crime. Can he legally shoot me? I am unarmed of course, and not threatening people around me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
How goes the cop KNOW you aren't armed?
I wasn't going to comment again. I was just asking a hypothetical question if a policeman was legally allowed to shoot a fleeing thief. In my question I had my thief arrested, and then fleeing. I would assume from the arrest, the policeman would know the thief was unarmed.
This is confusing me........ be patient, I'm not American. Say, for instance I have stolen something from a shop, and I run away from a policeman who has arrested me for said crime. Can he legally shoot me? I am unarmed of course, and not threatening people around me.
Read my posts on this issue. It really depends on where you are. Many jurisdictions have done away with the common law fleeing felon rule. But this isn't true for every state jurisdiction here in the U.S.
Read my posts on this issue. It really depends on where you are. Many jurisdictions have done away with the common law fleeing felon rule. But this isn't true for every state jurisdiction here in the U.S.
Yes..... this is very interesting to me. I find the idea of a policeman shooting a fleeing unarmed thief bizarre.
Yes..... this is very interesting to me. I find the idea of a policeman shooting a fleeing unarmed thief bizarre.
I agree with you. And I think it should be outlawed completely. Unfortunately, not every state has caught up with the times here. And the Supreme Court hasn't issued a ruling that would do away with the fleeing felon rule nationally.
Yes..... this is very interesting to me. I find the idea of a policeman shooting a fleeing unarmed thief bizarre.
Now, THAT is a bizarre thought - to Americans. But we Americans are sovereigns without subjects, whereas you Brits are docile subjects of a sovereign monarch.
“In Europe a criminal is an unhappy being who is struggling for his life against the ministers of justice, whilst the population is merely a spectator of the conflict; in America he is looked upon as an enemy of the human race, and the whole of mankind is against him.”
- - - Tocqueville, Alexis de, 1805-1859. . . Democracy in America, volume 1
At one time, Americans considered any criminal to be "the enemy of the human race" and were a wee bit less tolerant of their shenanigans.
As "sovereigns without subjects" an individual may protect his private property with deadly force, as illustrated by posted signs - "PRIVATE PROPERTY - NO TRESPASSING - TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT." And it was considered lawful for the police officers to shoot a fugitive from justice, unarmed or not.
. . .
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the [sovereign] people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z
This may explain the slight differences between our respective nations. We sovereign Americans are less tolerant of those who trespass our persons, liberties, or property. Of course, those who consented to be serfs in the socialist democracy have a different situation entirely.
Now, THAT is a bizarre thought - to Americans. But we Americans are sovereigns without subjects, whereas you Brits are docile subjects of a sovereign monarch.
“In Europe a criminal is an unhappy being who is struggling for his life against the ministers of justice, whilst the population is merely a spectator of the conflict; in America he is looked upon as an enemy of the human race, and the whole of mankind is against him.”
- - - Tocqueville, Alexis de, 1805-1859. . . Democracy in America, volume 1
At one time, Americans considered any criminal to be "the enemy of the human race" and were a wee bit less tolerant of their shenanigans.
As "sovereigns without subjects" an individual may protect his private property with deadly force, as illustrated by posted signs - "PRIVATE PROPERTY - NO TRESPASSING - TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT." And it was considered lawful for the police officers to shoot a fugitive from justice, unarmed or not.
. . .
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the [sovereign] people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z
This may explain the slight differences between our respective nations. We sovereign Americans are less tolerant of those who trespass our persons, liberties, or property. Of course, those who consented to be serfs in the socialist democracy have a different situation entirely.
Now, THAT is a bizarre thought - to Americans. But we Americans are sovereigns without subjects, whereas you Brits are docile subjects of a sovereign monarch.
“In Europe a criminal is an unhappy being who is struggling for his life against the ministers of justice, whilst the population is merely a spectator of the conflict; in America he is looked upon as an enemy of the human race, and the whole of mankind is against him.”
- - - Tocqueville, Alexis de, 1805-1859. . . Democracy in America, volume 1
At one time, Americans considered any criminal to be "the enemy of the human race" and were a wee bit less tolerant of their shenanigans.
As "sovereigns without subjects" an individual may protect his private property with deadly force, as illustrated by posted signs - "PRIVATE PROPERTY - NO TRESPASSING - TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT." And it was considered lawful for the police officers to shoot a fugitive from justice, unarmed or not.
. . .
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the [sovereign] people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793) https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...CR_0002_0419_Z
This may explain the slight differences between our respective nations. We sovereign Americans are less tolerant of those who trespass our persons, liberties, or property. Of course, those who consented to be serfs in the socialist democracy have a different situation entirely.
That was very interesting reading - thank you. It explains the difference in our thinking on this subject. I did know a house occupant in America is allowed to kill an intruder. In my country, only reasonable force is allowed. In other words, you can't kill a burglar unless you feel at risk to your own life.
I didn't know I was a serf....... There you go, you learn something everyday. I do notice on city-data, differing opinions on what police actually do, and what they're allowed to do by law. We don't believe in giving our police the right to take life, unless of course a criminal is endangering life himself.
Our police in internal votes, always choose to remain unarmed. We admire them for their bravery, and the vast majority of the population hold our police in the highest regard. They recognise having a weapon would ensure people would get killed. This goes without saying really. They prefer to deal with criminals in such a way as not to kill them, unless left with little or no choice.
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.
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.
There you go, you learn something everyday. I do notice on city-data, differing opinions on what police actually do, and what they're allowed to do by law. We don't believe in giving our police the right to take life, unless of course a criminal is endangering life himself.
