Dont take her pocky-book

[Sysop]

There is a LOT of stuff cops can do that private citizens CAN'T do.

Long story short, after all is said and done, I have the feeling this woman will regret her actions.

You missed the point. It has nothing to do with what a cop can or can't do, just to show that an automobile can be used as simple physical force, or as deadly force. Just because a private citizen did it doesn't immediately make it "deadly" force. Use of a vehicle to stop a criminal doesn't make the vehicle a deadly weapon. As stated, the fact she hit the brakes at the same time as hitting him shows her intentions were not to run him over, but only to stop him. She may well regret her actions due to all of the headache that will follow, but any half-decent lawyer will prevent it from costing her money or jail time (excluding the money the lawyer will charge).

 

[rswyan]

Any good lawyer is going to point out that police use their vehicles to stop criminals all the time and the skill of such driving is not restricted to police officers. If you look at Larry's link, it clearly states she was justified in using physical force (section G).

(g) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom he reasonably believes has committed a felony and who in fact has committed that felony, but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

If using a vehicle was immediately considered deadly force, police wouldn't be so quick to knock a motorcycle off the road for nothing more than speeding/fleeing.

What part of the following are you having trouble understanding?:

"... but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force."

Guy was running away ... what necessities a use of deadly force to "defend" against that ?

In what manner was the perp indicating that he was about to use deadly force whilst he was running away ?

 

[Sigarms]

You missed the point. It has nothing to do with what a cop can or can't do, just to show that an automobile can be used as simple physical force, or as deadly force. Just because a private citizen did it doesn't immediately make it "deadly" force. Use of a vehicle to stop a criminal doesn't make the vehicle a deadly weapon. As stated, the fact she hit the brakes at the same time as hitting him shows her intentions were not to run him over, but only to stop him. She may well regret her actions due to all of the headache that will follow, but any half-decent lawyer will prevent it from costing her money or jail time (excluding the money the lawyer will charge).

Exactly how is a half way decent laywer NOT going to have it cost her any money? He doing it pro bono?

 

[Sysop]

What part of the following are you having trouble understanding?:

"... but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force."

Guy was running away ... what necessities a use of deadly force to "defend" against that ?

In what manner was the perp indicating that he was about to use deadly force whilst he was running away ?

What part are you not understanding? Hitting someone with a car is not always considered deadly force. Had she not hit the brakes at the same time she hit the bad guy, you could say her intentions were to run him down with deadly force. Fact is, she hit the brakes when she hit him so she wouldn't run him over. Her goal was to stop him with physical force. The limited part of section G you quoted doesn't apply. No deadly force was used.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

She should be glad he survived fairly intact; had he died there is no denying what level of force was used. Kinda like attacking someone with a deadly weapon; you attack someone with a pair of pliers and kill them; then try to argue that it was not a deadly weapon.

Under common law and most states law, it was permissible to use deadly force against a "fleeing felon" until the Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of due process to kill someone running off with your hubcaps, unless he posed a real threat. The amount of force used must be commensurate to the threat.

She will probably succeed in her argument that she did not use deadly force since he survived in fair condition. However, what she did was not very smart, had she killed or severely crippled him, the doo doo she would have been in would have been deep.

 

[rswyan]

What part are you not understanding? Hitting someone with a car is not always considered deadly force.

That's true ... and one can think of countless examples where it isn't ... usually when the hitting is inadvertent and unintentional.

Different story though when someone deliberately sets out to hit someone.

Had she not hit the brakes at the same time she hit the bad guy, you could say her intentions were to run him down with deadly force.

That's also true ... however it does not mean that a prosecutor could not allege that she - acting in a fit of rage - intended to do the perp great bodily harm, using deadly force.

Remember: A death does not have to result as a consequence of using a weapon for there to be deadly force - you only have to have the potential for the weapon to kill ... something a car certainly has.

Fact is, she hit the brakes when she hit him so she wouldn't run him over. Her goal was to stop him with physical force. The limited part of section G you quoted doesn't apply. No deadly force was used.

Well, you believe that is exculpatory.

This guy stopped before he caused any fatalities too ... and he was still charged with two counts of attempted murder:

Man charged with attempted murder for ramming vehicle for miles - WBRC FOX6 News - Birmingham, AL

 

[rswyan]

She should be glad he survived fairly intact; had he died there is no denying what level of force was used. Kinda like attacking someone with a deadly weapon; you attack someone with a pair of pliers and kill them; then try to argue that it was not a deadly weapon.

Under common law and most states law, it was permissible to use deadly force against a "fleeing felon" until the Supreme Court ruled that it was a violation of due process to kill someone running off with your hubcaps, unless he posed a real threat. The amount of force used must be commensurate to the threat.

She will probably succeed in her argument that she did not use deadly force since he survived in fair condition. However, what she did was not very smart, had she killed or severely crippled him, the doo doo she would have been in would have been deep.

:thumbsup:

 

[turnkey4099]

I think people just type in the word snip to let you know this is just a snippet of a full quote.

I use it quite commonly to reply only to parts of a post. <snip> says that I erased other parts of the original message.

 

[Sigarms]

She will probably succeed in her argument that she did not use deadly force since he survived in fair condition. However, what she did was not very smart, had she killed or severely crippled him, the doo doo she would have been in would have been deep.

Her lawyer, who she will be paying will be arguing on her behalf

I would like to think that EVERYONE could agree that what she did was not smart.

If anything, I could see the court system NOT letting her off so easy to ensure that people don't decide to start hopping in their cars trying to hit people who may be running away on foot because they (people running) could of broken the law.

I did watch the news video again. Personally, I didn't see any break lights come on, I did however see her putting it into reverse. My only question is who the heck was the guy standing next to her vehicle when they were interviewing her (he was wearing the mossey oak ad shirt). Looks like it could be one big family.

 

[rswyan]

Yup ... I couldn't see any brake lights either ... I did however hear the young lady freely admit - on camera, apparently under no duress - that she did in fact "run over" the alleged perp ...

Not terribly bright to be very charitable about it.