Escaped killer on the loose for 9 days. How's he doing it????

75392313-12513495-image-a-32_1694621874528.jpg

75384561-12513495-image-a-104_1694613059869.jpg

They say it was the dogs who found him, and bit into him... after the Police had searched for him using Thermal imaging.

The killer's capture, which took about five minutes, brings relief to anxious residents of southeastern Pennsylvania who endured sleepless nights as he hid in the woods, broke into suburban homes for food, changed his appearance, and fled under gunfire with a rifle pilfered from a garage.

Authorities used thermal imaging from an aircraft to pinpoint a possible location and then used ground forces to capture Cavalcante, State Police Lt. Col. George Bivens said on Wednesday.
 

ohioboy said:
They might charge him with ...Escape... a third degree felony. Since he was doing Life anyway, probably not?
Click to expand...
They also got him on vehicle theft, stealing the .22 rifle, a couple of burglaries and trespassing charges. He probably stole the sweat shirt and some other stuff.

Just deport him. He has to face murder charges there. Some say he's determined to get revenge on his girlfriend's family and even years from now that will be the first thing he does if he ever gets out of prison And that is why some don't want him deported fearing a lax justice and prison system in Brazil
 
A newspaper report says his destination was Canada.

"He stated he intended to carjack somebody in the next 24 hours and that he was going to head north to Canada," a U.S. Marshals Service official told ABC News on Wednesday.
 
I saw his capture on some TV show. It really amused me that it took something like 100 people to catch this 1 guy. Yogi Bear was "smarter than the average bear" so I think that this killer was smarter than the average killer.
 
Chet said:
When Cavalcante stole the rifle, the owner took a couple of shots at him when he fled. I know that you can shoot in self defense, but if Cavacante had his back turned as he ran and was shot and killed, I was wondering if the homeowner would be held for his death? @911?
Click to expand...
Great question. Gun liability is often complex when something like this happens. However, as you describe it with the owner not loaning the gun or selling the person the weapon, the owner would not share in the responsibility of the shooting. However, (there's always a but or however), the owner may face a civil liability for not properly having the weapon locked, stowed away or otherwise not made available to the perpetrator. It may be possible for the victim's heirs to sue for damages based on not properly having the weapon available to the shooter.

It's only possible. This is what lawyers get paid for. They will have to fight it out, but the judge may decide that the gun owner is 5% or more responsible for not keeping his weapon locked up and out of sight.

I had a case where 2 kids wanted to go shooting pigeons and groundhogs. The 1 kid didn't have a gun so the other kid "loaned" his buddy a pistol to go shooting. The kid with the loaned weapon shot his buddy in the thigh accidently and no charges were filed, but the kid's parents that was shot sued the parents of the kid that loaned his buddy the gun. It was settled out of court, so I don't have the results to tell you what they were.

I know this sounds blatantly unfair, but this is what lawyers do. I do know there was a cash settlement in this case. I testified, but really had nothing to say to help either side.

I hope this helps.
 
Chet said:
When Cavalcante stole the rifle, the owner took a couple of shots at him when he fled. I know that you can shoot in self defense, but if Cavacante had his back turned as he ran and was shot and killed, I was wondering if the homeowner would be held for his death? @911?
Click to expand...
The use of deadly force is the basically the same for police as it is for civilians. The main difference is, when police use deadly force, it triggers the 4th Amendment, not so for civilians. When killing a "fleeing" suspect, various factors are scrutinized. If the homeowner knew it was the escaped killer, by allowing him to further escape, lives are put in jeopardy, therefore a fatal back wound would most certainly be justified.

I think 911 misunderstood your question, he was commenting on civil liability concerning if the homeowner would be liable if the convict killed someone with his gun? 911, am I reading that right?
 
ohioboy said:
The use of deadly force is the basically the same for police as it is for civilians. The main difference is, when police use deadly force, it triggers the 4th Amendment, not so for civilians. When killing a "fleeing" suspect, various factors are scrutinized. If the homeowner knew it was the escaped killer, by allowing him to further escape, lives are put in jeopardy, therefore a fatal back wound would most certainly be justified.

I think 911 misunderstood your question, he was commenting on civil liability concerning if the homeowner would be liable if the convict killed someone with his gun? 911, am I reading that right?
Click to expand...
You're right. I did misread the question and now that I have a better understanding of it, I can tell you how I would have reacted had the owner of the gun that was stolen would have shot and wounded or killed the perpetrator. I definitely would have taken him into custody, only because this is something that I never ran into previously, so I don't know how the D.A. would proceed. I wouldn't have arrested him because I wouldn't know what to charge him with.

The D.A. would have been contacted immediately, given the details and he or she would have made the decision to either arrest or release the person. Had the culprit fired the rifle, that would have made it an easy call, but if he ran away with the rifle and did nothing else and the owner would have wounded the prisoner, he could have been charged with a different crime than if he had shot and killed him.

The question would have come down to "was using reasonable force necessary?" And, would the D.A. allow immunity against the owner of the weapon and consider the fact that the owner was assuming that if the perpetrator got away, he would be a further danger to society. I am not a Constitutionalist, so interpreting the full scope of the 14th Amendment is an impossible act for me to do.

It is really going to come down to me relying on the interpretation and judgment of the D.A. I would want to get this right, so the logical thing to do would be to rely on the D.A.'s judgment.
 
911 said:
I definitely would have taken him into custody, only because this is something that I never ran into previously, so I don't know how the D.A. would proceed. I wouldn't have arrested him because I wouldn't know what to charge him with.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that still be an Arrest by law?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top