When NOT to shoot!

[skyking13]

This moron may not be able to own weapons ever again.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/08/community-rallies-behind-homeowner-arrested-for-shooting-at-burglar/?test=latestnews

If the burglars were fleeing then his life was no longer in danger.

[skyking13]

Wow...that was my 100th post...wasn't even thinking about that.

[Ninety]

I wonder who called the police? This is why it's good to keep your mouth shut. And makes me question weather to ever call the police again.

[fiddletown]

I feel very sorry for Mr. Niederhauser, but it looks like he might have made a very bad mistake, and it might wind up costing him dearly.

Our society has long taken a dim view of using or threatening lethal force against another human. But our legal system has for hundreds of years accepted that it can be justified when necessary to prevent imminent, grievous harm to innocents. It's hard to see how Mr.Niederhauser's firing of his gun can be justified under any legally accepted standard.

He will have his opportunity to attempt to legally justify his conduct, but things look kind of bleak for him.

[Sniper3142]

I feel very sorry for Mr. Niederhauser, but it looks like he might have made a very bad mistake, and it might wind up costing him dearly.

Our society has long taken a dim view of using or threatening lethal force against another human. But our legal system has for hundreds of years accepted that it can be justified when necessary to prevent imminent, grievous harm to innocents. It's hard to see how Mr.Niederhauser's firing of his gun can be justified under any legally accepted standard.

He will have his opportunity to attempt to legally justify his conduct, but things look kind of bleak for him.

Too bad he isn't a LEO.

Cops seem to be able to shoot an unidentified person in the back without worrying about being charged or even fired.

[fiddletown]

Too bad he isn't a LEO.

Cops seem to be able to shoot an unidentified person in the back without worrying about being charged or even fired....

Congratulations on your ignorance. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

[A-J]

Congratulations on your ignorance. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

The guy didn't say it *never* happens, just that it usually doesn't. I'm waiting to see the outcome of this and the other one that happened the same day. My pessimist inside is telling me that no charges filed / no disciplinary actions taken will be the outcome. Sure, the city and the agencies may cough up some $$, but that's not their money, so it's no problem.

[fiddletown]

The guy didn't say it *never* happens, just that it usually doesn't.....

Actually he didn't even do that. He just posted an unidentified photo with no further information and made a completely unsupported assumption without any real evidence. That's sloppy and worthless.

[SanDiegoMan]

Yeah that probably wasn't the best of judgement, you never wanna shoot at people running away...it makes you look bad in court.

[stix213]

With supporters rallying, I'd let the DA put it in front of a jury. No plea deal.

[fallenknight308]

Actually he didn't even do that. He just posted an unidentified photo with no further information and made a completely unsupported assumption without any real evidence. That's sloppy and worthless.

Here let me help you with that:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57568368/christopher-dorner-manhunt-two-innocent-women-shot-by-lapd-officers-had-no-warning/

[fiddletown]

Here let me help you with that:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...ad-no-warning/

Which is something that happened only yesterday, so we don't know how it will play out. And therefore, it can not possibly support Sniper3142's contention.

[Deadbolt]

Too bad he isn't a LEO.

Cops seem to be able to shoot an unidentified person in the back without worrying about being charged or even fired.

this

[fiddletown]

this

Is irrelevant.

[SanDiegoMan]

That only works in LA where they have a strong union.