Hypothetical Legal ?

[ChrisL]

There was a smash & grab robbery at a local jewelry shop (very common crime these days).  4-5 masked guys rush a jewelry store, smash displays with hammers while others grab jewelry & they all haul ass. Except this time two employees strike back and thwart the robbery. One robber is hit so hard he’s knocked on his ass & the other employee starts kicking him while he’s down. 

It got me thinking, what if one of the store employees accidentally killed or severely wounded a robber in the fight?  The robbers aren’t after the employees, just the jewels. There were no guns, just hammers used to smash the glass cases.  The proprietors have a right to defend themselves, do they have a right to defend their property in a manner that would warrant lethal force?

A guy I work with was pretty adamant the f’ers deserved to die but I played devils advocate, can you really kill or maim someone defending stuff?

How do you feel, can you kill someone over stuff?  It would be an interesting legal challenge for sure. 

[Zephyr]

In Canada, you cannot kill to protect property.  Only if you fear "Death or grevious bodily harm to yourself or others"

[Prophet Zacharia]

1 minute ago, ChrisL said:

One robber is hit so hard he’s knocked on his ass & the other employee starts kicking him while he’s down.

How many times over how long a period of time? I doubt a DA would prosecute or a jury convict an immediate, limited physical response to a robbery attempt. But repeated kicks once they are clearly incapacitated would be difficult to defend, and would be shown to a jury on CCTV with a time stamp. 

[ChrisL]

2 minutes ago, Prophet Zacharia said:

How many times over how long a period of time? I doubt a DA would prosecute or a jury convict an immediate, limited physical response to a robbery attempt. But repeated kicks once they are clearly incapacitated would be difficult to defend, and would be shown to a jury on CCTV with a time stamp. 

In this situation, although it  didn’t happen could have,   a lucky punch, robber goes down hits head, other employee kicks him & he dies from a head injury.

But sure, stomping somebody repeatedly over a period of time while down is a totally different legal question. 
 

 

[JerrySTL ★]

18 minutes ago, ChrisL said:

4-5 masked guys rush a jewelry store, smash displays with hammers

Versus 2 store employees? If I was one of the employees, I'd be afraid for my life. I'd have to try to even up the odds quickly by any means possible.

Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

[Prophet Zacharia]

23 minutes ago, ChrisL said:

In this situation, although it  didn’t happen could have,   a lucky punch, robber goes down hits head, other employee kicks him & he dies from a head injury.

But sure, stomping somebody repeatedly over a period of time while down is a totally different legal question. 
 

 

I think if it’s a one and done sorta thing, no one is going to convict someone of that death. “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes” as the kids will say.
 

Shooting them in the back as they ran off or beating an incapacitated individual after the robbery has essentially ended would be a different scenario. IMO.

[maddmaxx ★]

I think I agree with Jerry.  The robber is armed with a hammer and I'm afraid that if he gets up we are going to get hurt or killed.  IMO the hammer is a lethal weapon.

Now if he gets out and runs I would consider it illegal to chase and kill.

[Razors Edge ★]

32 minutes ago, JerrySTL said:

Versus 2 store employees? If I was one of the employees, I'd be afraid for my life. I'd have to try to even up the odds quickly by any means possible.

Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

 

9 minutes ago, maddmaxx said:

I think I agree with Jerry.  The robber is armed with a hammer and I'm afraid that if he gets up we are going to get hurt or killed.  IMO the hammer is a lethal weapon.

Now if he gets out and runs I would consider it illegal to chase and kill.

Yep - defense during an armed robbery (whether a hammer counts or not??) is, to me, well within someone's right to protecting their life.  But that's assuming a lot of conditions - ie workers cut off from easy escape and not with a "better" alternative to putting their lives at further risk as well as potentially killing over replaceable "things".  

I don't think a jury is going to convict most folks over something that shows they were defending themselves (or that most DAs are chasing having that trial).  On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of the race/color divide if it did go to a jury.  

[jsharr ★]

I would imagine that wielding a hammer in a robbery could be considered a deadly weapon and cause one to fear for his life and defend it.  

[Kirby]

I think this goes to the "Stand Your Ground" law that recently got a lot of publicity in Florida.  A number of states have such laws, but only a subset of the laws cover defending property versus defending yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

[shootingstar]

1 hour ago, Zephyr said:

In Canada, you cannot kill to protect property.  Only if you fear "Death or grevious bodily harm to yourself or others"

Interesting...tell that to the farmers in our province. I really think that's the line of thinking out in the rural areas to arm themselves plus protect from  property theft, wildlife. There have been thieves attempting invasions, etc. 

I was surprised there were over 100 guns, the RCMP held temporarily, from High River residents during our 2013 river flood when they were evacuated.  That is alot... Sure, some people did hunting. But some were just infected with overblown thoughts re urban crime. (Meanwhile here we are in downtown...).  My response always has been: then get 1-2 dogs.

And for sure, it would be property theft...cattle, etc. And there have been problems of missing cattle on the bigger ranches.

Better to get some dogs for that type of house protection too.

[Parr8hed]

There is an easy way to make sure that you don't get kilt while trying to rob someone.

[maddmaxx ★]

52 minutes ago, Kirby said:

I think this goes to the "Stand Your Ground" law that recently got a lot of publicity in Florida.  A number of states have such laws, but only a subset of the laws cover defending property versus defending yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

Stand your ground only exists in some states.  CT is very specific on the use of deadly force and that does not include defending stuff.

[JerrySTL ★]

Here's an example.

 

[ChrisL]

7 minutes ago, JerrySTL said:

Here's an example.

 

This is the incident that caused the debate with a coworker.

[Zephyr]

3 hours ago, shootingstar said:

.... wildlife.

Federal laws allow farmers to protect livestock from wildlife, regardless of season, as long as the firearm is discharged in a safe manner.  It is common for farms to have firearms on site.  Even my daughter's farm,  as small as it is, has firearms on the property.

[shootingstar]

4 minutes ago, Zephyr said:

Federal laws allow farmers to protect livestock from wildlife, regardless of season, as long as the firearm is discharged in a safe manner.  It is common for farms to have firearms on site.  Even my daughter's farm,  as small as it is, has firearms on the property.

Note:  High River is a town, not a farming community.

[MickinMD ★]

5 hours ago, ChrisL said:

There was a smash & grab robbery at a local jewelry shop (very common crime these days).  4-5 masked guys rush a jewelry store, smash displays with hammers while others grab jewelry & they all haul ass. Except this time two employees strike back and thwart the robbery. One robber is hit so hard he’s knocked on his ass & the other employee starts kicking him while he’s down. 

It got me thinking, what if one of the store employees accidentally killed or severely wounded a robber in the fight?  The robbers aren’t after the employees, just the jewels. There were no guns, just hammers used to smash the glass cases.  The proprietors have a right to defend themselves, do they have a right to defend their property in a manner that would warrant lethal force?

A guy I work with was pretty adamant the f’ers deserved to die but I played devils advocate, can you really kill or maim someone defending stuff?

How do you feel, can you kill someone over stuff?  It would be an interesting legal challenge for sure. 

If someone breaks into a store and uses hammers which break glass and sends shards flying and the hammers and glass could kill someone, destroy an eye, etc., the workers should, in my view, have the right to beat them until they can't wake up and resume their attack with their hammers.  If they die, it's not the workers fault.

Of course, we're in an era where the law is interpreted by political opinion, not by morals or established justice.  You have to specify the where and when the attack took place and the whether the attackers were guards, etc. and what political and social viewpoints they had.  Because the wrong combination is either innocent or guilty no matter what the law says.

[Zephyr]

2 hours ago, shootingstar said:

Note:  High River is a town, not a farming community.

Yes, been there many times.  It is  rural town of about 13,000 where probably 75% of the homes have a hunting license annually.  Hunting is very popular in game rich areas where a 15 minute drive from your back door can put you in the middle of nowhere

[Prophet Zacharia]

18 hours ago, ChrisL said:

This is the incident that caused the debate with a coworker.

The only issue I would have is if the use of the chair, late in the proceedings, killed a downed robber. Although it looks like a hammer is still being swung at the same time. So I’d say it’s a good hockey play.

[jsharr ★]

26 minutes ago, Prophet Zacharia said:

The only issue I would have is if the use of the chair, late in the proceedings, killed a downed robber. Although it looks like a hammer is still being swung at the same time. So I’d say it’s a good hockey play.

Yep.  A guy wielding a big hammer is using deadly force in my opinion.  The victims should be able to fight back with anything at hand without consequence.

[Razors Edge ★]

20 minutes ago, jsharr said:

Yep.  A guy wielding a big hammer is using deadly force in my opinion.  The victims should be able to fight back with anything at hand without consequence.

Yeah - that's true but only up to a point (in any situation).  Chasing away or subduing does not often allow continuing into maiming and/or killing.  So that's the tricky line that you don't want to cross - the shooting in the back, or the killing an unconscious or defenseless thief.  But absolutely a hammer can KILL, so that is a deadly weapon as long as it is being swung by the bad guy.  Once that part of the threat is neutralized, and the attackers fleeing or subdued, the roles change and things enter a different phase where new rules apply.  But damned if that adrenaline rush wouldn't be in full effect during this sort of melee. 

[ChrisL]

Playing devils advocate again…

The crook used the hammer to break the glass and then steps back.  After another crook is attacked by the store employees he comes back and swings the hammer.

A good defense attorney could say he was defending his friend who himself was being attacked and injured by repeated kicks.  A good defense attorney could also argue had the store employees not engaged the crooks they  would have taken the jewels and left without harming the employees.  no guns were drawn, they were after jewels not to harm anyone.

Remember this is from the perspective of a personal injury suit, not a criminal defense.  

Personally I think the store employees came away lucky here and no amount of jewels are worth dying over.  But part of me also wishes the store employees were armed and just capped their asses…

[12string]

All our suppositions on what we think is valid is useless in court.

Quite easily the employee is charged with murder.  In court, he would have to show that he had good reason to fear for his life when initiating the confrontation, and that the danger still existed after the robber was down.

The prosecution would try to show that the hammers were only being used on glass and they made no threats towards the employees.

Sure, you can protect your property.  But the laws try to ensure that theft isn't punishable by death by a one man cop, jury and executioner

Just not smart anyway.  Step out of the way, it's just stuff and the insurance will cover it.  Maybe the hammer dudes also have guns you don't see.