Think Bush is having a bad day?.......(humor from The Week)

[splat@14]

Bad Week For Great escapes,

After the getaway car backed up over an armed robber in Milwaukee. As the robber tried to limp away, a witness to the crime used her car to ram him—four times. When the bleeding thief tried to pull a gun from his pocket, he shot himself in the leg.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/channel.aspx?typeID=2

[man4allcats]

1. Don't think of it as prison time...

For this guy, it will be more like protective custody. Lock him up before he gets himself killed! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[damntexdem]

2. I agree, but first it will be necessary to:

impeach him and convict him.

[Glenda]

4. LOL!!! Good point!

:rofl:

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Inflicting Bodily Injury with a car is Assault and Battery

The "witness" was guilty of a crime and is way out of line. Additionally, she is lucky not to have gotten killed. I hope she is prosecuted.

[Poll_Blind]

5. I disagree, she had reason to fear for her life and the safety of others.

It's the same reason that a police officer may shoot a fleeing criminal who has just committed an armed robbery- this individual is an imminent threat to all citizens around them and has displayed wanton rancor with the use of a firearm. No jury in their right mind, which is to say no random group of a dozen citizens in their right mind, would find criminal or even negligent behavior on her part.

You forget, sir or madam, that there are two components to the law- the spirit and the letter. While you, for some unknown reason, seem to pursue the letter of the law blindly you forget that the spirit of the law bears equal weight.

If a person shoots an armed robber in self defense, are they penalized for discharge of a firearm within city limits? No, self defense overrides that law as it would any laws applicable to this woman had she run over, say, a pedestrian.

One final thought- you may wish to reconsider your blindered-view of laws and rules. Such literal interpretation of laws may one day be turned against you.

PB

[Richard Steele]

6. Well put, Poll_Blind. eom

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. No she did not have reason to fear & if she did her best bet was to flee.

No, she did not have reason to fear, and if she did, her best bet was to drive away. The robber was on the ground, injured, with no gun in sight. She was in a car with the engine running. Her smartest and most responsible move would be to drive away and let professionals deal with the problem. Otherwise she is risking her life and that of bystanders by taking unprofessional action. When the robber attempted to use his weapon in self defense against her, he injured himself but could have injured or killed others. She was irresponsible and wrong.

The woman was not an officer of the law. There are limits to excessive force, even for police officers. I think there is only one jurisdiction in the US where property rights trump criminals' bodily rights and even then there are limitations. For example, the bank property did not belong to the woman.

She was wrong for the same reasons that it is wrong to set lethal or injurious booby traps, and I see no evidence that she would be able to invoke self-defense as a defense.