Shoot to stop the attack...but?

imported post

I have always read on this board to shoot to stop the attack rather than shoot to kill. While that makes sense in most cases, what about a retreating bad guy? He may return, he may go shoot other people, he may bring friends, etc.

From what I know a civilian can't shoot a person running away or we wind up in jail. A LEO "can" shoot someone running away because they are enforcing the law and trying to make an arrest. Why can't we do the same thing? Making a citizens arrest in this case if the bad guy was violently threatening us?

I suppose you could fear for the lives of his next victim but that may not hold up in court. If I catch someone raping my daughter, he will never rape again. He/it may live (probably not) but no reconstructive surgery will put "it" back to a him. If he is running away I don't understand how we can by law be forced to let him go.

This came to mind when the Las Vegas shooter was shot by LEO as he was running away.

imported post

I think this may vary by state, I am sure others will have a more detailed response. The basic factor would apply. If the retreating BG has commited a felony (killed someone) then you may shoot them. Think about the recent Lakewood officer's killed and the BG running away. I OC or CCer was in the coffee shop and witnessed the incident and does not have a shot until the BG is running away, this would be a justified shot to eliminate the future threat of this BG.

imported post

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

I think this may vary by state, I am sure others will have a more detailed response. The basic factor would apply. If the retreating BG has commited a felony (killed someone) then you may shoot them. Think about the recent Lakewood officer's killed and the BG running away. I OC or CCer was in the coffee shop and witnessed the incident and does not have a shot until the BG is running away, this would be a justified shot to eliminate the future threat of this BG.

Click to expand...

Pure vigilantism.

If a felon may properly be disbarred his rights under color of law (gaawdah only knows what law might be cited above) then we can all be legally disarmed (or shot in the back) merely by sufficiently lowering the bar of felony - even to ignorant opining.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$ damn the Obamination and its teeth.

imported post

In Tennessee, we are justified in using deadly force as long as a reasonable perceptionthat aimminent threat of serious bodily injury or death is present.

So, if you shoot to stop the presence of such a threat, and your aim is true, the threat should drop right there or retreat bleeding really badly. In the case of the later, the BG shouldn't go far.

They frown on shooting BG's in the back while they're fleeing, unless of course, the BG is shooting back at you or at someone else as he's running away.

imported post

The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation; use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm and attempt to withdraw.

imported post

When a person is raped and doesn't testify against the rapist (for several possible reasons) the rapist is free to rape again. If someone threatens my life and I let him go he is free to threaten (or do worse to) others.

I would think since the crime (threaten bodily/life-threatening injury) had been done you could shoot whether they were running or not until they stopped and did not escape. The law should concentrate on bringing the criminal to justice the quickest way possible and waiting for police to show up and investigate takes too long.

Makes too much sense of course.

Here in Virginia the paper just published all the "gun" deaths in our area and stated that 60% were unsolved. That 60% is really higher because of the ones the police did solve were murder/suicides and a father beating a 10month old to death. I read that in the 1990's there were something like 100,000 murders and a capture rate of 50%. That means there are up to 50,000 murderers running the streets. I wish we had a legal system that worked with the law-abiding people rather than against them!

imported post

I definitely would not be shooting unless I knew with nearly unshakeable certainty that I was on solid legal ground.

The main point is that using lethal force, shooting someone--anyone--is a really, really big deal morally and legally. The legal concept includes both criminal and civil liability.

There is a US Supreme Court case from 1985 on this: Tennessee vs Garner.

Here is a wikisummary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Readers might also lookit up at Cornell and Justia (legal websites).

There may be VA law on this. You could check 1774. org. He has a lot of good stuff onVAlethal force law. I think Grapeshot does, too.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Here is a wikisummary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Click to expand...

From that decision:

"...and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public."

I wonder what anti-gun organization did that "deterrence" study?

That man won't be robbing anyone else's house anymore. That is deterrence isn't it?

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

The elements of common law self-defense are four; be innocent of instigation; use sufficient force only to deliver oneself from evil, be in reasonable fear of bodily harm and attempt to withdraw.

Click to expand...

Check to see if your state has a "Castle Doctrine" (aka "Stand your ground" "MakeMy Day"doctrine). If it does, there may be no obligation to withdraw.

Still leaves the first 3 rules though.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

So, if you shoot to stop the presence of such a threat, and your aim is true, the threat should drop right there or retreat bleeding really badly. In the case of the later, the BG shouldn't go far.

They frown on shooting BG's in the back while they're fleeing, unless of course, the BG is shooting back at you or at someone else as he's running away.

Click to expand...

Yes but that assumes you shoot. What if you are holding a BG until police show up at gunpoint. If he drops any weapon and simply starts walking away you can't shoot him. So your threat to "stand their or I'll shoot" is really a bluff that can put you in jail or financially ruin you. :cuss:

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Here is a wikisummary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Click to expand...

From that decision:

"...and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public."

I wonder what anti-gun organization did that "deterrence" study?

That man won't be robbing anyone else's house anymore. That is deterrence isn't it?

Click to expand...

What? They didn't cite their source? I'm gonna haveta check this out and read the opinion after all.

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Here is a wikisummary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Click to expand...

From that decision:

"...and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public."

I wonder what anti-gun organization did that "deterrence" study?

That man won't be robbing anyone else's house anymore. That is deterrence isn't it?

Click to expand...

Actually, I think that scenario would fall under "problem solving" or "finite resolution."

The deterence comes with the criminals knowing that they are not protected from serious injury or death while engaged in felony activities.

Faced with the reality that deadly force against them is part of the self defense package, provided to Law abiding citizens, should make them want to ask themselves. "Do I feel lucky?" :shock:

Now, if the persons considering a full or part time participation in criminal activity have been convinced by the liberal politicians that they are indeed "unlucky" in lifes lottery, they may decide that such bad luck may extend to their pursuits in crime.

Criminals may be ok with current prison fashions, but none of them wants to be caught dead in a body bag.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

snip....

Here is a wikisummary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Readers might also lookit up at Cornell and Justia (legal websites).

There may be VA law on this. You could check 1774. org. He has a lot of good stuff onVAlethal force law. I think Grapeshot does, too.

Click to expand...

I almost did no hear yew - was in the shed a loadin' fresh bags.

Cornell' s good but a little difficult to navigate without a chart - has most state and federal laws. http://www.law.cornell.edu/statutes.html

Being a lesser scholar of the letters, I seek out the wisdom of those more learned in the craft.

Yata hey

imported post

45acpForMe wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Here is a wikisummary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

Click to expand...

From that decision:

"...and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public."

I wonder what anti-gun organization did that "deterrence" study?

That man won't be robbing anyone else's house anymore. That is deterrence isn't it?

Click to expand...

For a real eye-opener about what goes on with court rulings, see if you can find a copy of Antonin Scalia's essay A Matter of Interpretation (1996?).

Barnes & Noble may have a paperback version. Or, it may be on-line. He lays out many of the ways judgesinterpret the law to mean what they want it to mean.

One real eye-opener for me was petitioner and respondent briefs that start with legislative intent--history, committee reports, floor speeches--before the brief even gets to the text of the statute or regulation at issue.Despite the fact, for example,that the committee report is not voted on for passage. The committee report cannot be amended. Ditto the floor speeches. Any senator or representative can stand up and give a floor speech on a bill--and suddenly that speech's text can now influence a court's interpretation (give a judge the material he needs to intrepret the statute the way he wants) over the text of the statute: the thing that was actually passed and signed into law. And the legislators know this and use it. And this was back in 1996-97, not 13-14 years later. Imagine what it is today.

Of course, I'm still wondering how the federal courts can treat almost any law with respect in the text of their opinionsgiven that they have to know the political machinations involved in passing a law. I would think, perhaps erroneously, that their stomachs would sooner or later have to revolt at the effluvial stench wafting up from the pages quoting the text of the statutes.

imported post

Laws, like sausages, are things it is best not to watch being made if one is a queasy type. And by the time the courts get through with interpreting them, it is a wretched mess of sausage indeed.

imported post

As to the OP: Heck no, if the BG is fleeing count yourself lucky. Let the cops (who you pay to handle this stuff) take care of it. In any encounter with a BG all I want is him the hell out of my freaking life. So far it hasn't involved shooting one, but I have kicked the living hell out of a few muggers, including a guy who tried to rob me in my cab back in 1977. (I accelerated to 70 MPH, slammed on the brakes and his head went into the dashboard. I beat him the rest of the way into uncociousness and kicked his butt - literally - outta the hack. ) I have been street-mugged six times. Twice they got my money, but in all but one case they got a bunch of stitches.

Jurisdictions vary on lethal force against a fleeing felon and yes, if one catches a BG in the act of raping one's family, well, what jury......

I had occasion to sit in on a felony case wherein the defendant took the stand (against advice) to explian to the jury that he only shot the lock off his GF's door because she wouldn't open up, and he only fired into the wall over the heads of her and her BF (and the kid-his-) to "calm everybody down" :shock: And then he explained that his ex-GF's BF managed to get out the door and so, since the defendant thought the BF was going to get his gun from his car, shot him four times in the back "in self defense". The icing on this cake was that he demonstrated his concern by flipping the prone victim over with his foot "to see if he was okay". You should have seen the appalled looks on the faces of the jury. Robert Horan, who was personally trying this case, well, he was just grinning ear-to-ear waiting to cross-examine this fool.

imported post

The answer here is that this is an application of force question combined with intent. Killing people is always against the law especially if that is the intent of the application of deadly force, but in application of the law there can be mitigating circumstances that offset the illegality of an act. Moreover society recognizes the need to allow for greater mitigation where a LEO is involved in apprehending a felon. While a citizen MAY catch felons, society has not placed an affirmative duty on the average person to do so. Police do have this affirmative duty.

When someone shoots in self defense they are not applying the death penalty to the target, they are applying deadly force. The intent is supposed to be stopping a threat. If the person dies as a result, that is an incidental byproduct of the application of force that is sufficient to kill but not necessarily intended to do so. Such applied force is defined as deadly not because it always kills, but instead because it is POTENTIALLY deadly. Big difference.

Under the law a person is allowed to apply all levels of force up to and including potentially deadly force, in defending against the application of potentially deadly force by an assailant. But under the law that force may only be applied up to the point that the threat ends. If that threat ends and you apply deadly force AFTER that point then you lose the mitigation of self defense under the law and you could be charged. A LEO is authorized to press a pursuit of a felon by the continued use of deadly force but only in particular ways and for particular purposes. Even a LEO can be charged is they shoot people in the back after the threat has passed.

If after a shooting the prosecutor can show that your actual intent in shooting someone was to kill them instead of just stopping them you will be charged and likely convicted. Not incidentally some of the bravado statements used in forums like this, and even in this thread, can be used to prove your intent in court should you be involved in a shooting incident.

Regards

imported post

The answer here is that this is an application of force question combined with intent. Killing people is always against the law especially if that is the intent of the application of deadly force, but in application of the law there can be mitigating circumstances that offset the illegality of an act. Such factors as self defense and defense of others are mitigating. Moreover society recognizes the need to allow for greater mitigation where a LEO is involved in apprehending a felon. While a citizen MAY catch felons, society has not placed an affirmative duty on the average person to do so. Police do have this affirmative duty.

When someone shoots in self defense they are not applying the death penalty to the target, they are applying a potentially deadly force. The intent is supposed to be stopping a threat. If the person dies as a result, that is an incidental byproduct of the application of force that is sufficient to kill but not necessarily intended to do so. Such applied force is defined as deadly not because it always kills, but instead because it is POTENTIALLY deadly. Big difference.

Under the law a person is allowed to apply all levels of force up to and including potentially deadly force, in defending against the application of potentially deadly force by an assailant. But under the law that force may only be applied up to the point that the threat ends. If that threat ends and you apply deadly force AFTER that point then you lose the mitigation of self defense under the law and you could be charged. A LEO is authorized to press a pursuit of a felon by the continued use of deadly force but only in particular ways and for particular purposes. Even a LEO can be charged if they shoot people in the back after the threat has passed.

If after a shooting the prosecutor can show that your actual intent in shooting someone was to kill them instead of just stopping them you will be charged and likely convicted. Not incidentally some of the bravado statements used in forums like this, and even in this thread, can be used to prove your intent in court should you be involved in a shooting incident.

Regards

imported post

A lawyer was asked this same question, or was he posed a scenario(??), and his replay was most informative. There are a few circumstances in which you could legally shoot someone in the back who is going away from your location.

Suppose someone has broken into your home at night. You yell at him to leave, that you have a gun, and the police have been called. But he doesn't leave. He comes up the stairs and heads straight for a bedroom door down the hall - the bedroom where your child is sleeping.

Suppose you interrupt someone in your home and he is armed. He fires at you then turns and runs, gun in hand, towards your wife's car as she pulls in to the driveway behind you.

Same situation as above except your wife is not there. Instead, there is a panel van in the street and the BG runs for the van, to retrieve the gun being held out for him by one of his "friends".


I could probably list some more, but the point is, every situation is different and many can have strange scenarios.

And I am certainly open to any constructive and corrective comments from those who know better than myself.