Because of my current interest level in the subject matter, the next three days you will be given three specific case studies. Two of them have varying degrees of legal absurdity associated with them, and are open and shut cases. The third one, well...the forensic scientist in me enjoys a messy, unsolved mystery from time to time. I'll close the series out with the unsolved case. Perhaps you can help solve the mystery.
The other two I merely find fascinatingly unreasonable...starting with this one:
Case Study #1
Deadly Force is defined by the potential of an outcome, not the actual outcome itself. If you aim a gun at another human being, pull the trigger and graze their elbow, this is still considered to be the use of deadly force, even though the victim merely suffered a scrape in the middle of their arm from a passing, poorly aimed bullet.
Our Hero, fast asleep in his suburban home, promptly wakes up in his second story bedroom due to a noise he hears downstairs. His wife, fast asleep next to him, has visions of sugarplums dancing in her head and his two children are snoring the night away in their respective rooms down the hallway.
Compelled to protect his family and home, Our Hero grabs his loaded pistol and sneaks downstairs. The noise is coming from the garage. Convinced that a perpetrator is rummaging around for valuables, potentially trying to find his way into the heart of the home, Our Hero slowly, deliberately moves closer to the garage entry, swings open the door to find exactly what he thought he might find...an intruder, rummaging around the dark garage. Our Hero opens fire and immobilizes the perpetrator by striking him in the leg.
The facts are:
1. The intruder illegally entered a private residence.
2. The home owner defended his property with deadly force and immobilized the intruder.
3. The perpetrator successfully sued the home owner from prison, serving time for breaking and entering, for the permanent damage done to his bum leg.
Every state has their own legal parameters. In the state of Florida where this case happened to take place, the law protected the bad guy for a couple of reasons. First, it is unlawful to defend property with deadly force in the absence of a reasonable threat. Second, the home owner pursued the intruder and personally escalated the situation.
If Our Hero had secured his family by standing guard at the top of the stairs and calling the authorities regarding a potential break-in, it is reasonable to believe that the outcome would have been drastically altered.
If Our Hero had secured his family by standing guard at the top of the stairs and calling the authorities regarding a potential break-in, but the intruder makes his way into the house and continues to the stairway, then a shot fired resulting in injury or death would have been a reasonable action, given the immediate, potential threat posed by the intruder.
This law has since been refined.
Although I agree with the refinement so that a person can not be sued by a criminal that illegally enters a home and becomes injured as a result, I whole heartily agree that Our Hero put himself and others in a dangerous and avoidable situation.
What if Our Hero encountered several people in his garage and one or more of them fired back?
What if Our Hero was ambushed and incapacitated by force by an intruder waiting for him on the other side of the door?
What if this intruder, previously unarmed, takes Our Incapacitated Hero's firearm and enters the now unprotected home where his wife and children believe they are safe and out of harm's way?
Our Hero put himself in an unknown situation risking his own life and ultimately the lives of his family. I have no remorse for the victim and his leg, of course, but being a hero sometimes requires thorough assessment prior to jumping the gun...pun intended. The point here is that the intruder in this particular case was considered the victim in the investigation. Due to this case and others like it, this particular law no longer protects the intruder. But it does not protect innocent people from making bad decisions, either.
What might all this have to do with hand jazzing?
I believe that we can all agree that the Royal Jazz Hands in us appreciates a break from routine and a good learning experience from time to time. Riddles, philosophical mind benders and now true crime tales. They're all intertwined in this hand jazzing journey of ours.
If you must know, I deployed "Quick Draw McJazz Hands" today. This is exactly the same as "Surprise Attack Jazz Hands" except done with a tad more ferocity. Additionally, my hands must stay firmly down at my sides until the whites of my eyes are clearly visible, reflecting back from the mirror.
Day two-hundred and eighteen complete.
The other two I merely find fascinatingly unreasonable...starting with this one:
Case Study #1
Deadly Force is defined by the potential of an outcome, not the actual outcome itself. If you aim a gun at another human being, pull the trigger and graze their elbow, this is still considered to be the use of deadly force, even though the victim merely suffered a scrape in the middle of their arm from a passing, poorly aimed bullet.
Our Hero, fast asleep in his suburban home, promptly wakes up in his second story bedroom due to a noise he hears downstairs. His wife, fast asleep next to him, has visions of sugarplums dancing in her head and his two children are snoring the night away in their respective rooms down the hallway.
Compelled to protect his family and home, Our Hero grabs his loaded pistol and sneaks downstairs. The noise is coming from the garage. Convinced that a perpetrator is rummaging around for valuables, potentially trying to find his way into the heart of the home, Our Hero slowly, deliberately moves closer to the garage entry, swings open the door to find exactly what he thought he might find...an intruder, rummaging around the dark garage. Our Hero opens fire and immobilizes the perpetrator by striking him in the leg.
The facts are:
1. The intruder illegally entered a private residence.
2. The home owner defended his property with deadly force and immobilized the intruder.
3. The perpetrator successfully sued the home owner from prison, serving time for breaking and entering, for the permanent damage done to his bum leg.
Every state has their own legal parameters. In the state of Florida where this case happened to take place, the law protected the bad guy for a couple of reasons. First, it is unlawful to defend property with deadly force in the absence of a reasonable threat. Second, the home owner pursued the intruder and personally escalated the situation.
If Our Hero had secured his family by standing guard at the top of the stairs and calling the authorities regarding a potential break-in, it is reasonable to believe that the outcome would have been drastically altered.
If Our Hero had secured his family by standing guard at the top of the stairs and calling the authorities regarding a potential break-in, but the intruder makes his way into the house and continues to the stairway, then a shot fired resulting in injury or death would have been a reasonable action, given the immediate, potential threat posed by the intruder.
This law has since been refined.
Although I agree with the refinement so that a person can not be sued by a criminal that illegally enters a home and becomes injured as a result, I whole heartily agree that Our Hero put himself and others in a dangerous and avoidable situation.
What if Our Hero encountered several people in his garage and one or more of them fired back?
What if Our Hero was ambushed and incapacitated by force by an intruder waiting for him on the other side of the door?
What if this intruder, previously unarmed, takes Our Incapacitated Hero's firearm and enters the now unprotected home where his wife and children believe they are safe and out of harm's way?
Our Hero put himself in an unknown situation risking his own life and ultimately the lives of his family. I have no remorse for the victim and his leg, of course, but being a hero sometimes requires thorough assessment prior to jumping the gun...pun intended. The point here is that the intruder in this particular case was considered the victim in the investigation. Due to this case and others like it, this particular law no longer protects the intruder. But it does not protect innocent people from making bad decisions, either.
What might all this have to do with hand jazzing?
I believe that we can all agree that the Royal Jazz Hands in us appreciates a break from routine and a good learning experience from time to time. Riddles, philosophical mind benders and now true crime tales. They're all intertwined in this hand jazzing journey of ours.
If you must know, I deployed "Quick Draw McJazz Hands" today. This is exactly the same as "Surprise Attack Jazz Hands" except done with a tad more ferocity. Additionally, my hands must stay firmly down at my sides until the whites of my eyes are clearly visible, reflecting back from the mirror.
Day two-hundred and eighteen complete.
No comments:
Post a Comment