SouthernBoy
Regular Member
imported post
Hawkflyer wrote:
Hawkflyer wrote:
Excellent post, Hawk. Straight and to the point.
-
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.
Shoot to stop the attack...but?
- Thread starter 45acpForMe
- Start date
imported post
A grand jury can chose to indict or not. Circumstances and opinions are part of the system. It all comes down to an affirmative defense if you must go before the bar.
There was an event years ago in the fan, wherein a man was repeatedly stabbing his wife in the front seat of her car. A neighbor seeing this ran into his house retrieving a 9mm, went back out and shouted for the aggressor to stop.
The attacker, dropped the blade, turned away and fled up the alley. The neighbor fired and hit the fleeing spouse multiple times in the back, killing him. The grand jury did NOT indict.
Also there was the recent Baskins Robins shooting on Forest Hill - similar but different - grand jury did not indict.
Being right is always good. Having a good attorney is better. Being lucky is best, even priceless.
Yata hey
A grand jury can chose to indict or not. Circumstances and opinions are part of the system. It all comes down to an affirmative defense if you must go before the bar.
There was an event years ago in the fan, wherein a man was repeatedly stabbing his wife in the front seat of her car. A neighbor seeing this ran into his house retrieving a 9mm, went back out and shouted for the aggressor to stop.
The attacker, dropped the blade, turned away and fled up the alley. The neighbor fired and hit the fleeing spouse multiple times in the back, killing him. The grand jury did NOT indict.
Also there was the recent Baskins Robins shooting on Forest Hill - similar but different - grand jury did not indict.
Being right is always good. Having a good attorney is better. Being lucky is best, even priceless.
Yata hey
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
In Texas according to the law a fleeing felon can be shot by a citizen, but you'll still end up being prosecuted in most counties. Best idea is not to shoot people at all,let alone in the back.
Master Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
PrayingForWar wrote:
PrayingForWar wrote:
'Felon' is the difficult part. He's definitely fleeing when he's shot in the back where you can't see his forehead. Ahh, another good application for tattooing, an 'F' for felon rather than a 'T' for Thug right in the middle of the forehead!
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
45acpForMe wrote:
45acpForMe wrote:
I don't care who you are--LEO or not--shooting someone in the back in the absence of open warfare is the act of a coward.
PrayingForWar
Founder's Club Member
imported post
suntzu wrote:
suntzu wrote:
Some might argue we are at war with certain criminal/fundamentalist organizations. Just because you have not declared war yourself, when millions of other people have declared war on you, you're at war like it or not.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
PrayingForWar wrote:
PrayingForWar wrote:
To say that we are at "war" with criminals in this country is a stretch--because warfare precludes the ability of the government to even try and control things. Shoot a fleeing criminal in the back--and you'll end up in jail...but in open warfare the rules are different. A fleeing enemy soldier may announce your position to his/her comrades and thus endanger your position--that is not the case with a fleeing criminal.
45acpForMe
Newbie
imported post
suntzu wrote
If someone stole my stereo and was running away I agree shooting at them would be excessive. On the other hand if someone just killed my daughter and was running away, not shooting at them would bea travesty. Not only are you allowing them to get away with murder, they may/can attack others. The fact that they show me their backside should not give them a you-can't-shoot-at-me pass. The only way they should be allowed to taken in by the police iswhen they surrender. Extra ventilation helps them surrender.
Granted we can go back and forth on hypothetical situations for ever. I just believe that some of these hard and fast rules are b__llsh1t! My point is that we shouldn't be shooting only to stop the attack but shooting to stop the criminal. Shooting is only a method applicable for life threatening situations but IMHO it would be a darn good deterrent to other lesser criminals too.
suntzu wrote
A fleeing criminal can go get help from his gang/homies/nazi-youth-group. Just because someone leaves doesn't mean they will never come back. So in your words he can give away my position/address to his comrades to come exact more damage(pound of flesh or loot). Even after thatcriminal-individualis in jail his comrades can still terrify innocents.
If someone stole my stereo and was running away I agree shooting at them would be excessive. On the other hand if someone just killed my daughter and was running away, not shooting at them would bea travesty. Not only are you allowing them to get away with murder, they may/can attack others. The fact that they show me their backside should not give them a you-can't-shoot-at-me pass. The only way they should be allowed to taken in by the police iswhen they surrender. Extra ventilation helps them surrender.
Granted we can go back and forth on hypothetical situations for ever. I just believe that some of these hard and fast rules are b__llsh1t! My point is that we shouldn't be shooting only to stop the attack but shooting to stop the criminal. Shooting is only a method applicable for life threatening situations but IMHO it would be a darn good deterrent to other lesser criminals too.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
45acpForMe wrote:
Police or not--shooting someone in the back absent open warfare will most likely get you thrown into prison.
As for allowing the criminal to leave and come back with their homies--well that's what your home defense weapon of choice is for isn't it--you just have to make certain that you know the laws of your state and have a mobile strategy prepared so that if they do get through your door or start shooting at your home from the outside or try to firebomb you-then you can take the fight to them if that is what you choose to do.
We're not in a shooting war with the criminals yet. Remember--CYOA, because the government certainly won't do it for you and you can't depend on anyone else to.
As for "shooting to stop the criminal" versus "shooting to stop the attack"--there is very little difference between them--because if you have to shoot--you are shooting to stop the criminal because in stopping the criminal, you are stopping the attack--you just want to make sure you know the laws of your state as they relate to self-defense before you do, because once the bullet leaves your barrel--there is no going back.
Now for my caveats--All of this is strictly my opinion and IANAL.
45acpForMe wrote:
I agree to a point--not shooting a thug who just killed a member of your family would be a travesty--but you also have to realize that the cops are not going to care that a family member is laying dead--all they will care about is the fact that you--and to use words which they would probably use "wanted to be a vigilante and shot a fleeing criminal in the back"--and they would arrest you and the state would prosecute you and the jury would convict you, assuming the state didn't offer you a plea to a lesser charge and the judge would throw you into prison, and there you'd set for a better portion of your life. You do remember what happened to the two Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean in Texas right--where they shot a fleeing drug smuggler in the a$$ and the officers were the people put in prison....if you don't think that could not be you or anyone else--you're wrong. The state does not care about you or anyone else--and they won't give a good damn what your reasons were for shooting someone in the back--all they will care about is convicting you--which they would--because they would have your gun, they'd have the body which you left, they'd have ballistics and the round they'd pull from the body and your own statements to use against you---and all you could depend on would be the jury to have sympathy on you--possible but not likely.suntzu wroteA fleeing criminal can go get help from his gang/homies/nazi-youth-group. Just because someone leaves doesn't mean they will never come back. So in your words he can give away my position/address to his comrades to come exact more damage(pound of flesh or loot). Even after thatcriminal-individualis in jail his comrades can still terrify innocents.
If someone stole my stereo and was running away I agree shooting at them would be excessive. On the other hand if someone just killed my daughter and was running away, not shooting at them would bea travesty. Not only are you allowing them to get away with murder, they may/can attack others. The fact that they show me their backside should not give them a you-can't-shoot-at-me pass. The only way they should be allowed to taken in by the police iswhen they surrender. Extra ventilation helps them surrender.
Granted we can go back and forth on hypothetical situations for ever. I just believe that some of these hard and fast rules are b__llsh1t! My point is that we shouldn't be shooting only to stop the attack but shooting to stop the criminal. Shooting is only a method applicable for life threatening situations but IMHO it would be a darn good deterrent to other lesser criminals too.
Police or not--shooting someone in the back absent open warfare will most likely get you thrown into prison.
As for allowing the criminal to leave and come back with their homies--well that's what your home defense weapon of choice is for isn't it--you just have to make certain that you know the laws of your state and have a mobile strategy prepared so that if they do get through your door or start shooting at your home from the outside or try to firebomb you-then you can take the fight to them if that is what you choose to do.
We're not in a shooting war with the criminals yet. Remember--CYOA, because the government certainly won't do it for you and you can't depend on anyone else to.
As for "shooting to stop the criminal" versus "shooting to stop the attack"--there is very little difference between them--because if you have to shoot--you are shooting to stop the criminal because in stopping the criminal, you are stopping the attack--you just want to make sure you know the laws of your state as they relate to self-defense before you do, because once the bullet leaves your barrel--there is no going back.
Now for my caveats--All of this is strictly my opinion and IANAL.
45acpForMe
Newbie
imported post
suntzu wrote:
Allowing a criminal to flee whenyou have the power/capability to stop him seems criminal.When you commit the crime, IMHO you give up your civil rights to run away. I understand the current laws work against such action and I am hoping for sanity to come back someday.
suntzu wrote:
That is partly why I am a member of the NRA/VCDL to help work toward changing laws to work with people that want to be law-abiding-citizens rather than against them. Things like the castle doctrine and beyond need to bring this country back from the brink of anti-gun-hysteria.
Allowing a criminal to flee whenyou have the power/capability to stop him seems criminal.When you commit the crime, IMHO you give up your civil rights to run away. I understand the current laws work against such action and I am hoping for sanity to come back someday.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
45acpForMe wrote:
I agree--every state needs a very strong castle doctrine. I also believe that every state should grant complete civil and criminal immunity as well to citizens who use a firearm or other weapon in their defense or the defense of another.
I also agree--criminals give up many of their rights when they commit a crime, but at the same time--society as it stands today really does not care what you or I think. I tend to be a pessimist when it comes to the government--I foresee things only getting worse for gun owners and homeowners--and if the liberals of society have their way, and unfortunately they are--they will model our society on British society where the people must cower in fear while criminals can go around basically unrestrained.
Again--IANAL.
45acpForMe wrote:
I don't know about Virginia--but I do know Tennessee has a Castle doctrine--they also as I recall recently did a little re-work on it which basically says that if you are on your property and have a reasonable fear that your life is in imminent danger--you have no duty to retreat. We have no duty to retreat when in our car, or our home and now anywhere on our property as long as we have a reasonable fear--now what exactly constitutes reasonable fear is going to be decided by the prosecutor--that is why we have to be extremely careful with what we do and how we do it and what and how we say things.
I agree--every state needs a very strong castle doctrine. I also believe that every state should grant complete civil and criminal immunity as well to citizens who use a firearm or other weapon in their defense or the defense of another.
I also agree--criminals give up many of their rights when they commit a crime, but at the same time--society as it stands today really does not care what you or I think. I tend to be a pessimist when it comes to the government--I foresee things only getting worse for gun owners and homeowners--and if the liberals of society have their way, and unfortunately they are--they will model our society on British society where the people must cower in fear while criminals can go around basically unrestrained.
Again--IANAL.
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
suntzu wrote:
suntzu wrote:
Boy howdy. There was just an article this morning in the Washington Post about an escaped Brit criminal who is taunting the police via Facebook and Twitter, posting "Wanted Posters" of himself and saying that the police are "Dense as (crap)" etc. I wonder if the British cops will do what ours would when they catch him. ie, use reasonable force to overcome resisting arrest (or as they say, kick the living hell out of him)?
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
Alexcabbie wrote:
I see this as a strict failure of the UK system--a strong Castle doctrine could have stopped him in his tracks.
Alexcabbie wrote:
I've been following the story about the escaped Brit--actually I find it kind of funny. He has been turned into a sort of modern day Robin Hood---with quite a following on facebook 30,000+ friends--last I checked they shut his page down, but others have popped up--mostly fan pages.
I see this as a strict failure of the UK system--a strong Castle doctrine could have stopped him in his tracks.
MatieA
Regular Member
imported post
suntzu wrote:
I used to think so, and then the day came that I had to shoot someone in the back to save a fellow Marine's life. I hope to God that I never have to shoot another person, but I am not so silly as to think that shooting someone in the back (if needed) is cowardly.
Edit -- We were on base guarding the armory, we were not at war.
suntzu wrote:
I used to think so, and then the day came that I had to shoot someone in the back to save a fellow Marine's life. I hope to God that I never have to shoot another person, but I am not so silly as to think that shooting someone in the back (if needed) is cowardly.
Edit -- We were on base guarding the armory, we were not at war.
tekshogun
Founder's Club Member
imported post
MatieA wrote:
I want to say he meant open warfare to mean combat regardless of it being a war zone, a personal self defense situation, or law enforcement action. If the person being shot in the back is shooting behind their back or is an immediate threat to anyone else (such as in front of them), a bullet in the back is not cowardice.
MatieA wrote:
I want to say he meant open warfare to mean combat regardless of it being a war zone, a personal self defense situation, or law enforcement action. If the person being shot in the back is shooting behind their back or is an immediate threat to anyone else (such as in front of them), a bullet in the back is not cowardice.
Alexcabbie
Regular Member
imported post
Well, I think that in any situation where deadly force is called for, there are NO guarantees. Starting with there is no guarantee the good guy will survive. There is also no guarantee that the authorities will see it your way. But lethal-force situations are by definition fast-moving situations where life and death are usually determined by split-second decisions. In less than a blink of an eye, you may well have to determine (1) if a threat exists (2) is applying lethal force necessary (3)and then draw, present and fire. All of these could very likely need to be processed and enacted in less than one second.
We can pontificate and arglebargle all we want while seated at a keyboard, it is so convenient. But in a "no second place winner" situation, there is no "Phone a freind" option.
A random guy at a bus stop a few weeks ago asked me "When can you shoot someone?" I responded that if you were asking yourself that question, you shouldn't be carrying. He then asked under what circumstances I would shoot someone. I replied that every situation is different and that personally I would try to avoid such a thing, but if it became necessary to shoot to protect innocent life; then I hoped I would - and thought I had - have enough sense to know when that time had come, because there is NO recalling a bullet.
And that sense must be exersized in a split second, and you better not be wrong. And as I say, there are NO guarantees....
Well, I think that in any situation where deadly force is called for, there are NO guarantees. Starting with there is no guarantee the good guy will survive. There is also no guarantee that the authorities will see it your way. But lethal-force situations are by definition fast-moving situations where life and death are usually determined by split-second decisions. In less than a blink of an eye, you may well have to determine (1) if a threat exists (2) is applying lethal force necessary (3)and then draw, present and fire. All of these could very likely need to be processed and enacted in less than one second.
We can pontificate and arglebargle all we want while seated at a keyboard, it is so convenient. But in a "no second place winner" situation, there is no "Phone a freind" option.
A random guy at a bus stop a few weeks ago asked me "When can you shoot someone?" I responded that if you were asking yourself that question, you shouldn't be carrying. He then asked under what circumstances I would shoot someone. I replied that every situation is different and that personally I would try to avoid such a thing, but if it became necessary to shoot to protect innocent life; then I hoped I would - and thought I had - have enough sense to know when that time had come, because there is NO recalling a bullet.
And that sense must be exersized in a split second, and you better not be wrong. And as I say, there are NO guarantees....
DMWyatt
Regular Member
imported post
45acpForMe wrote:
45acpForMe wrote:
The problem with deterrence isn't a matter of preventing the future crimes of others, it's that you can't put a rationalnumber on events that never happen. The only thing any of us should be immediately concerned with is protecting our lives at that very moment. The law doesn't recognize a responsibility for anyone to act to save someone else, it simply offers some recognition of circumstances where a prudent person would be driven to kill in order to preserve their own lives.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
tekshogun wrote:
If the person who is fleeing tries to shoot while running--then no, a bullet in the back is not an act of cowardice--he makes himself an immediate threat by trying to shoot, and everything that happens from that point forward is the fault of the fleeing criminal.
When I say it is an act of cowardice in a situation short of open warfare--I mean shooting a fleeing individual in the back simply to put him down when he has broken off contact and is no longer posing a threat--an example--a guy pulls a knife on you, or you run up on a guy in a gas station/git n go or whatever who is trying to conduct a holdup- you present your 9mm or .45 and he drops the knife or while still holding the knife he turns and flees ( a distinct possibility) --you then shoot him in the back in order to stop him when he is no longer a viable threat to you or anyone in the immediate vicinity....
Yes he could pose a threat to someone else--but if you shoot him in the back--that is not something you are going to easily explain away...
Now I make a distinction here--shooting a guy in the back who is an immediate threat to another individual or to yourself--would or should be legally/morally justified--such a situation could include a home invasion where you are at home and come upon the criminal(s) from the rear and while they are presenting an immediate threat to a loved one or to yourself--you deal with the situation and if that includes shooting the criminal(s) in the back then so be it--they are where they have no right to be and are posing an immediate threat to another person or yourself-- in that situation they have assumed all risk. The other example is a fleeing criminal who is armed with a gun--especially if he makes an attempt to put up a fight.
I am just morally against shooting a fleeing criminal in the back just to stop them when they are no longer posing a threat.
There are so many scenarios we could discuss--it will be dealt with on a case by case basis but we should always stay well aware of state self-defense laws--because what is justified will be decided by people other than ourselves and they will make an attempt to second-guess us.
As for what I mean by open warfare--you are correct. I am talking about both a war zone type situation where civil disruption/uprising has occurred, as well as external invasion by outside military, as well as the situation involving an active shooter type situation such as occurred in Missouri on Friday or gang drive by type situation, home invasion--many things--where the individual(s) pose an immediate threat to your life or the life of a loved one. We need not be in full on war to be in open warfare.
tekshogun wrote:
You are correct.
If the person who is fleeing tries to shoot while running--then no, a bullet in the back is not an act of cowardice--he makes himself an immediate threat by trying to shoot, and everything that happens from that point forward is the fault of the fleeing criminal.
When I say it is an act of cowardice in a situation short of open warfare--I mean shooting a fleeing individual in the back simply to put him down when he has broken off contact and is no longer posing a threat--an example--a guy pulls a knife on you, or you run up on a guy in a gas station/git n go or whatever who is trying to conduct a holdup- you present your 9mm or .45 and he drops the knife or while still holding the knife he turns and flees ( a distinct possibility) --you then shoot him in the back in order to stop him when he is no longer a viable threat to you or anyone in the immediate vicinity....
Yes he could pose a threat to someone else--but if you shoot him in the back--that is not something you are going to easily explain away...
Now I make a distinction here--shooting a guy in the back who is an immediate threat to another individual or to yourself--would or should be legally/morally justified--such a situation could include a home invasion where you are at home and come upon the criminal(s) from the rear and while they are presenting an immediate threat to a loved one or to yourself--you deal with the situation and if that includes shooting the criminal(s) in the back then so be it--they are where they have no right to be and are posing an immediate threat to another person or yourself-- in that situation they have assumed all risk. The other example is a fleeing criminal who is armed with a gun--especially if he makes an attempt to put up a fight.
I am just morally against shooting a fleeing criminal in the back just to stop them when they are no longer posing a threat.
There are so many scenarios we could discuss--it will be dealt with on a case by case basis but we should always stay well aware of state self-defense laws--because what is justified will be decided by people other than ourselves and they will make an attempt to second-guess us.
As for what I mean by open warfare--you are correct. I am talking about both a war zone type situation where civil disruption/uprising has occurred, as well as external invasion by outside military, as well as the situation involving an active shooter type situation such as occurred in Missouri on Friday or gang drive by type situation, home invasion--many things--where the individual(s) pose an immediate threat to your life or the life of a loved one. We need not be in full on war to be in open warfare.
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
MatieA wrote:
I'm not talking about someone clearly armed with a gun--a gun in hand is a threat, especially if they turn to shoot--I'm talking about an unarmed and fleeing criminal or someone you suspect is unarmed.
MatieA wrote:
Shooting someone in the back who poses an immediate threat to another person is an act of self-defense. I am talking about shooting a fleeing individual in the back who not posing an immediate threat--as in unarmed fleeing criminal.
I'm not talking about someone clearly armed with a gun--a gun in hand is a threat, especially if they turn to shoot--I'm talking about an unarmed and fleeing criminal or someone you suspect is unarmed.
okboomer
Regular Member
imported post
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
There is also another concept under discussion here, the shooting of a fleeing convicted felon from another crime scene ... generally, most citizen's would have no way of knowing if a person fleeing from a crime scene is an already convicted criminal unless they personally know the fleeing criminal and that he had a felony conviction.
If you as a private citizen do not know a fleeing person is an already convicted felon, then you cannot shoot someone fleeing from the scene of a crime unless a felony has been committed. However, then you move into the realm of a private citizen performing a citizen's arrest. In some states, in this scenario, a citizen is protected by law in using deadly force to effect the citizen's arrest.
It's a fine line we citizen's have to walk when we choose to carry a gun. Discussions of this type are a valuable resource. Above all, you should know the laws of your state, and test the temperature of the DA where you might end up in a SD shooting ... forewarned is forearmed. And you should know and understand this, you will be in an adversarial position with most DA's.
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Doug, you are wrong in 'pure vigilantism' ... it is justice. In the scenario cited, the shooter observed the murders of LEO, and would be JUSTIFIED under most state and federal laws in shooting the fleeing felonius criminal ... in the back, front, where ever. If a shoot is JUSTIFIED, it cannot be vigilantism. The criminal has just shown complete disregard for human life and is a continuing threat to public safety whether the BG still has a weapon or not.
There is also another concept under discussion here, the shooting of a fleeing convicted felon from another crime scene ... generally, most citizen's would have no way of knowing if a person fleeing from a crime scene is an already convicted criminal unless they personally know the fleeing criminal and that he had a felony conviction.
If you as a private citizen do not know a fleeing person is an already convicted felon, then you cannot shoot someone fleeing from the scene of a crime unless a felony has been committed. However, then you move into the realm of a private citizen performing a citizen's arrest. In some states, in this scenario, a citizen is protected by law in using deadly force to effect the citizen's arrest.
It's a fine line we citizen's have to walk when we choose to carry a gun. Discussions of this type are a valuable resource. Above all, you should know the laws of your state, and test the temperature of the DA where you might end up in a SD shooting ... forewarned is forearmed. And you should know and understand this, you will be in an adversarial position with most DA's.