just let em do it

Dave wrote:
> > First of all, your explanation has nothing at all to do with "self
> > defense". It is an explanation of "fleeing danger", "escaping" or
> > similar. To be self-defense he would have had to be driving at daddy,
> > not mommy, driving at mommy does nothing to stop the shooting. How is
> > running away self defense? That is "self preservation". I myself
> > though that a much better defense would have been, "it was an
> > accident". He could have even tried the "I was too drunk to know what
> > I was doing" but self-defense was a non-starter from the git go.
> >
> > Note that at the point daddy started shooting, Ellington was clearly a
> > criminal (felonious assualt with a deadly weapon - twice) and daddy was
> > trying to protect innocent parties (the girls). His shooting at that
> > point was justified. Anyone is authorised to use deadly force to save
> > the life of a victim. Of course someone doing it is going to have some
> > fun justifying it later.
> >
> > In the original thread you displayed a complete misunderstanding of
> > self defense and aren't doing much better here.
> >
> > Harry K
> >
>
> Odd, I was thinking the same thing about you, that you do not understand
> self-defense. But it's easy to see how you are confused. You think that
> mommy was an innocent bystander who got run over. But that ignores the fact
> that the whole family was an illegal vigilante mob who cornered ellington
> with no legal authority to do so. It also ignores the fact that after daddy
> started shooting to kill ellington, nobody else in the family tried to stop
> daddy from doing so. In fact, the rest of the family were trying to prevent
> ellington from escaping so that daddy could murder him. So now even you
> should be able to see that the family was working *** AS A TEAM *** to
> MURDER ellington at a point in time before ellington escaped the illegal
> vigilante mob by running over one of the gang members intent on killing him.
>
> The only possible way ellington could IN FACT be guilty of murder (as
> opposed to just wrongfully convicted of murder) would be if he managed to
> escape the murderous, illegal vigilante mob, and then sometime later
> deliberately ran over somebody who happened to be walking by, in the wrong
> place at the wrong time. Because once you've escaped, it can no longer be
> called self-defense. But when ellington ran over a member of the murderous
> mob intent on killing him, he was still trying desperately to flee for his
> life.
>
> Again, this verdict was about ellington being a bad boy and the jury wanted
> to send him to prison (where even I would say that he probably belongs),
> even though he was NOT guilty of the current charges. The current
> conviction is utter and total bull****, and I hope like hell it gets tossed
> on appeal. -Dave

If it makes you feel better to distort facts, totally ignore the law,
etc more power to you.

I suggest that if you were to actually research sefl-defense and
citizens arrest you wouldn't come off as so ignorant of the law.

Harry K

> If it makes you feel better to distort facts, totally ignore the law,
> etc more power to you.
>
> I suggest that if you were to actually research sefl-defense and
> citizens arrest you wouldn't come off as so ignorant of the law.
>
> Harry K
>

OK, tell me how citizens arrest applies to this situation. Go ahead. I'm
waiting.

What, it doesn't apply? Huge surprise there. So if the family didn't have
the right to stop ellington, what crimes were they committing by doing so?
Hey, you claim I'm the ignorant one, so help me out. -Dave

Dave wrote:
> > If it makes you feel better to distort facts, totally ignore the law,
> > etc more power to you.
> >
> > I suggest that if you were to actually research sefl-defense and
> > citizens arrest you wouldn't come off as so ignorant of the law.
> >
> > Harry K
> >
>
> OK, tell me how citizens arrest applies to this situation. Go ahead. I'm
> waiting.
>
> What, it doesn't apply? Huge surprise there. So if the family didn't have
> the right to stop ellington, what crimes were they committing by doing so?
> Hey, you claim I'm the ignorant one, so help me out. -Dave

Every citizen has the right to make a citizen's arrest to halt
felonious action. In the case of danger to innocent life that include
shooting the ******* if that is what it takes. What, you missed the
-fact- that Ellington was engaged in felonious assualt? What a
surprise.

In your tirade above, you seem to have ignored the -fact- that there
was no LE on scene until after momma had been run over. No surprise
there either.

Harry K
Harry K

> Every citizen has the right to make a citizen's arrest to halt
> felonious action.

Ok, you're wrong on two counts, regarding the case we are discussing.
First, citizen's arrest requires that the felonious action be IN PROGRESS.
An illegal vigilante mob pursuing an alleged perp after he already fled the
scene therefore makes any arrest by a citizen a felony level crime (because
the citizen no longer has legal authority to make an arrest). Second, prior
to the angry mob chasing ellington, no felony level crime had been
committed. So even if they organized a lynch mob DURING (whatever ellington
is alleged to have done), they still would have had no legal authority to do
so. No felony had been committed until (ironically) the family attempted an
arrest with no legal authority to do so. Then the whole family was guilty
of a felony level crime, and it was the FIRST felony level crime to be
committed, chronologically.

See where you are confused is that you don't understand that the FAMILY were
the first felons in this situation. It is alleged that ellington was guilty
of assault with a deadly weapon for ramming his vehicle into the daughters
vehicle. But if the family hadn't organized an illegal lynch mob first (and
committed a felony by doing so), ellington wouldn't have been in a situation
to use his vehicle to try to escape by ramming another vehicle.

> In the case of danger to innocent life that include
> shooting the ******* if that is what it takes. What, you missed the
> -fact- that Ellington was engaged in felonious assualt? What a
> surprise.

An angry, armed mob surrounds you intent on killing you. You ram your car
into one one of the mob's cars trying to escape. Later, you are forced to
kill one of the angry mob to escape. Now, rammed a car being driven by a
member of the angry mob, was it felonious assault, or self-defense? That
depends on the timeline of who committed the first felony. So you have to
consider, did the family have the right to arrest ellington? No, they did
not. So it was self-defense.

> In your tirade above, you seem to have ignored the -fact- that there
> was no LE on scene until after momma had been run over. No surprise
> there either.
>
> Harry K

Harry - This incident started with road-rage. The family called the cops,
the cops responded. The cops were on the scene. The cops were searching
for Ellington. Unfortunately, the family spotted ellington before the cops
did, and then made the mistake of deciding to try to arrest ellington WITH
NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO. You are right when you say that no cops were
anywhere near the scene when ellington ran over the mother. HOWEVER,
citizen's arrest no longer applies after the cops responded. The cops
responded long before the family turned into an illegal lynch mob. -Dave

Mike T. wrote:
> > Every citizen has the right to make a citizen's arrest to halt
> > felonious action.
>
> Ok, you're wrong on two counts, regarding the case we are discussing.
> First, citizen's arrest requires that the felonious action be IN PROGRESS.
> An illegal vigilante mob pursuing an alleged perp after he already fled the
> scene therefore makes any arrest by a citizen a felony level crime (because
> the citizen no longer has legal authority to make an arrest). Second, prior
> to the angry mob chasing ellington, no felony level crime had been
> committed. So even if they organized a lynch mob DURING (whatever ellington
> is alleged to have done), they still would have had no legal authority to do
> so. No felony had been committed until (ironically) the family attempted an
> arrest with no legal authority to do so. Then the whole family was guilty
> of a felony level crime, and it was the FIRST felony level crime to be
> committed, chronologically.
>
> See where you are confused is that you don't understand that the FAMILY were
> the first felons in this situation. It is alleged that ellington was guilty
> of assault with a deadly weapon for ramming his vehicle into the daughters
> vehicle. But if the family hadn't organized an illegal lynch mob first (and
> committed a felony by doing so), ellington wouldn't have been in a situation
> to use his vehicle to try to escape by ramming another vehicle.
>
> > In the case of danger to innocent life that include
> > shooting the ******* if that is what it takes. What, you missed the
> > -fact- that Ellington was engaged in felonious assualt? What a
> > surprise.
>
> An angry, armed mob surrounds you intent on killing you. You ram your car
> into one one of the mob's cars trying to escape. Later, you are forced to
> kill one of the angry mob to escape. Now, rammed a car being driven by a
> member of the angry mob, was it felonious assault, or self-defense? That
> depends on the timeline of who committed the first felony. So you have to
> consider, did the family have the right to arrest ellington? No, they did
> not. So it was self-defense.
>
> > In your tirade above, you seem to have ignored the -fact- that there
> > was no LE on scene until after momma had been run over. No surprise
> > there either.
> >
> > Harry K
>
> Harry - This incident started with road-rage. The family called the cops,
> the cops responded. The cops were on the scene. The cops were searching
> for Ellington. Unfortunately, the family spotted ellington before the cops
> did, and then made the mistake of deciding to try to arrest ellington WITH
> NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO. You are right when you say that no cops were
> anywhere near the scene when ellington ran over the mother. HOWEVER,
> citizen's arrest no longer applies after the cops responded. The cops
> responded long before the family turned into an illegal lynch mob. -Dave

As to the cop on the scene. No even close. That he had been there has
no bearing on what happened at the murder scene.

Strange that the PA, the cops, the judge and the jury didn't agree with
you. There was no felony committed until he started ramming the girls
car. Needlessly. According to your theory, an armed person enters
your house, you shoot and miss him, he has the right to kill you and
claim self defense. Ain't gonna fly.

No shots were fired until he had already rammed the girls car the first
time. That is the first felony that was committed. Attempting to stop
someone on the road is not a felony.

I said it before and will repeat it. This is a perfect sample of gross
stupidity on the part of everyone. It is also la good example of why
you should back off when road rage gets out of hand.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
> Mike T. wrote:
> > > Every citizen has the right to make a citizen's arrest to halt
> > > felonious action.
> >
> > Ok, you're wrong on two counts, regarding the case we are discussing.
> > First, citizen's arrest requires that the felonious action be IN PROGRESS.
> > An illegal vigilante mob pursuing an alleged perp after he already fled the
> > scene therefore makes any arrest by a citizen a felony level crime (because
> > the citizen no longer has legal authority to make an arrest). Second, prior
> > to the angry mob chasing ellington, no felony level crime had been
> > committed. So even if they organized a lynch mob DURING (whatever ellington
> > is alleged to have done), they still would have had no legal authority to do
> > so. No felony had been committed until (ironically) the family attempted an
> > arrest with no legal authority to do so. Then the whole family was guilty
> > of a felony level crime, and it was the FIRST felony level crime to be
> > committed, chronologically.
> >
> > See where you are confused is that you don't understand that the FAMILY were
> > the first felons in this situation. It is alleged that ellington was guilty
> > of assault with a deadly weapon for ramming his vehicle into the daughters
> > vehicle. But if the family hadn't organized an illegal lynch mob first (and
> > committed a felony by doing so), ellington wouldn't have been in a situation
> > to use his vehicle to try to escape by ramming another vehicle.
> >
> > > In the case of danger to innocent life that include
> > > shooting the ******* if that is what it takes. What, you missed the
> > > -fact- that Ellington was engaged in felonious assualt? What a
> > > surprise.
> >
> > An angry, armed mob surrounds you intent on killing you. You ram your car
> > into one one of the mob's cars trying to escape. Later, you are forced to
> > kill one of the angry mob to escape. Now, rammed a car being driven by a
> > member of the angry mob, was it felonious assault, or self-defense? That
> > depends on the timeline of who committed the first felony. So you have to
> > consider, did the family have the right to arrest ellington? No, they did
> > not. So it was self-defense.
> >
> > > In your tirade above, you seem to have ignored the -fact- that there
> > > was no LE on scene until after momma had been run over. No surprise
> > > there either.
> > >
> > > Harry K
> >
> > Harry - This incident started with road-rage. The family called the cops,
> > the cops responded. The cops were on the scene. The cops were searching
> > for Ellington. Unfortunately, the family spotted ellington before the cops
> > did, and then made the mistake of deciding to try to arrest ellington WITH
> > NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO. You are right when you say that no cops were
> > anywhere near the scene when ellington ran over the mother. HOWEVER,
> > citizen's arrest no longer applies after the cops responded. The cops
> > responded long before the family turned into an illegal lynch mob. -Dave
>
> As to the cop on the scene. No even close. That he had been there has
> no bearing on what happened at the murder scene.
>
> Strange that the PA, the cops, the judge and the jury didn't agree with
> you. There was no felony committed until he started ramming the girls
> car. Needlessly. According to your theory, an armed person enters
> your house, you shoot and miss him, he has the right to kill you and
> claim self defense. Ain't gonna fly.
>
> No shots were fired until he had already rammed the girls car the first
> time. That is the first felony that was committed. Attempting to stop
> someone on the road is not a felony.
>
> I said it before and will repeat it. This is a perfect sample of gross
> stupidity on the part of everyone. It is also la good example of why
> you should back off when road rage gets out of hand.
>
> Harry K

Hmmm...I got curious and refreshed my memory of how it went down. Here
is the original post.

<quote>
1 From: Harry K - view profile
Date: Tues, Jan 3 2006 3:38 pm
Email: "Harry K" >
Groups: rec.autos.driving
Not yet ratedRating:
show options
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author


Especially when it comes to road rage.

Spokesman Review, Spokane, WA 01/02/06. www.spokesmanreview.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
Driver faces murder charge.


A 41 OA Athol, Idaho, woman was run over and killed Saturday in an
apparent case of road rage.
----------------------------------


My summary: Two teenage girls were being harrassed by Jonathan
Ellington (45), tailgating, passing reclessly etc. Girls stopped, perp

stopped, beat on windows threatened to kill them, left. They called
cops on cell, the called parents. Cop showed, parents showed, cop took

statement and went lookign for perp. Girls and parents see perp go by
and chase him, he runs into ditch, daddy tries to block him, he gets
the 4x out of ditch and runs over momma who had gotten out of car. Cop

finds perp at home a little ways away. He is in jail with charges of
2nd degree murder, leaving scene of accident, DUI, probation violation
(prior DUI).

<unquote>

So they weren't "trying to stop him" or "chasse him" only keep him from
leaving. I suppose that can be considered as a citizen's arrest which
would be a good arguing point in a court as to justification. The
reporting on the trial was very sketchy. I see it was daddy who tried
to block him, I didn't hear or see anything in the trial to explain why
the girls got rammed twice. From the photos shown, it was not a case of
hitting a car to get it out of your way. That car was pushed 1/2 way
down the embankment and totalled. First hit may have been a valid
attempt to escape but not the second. At that point the situation
turns from one of "is daddy and family wrong?" to "Ellington is a
criminal" and what daddy and family did was fully justified (but very
stupid).

Harry K

> Strange that the PA, the cops, the judge and the jury didn't agree with
> you.

Not pressing charges against the family is not the same as saying that the
PA, the cops, the judge and the jury were all ignorant of the law.

> There was no felony committed until he started ramming the girls
> car.

If you attempt to arrest someone with no legal authority to do so, that is a
felony. You're forgetting that felony doesn't have to be murder or rape.
It's simply a crime serious enough to mandate prison time if convicted.

> Needlessly. According to your theory, an armed person enters
> your house, you shoot and miss him, he has the right to kill you and
> claim self defense. Ain't gonna fly.

That's a totally different situation. The homeowner isn't trying to arrest
the armed intruder.

> No shots were fired until he had already rammed the girls car the first
> time. That is the first felony that was committed. Attempting to stop
> someone on the road is not a felony.

It most certainly IS a felony. In every state of the U.S., that would
qualify as a felony. Citizen's arrest only applies under a very strict set
of circumstances. If the alleged perp is no longer on the scene, there is
no longer legal authority to make a citizen's arrest, if there EVER was.

> I said it before and will repeat it. This is a perfect sample of gross
> stupidity on the part of everyone.

That much I can agree with.

> It is also la good example of why
> you should back off when road rage gets out of hand.
>

No argument with that much.

This is the way I see this incident, and the way the LAW sees this incident:

Sunday morning: Larsen daughters call 911 to report ellington harrassing
them / following them / tailgating them / just being a severe pain in the
ass. Maybe a misdemeanor here and there, but no felonies had been committed
at that point.
NO LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR CITIZEN'S ARREST, as no felony was in progress.

Ellington then fled the scene. At that point, there was NO LEGAL AUTHORITY
FOR CITIZEN'S ARREST, for two reasons. First, no felony. Also, if there
had been a felony (which there wasn't), it was no longer in progress.

Cops respond to scene, and take statements directly from Larsen daughters.
At that point, there was NO LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR CITIZEN'S ARREST, for THREE
reasons. First, no felony. Also, if there had been a felony (which there
wasn't), it was no longer in progress. Finally, if there ever was legal
authority to make a citizen's arrest (and there wasn't), that authority is
no longer present after cops respond to the incident. The cops were on
scene, so there is no longer authority to make a citizen's arrest. But
there never was such authority anyway. I think this is the one you (Harry)
are having the most trouble with. But to help you out . . . the Larsen
daughters had a choice to go home then, but chose not to. And they (the
Larsen daughters) NEVER had a choice to attempt to arrest ellington. So the
Larsen daughters were wrong both logically and legally speaking, if they
ever attempted contact of any kind with ellington from this point onward.
Read that last sentence again.

Cops started actively searching for Ellington. As cops were actively
working on the case, this adds reason number FOUR that there is no legal
authority to make a citizen's arrest. In fact, for a citizen to attempt to
arrest another citizen at this point could be considered to be interfering
with police officers in the line of duty, IN ADDITION TO being a felony
level crime of false arrest and/or kidnapping. If the cops are working the
case, leave your fricking nose out of it. That's not just a damned good
idea, IT IS THE LAW.

Then the girls call the parents, the parents respond to the scene, and one
of them is armed. Keep in mind that the daughters already are prohibited
from making a citizen's arrest for four reasons. The parents ALSO are
prohibited from making a citizen's arrest for one additional reason. A
citizen has no legal authority to arrest another citizen unless the
arresting citizen personally witnesses a felony level crime in progress. No
felony was committed. If there had been, the parents didn't personally
witness it. FIVE reasons that there is no legal authority to make a
citizen's arrest now.

BUT WAIT! There's MORE. As if four or five reasons isn't enough . . .

Later, the Larsen clan spots ellington, and give chase (with no legal
authority to do so). While chasing larsen, the dad calls the sheriff. THE
SHERIFF ORDERS THE LARSEN FAMILY TO STOP. AFTER BEING ORDERED TO STOP BY
THE SHERIFF, THE LARSEN FAMILY IGNORES THE ORDER OF THE SHERIFF. So now,
not only do the Larsen clan fail to meet the requirements for a legal
citizen's arrest four or five times over, but they are also committing a
felony level crime by refusing to follow a direct order from law
enforcement. Sheesh! At this point, The Larsens seem hell-bent on landing
themselves in jail, somehow. They never had legal authority to attempt to
arrest ellington, but they are also disobeying a direct order from law
enforcement authorities NOT to.

After the ellington vehicle goes off the road, the Larsens use their two
vehicles to block him in and prevent him from escaping. All the Larsen
family members are committing AT LEAST TWO felony level crimes at this
point. One would be false arrest / kidnapping, the other would be
disobeying a direct order from a law enforcement officer. Both carry jail
time if convicted. (note the "if convicted" part . . . it's possible to
commit crimes and never be charged, but that is NOT the same thing as being
innocent...the Larsens, all of them, are damned lucky that the DA never
pressed charges against them)

So ellington is in the ditch now, attempting to escape a felonious armed mob
that has him boxed in. He slams his SUV into two different vehicles, but
the criminals won't let him escape. One of the criminals starts shooting at
him. Fearing for this life at this point, ellington guns the gas and drives
away. Unfortunately, one of the criminals gets squashed as ellington is
making good his escape.

At the time of Ellington's arrest, the arresting officers note many bullet
holes in Ellington's SUV. Ellington states at the time of his arrest that
he had been fleeing from someone who was trying to kill him by shooting him.
Quote from arresting officer is that ellington took action "to get away from
the gunfire". The many bullet holes in the SUV back up Ellington's claim
with indisputable hard evidence. (my comment: Ellington is damned lucky
that the larsen father couldn't shoot worth ****, or he would have died from
multiple gunshot wounds.)

Later, the local DA considers filing felony charges against the larsen
father for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. For reasons on the the
DA knows, no charges were filed against the larsen father. The DA certainly
would have been well within his authority to file charges against the larsen
father (and all the other larsen family members present), but chose not to.

OK, now Harry, tell me again why you think Citizen's Arrest was OK in this
situation? You are wrong for 5 or 6 reasons, depending on whether you are
talking about the daughters or the parents. But tell me how you think
citizen's arrest was OK in this situation. I'm really interested to hear
your thought process on the matter. But I already know that your opinion on
this subject does not agree with the law on this subject. -Dave

Mike T. wrote:
> > Strange that the PA, the cops, the judge and the jury didn't agree with
> > you.
>
> Not pressing charges against the family is not the same as saying that the
> PA, the cops, the judge and the jury were all ignorant of the law.
>
>

<snip>

Here's an idea. Why don't you find out the defense lawyers address and
point out to him how stupid and ignorant of the law he is? I am sure
he will be able to get the conviction tossed on your outstanding
erudition of the law that he somehow overlooked.

Harry K

>
> <snip>
>
> Here's an idea. Why don't you find out the defense lawyers address and
> point out to him how stupid and ignorant of the law he is? I am sure
> he will be able to get the conviction tossed on your outstanding
> erudition of the law that he somehow overlooked.
>
> Harry K
>

That's actually not a terrible idea. I don't know if the defense raised the
point that the larsen family were all engaged in felonious criminal activity
(more than one law was violated, also) before one of them was killed in
self-defense. If that point wasn't raised in trial, then it could be
grounds for appeal, as the defendant's lawyers did not do their job.

If that point WAS raised in trial, then the verdict still looks like it was
based on the defendant's prior record, and NOT on anything related to the
current charges.

I think Ann Thompson summed it up best: "He's been framed and this is a
redneck railroad and it's unjust and he didn't do this...These people caused
this, not him."

Yup, that pretty much sums it up. It was a railroad and certainly unjust,
and the Larsen people caused this. To see this any other way, you'd have to
ignore the many bullet holes in the Ellington's SUV. There are at least two
sides to every story, but bullet holes don't lie, and they don't exaggerate,
and they don't obfuscate. The bullet holes say that Ellington was defending
himself by leaving the scene of the armed felonious mob, and that he was
wholly justified in doing so. It is unfortunate that one of the felons died
while Ellington was defending himself. But the felons brought it on
themselves. If the whole family had died, they would have had nobody to
blame but themselves. -Dave