Without wishing to turn this into a gun debate (as this was a person legally entitled to bear arms) what do you guys think construe "justifiable force"? Was this guard entitled to shoot her attacker, considering it could be fair to assume that having already been robbed she was no longer in physical danger?

[ 07-27-2004, 07:32 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

Well even if she shot him intentionally (shoot to kill) she could at least shot in his leg for example. But then again the was attacked (or so it seems from the article). Weird.

If she shot the guy from point blank range, and walked up to the car, as is said, it is a coldblooded merciless murder...

Agreed.
Situations I'd have considered justifiable:
a.) Shoot him as/while he was threatening her
b.) Told him to "Stop or I'll shoot", maybe fire a warning shot and then shoot him aiming for non vital parts (but hitting him lethally).

If she really went up to the car and shot him straight in the face from point blank range she could get away with manslaughter (in terms of Austrian law, I'm not quite sure about the US definition).
Only excuse I can think of is that she (correctly or not) thought the thief was drawing a weapon.

What guidelines/rules does her security company have regarding these things, and did she act according to those?

And what does the law say?

Perfectly justifiable. One more violent criminal off the streets .... permanantly. I feel no pity for the fool. He assaulted a guard with a deadly weapon, and tried to get away. His mistake in his crimes was he forgot to make sure she was incapacitated or dead. That she ended up drawing a bigger weapon after the first hit and finished the fight is immateriel.

Close enough to murder under our laws to at the very least commit to a trial and let the legal process flush out the correct answer. It sounds like an unreasoanable degree of force to me as it was used after the fact - I think she will get a minimum of 7.

Agreed.
Situations I'd have considered justifiable:
a.) Shoot him as/while he was threatening her
b.) Told him to "Stop or I'll shoot", maybe fire a warning shot and then shoot him aiming for non vital parts (but hitting him lethally).

If she really went up to the car and shot him straight in the face from point blank range she could get away with manslaughter (in terms of Austrian law, I'm not quite sure about the US definition).
Only excuse I can think of is that she (correctly or not) thought the thief was drawing a weapon. </font>[/QUOTE]Without trying to defend this girl as I don't know all the facts, I'm guessing all this happened fairly quickly - she got smashed in the head with a metal knuckleduster, she fell to the ground, the bag containing the $30,000 of hotel takings was grabbed, she screamed for the thief to stop as he got into his car, she got to her feet, ran up to the car and shot into it (probably without aiming) and got the thief in the head, killing him instantly. I doubt she'd have had time to aim for a non vital part or whatever, particularly if the window was closed.

The key point here will be: after she'd already been smashed in the head pretty badly and the thief had already stolen the bag with the $30,000 and was in the process of making a getaway, technically she was no longer in danger (she may have thought otherwise at the time, but events would suggest that the thief's main interest at that point would have been to escape with the cash) - was she then entitled to shoot him?

Did she then kill the thief in self-defence because she feared for her life after being smashed in the head with a metal knuckleduster pretty badly or did she shoot him to prevent the loss of the $30000? In that case, did she need to shoot him at all? It's only money, after all.

On the other hand, she didn't ask to get violently assaulted either (and the assault was clearly premeditated).

Tough question...this will have ramifications on how armed security guards do their jobs. As Davros said probably enough ambiguity from an Australian perspective to warrant a trial. Feel sorry for the girl in a way. You wouldn't want to be a security guard and have to face that decision, eh. :eek:

[ 07-27-2004, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

He got what he deserved! She should be rewarded.

He had it coming, he had it coming, he had it coming all along.
If you'dve been there, if you'dve seen it, how could you tell her that she was wrong?

Ok, now that I've gotten that out of my system, I'd like to agree with Memnoch.. I doubt, in her condition, that she could have aimed properly. I doubt she could have shot him in the head if she tried to. If she had just suffered a head trauma and was bleeding, I would imagine all she could do was point and pull the trigger.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">It is hard to say.

She probaly should have shot his tires out. But she did get bashed in the head pretty good. Not sure I would be able to think clearly with that kind of hit. Doubt I would have the greatest vision with blood pouring over my face either. The guy was a fool and he messed with the wrong guard. Case closed!!</font>

A few things to consider, at least here in the US (and in the military) a female law enforcement person is legally permitted to skip other derrent methods when faced with a male suspect, ie they can pull a gun instantly, without resorting to other shows of force (saying stop, brandishing weapon, etc) warning shots are neither encouraged nor permitted, nor as "shots to disable" and most gun training venues train you to shoot "center mass", ie a kill shot.

Her situation is a bit different as he had already left her and made a run for his car which definitely complicates the matter. Still I think that it was justified.

btw what is a knuckle duster? is it like Brass Knuckles?

That would be a yes then, thanks for the pic Mem.

There is no "defense of property" to use of deadly force under the common law. Only if her life was in immediate danger can she justify the use of force. If she shot him while he was fleeing, she's in for a jail term, all other things being equal, I predict. This is the reason police never shoot anyone who's fleeing, folks.

Now, some states in the US (notably Texas and Louisiana) formerly had "fleeing felon" laws where you could shoot a felon in the night who was fleeing -- but as far as I know those laws have been done away with as well.

This opinion does not reflect possible descrepancies under the current British statutes and laws, which are beyond my ability to accurately research.

[ 07-27-2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Nice pic, Memnoch. Fallout 2? :D

<font color=skyblue>If it had been me, I would have watched that guy walking off, thinking..."man...they're gonna blame me for the loss of this money, as it is my job to keep that cash in my possession." I would have shot him, too...mostly because of the bleeding head thing.

It is the heat of the moment thing, where she was popped a good one in her nogging, and her mind at the time told her she was justified. She was no ordinary citizen, she was legally allowed to have that gun and was a security guard. She must have felt that she was doing an okay thing.

I will be interested in hearing the end of this.</font>

a moral of the story:

Never bring a knuckleduster to a gun fight.

<font color=skyblue>If it had been me, I would have watched that guy walking off, thinking..."man...they're gonna blame me for the loss of this money, as it is my job to keep that cash in my possession." I would have shot him, too...mostly because of the bleeding head thing.

It is the heat of the moment thing, where she was popped a good one in her nogging, and her mind at the time told her she was justified. She was no ordinary citizen, she was legally allowed to have that gun and was a security guard. She must have felt that she was doing an okay thing.

I will be interested in hearing the end of this.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Well, she apparently can't remember firing the gun but knows that it went off...her story is that she was traumatised after being smashed in the head by a knuckleduster...

[img]redface.gif[/img]

hmm, interesting, to me it sounds like she went up to the car and was going to demand that he return the $$ but the gun went off instead, considering she was very likely disoriented, still quite a bit stunned, and bleeding profusely she probably didn't realise she had pulled the trigger enough to fire (increasingly likely if the gun had a hair trigger)

Any gun should have at least a 8 to 10-lb. trigger pull, even a woman's gun.

You never ever ever crack someone in the head and then leave them in an altered state while they are wielding a firearm.

Obviously if she was in her 'right mind', this would have to be considered murder, but the victim in this case provided her with an out by apply brass knuckles to her head during the robbery. After seeing that picture, I'd have a hard time dismissing the fact that she may have still believed herself to be in danger, or even that she pointed it at him but had no intention of pulling the trigger. I also couldn't dismiss the fact that she may have just been enraged and killed him in the heat of the moment, but her injury, inflicted by the victim, would be more than reasonable doubt for me.

My guess? She'll get off on the criminal charge, but she'll lose a civil case to the crook's family.

Not in England. If you win one, you win both, and if you lose one you lose both over there. In fact, the whole OJ scenario (won criminal case, but lost civil) had them rather flumoxed on the other side of the pond. ;) Just an FYI.

So a criminal win automatically equals a civil win?

In that case, I say she gets off all around, as the victim's criminal activity more than likely brought about his own death.

[ 07-28-2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

Hm... The word "Unlawful" jumped out at me from Memnoch's post.
I suppose her actions were unlawful, but were they *wrong*? Does anybody here think so? Actions don't have to be wrong to be unlawful.

If she was in her right mind, after his attack, and she still pulled that trigger after following the robber to his car then it was both wrong and unlawful.

A quality lawyer should get her off, and hopefully the bank will provide one for her... she can claim shock and those head injury's look good enough to win any jury over.


But one thing is for sure she will be charged and she will have to deal with a couple of years of the stress of court and fear of jail. A fact that should never be underestimated.


The only major problem I see may stem from her initial interview with police. Unless she can get it dismissed because she can produce evidence she was suffering from shock. In that interview she "may" have perjured herself

After seeing that picture I'm even more convinced that she did the right thing.