Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Shooting a Perpetrator in the Back

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    I'm new to Texas and it's very PRO-FIREARMS Laws, so I was wondering if it's legal here to shoot a perpetrator in the back, even while he's fleeing the scene, posing no threat any longer?

    In LIBERAL HAWAII, not even Officer's are allowed to shoot anyone in the back, if the assailant is in motion of fleeing the scene.

  2. #2
    Regular Member vermonter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    Why would you want to do that after the threat has ended? I could see any one doing that and being aquitted by a jury if the perp had just killed your family. Or are you just looking to shoot someone in the back b/c they stole your TV and are running away with it? I don't care if it's legal or not, shooting people in the back is fuel for the anti's to say "see, people who own guns are out to play judge, jury and excutioner". What if your kid got mixed up in the wrong crowd and stole some cigarettes from a convenienc store. How would you feel if the clerk shot him in the back b/c the law allowed it? I'm no liberal, but deadly force is there to protect one from death or serious bodily injury. In my book the only time it would be justified is if the perp had demonstrated to youthat he has killed innocent persons,and letting him flee would endanger others if he was allowed to escape.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    sway01 wrote:
    I'm new to Texas and it's very PRO-FIREARMS Laws, so I was wondering if it's legal here to shoot a perpetrator in the back, even while he's fleeing the scene, posing no threat any longer?

    In LIBERAL HAWAII, not even Officer's are allowed to shoot anyone in the back, if the assailant is in motion of fleeing the scene.
    This is a question that is best not asked on a public forum. Best not asked at all, actually. But lets say you are asking because you want to know if you can legally be shot in the back by someone whoincorrectly thinks you are a perpetrator.

    If you are ever involved in a self-defense shooting, even if you are completely justified, but lets say the evidence at the scene isn't conclusive in your favor, the deceased family's attorney can subpoena your postings.

    The last thing you want is material that can be used to portray you as bloodthirsty, out to get even, willing to kill when it isn't necessary, etc.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    If you are ever involved in a self-defense shooting, even if you are completely justified, but lets say the evidence at the scene isn't conclusive in your favor, the deceased family's attorney can subpoena your postings."
    Unless his first name is Sway and his last name is 01, NOBODY would make the connection between Joe Blow being involved in a questionable shooting and some guy who went by sway01 on some forum somewhere. Let's be realistic.

    As citizens, we carry for protection's sake. If you're in such a situation where your only option is to pull a gun, if they're leaving, you're going to be glad it's over. Vengeance is going to be the furthest thing from your mind. Or if vengeance isn't why you ask and you're coming more from a stop him from running off and hurting others, it's just not worth the risk. I'm not even talking the shot in the back (though that's a valid consideration as well). I'm talking about the fact that you're shook up and your aim isn't going to be your best. Normally that wouldn't be a big deal since most SD occurances are very short range. Somebody running away and already at a distance however... too risky. Think of "the pregnant woman down the street" my instructor always talked about

  5. #5
    Regular Member GreatWhiteLlama's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bothell, Washington, USA
    Posts
    287

    Post imported post

    sway01
    Welcome. I believe your question has been answered.

    Demarest
    Actually it is quite a simply process to make the connection between sway's alias and his government registered name. Aside from simply tracking him down via his IP, if a warrant was issued they could enter is home and take any and all property that they feel could be relevant to their case, including his pc and all data on it.

    This happens every day.
    "...our media are palace eunuchs gazing avidly at the harem of power and stroking their impotent pens in time to the rape of our liberties."
    -Sarah Hoyt

    "America is at that awkward stage; it's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
    -Claire Wolfe

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    sway01 wrote:
    I'm new to Texas and it's very PRO-FIREARMS Laws, so I was wondering if it's legal here to shoot a perpetrator in the back, even while he's fleeing the scene, posing no threat any longer?

    In LIBERAL HAWAII, not even Officer's are allowed to shoot anyone in the back, if the assailant is in motion of fleeing the scene.
    The kind of help you need can't be found on a gun forum. Shooting someone in the back when they are leaving the scene and no longer a threat is wrong in every sense of the word. Please take your murder fantasies somewhere else.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    I hate to add to the idiocy of this thread, but it reminds me of the shooting I heard about in Memphis, TN.

    The use of deadly force has to be what a "reasonable and prudent" person would do.

    A couple was walking to their car from the mall. Shitbag comes up behind to car-jack them. Good guy had a concealed handgun & confronts the bad guy w/deadly force (empties 1/2 the magazine into the bg's front). Bad guy turns around to run away, gg empties the remaining half of the magazine into the bg's back (one or two shots would have been okay as adreneline's still pumping). BG falls down and is crawling to hide underneither a parked vehicle. GG goes to BG and empties another magazine into the BG's back (whoa!!).

    Fast forward to the GG being in court facing 1st degree murder charges. The jury being reasonable peers found him not guilty. Memphis people were just so sick and tired of the crime, they'd have done the same and saw nothing wrong with his actions.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    First of all I'm NO blood thirsty killer or itchy trigger finger law breaking citizen trying to make trouble for you all. I'm just as responsible as the next law abiding person. Sorry, maybe I should have posted it this way.

    I was once told,"The stupidest question is the one NEVER asked." And the reason why I asked is because a few month's ago I saw a clip on the news where a Grocery store in TEXAS was was being armed robbed with people in it. A woman called her husband on the cell phone, who was waiting in the car for her, and told him what was happening. He had a CCL, so he took action, came into the store and tried to apprehend the suspects. He chased them out of the store and began firing at them while they were running off. Obviously they were fleeing the scene and yet the man fired a few shots at them. So that's when I asked myself, IF it is legal to shoot at someone in the back.FYI- This was all caught on the Grocery stores surveillance cameras.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Demarest wrote:
    Unless his first name is Sway and his last name is 01, NOBODY would make the connection between Joe Blow being involved in a questionable shooting and some guy who went by sway01 on some forum somewhere. Let's be realistic.
    No offense, I am being realistic. This from Massad Ayoob's latest article in Backwoods Magazine:

    Last issue Dave Duffy also told you the story of Matt Bandy and some pretty scary stuff about computer security that you REALLY need to know. He and the experts whom he sources know a whole lot more about that than I, but I can add one thing to that discussion: I’m in my 34th year as a sworn police officer, my 19th as a certified “police prosecutor,” and I know for a fact that we DO have the technology to pull things out of your hard drive that you thought were deleted. We DO have the right to ask you, under penalty of perjury, whether you post on any Internet forum, and under what name, and we DO have the power to subpoena any posts via your IP from the Internet hosts, who under law have no choice but to “give you up.” Don’t let the seeming anonymity of the Internet delude you: when things get serious, you won’t be anonymous anymore. (emphasis mine)

    http://tinyurl.com/2vbh49
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    sway01 wrote:
    First of all I'm NO blood thirsty killer or itchy trigger finger law breaking citizen trying to make trouble for you all. I'm just as responsible as the next law abiding person. Sorry, maybe I should have posted it this way.

    I was once told,"The stupidest question is the one NEVER asked." And the reason why I asked is because a few month's ago I saw a clip on the news where a Grocery store in TEXAS was was being armed robbed with people in it. A woman called her husband on the cell phone, who was waiting in the car for her, and told him what was happening. He had a CCL, so he took action, came into the store and tried to apprehend the suspects. He chased them out of the store and began firing at them while they were running off. Obviously they were fleeing the scene and yet the man fired a few shots at them. So that's when I asked myself, IF it is legal to shoot at someone in the back.FYI- This was all caught on the Grocery stores surveillance cameras.
    Well, glad to hear it.

    I don't know if Texas law permits it. I'd be surprised if it did.


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    sway01 wrote:
    First of all I'm NO blood thirsty killer or itchy trigger finger law breaking citizen trying to make trouble for you all. I'm just as responsible as the next law abiding person. Sorry, maybe I should have posted it this way.

    I was once told,"The stupidest question is the one NEVER asked." And the reason why I asked is because a few month's ago I saw a clip on the news where a Grocery store in TEXAS was was being armed robbed with people in it. A woman called her husband on the cell phone, who was waiting in the car for her, and told him what was happening. He had a CCL, so he took action, came into the store and tried to apprehend the suspects. He chased them out of the store and began firing at them while they were running off. Obviously they were fleeing the scene and yet the man fired a few shots at them. So that's when I asked myself, IF it is legal to shoot at someone in the back.FYI- This was all caught on the Grocery stores surveillance cameras.
    Well, glad to hear it.

    I don't know if Texas law permits it. I'd be surprised if it did.

    It may have sounded like a idiotic question, but the laws herein Texas are a hundred times less restricted than Hawaii, that by seeing that news clip just kind of made me wonder. But I totally understand the reaction by the responders, it just goes to show that they have a good and sensible heads on their shoulders.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Demarest wrote:
    Unless his first name is Sway and his last name is 01, NOBODY would make the connection between Joe Blow being involved in a questionable shooting and some guy who went by sway01 on some forum somewhere. Let's be realistic.
    No offense, I am being realistic. This from Massad Ayoob's latest article in Backwoods Magazine:

    Last issue Dave Duffy also told you the story of Matt Bandy and some pretty scary stuff about computer security that you REALLY need to know. He and the experts whom he sources know a whole lot more about that than I, but I can add one thing to that discussion: I’m in my 34th year as a sworn police officer, my 19th as a certified “police prosecutor,” and I know for a fact that we DO have the technology to pull things out of your hard drive that you thought were deleted. We DO have the right to ask you, under penalty of perjury, whether you post on any Internet forum, and under what name, and we DO have the power to subpoena any posts via your IP from the Internet hosts, who under law have no choice but to “give you up.” Don’t let the seeming anonymity of the Internet delude you: when things get serious, you won’t be anonymous anymore. (emphasis mine)

    http://tinyurl.com/2vbh49
    The word SWAY isn't the sway you're thinking of. It's the other sway, like sway back and forth. It's a name of a song actually.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    sway01 wrote:
    ...I was wondering if it's legal here to shoot a perpetrator in the back....

    If he is attempting to rape my wife or your girlfriend, or holding a gun to a store clerks head, of the head of a little old lady and on and on, while at the same time having his back turned to me....he will get it in the back

    If he is a threat to no one and all is see is his north end while he is heading south, then he is no longer my concern.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    450

    Post imported post

    There are 2 possible scenarios for shooting someone in the back (mentioned already), to reiterate:

    Justified: If the perp is turned away from you but still a threat, or actively harming someone else.

    Not Justified: If the perp has decided to disengage the confrontation and it retreating.

    The whole point to carrying a weapon for self-defense is to have the capability to quickly and effectively stop the threat... not to cause harm or bring anyone to justice. If there is no (imminent) threat, you would be very wrong to use your weapon.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    sway01 wrote:
    ...I was wondering if it's legal here to shoot a perpetrator in the back....

    If he is attempting to rape my wife or your girlfriend, or holding a gun to a store clerks head, of the head of a little old lady and on and on, while at the same time having his back turned to me....he will get it in the back

    If he is a threat to no one and all is see is his north end while he is heading south, then he is no longer my concern.
    Yes, of course that would be my reaction and reasonable thinking also. But I had to double check on that since seeing that news clip that I mentioned.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    6

    Post imported post

    molonlabetn wrote:
    There are 2 possible scenarios for shooting someone in the back (mentioned already), to reiterate:

    Justified: If the perp is turned away from you but still a threat, or actively harming someone else.

    Not Justified: If the perp has decided to disengage the confrontation and it retreating.

    The whole point to carrying a weapon for self-defense is to have the capability to quickly and effectively stop the threat... not to cause harm or bring anyone to justice. If there is no (imminent) threat, you would be very wrong to use your weapon.
    Again, after watching that news clip, I had to ask about it. I didn't mean to sound outrageous or idiotic but my reasoning in self defense is as responsible, as I'm sure, you would be.


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kent county, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    322

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    snip
    and I know for a fact that we DO have the technology to pull things out of your hard drive that you thought were deleted. of course, for the avg person.
    We DO have the right to ask you, under penalty of perjury, whether you post on any Internet forum, and under what name, and we DO have the power to subpoena any posts via your IP from the Internet hosts, who under law have no choice but to “give you up.” Don’t let the seeming anonymity of the Internet delude you: when things get serious, you won’t be anonymous anymore. (emphasis mine)
    while they may have the authority to ask, you do have the right to not answer. be-that-as-it-may, people leave unintentional clues all the time and even if they don't have your computer, I wouldn't chance that an Internet trail couldn't be found.
    moot point. if the threat is gone then it is legally and morally wrong to shoot. But, If the armed attacker that is running away still has his weapon, you should be retreating (with family as applicable) to a safe location,while maintaining vigilance in case he is only seeking cover, circling, or returning. Call 911 asap.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    245

    Post imported post

    molonlabetn wrote:
    The whole point to carrying a weapon for self-defense is to have the capability to quickly and effectively stop the threat... not to cause harm or bring anyone to justice. If there is no (imminent) threat, you would be very wrong to use your weapon.
    Actually, if you take a look at our history books, there was no law enforcement to begin with. We The People DID bring people to justice. Once we were able to forget what it is to have to bleed to protect your rights as a human being and those in office saw it more for the power, a shift began that continues today whereby we are inundated that the use of firearms is evil and wrong. So much so that even the "true believers" will begin to repeat such impotent sentiments. Not picking on you because what you said is correct. It's just interesting that this nation was founded on the opposite principle. Paradise lost.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    a surprising number of police shootings involve bullet holes in the back. once you start pulling the trigger it is hard to stop, even if they perp turns his back to you or starts to run away.

  20. #20
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613

    Post imported post

    There have been many defensible "in the back" shootings. A fact that Massad Ayoob has testified to on many occasions. A BG facing you has the reaction speed to reverse his body position before your pointed weapon can be fired - and multiple shots may be fired in the heat of the moment - all hitting the perp in the back.

    Also visualize that you come upon the scene wherein a BG is stabbing and slashing people repeatedly and you are in a position to the rear of him. He sees you with a weapon and runs toward a crowd of children, swinging his knife wildly. Time is of the essense - what do you do? The answer is simple - neutralize the threat - from the rear.

    My primary point is that each situation must be judged on its own merits through your own eyes, based on your training. Be right and good luck.

    Yata hey

    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post



    While the original question, in it's original context was rather stupid, I DO see how important it would be to ask this. Say you step outside to confront 1 or more BG's for whatever cause. They're armed, and run for cover, away from their car. Since they're armed and behind cover, and not trying to escape, it would be reasonable to assume they're planning to fight back. In this instance, I would have no trouble taking any available shot.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613

    Post imported post

    spurrit wrote:

    While the original question, in it's original context was rather stupid, I DO see how important it would be to ask this. Say you step outside to confront 1 or more BG's for whatever cause. They're armed, and run for cover, away from their car. Since they're armed and behind cover, and not trying to escape, it would be reasonable to assume they're planning to fight back. In this instance, I would have no trouble taking any available shot.
    There is NO cause for defensive use of force here at all. You know nothing but what you assume. The supposed BGs might be victims running for cover (good response) or LEOs and most importantly even if they are BGs, there is no immediate threat as described here. Advance to the rear and call 911. Your weapon should be your last resort, not your first response. We are not the punishers of what we presume to be to be wrong. Don't shoot training is arguably more important than learning to shoot - any idiot can do that. Carry responsibly and encourage others to do likewise.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Grapeshot wrote:
    spurrit wrote:

    While the original question, in it's original context was rather stupid, I DO see how important it would be to ask this. Say you step outside to confront 1 or more BG's for whatever cause. They're armed, and run for cover, away from their car. Since they're armed and behind cover, and not trying to escape, it would be reasonable to assume they're planning to fight back. In this instance, I would have no trouble taking any available shot.
    There is NO cause for defensive use of force here at all. You know nothing but what you assume. The supposed BGs might be victims running for cover (good response) or LEOs and most importantly even if they are BGs, there is no immediate threat as described here. Advance to the rear and call 911. Your weapon should be your last resort, not your first response. We are not the punishers of what we presume to be to be wrong. Don't shoot training is arguably more important than learning to shoot - any idiot can do that. Carry responsibly and encourage others to do likewise.

    Yata hey
    Well said, Grapeshot. Any person's primary defense weapon is the brain. The gun is merely a tool to assist that weapon.

    It's similar to how, it seems, so many people go around in condition white (even on this board, I fear) and assume that because they have a gun, it will magically start shooting in a defensive situation. It is why many gun carriers only carry a gun when "they might need to use it", and why it seems paranoid to do a threat assessment of a Starbucks before entering... since surely a perpetrator will stop committing a crime, walk 20 yards away in the open, put paint on his face in concentric circles, and stand still while you get into into a proper shooting stance and line up your sights. A gun carrier, especially an open carrier (as CCers will probably be dead before they can "surprise" the BG) needs to train mentally about how to handle any defensive situation. Anyone can put a hole into a BG at two or three armlengths away (an average distance for a defensive situation). But what is difficult is the process of getting to that situation of putting holes into a BG. Is it OK to shoot a BG in the back? It depends on the situation. He might still be a threat, and it would not be a good idea to shoot. Or he may not be a direct, immediate threat to you and it is still a good idea to shoot. Just like the legal situation, it's a case-by-case assessment of when it is right or wrong, both tactically and morally, to shoot a BG in the back.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •