posted on Feb, 17 2016 @ 09:22 AM
a reply to: Azryael
If the susp took the shoes and ran- no weapon- then the complainant (victim) would have had the right to run after him and get his property back. The
vehicle would not be justified in this situation.
If the susp robbed him, got out of the car, the comp left the scene, drove around for a while. Then saw him again later THEN ran him over. Then he
would not be justified because it is a separate incident after the fact.
But I watched the video. While the susp was sitting in the vehicle he not only pulled a gun but attempted to fire it. Luckily, he's an idiot that
doesn't clean his gun and it misfired. The comp took just enough time to flip a U and took him out- so it was immediate and included in the same
incident. Read the law I posted again, he's not only recovering the stolen property but he's preventing the escape of someone who just used deadly
force to rob him. So, by law, he's justified in using deadly force as well. And the law doesn't specify that you can't use your car.
The comp's charges will either be 'no billed' by a grand jury, dropped, or found not guilty in court. And the susp better be charged with aggravated
robbery. At least he will be easy to pick out in a line up if he continues this line of work.
The fact is, the suspect chose to be a big boy and rob someone at gunpoint. He shouldn't act surprised if it goes south.