<$BlogRSDURL$> abbr, acronym { cursor: help; font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; color: #2a548d; /*border-bottom: 1px solid; */ }

Eminent Domain Stuff

New London Update (2/24/06)
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)

Wednesday, May 04, 2005


Deadly Force

A while back there was this pizza delivery guy in Niagara, NY apparently minding his own business and doing his job late one night. A couple of kids (allegedly) tried to rob him and (after sustaining a serious beating) the pizza guy fired one .40 caliber round, killing one of the punks. He fired the shot because he saw a gun in the hand of the now deceased punk. Turns out the gun was an "air pistol" that looks a lot like a Walther PPK (you know, James Bonds' gun).

Today I ran across a follow-up story out of Niagara informing us that the case is going to a Grand Jury...against the delivery guy! Now here's the part that gets my goat:

Section 15, Sub-section 2 of Article 35 appears to apply directly to the circumstances facing the deliveryman. It reads, “A person (may) use deadly physical force upon another person (if) he reasonably believes that such other person is using or is about to use deadly physical force (against him).”


“Even if the assailant was not armed with a gun, New York state law, under certain circumstances, would permit the use of deadly physical force to prevent a robbery in progress,” Palmer said. (emphasis mine)
The question I have is why this useless and inaccurate quote was included in the article? The fact is that it does not matter whether or not the punk was actually armed...only whether or not the pizza guy reasonably believes that such other person is using or is about to use deadly physical force (against him).

The thing that bothers me is that the deliveryman did not use his gun to prevent a robbery (he was in the process of being beaten before he drew and fired). Rather, he only used deadly force once he saw a gun in the hand of the punk. For the record, Mr. Palmer is Police Detective Captain Ernest Palmer and he is apparently somewhat confused about the situation.

Oh, and did I mention that it is absolutely ridiculous that this guy is being charged? Just goes to show you whose side this particular prosecutor is on. He apparently took an oath to protect the rights of criminals over those they try to victimize.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?