-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Armed scarecrow catches robber in VB
- Thread starter GMZ
- Start date
ed
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
That scarecrow is a braver man than me. How can you be "in fear for your life" if you are CHASING after a bad guy in police like manuvers, tactics and negotiations. I am glad it turned out the way it did, but if I WAS in that situation, OBSERVE and REPORT will be my stance.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
So, where were the Tinman and the Lion? Man, ascarecrow just can't count on anybody for back upthese days.
So, where were the Tinman and the Lion? Man, ascarecrow just can't count on anybody for back upthese days.
TFred
Regular Member
imported post
ed wrote:
If you chase someone, even a robber, it's my understanding that you lose your justification for use of lethal force. Even if the guy stops and turns his gun on you and then you shoot him, would you not be a contributing factor for chasing him down after your imminent threat had passed?
And in this case, exactly as reported, once the guy drops his gun, it seems you may lose your justification for assault with a deadly weapon (holding him at gunpoint). If the guy had dropped the gun and turned around and walked away, you certainly would not be justified to shoot him, so the whole concept of "holding someone at gunpoint for the police" would seem to be questionable.
I guess it's good that criminals are not the smartest legal minds on the block.
Any thoughts on this?
TFred
ed wrote:
Actually, not only that, but I wonder if this guy might end up in legal trouble as well.
If you chase someone, even a robber, it's my understanding that you lose your justification for use of lethal force. Even if the guy stops and turns his gun on you and then you shoot him, would you not be a contributing factor for chasing him down after your imminent threat had passed?
And in this case, exactly as reported, once the guy drops his gun, it seems you may lose your justification for assault with a deadly weapon (holding him at gunpoint). If the guy had dropped the gun and turned around and walked away, you certainly would not be justified to shoot him, so the whole concept of "holding someone at gunpoint for the police" would seem to be questionable.
I guess it's good that criminals are not the smartest legal minds on the block.
Any thoughts on this?
TFred
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Grapeshot wrote:
Oh! Were they with you, Dorothy?
Grapeshot wrote:
Oh! Were they with you, Dorothy?
bohdi
Regular Member
imported post
This guy is probably in a world of hurt for trying to do the right thing, even though it was a increadibly dangerous thing to do. He'll either get a LOC from the NAVY or a reprimand for his service folder. Glad no one was hurt but this could have turned out wrong nine ways from Sunday.
This guy is probably in a world of hurt for trying to do the right thing, even though it was a increadibly dangerous thing to do. He'll either get a LOC from the NAVY or a reprimand for his service folder. Glad no one was hurt but this could have turned out wrong nine ways from Sunday.
fully_armed_biker
Regular Member
imported post
TFred wrote:
TFred wrote:
While I'm glad this all turned out well, what this guy did was incredibly stupid. It's one thing to walk upon a crime being commited, or be in the middle of a crime being commited...and pull your gun. It's entirely another thing to inject yourself into a situation and pull your gun. This guy is nothing more than a wannabe and he'll probably get lucky, in this case, with a sympathetic Commonwealth's Attorneybecause no one was hurt. But, all-in-all, is bad for those of us that carry...because it makes us all look like wannabes in many people's eyes.
LoveMyCountry
State Researcher
imported post
It is still early and I'm from the west coast, so please forgive my ignorance. Are some of you saying that the chasing and capturing of an armed felon changes from brave to "wannabe" just because the goodguy was smart enough to be armed? Do the laws there require you to stop being a fellow citizen and only report what you saw, or can you actually do something about it?
Laws and customs are different in different places, so please educate me.
LoveMyCountry
It is still early and I'm from the west coast, so please forgive my ignorance. Are some of you saying that the chasing and capturing of an armed felon changes from brave to "wannabe" just because the goodguy was smart enough to be armed? Do the laws there require you to stop being a fellow citizen and only report what you saw, or can you actually do something about it?
Laws and customs are different in different places, so please educate me.
LoveMyCountry
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
imported post
In Virginia, you may use deadly force to protect yourself from serious bodily harm or death. You may NOT use deadly force to protect property (IE: chasing down a bad guy that just stole a purse). If he had shot the BG, he would be in a LOT of trouble becuase he was a "fleeing felon". Not even an LEO can shoot a fleeing felon unless he "poses a substantial threat of bodily harm or death to others OR is in posession of nuclear material OR materials / documents that if released, places the security of the country in grave danger (posession of Top Secret /TS Codeword stuff)".
MY wording may be off, but that's the gist ot if...
BG was running away... no longer a threat. Can't shoot him.
In Virginia, you may use deadly force to protect yourself from serious bodily harm or death. You may NOT use deadly force to protect property (IE: chasing down a bad guy that just stole a purse). If he had shot the BG, he would be in a LOT of trouble becuase he was a "fleeing felon". Not even an LEO can shoot a fleeing felon unless he "poses a substantial threat of bodily harm or death to others OR is in posession of nuclear material OR materials / documents that if released, places the security of the country in grave danger (posession of Top Secret /TS Codeword stuff)".
MY wording may be off, but that's the gist ot if...
BG was running away... no longer a threat. Can't shoot him.
ODA 226
Regular Member
imported post
What he did was perfectly legal. The guy made a personal decision to intervene and fortunately everything turned out ok. I don't think we should Monday Morning Quarterback him.
Would I have done the same thing? Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know what you will do until you are presented with that particular set of circumstances.
I have physically intervened when a guy was beating his wife and restrained him for Va.Beach PD. I was almost arrested when his wife refused to press charges against him. A good cop informed me that since she wouldn't press charges against her husband, he could now press charges against me.
The cop told me he was going to "interview the male victim" and when he came back, he didn't want to find me there. Good cop. I left the scene.
On two different occasions, I came to the rescue of police officers that were on their backs, getting the snot kicked out of them.
On another occasion, I stopped at a fire at the feed store in Norge and saw a guy trying to move a tanker-truck full of petrol away from the fire. I yelled at him to get away from the fire. He said that the truck was full of gas and that if it exploded, it would take the entire area out with it.
I grabbed my tow-chain from my truck and attached it to the tanker and couldn't move the damn thing. My FAST Team buddy that was with me found a rope and attached it to the other guys truck and together we were able to move the tanker before it exploded.
Were these acts stupid? Maybe. Did I wake up on those days thinking that I wanted to be a hero? No. Would I react the same today as I did then given the same set of circumstances? I don't know.
You never know what you will do until you find yourself in the situation. The guy did what he thought was right under the circumstances, it was legal and he took a BG off the street. We should support him.
What he did was perfectly legal. The guy made a personal decision to intervene and fortunately everything turned out ok. I don't think we should Monday Morning Quarterback him.
Would I have done the same thing? Maybe. Maybe not. You don't know what you will do until you are presented with that particular set of circumstances.
I have physically intervened when a guy was beating his wife and restrained him for Va.Beach PD. I was almost arrested when his wife refused to press charges against him. A good cop informed me that since she wouldn't press charges against her husband, he could now press charges against me.
The cop told me he was going to "interview the male victim" and when he came back, he didn't want to find me there. Good cop. I left the scene.
On two different occasions, I came to the rescue of police officers that were on their backs, getting the snot kicked out of them.
On another occasion, I stopped at a fire at the feed store in Norge and saw a guy trying to move a tanker-truck full of petrol away from the fire. I yelled at him to get away from the fire. He said that the truck was full of gas and that if it exploded, it would take the entire area out with it.
I grabbed my tow-chain from my truck and attached it to the tanker and couldn't move the damn thing. My FAST Team buddy that was with me found a rope and attached it to the other guys truck and together we were able to move the tanker before it exploded.
Were these acts stupid? Maybe. Did I wake up on those days thinking that I wanted to be a hero? No. Would I react the same today as I did then given the same set of circumstances? I don't know.
You never know what you will do until you find yourself in the situation. The guy did what he thought was right under the circumstances, it was legal and he took a BG off the street. We should support him.
LoveMyCountry
State Researcher
imported post
MSC 45ACP wrote:
Thank you for the info. My next question then is can you chase a badguy while you are armed and only use your weapon if the BG turned and threatened your life? Does the mere fact that you posess a lawfull weapon require you to be a "bystander only" if you observe a crime in progress? Would the GG now be the agressor if he chases the BG? Would the BG now be legally defending himself if he shot you while you were chasing him?
LoveMyCountry
MSC 45ACP wrote:
Thank you for the info. My next question then is can you chase a badguy while you are armed and only use your weapon if the BG turned and threatened your life? Does the mere fact that you posess a lawfull weapon require you to be a "bystander only" if you observe a crime in progress? Would the GG now be the agressor if he chases the BG? Would the BG now be legally defending himself if he shot you while you were chasing him?
LoveMyCountry
bohdi
Regular Member
imported post
ODA - I think what most here are saying is that there is a difference between stopping someone in the comission of a bludgening on another, and pursuing someone who is fleeing the scene of a relatively non-violent (victim wasn' screaming murder/rape) crime.
Advocating that CHP's actively perform those things is dangerous and irresponsible. More harm can come from chasing down a purse snatcher than letting them go.
ODA - I think what most here are saying is that there is a difference between stopping someone in the comission of a bludgening on another, and pursuing someone who is fleeing the scene of a relatively non-violent (victim wasn' screaming murder/rape) crime.
Advocating that CHP's actively perform those things is dangerous and irresponsible. More harm can come from chasing down a purse snatcher than letting them go.
Hendu024
Regular Member
imported post
I'm just waiting for Hank to chime in with some stupid @$$ comment. In 3..2..1..
I'm just waiting for Hank to chime in with some stupid @$$ comment. In 3..2..1..
MSC 45ACP
Regular Member
imported post
Hendu024 wrote:
Hendu024 wrote:
Heheheh... SOON now... Wait for it... Wait for it... We'll be re-reading one of his silly postulates about shooting an unarmed person. :uhoh:
fully_armed_biker
Regular Member
imported post
My main point was he's lucky he didn't get shot...chasing after an armed suspect, while wearing a Halloween costume, was an invitation for disaster. If the BG would have stopped, turned, and fired...he'd be lucky if he survived.
Secondly, by going on the offensive, he opened himself up to whole litany list of possible criminal charges and civil liabilities...If he would have shot the BG, no matter what the circumstances were at that point, he would lose in a civil lawsuit filed bythe BG or the BG's family if he didn't survive.
My main point was he's lucky he didn't get shot...chasing after an armed suspect, while wearing a Halloween costume, was an invitation for disaster. If the BG would have stopped, turned, and fired...he'd be lucky if he survived.
Secondly, by going on the offensive, he opened himself up to whole litany list of possible criminal charges and civil liabilities...If he would have shot the BG, no matter what the circumstances were at that point, he would lose in a civil lawsuit filed bythe BG or the BG's family if he didn't survive.
ODA 226
Regular Member
imported post
bohdi wrote:
Bohdi,
I understand that completely. However the idiot wasn't the guy in the scarecrow outfit. It was the woman chasing the guy that just robbed her at gunpoint! NOW THAT IS STUPID!
I don't disagree with you at all. I'm a firm "Be a Good Witness" advocate also. However, sometimes people get involved out of INSTINCT not WISDOM. I'm guilty of it and I'm sure others on this board are also. It hasn't been determined if the scarecrow knew that the perp had just committed an armed robbery or not. Could he see that the perp was armed? We don't know.
No one knows ALL of the circumstances of this case. All I'm saying is let's not jump to conclusions and start bashing this guy until the case is played out.
bohdi wrote:
Bohdi,
I understand that completely. However the idiot wasn't the guy in the scarecrow outfit. It was the woman chasing the guy that just robbed her at gunpoint! NOW THAT IS STUPID!
I don't disagree with you at all. I'm a firm "Be a Good Witness" advocate also. However, sometimes people get involved out of INSTINCT not WISDOM. I'm guilty of it and I'm sure others on this board are also. It hasn't been determined if the scarecrow knew that the perp had just committed an armed robbery or not. Could he see that the perp was armed? We don't know.
No one knows ALL of the circumstances of this case. All I'm saying is let's not jump to conclusions and start bashing this guy until the case is played out.
ODA 226
Regular Member
imported post
fully_armed_biker wrote:
fully_armed_biker wrote:
Yup! Agreed! You are absolutely correct my friend! Sometimes it's best to go against your instincts and be a good witness as I've said before. It can be a lot cheaper too! ( Civil Court can be VERY expensive! )
bohdi
Regular Member
imported post
ODA - roger that man. I'm interested to see if he gets praised or slammed by his command for this.....I can see it now. The guy gets a minor cut or tweaks his ankle and they decide to hit him with damage to government property etc and make an example out of him....
ODA - roger that man. I'm interested to see if he gets praised or slammed by his command for this.....I can see it now. The guy gets a minor cut or tweaks his ankle and they decide to hit him with damage to government property etc and make an example out of him....