scenario

crtbc · May 12, 2008

imported post

Had a dream last night that disturbed me and want your oppinion on it...

man was beating on woman in a dim lit alley... I yelled for him to stop... he stopped hitting her, picked up a rock and threw it at me, he missed, I drew my gun as he picked up another rock, cocked back his arm and at that time emptied 9 rounds of .45into him.... distance I would guestimate at 15 yards

Justified unjustified..... I NEVER annouced I would shoot, I just unloaded

On a side note I heard the man and woman talking just before he started beating her, and she said something about picking up "the $240,000"

i KNOW IT'S VAGUE but help me out... Do I have to announce I will use deadly force, was it justified since he had a "weapon" and I was "in fear for my life"

Thanks

lostone1413 · May 12, 2008

imported post

Man that would be a tuff call. Trouble is many times you come to the aid of someone They turn out to be sheep who turn on you. Ask a cop how many times in a Domestic Violence call they both will turn on him. You'd take a good chance of both of them turning on you. Remember if she was a Sheep most Sheep hate us gun owners as much or more then they hate the criminals

Dahwg · May 12, 2008

imported post

In Arizona you don't have to announce. You may be justified by law When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force. You may also use the same standard when defendinga third party. There are some additional instances where you may use deadly force:

Burglary in the second or first degree
Kidnapping
Manslaughter
Second or first degree murder
Sexual conduct with a minor
Sexual assault
Child molestation
Armed robbery
Aggravated assault

Given your scenario the best bet is the Aggravated assault. Here's the definition of agg. assault:

13-1204. Aggravated assault; classification; definition

A. A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as prescribed by section 13-1203 under any of the following circumstances:

1. If the person causes serious physical injury to another.

2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

3. If the person commits the assault by any means of force that causes temporary but substantial disfigurement, temporary but substantial loss or impairment of any body organ or part or a fracture of any body part.

4. If the person commits the assault while the victim is bound or otherwise physically restrained or while the victim's capacity to resist is substantially impaired.

5. If the person commits the assault after entering the private home of another with the intent to commit the assault.

6. If the person is eighteen years of age or older and commits the assault on a child who is fifteen years of age or under.

7. If the person commits assault as prescribed by section 13-1203, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 3 and the person is in violation of an order of protection issued against the person pursuant to section 13-3602 or 13-3624.

8. If the person commits the assault knowing or having reason to know that the victim is any of the following:

(a) A peace officer, or a person summoned and directed by the officer while engaged in the execution of any official duties.

(b) A firefighter, fire investigator, fire inspector, emergency medical technician or paramedic engaged in the execution of any official duties, or a person summoned and directed by such individual while engaged in the execution of any official duties.

(c) A teacher or other person employed by any school and the teacher or other employee is on the grounds of a school or grounds adjacent to the school or is in any part of a building or vehicle used for school purposes, any teacher or school nurse visiting a private home in the course of the teacher's or nurse's professional duties or any teacher engaged in any authorized and organized classroom activity held on other than school grounds.

(d) A licensed health care practitioner who is certified or licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13, 15, 17 or 25, or a person summoned and directed by the licensed health care practitioner while engaged in the person's professional duties. This subdivision does not apply if the person who commits the assault is seriously mentally ill, as defined in section 36-550, or is afflicted with alzheimer's disease or related dementia.

(e) A prosecutor.

9. If the person knowingly takes or attempts to exercise control over any of the following:

(a) A peace officer's or other officer's firearm and the person knows or has reason to know that the victim is a peace officer or other officer employed by one of the agencies listed in paragraph 10, subdivision (a), item (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) of this subsection and is engaged in the execution of any official duties.

(b) Any weapon other than a firearm that is being used by a peace officer or other officer or that the officer is attempting to use, and the person knows or has reason to know that the victim is a peace officer or other officer employed by one of the agencies listed in paragraph 10, subdivision (a), item (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) of this subsection and is engaged in the execution of any official duties.

(c) Any implement that is being used by a peace officer or other officer or that the officer is attempting to use, and the person knows or has reason to know that the victim is a peace officer or other officer employed by one of the agencies listed in paragraph 10, subdivision (a), item (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) of this subsection and is engaged in the execution of any official duties. For the purposes of this paragraph, "implement" means an object that is designed for or that is capable of restraining or injuring an individual. Implement does not include handcuffs.

10. If the person meets both of the following conditions:

(a) Is imprisoned or otherwise subject to the custody of any of the following:

(i) The state department of corrections.

(ii) The department of juvenile corrections.

(iii) A law enforcement agency.

(iv) A county or city jail or an adult or juvenile detention facility of a city or county.

(v) Any other entity that is contracting with the state department of corrections, the department of juvenile corrections, a law enforcement agency, another state, any private correctional facility, a county, a city or the federal bureau of prisons or other federal agency that has responsibility for sentenced or unsentenced prisoners.

(b) Commits an assault knowing or having reason to know that the victim is acting in an official capacity as an employee of any of the entities listed in subdivision (a) of this paragraph.

Your best bet for justification is:

3. If the person commits the assault by any means of force that causes temporary but substantial disfigurement, temporary but substantial loss or impairment of any body organ or part or a fracture of any body part.

Shaky justification, but possible. The rock being thrown at you may or may not be considered justification. I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the case law, so take it for what it's worth.

azcdlfred · May 13, 2008

imported post

crtbc wrote:

man was beating on woman in a dim lit alley...

Legaladvice aside, if something isn't worth dying for it isn't worth shooting for. Would you be willing to die to save that stranger's life? Also, the best outcome you can expect from a gun fight is to keep what you own - your family, your job, your income, your home, your bank account, etc. It's like making a million dollar wager where you get to keep your money if you winbut loseeverything if you lose the bet.

The situation you dreamt about requires nothing more than a cell phone call to 911 from a safe distance.

Flame away

Fred

protector84 · May 13, 2008

imported post

I don't think there is anything wrong with intervening in a life-threatening situation even when it only affects a third party. I believe that part of being a good citizen is that you do the right thing with the right skills that you have. If you are unarmed and are not adequately trained or prepared to handle something, then you should not handle it but get someone else to. An example of this may be to call 911 as you had mentioned in the post above. However, carrying a gun is a big responsibility not just because you have the ability to use deadly force but also because ethically you are obligated to use it if a situation requires it. If you are unarmed in a restaurant and someone is holding it up, then it may make sense to hit the door. If you are armed and would have a clear shot at the robber, can you ethically just pack it up at leave and let the victim behind the counter get shot when you could have saved him/her? I don't think so. Likewise, if you are not prepared to use deadly force when a third-party situation ethically requires it, you should not carry in my opinion. Carrying a gun is not just to protect yourself. By carrying it openly, you are protecting everyone around you and people WILL assume that you are there for their safety should there be a problem.

As to the scenario above, it would not be wise to simply pull the gun because a man was beating a woman unless it was severe enough that she was likely to be receiving life-threatening or traumatic injuries. If a person throws a rock at you, that probably is also not justification to shoot. However, if that person is coming toward you with the rock and has not yet released it, that implies that he will hit you at close range making it an assault with a deadly weapon. I'm pretty sure that deadly force is justified in that case. Anyway, I think it is good to think over these scenarios in your head for practice but a real situation is always going to be a bit different. If you are carrying openly, you have to be prepared to protect those around you as well as yourself. If you are not willing to do that, then you are just a coward with a gun in my opinion. While we are not police officers the fact that we openly carry indirectly makes us a bit similar to police. If a police officer sees a crime, he cannot just turn and walk away or at least he isn't supposed to. Likewise, if you are openly carrying a firearm and someone's life is being threatened, I don't see how you can ethically walk away either and there could even be legal reprocussions for not helping the victim when you clearly were capable of helping.

1FASTC4 · May 14, 2008

imported post

If a police officer sees a crime, he cannot just turn and walk away or at least he isn't supposed to.

True, but PO's are in no way obligated to save another person's life. They are not required to endanger their own lives in an effort to save another's.

protector84 · May 14, 2008

imported post

The Supreme Court did rule that LEOs are not liable for individual safety, interpreted as meaning that police cannot be everywhere at once and therefore you cannot sue them if they don't get there in time or if they didn't save you. However, negligence would still apply and has been ruled upon by courts across the country. If a police officer just stands there and watches a criminal stab someone to death and then continues to stand there letting the criminal get away, you can bet the city will be sued for millions of dollars and the victim's family would win. I am sure there are dozens of lawsuits against the police department that responded to the Virginia Tech shooting because their actions or lack thereof were clear negligence. If a police officer is fully capable of saving someone's life and fails to do anything towards that end, they will be sued and likely they will have a judgment against them. The key point I made was that if you are not able to do something to save someone's life, then you should go get someone else's help. However, if you are capable of doing so, you are ethically and perhaps legally obligated to do so. If you see someone trapped in a car and you could easily pull them out but just walk away and they die, should someone be able to prove that you could have saved their life and didn't, you could become liable in civil court for it. There is a law in Arizona requiring reasonable intervention in emergency situations. I would have to find the exact statute and there may be several of them. Even if there were no laws requiring reasonable intervention, I don't believe that being a useless bystander is the American way. Sad to say that is the way this country and its culture is heading. People don't want to stop to save a life if it means missing American Idol.

Dahwg · May 14, 2008

imported post

On that note. There was a story bythe Local Fox affiliate tonight. Average response time for TPD is 42 minutes. More than 7 for top priority calls. Like they say, "When seconds count..."

protector84 · May 15, 2008

imported post

I used to live in Tucson myself. Of all the times where I did call the police, I would say that average response time of 42 minutes sounds about right. That is why it is useless calling them unless absolutely important. Unless there is a car accident where a vehicle cannot be moved off the road or someone is holding someone hostage, you pretty much have to handle it yourself and simply file a report with them. One type of crime, however, that I would say they are fairly quick to respond to is a call reporting domestic violence.

I had a problem one time where I walked into my apartment late at night and realized that someone had been in there. They had shut the circut breakers off so I couldn't see whether or not someone was in fact still inside. So I called the cops and if I recall correctly they told me to wait outside and not go in the apartment. What I did though was get the flashlight out of my car and I pulled the pistol out of the holster and went into my own apartment with the gun drawn. I had to sweep the apartment myself. Turns out no one was there and actually nothing was stolen. My own investigation determined that it was a former tenant who still had a key that was there to snoop around and either didn't have time to steal anything or was looking for something that he may have left stashed there before he moved out. The cops came three hours later and kind of scolded me for going in myself. Let me rephrase that. There might be an armed and dangerous person hidden in your apartment and they take three hours to get there. Not to mention that I had a loaded shotgun the criminal could have tried to use on me. Now I know that "next time" this happens, all I need to do is tell them that I have a gun, and that any burgular found will be shot, and that if he survives, I will shoot him again. That should bring the "response time" way down.

crtbc · May 19, 2008

imported post

protector84 wrote:

Now I know that "next time" this happens, all I need to do is tell them that I have a gun, and that any burgular found will be shot, and that if he survives, I will shoot him again. That should bring the "response time" way down.

ummm.. I'm kinda new to this but I think that would be telling them you inteneded to KILL the intruder and not "stop the threat" if there even was "a threat"

I wouldn't say that!!!!!

ScottyT · May 19, 2008

imported post

Aggravated assault + threat to your life (maybe he is a minor league pitcher and would kill you with an 85mph rock to the head) = JUSTIFIED

...but I think if it was rocks at 15 yards (enough time to dodge?) I would try ordering him on the ground first.

I love gun dreams!

scenario

crtbc

Regular Member

lostone1413

Regular Member

Dahwg

Regular Member

azcdlfred

Regular Member

protector84

Regular Member

1FASTC4

Regular Member

protector84

Regular Member

Dahwg

Regular Member

protector84

Regular Member

crtbc

Regular Member

ScottyT

Regular Member