>
> Not that this literally applies to this case, but is your statement really
> true?

Yes. Absolutely. In the United States.

> Again, this might not exactly fit the details of this case, but if Person
> A is threatening your life with a gun and the only way out is by running
> over Person B with your car and killing them, are you legally allowed to
> do so? What is Person B isn't threatening your life -- they're the wife or
> the bystander or whatever?
>
> brink

Interesting question. I'd say it depends on the situation. In the case we
are discussing, YES. The family was working as a team to capture ellington.
Their actions were wholly illegal, BTW. At the point where the father
started shooting at ellington, the family was working as a team to MURDER
ellington.

Citizen's arrest did not apply to the scenario that this trial was about.
Several conditions must be met before a citizen can legally arrest another
citizen. NONE of those conditions were met before the police were called
concerning the road rage incident that started the incident in question.
Regardless, IF any of those conditions HAD been met, citizen's arrest no
longer applies after police arrive on the scene. As the police had already
responded, there is no possible scenario under which citizen's arrest would
have been legal.

So the family that cornered ellington were acting as a vigilante mob, with
no legal authority to do so. If they'd succeeded in capturing ellington,
the whole family could have THEN landed in prison on kidnapping and/or false
arrest FELONY level criminal convictions. Now I APPLAUD the family for
sticking their necks out to try to capture Ellington. But in hindsight, it
was pretty fricking stupid, considering that they had no legal authority to
act in such a manner, and their illegal activity resulted in the death of
the mother.

But back to your question . . . Person A is discharging a loaded firearm,
intent on killing Person C. Person B doesn't have a gun, but is illegally
trying to kidnap Person C as part of a team effort with the person who is
trying to kill Person C. In other words, Person B is trying to prevent you
from leaving so that Person A can kill you. At that point, it would be
legal for Person C to kill either Person A or Person B. It is not a true
statement to say that Person B wasn't trying to kill Person C. What it
boils down to, is that Person C was going to die if he didn't escape RIGHT
DAMNED NOW. All parties involved knew that Person C was going to die if he
didn't get away. Thus, Person C was wholly justified in LEAVING, even if
that meant driving over someone to get the **** out of there immediately.
It was a clear case of self-defense.

Of course, Person C was later ****ed by a jury just because he has a rap
sheet. -Dave