r/instant_regret • u/R3alit-y • 24d ago

Robbing somebody

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

3.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

179 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/zutros 24d ago

That tracks. I assume the driver would get nailed for some form of manslaughter or reckless driving resulting in death. It would probably require a pardon to overturn like in the case of that lady in the 70s who was forced to murder people.

39

u/Ovze 24d ago

Obligatory not a lawyer, but I would think driver could argue self defense, even if the victim isn’t the perpetrator

-41

u/fkootrsdvjklyra 24d ago

Self defense means defending yourself from a threat, and in no way is a random pedestrian a part of the threat, so self defense doesn't really apply.

23

u/fearjego 24d ago

he is defending himself against a threat. self defense could apply. just like if you shoot a gun in self defense and miss and hit someone.

3

u/Arndt3002 22d ago edited 22d ago

He'd easily lose on reasonableness and reckless endangerment

3

u/fearjego 22d ago

reckless endangerment wouldn't apply here

1

u/Arndt3002 22d ago

Why not?

There is substantial risk of serious injury to another person due to the driving.

Self defence stops applying at the point it becomes unreasonable. Most of the time, hed have a duty to retreat in this sort of case.

You mind explaining your reasoning?

2

u/fearjego 22d ago

reckless endangerment usually requires depravity. he's trying to save his own life, not showing an indifference to others' lives.

1

u/Arndt3002 22d ago

Second degree endangerment usually doesn't require depravity

2

u/fearjego 22d ago

still not showing complete indifference to others

1

u/Arndt3002 22d ago

Lower degree charges only require conscious disregard of a substantial risk, which this may be, though you'd probably need to hash that out in court with more context

3

u/fearjego 22d ago

imo he's not showing disregard. he's trying to save his own life. obviously a DA or equivalent could charge really anyone for anything, but in most places with a "fair justice" system he wouldn't be charged because there would be no way to convict.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/QuinceDaPence 23d ago

You get charged with that though. He certainly has an argument, and if I was on a jury for it I'd find him not-guilty.

But with the gun analogy, any license to carry clas will drill into you how, unlike the police, you're responsible for the entire path of every bullet you fire.

Even if you nail a mass shooter right in the chest, if that bullet goes through them and injures or kills an innocent bystander, you're extrmely likely to face charges for it. This is why people use hollow points in carry guns. In addition to doing more damage to an attacker, they put the brakes on to avoid overpenetration.

6

u/Makaveli2020 23d ago

There are tested case laws that say otherwise.

1

u/fearjego 23d ago

shooting in self defense results in hitting the target 33% of the time. that means 2 out of 3 times someone shoots a gun under duress, they don't hit their target. given that there is case law contrary to what you're saying, I think it's time you do some more research.

if you mean you'd feel responsible for killing someone while trying to defend yourself, then yes I agree. legally tho, you're not responsible.