Oops.
Hmm... Makes me wonder what to do in the same situation. Given the BG already has drawn on you and your weapon is not handy, do you draw and hope you can beat him to the punch or give him your money and hope he moves on?
+1Hmm... Makes me wonder what to do in the same situation. Given the BG already has drawn on you and your weapon is not handy, do you draw and hope you can beat him to the punch or give him your money and hope he moves on?
I think you're completely correct on all counts. However, I think it's bullcrap that we are required by law to allow someone to continue to commit armed robbery.I doubt I'd confront the guy after he turned to leave. Doing so WILL result in someone dying (me or him). Ohio has a duty to retreat (except in your own vehicle and house) and you cannot use deadly force to protect property. Re-engaging the guy after he turned would probablly be viewed as protecting property.
Now, after he turned around to leave I would draw and seek shelter. If he turns around again and I felt threatened, I would engage.
I guess what I've drilled in my head the last year or so would be only to engage if I felt immedate danger to myself, a loved one, or someone who is unable to protect themselves. If they want to run off with the $50 or $100 that might be in my wallet, so be it. I take good notes (voice recorder is always running) and turn the data over to police.
Once the imminent threat of serious bodily harm has passed, I would think you are in the territory of arresting someone who has committed a felony. In our great state of Washington you are SOL if you use lethal force during such an arrest, however I believe there are some states like Texas where such force is justified.eacurtis wrote:I think you're completely correct on all counts. However, I think it's bullcrap that we are required by law to allow someone to continue to commit armed robbery.I doubt I'd confront the guy after he turned to leave. Doing so WILL result in someone dying (me or him). Ohio has a duty to retreat (except in your own vehicle and house) and you cannot use deadly force to protect property. Re-engaging the guy after he turned would probablly be viewed as protecting property.
Now, after he turned around to leave I would draw and seek shelter. If he turns around again and I felt threatened, I would engage.
I guess what I've drilled in my head the last year or so would be only to engage if I felt immedate danger to myself, a loved one, or someone who is unable to protect themselves. If they want to run off with the $50 or $100 that might be in my wallet, so be it. I take good notes (voice recorder is always running) and turn the data over to police.
Let's say that you do attempt a citizens arrest after the perp has obtained your wallet and has turned to leave. Hypothetically, if he were to not follow your orders and drop his weapon, or if he turned towards you and leveled his weapon in your face...boom you're justified in using deadly force.Once the imminent threat of serious bodily harm has passed, I would think you are in the territory of arresting someone who has committed a felony. In our great state of Washington you are SOL if you use lethal force during such an arrest, however I believe there are some states like Texas where such force is justified.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/100926_vigilanted.shtml
"A citizen may employ force -- but not lethal force -- when "arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody.""
So if the alleged criminal has a gun, I guess you are unable to respond in kind except in self defense.
ETA: Of course Dave Workman has already known this for a long time, as you can see in the above referenced article