That helps, thanks. :salute:

Bring back the pillory in the public square so that we may spit upon the criminal and strike him with our shoes. Spending a week or two with pigeons crapping on you should be sufficient punishment to deter any miscreant from recidivist behavior. :up:Get your bird seed here folks! Bird seed for sale!
Empty the prisons and line up the pillories for a good old fashioned three Stooges style Gibbs slapping:O:

I'll settle fer the Judge...and a Hamm's at his tienda-cum-court in Vinigaroon, anyday! Walter Brennan, as the infamous jurist, winning his third Oscar in 1940's "The Westerner" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLYydMo-p7Q Polite toasts to English women (MS Lilly Langtree) and capital offense hanging cases and general horsn' around in court! http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/OTEwWDExND...SzGOC/$_57.JPG
Only offered as the prosecution asked potential jurors "After Judge Plese's questions, the prosecution took their turn at the pool of potentials, asking a multitude of questions including if they liked old westerns and if they had any sympathy or empathy." :hmmm:

If the attorney he has is smart, he will argue that he did not need to be acting in self defense to fire. If that argument is made, then he should (legally speaking) - be found to have committed justifiable homicide. I am not saying that the law is "right" in this case, but it is what the law as written calls for in this case.

I am not sure that I agree with the way the law is written in Washington State. Where do we draw the line? That is going to be highly independent and varied. What matters is that the State of Washington draws the line at firearms, motor vehicles or $5000.00 of theft. Vandalism isn't a felony so the egging of a car wouldn't apply.

In the interest of debate, let me point out a situation where the law as written in Washington could be used badly....

The law states that any felony can be acted on with justifiable homicide provided the homicide is committed to stop the felony. A class C felony is - as an example - assault on a minor.

So, a mom has had a long day and is at the grocery store with her 6 year old spoiled kid. Standing in line at the cashier, and the kid has been a brat and bugging the whole shopping trip. Maybe the kid takes a candy bar and refuses to put it back - mom gets angry and snatches the kid by the shirt, turns the kid around and wallops him/her a few times on the backside with an open hand. To some people - that constitutes an assault on a child. To others, its simply and reasonable corporeal punishment. The law "could" be used to justify shooting that mom disciplining her child if the shooter construed that as an assault.

With no requirement but to "be present" and nothing but their own viewpoint to guide them, it could happen.

Not likely though. A person choosing to carry is also likely to be not only more legally educated but also more responsible with their firearm than to act as above. Something to think about though.....

I would opine that recent events in Florida would challenge this assertion. :yep:

What recent events in Florida?

A case in my former hometown had a citizen arrested, charged with and convicted of attempted murder for sticking an arrow in the gob of a fleeing thief who had just stolen the radio out of his car.
Plain and simple, the crooks have more rights than the citizens if we are bound by law to let them get away with their thieving.
I think there should be the added uncertainty in the minds of those who would steal that there's no guarantee you will live to benefit from your plundered bootie. I think in this case, even a blind police officer could see that this miscreant died during the commission of grand theft auto. The police report should have been a slam dunk... Perp was found dead at the scene in a stolen vehicle. No shooter could be located. Case closed.
Maybe we should all turn to a life of crime and see how that works out.:hmmm:

Moral of the story: " If you're going to kill a car thief, it's best you have an unregistered weapon to put in his hand before the police arrive."

I think the law should be you can't use deadly force on a mere thief as long as he obeys your orders not to flee with your property or if you feel your life is in danger.

This reminds me of a story my grandfather told me when he ran a funeral home. A thief was trying to steal his car and he snuck up and had the thief at gunpoint. My grandfather said to the thief "you're probably wondering if I will shoot you if you run, only one way to find out...take off." The thief decided to wait for the police and a good thing.

When I was around 5, my father shot and killed an intruder when we lived upstairs in the funeral home. He actually shot the man on the back screened in porch. No charges were filed, but that was the 60's.

20/20 hindsight
 

I have to agree with Achtungbby - using the fear defense creates additional legal hurdles.

Had Gerlach simply stated he was acting in accordance with the law to stop a felony, there would be no charges.

Reasonably prudent, a little late for that.

A few years ago, Ken Schram (a Seattle talk radio host) had prosecutor John Ladenburg on his show. The question was asked:

If I find a man in my home raping my wife, can I shoot and kill him without being charged?

The answer: Yes

It was further asked: If he runs away and I chase him for three blocks before I shoot him, will I be charged?

The answer: No, you will not be charged because a felony is not complete until the criminal escapes. The escape completes the crime.

I wish they had podcasts from back then.....

Now - with that said, this adds 2 factors. One, the thief had not yet escaped, thus the felony was still "in commission". Also - the man taking Mr. Gerlach's vehicle constituted a danger to the general public since he was fleeing the scene of a crime and could have run someone over in his attempt to escape.

I really don't see him getting convicted - UNLESS the prosecutor states that the taking of the vehicle was "Taking without permission" as opposed to "theft of a vehicle". Only then can he claim the crime was not a felony and make the manslaughter charge stick.

In the end - I don't see a conviction. Know why? Because 12 people are going to look at this and say - well one less criminal on the streets - and done legally.

That is why I want to follow this to the end. I want to see what the jurys response is.

Next time you see pedestrian or chicken crossing the street in wrong place or light just accelerate.
If he runs chase him.