|
October 13, 2005
Investigation ends -- a month later
Last month I wrote a post about an incident in which a 17 year old driver cut off a guy in his fifties, and the older guy lost his temper, followed the young driver all the way home and ran into him with his car while the kid was trying to get inside his house. The kid bounced off the hood, then punched the man twice, following which the guy died. I argued that it was self defense. Now finally, a month later, it seems the legal concept of self defense has managed to survive in New Jersey. Proescutors dropped the charges -- apparently after some debate, and after considering these facts: Camden County Prosecutor Vincent P. Sarubbi said in a statement that he had "made this decision following detailed, deliberate and protracted consultation with senior staff members at my office."I have no idea what took so long, as this kid should never have been charged in the first place. If someone followed me for miles, then hit me with his car right in front of my house, I'd be justified in shooting him if I had a gun. A car is a deadly weapon. By its nature, defending against an an attack by a moving car merely with fists counters superior force with inferior force. That the two blows happened to kill the man is irrelevant (and also quite abnormal). Obviously, this kid was strong, and he was under great stress after being struck and injured by a car. The adrenaline produced during such a trauma could easily result in hysterical strength. If it did, that would be no one's fault except the attacker. An accident is one thing, but this was a deliberate attack, and went way beyond road rage. I'm glad it's over. posted by Eric on 10.13.05 at 08:45 PM
Comments
Well. Yes, but. A car doesn't point well. By which I mean, once the guy was standing next to the driver's side window (punching the person who had attacked him in the head), the chance of him being hit again was approximately zero. In other words, he was no longer actually in danger (whooohooo, hindsight! Sweet, baby!) and was just engaging in a revenge beating (which ended up killing the jerk who started the whole thing in the first place). To me, this merely says that there should be a two or three day (and ideally, years long) grace period after someone tries to kill you in which you are allowed to kill them (or, if we are feeling Burgundian when we write the law, a member of their family) with no questions asked and no charges filed. I'm pretty sure the law disagrees with me on this point, though. So, Justified Homicide, right? We have that, don't we? Seb · October 14, 2005 01:13 AM I see your point, but I see no need to extend the period that far based on these facts. I think that when someone crazy enough to follow you for miles assaults and injures you with a deadly weapon, and still has custody and control over that deadly weapon, you are considered in fear for your life and would be immediately justified in using whatever forceful is available to ensure that he is unable to continue the assaultive behavior. Eric Scheie · October 14, 2005 07:19 AM "Family wants death penalty for teen charged in road rage death." Munter sounds as if he was as disturbed as the rest of his family. Thank goodness there were witnesses! Bonnie · October 14, 2005 09:03 AM :sarcasm:It really had nothing to do with self-defense, what the DA was pissed about was the fact the boy dared to act on his own initiative. Instead of waiting for the proper authorities to come and do the proper thig he acted on his own. You can't act on your own, civilization would collapse if people acted on their own instead of letting duly constituted authority do it for them. You can't be self reliant and have proper civilization.:/sarcasm: The day we discover an effective treatment for Control Freak Syndrome is the day is the day we transform human society. Alan Kellogg · October 14, 2005 07:01 PM Oh, Seb, when someone's trying to kill you, you end the threat as soon as you can. However you can. If it means his death, he dies. Sometimes even an akido master has to kill. Alan Kellogg · October 14, 2005 07:04 PM You took the words right out of my keyboard, Alan. The notion of a free and independent individual who decides for himself, on rational grounds, that his life is in danger and takes out the aggressor is so threatening to those who want us all to be gelding clients of the Mommy State. Essem · October 15, 2005 11:59 AM "6-3 and 134 pounds"...Is that possible? I can't imagine someone that tall weighing so little. Ace Pryhill · October 17, 2005 12:26 PM Er, I just talked to someone who is 6-4 and 160ish. He said he was stuck at in the 130s until he got married. I stand corrected. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion. Carry on. :) Ace Pryhill · October 17, 2005 12:34 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Absolutely right.