and dies from his wound.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=Cj90Y_1573670119

Getting shot dead for stealing a chainsaw seems to be a very great waste of anybody's life, but charging the shooter with murder in the 1st degree is something I don't understand. As a furriner, it seems odd to me that this charge has any legs to run. Here in yUK, 1st degree murder implies the use of premeditation on the part of the perpetrator - IOW, he fully intended to murder that person and no other, and plotted/planned to achieve that end.

Can the membership here explain it for me?

TIA.

The article doesn’t provide a lot of facts, but I don’t see how a prosecutor could prove premeditated murder against someone who spontaneously confronts a thief? “Premeditated” means “thought about beforehand.” It very well may be a wrongful killing but 1st degree murder seems a stretch.

From the Tennessee criminal code (emphasis added):

----------

Title 39 - Criminal Offenses
Chapter 13 - Offenses Against Person
Part 2 - Criminal Homicide
39-13-202 - First degree murder.

39-13-202. First degree murder.

(a) First degree murder is:

(1) A premeditated and intentional killing of another;

...

(d) As used in subdivision (a)(1), premeditation is an act done after the exercise of reflection and judgment. Premeditation means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act itself. It is not necessary that the purpose to kill pre-exist in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time. The mental state of the accused at the time the accused allegedly decided to kill must be carefully considered in order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation.

----------

The bit about being sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation is derived from the common law understanding that one not need be completely emotionless to be guilty of premeditation, but it's were we get the expression "in cold blood", in contrast to "in the heat of passion", for example.

I'm pretty sure shoplifting a chainsaw doesn't rise to the level of a felony in Tennessee, either. But for fun, you can google the "fleeing felon rule", which may or may not be recognized to some degree in Tennessee.

-Rob

Isn’t it common to overcharge to plea down?

That said gonna be hard to justify killing somebody who is fleeing over what amounts to a couple hundred bucks. STUFF IS NOT WORTH IT.....but YMMV.

I’m guessing he won’t get convicted of 1st degree murder, but he is likely in a peck of trouble regardless. As an aside, I’ve often postulated that if people thought they might get killed for stealing from other people, there’d be a lot less stealing going on.

quote:

Originally posted by cslinger:
Isn’t it common to overcharge to plea down?

That said gonna be hard to justify killing somebody who is fleeing over what amounts to a couple hundred bucks. STUFF IS NOT WORTH IT.....but YMMV.

Personally, I wouldn't have fired either in a fleeing situation like that. But, justified? In Texas, that would be called justified shooting.

Tennessee V Garner is a 4th Amendment Supreme Court case in which the Court essentially ruled that law enforcement may not use deadly force to stop an unarmed fleeing suspect unless he poses a continuing serious threat to officers or others and there is no other way to stop him.

While aimed specifically at law enforcement, that civil liability ruling in effect says you don't use deadly force to stop a thief in property crimes. Florida statutes reflect the intent of that ruling. When I explain that to students in my CWFL course they are often surprised because many believe you can use deadly force to stop someone from stealing your stuff.

Each state is different, in Florida this would probably have been charged as manslaughter under the unnecessary killing statute.

Cslinger is right, no matter what, it ain't worth it.

I wouldn’t have pulled the trigger. However a few years ago, I may have.

One morning I woke up to a neighbor calling me and telling me there were no wheels on my car. I went out at 6 am to find out that was true.
My wife and I had come home from her job at 3 am.

I have $0 deductible on comprehensive. So State Farm refunded me the cost if the wheels and tires. Stock wheels were put back on, $6k in damages to the car from the Jack was covered.
All in all, it cost me $66 for 11 days of a rental car.
Had I caught them stealing my wheels, I would have gone out and tried to hold them at gunpoint until an officer arrived. Had one raised a tire air on at me, I would have shot.

So it got me thinking, would it be worth having to live with the fact that I took someone’s life over a set of wheels and tires?
Nope. That’s why I have insurance.

Cross the threshold into my home, and now it’s a different story.

quote:

Originally posted by BurtonRW:
the common law understanding that one not need be completely emotionless to be guilty of premeditation

That is basically what I have always understood from the criminal law classes I have taken.

Just a simple case of overcharging in order to coerce a guilty plea to a lessor charge. No mystery here.

If you can't shoot a thief, how CAN you stop them from fleeing with you stuff?

To steal, you must obtain a stealing warrant, describing the location and specific items to be stolen. The warrant must be presented to the owner before stealing. That should prevent a lot of legal issues.

I think thieves should decide for themselves if stealing someone's stuff is worth losing their lives.

I hate thieve's with a passion but the basic standard is you can't shoot anyone unless you or someone you're with is in a life threatening situation.

In common law jurisdictions in America, acting with intent to kill is enough to establish malice aforethought, which is a necessary element for first degree murder. It doesn’t matter if you have that intent for 3 seconds or 3 days, if you act with intent to kill it can be first degree murder. Been a long time since I took criminal law, but that’s what I remember at least.

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:

I hate thieve's with a passion but the basic standard is you can't shoot anyone unless you or someone you're with is in a life threatening situation.

Doesn't that depend on where you are?

I have been led to believe that Texas law permits you to shoot someone to protect your property. I could be wrong, I don't live in Texas.

I think shooting a fleeing thief in the back is going to land you in jail, likely for a long time. Perhaps a very, very long time.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:

I hate thieve's with a passion but the basic standard is you can't shoot anyone unless you or someone you're with is in a life threatening situation.

Doesn't that depend on where you are?

I have been led to believe that Texas law permits you to shoot someone to protect your property. I could be wrong, I don't live in Texas.

That is indeed the law in Texas, and very shortly after it was passed, the law was tested when a guy shot and killed two people who were fleeing having robbed his neighbor's house. One of them was shot in the back. He was not arrested and was no-billed by a grand jury.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...shooting_controversy

Very few states have laws allowing protection of property as justification for use of deadly force.

Premeditation can happen in a moment.
You don't shoot someone when they are fleeing with property unless they have a gun or other deadly weapon and your life is being threatened. I think Texas is the only state with an exception where you may be able to shoot over property (still I myself wouldn't).
Look up the 5 elements of self defense. Everyone here should be familiar with that concept if you want to stay out of jail.

Also in the news today;

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14...o-charges/index.html

This guy got stopped to be questioned about a robbery, took off running and was then shot in the back. The officers were not charged.

“As an aside, I’ve often postulated that if people thought they might get killed for stealing from other people, there’d be a lot less stealing going on.”

Yep. And in a lot of areas, any other consequences of being caught stealing are evidently pretty minimal.

quote:

Originally posted by Eponym:
If you can't shoot a thief, how CAN you stop them from fleeing with you stuff?.

In Florida, you cannot used deadly force to "get your stuff back". Especially, by shooting them in the back.

quote:

Originally posted by Eponym:
I think thieves should decide for themselves if stealing someone's stuff is worth losing their lives.

I also think that business/home owners should decide if a chainsaw (or any personal property) is worth killing for and possibly spending a good part of your retirement years in a prison.

If you are going to yield a gun, for any purpose, you have a duty to know the law in the location you are going to use it.