Quote:
Originally posted by Faceman:
quote:
Originally posted by JrKASperov:
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. [/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.
[ 07-27-2004, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]