Is what was done justified?

[StuDawggie]

I was watching the news last night when a story came on about a guy who was going around beating young women and girls randomly in Detroit with a pipe. As the story goes, this guy was beating these women, and a witness to the crime tried to run the guy down with her car. As she was chasing him, soem guys got involved in the chase, caught the guy, and started beating him down. In the mist of the beat down one of the guys beating the assulter shot and killed him. And now the police are looking for the guys who beat this guy down and killed him. Witnesses to the murder (if that's what you want to cal it)can't give a description of the guys who killed this man, or a description of the vehicle. One of the dead man's victims in still in the hospital and has been upgraded to good condition. Very rarely do I justify or agree with murder, but I'm just wondering what some of your opinions are. I know if I was on a jury I don't think I could convict the man who shot the guy who was beating women, because scum like this needs to be taken care of. Also all of this happened in a city where the cheif of police isn't even a sworn officer, and has taken unregistered guns on planes with him in his luggage.

For the full story here's a link to the news channel's story.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/0310221201.html

IMOH I think these men should be commended for what they did. But I just want to what the rest of you think about this.

StuDawggie

[MantisMag]

no. that was definitely not justified the way it was presented in the article. according to the witness they shot at him. he ran away. they chased him down and killed him. what they should have done was pull their guns and try to stop him. if he attacks them then fine shoot him. but they scared him off and then chased him down and killed him. that's just not right.

[PyRo]

Did he deserve a good beating, I think yes, but killing him I think is going too far.
I don't think that woman was justified in trying to run him down after he was no longer posing a danger to the victim. That is attempted murder and she should be tried for it.
For the guy who shot him, he should be charged for murder which is what he did. He has no claim of self defense, no claim that he was protecting someone else.

[Restola]

The implications of mob justice can be disturbing (since its obviously easier for mistakes to be made), but I can't say I don't smile every time some sex offender gets his butt kicked in prison, or some sicko gets beat down in the streets in front of 20 people who "didn't see anything".

[PyRo]

For anyone who thinks this kind of thing is justified.
Someone hears a gunshot, sees a man run across the hall of the apartment building with a gun. He then calls the police and tells them what happend, giving them a description of the guy running across they hall. The police arrive at an apartment building, enter the apartment to find two people lying on the floor covered in blood, one guy cowering in a corner, and a fourth guy (who meets the descripion of the guy running across the hall) standing there (no gun on person). The police then shoot the murder, and there is one less bad guy out there.


Now here is the story as told by the guy hiding in the corner.
There are four guys W, X, Y, and Z. X, Y, and Z are all in a room together. Guy X pulls out a gun and kills Guy Y. Guy Z hides under a desk or somthing. Guy W hearing the shot grabs his gun, runs into the room sees the body, sees Guy X shooting at guy Z. So Guy W shoots guy X.


Ok, grabing your gun and running into a situation like that is a very stupid thing to do. However since what he did was in defense of another person he will most likely be aquited of any charges. But because of people like the guy in that story he would have no chance.


How would you like it if the police worked this way?

[-=Squid=-]

A man randomly beats women at night with a PIPE, and you think he should live? Gimme a break...

[speeddemon]

But how do they know that it was him for sure? And what gives them the right to be judge, jury and executioner? While yes I could care less if they beat him senseless, but to chase him down and kill him is wrong. If we let this guy(who shot the guy) get away with it, then others might think that its ok to do the same thing to people that they believe are guilty of violent crimes, and sooner or later things get out of hand. There are laws for a reason, to keep order. We can't apply them only when we want to, and not to the other people. Everyone should be held to the same standard. The guy who shot him should be charged with murder.

[RetroEclipseMan]

Originally posted by speeddemon
But how do they know that it was him for sure? And what gives them the right to be judge, jury and executioner? While yes I could care less if they beat him senseless, but to chase him down and kill him is wrong. If we let this guy(who shot the guy) get away with it, then others might think that its ok to do the same thing to people that they believe are guilty of violent crimes, and sooner or later things get out of hand. There are laws for a reason, to keep order. We can't apply them only when we want to, and not to the other people. Everyone should be held to the same standard. The guy who shot him should be charged with murder.

Couldn't agree with you more.

[hitech]

Originally posted by speeddemon
...what gives them the right to be judge, jury and executioner?

There it is in a nutshell. Do you want everyone to be able to decide someone's guilt and then deliver whatever punishment they deem appropriate? While you may think the punishment is appropriate based on the story you read, what if it is not accurate? And even if it is, who gave "him" the right to decide the punishment? Would you want just anyone to be able to decide your guilt and punishment? What if they don't have all the facts?

Nope, it's wrong. I do not believe there is any state in the US that would not charge "him" with at least manslaughter.

Doing my part...

[Machina123]

.

no he didnt kill anyone, maybe he was sick in the head and needed help. there may be many possible explanations to it but he didnt deserve to be killed unless he killed someone else. i think the guy who shot him should get life in jail.

[Lopy-slopy]

This guy desserved what he got, but the way he got it was against the law, we can't have vidgilanty justice.

[Albinonewt]

No, it was not justified. Also, the beating the man received wasn't justified either. I allow for the people that caught up to him and blocked his escape, but that point he should have been apprehended and turned over to the authorities.

Shooting him was way out of line, since at that point the man clearly presented no threat to the shooter's, or anyone else's, life.

Also, I'm willing to bet that the witnesses CAN identify the man and the vehicle, but choose not to.

[Yamz]

First let me say that I was not there so any judgment I make here is only an opinion.

I have worked as station security on the base im stationed at and by marine corp order on deadly force if I was to walk on a scene that look like the one described i would be autorized to shoot him "to stop the threat". A suspect running that I can't catch and who would not stop, if the crime he was running from was severe enough i would shoot by the order. I would then have to prove in a court martial that I did everything in my power (and everything else failed) to stop him before I shot. As far as running him down beating him then shooting him... no. I would take him down, give him to the courts, and let the big guy in prison make him his girlfriend

Edit: I can't find a link to the order if some one can find a link to marine corp order 5500.2c or 5500.2b not sure whice one. the only copy I have is a hard copy.

[PyRo]

The marines are differant that this situation though. If the guy was unamred and an offier wasn't able to catch him I don't think he would be legally justified to shoot, unless the suspect posed a serios present threat.
For example if he shoots someone in front of a cop, obviously throws down his gun disarming himself and runs away I don't think the offier has any legal ground for the use of deadly force.

[speeddemon]

While I will say that in your situation it is different since you are working security as a marine, I still don't think that he should be shot at all if he was on the street. Now if he was on your base running like that, then sure shoot him, but just out in the streets no. Unless maybe he still had the pipe in his hands and you knew for sure that he was the one doing it, but even then no. Shoot maybe in the leg or something else not to kill, but things can happen that people just don't know about. That is why judgement should be always be taken later after all the facts can be discovered.