How does the law view the Gun Grab/Attempted Firearm Theft scenario?

darkego said:

Snip...

Whenever i have gone onto police forms to ask defense related questions, somehow the conversation leads to if I as a civilian end up in a situation that should have been avoided in the first place "I.E. why are you in a bad place in town at night" then the law is going to look unfavorable upon any actions, however a police officer never come under such observations, and has his law enforcement history to defend him in court.

And since it looks like there is no legal history of this yet, i would like to see how the first case involving such a reaction will be treated. Murphy's can guarantee its only a matter of time.

Click to expand...

Regarding the questions referenced in the paragraph above.... isn't the mentality of making a victim justify their presence at the scene of a crime the same as BLAMING THE RAPE VICTIM?

Now, back to the original question.... Is a gun grab a lethal threat? OK, not the exact wording but close enough I think.

The answer depends upon the specific circumstances. Is the "grabber" a 10-14 year old kid in the grocery store line with his parent? Probably NOT a lethal threat, but it IS STILL A THREAT that needs to be dealt with from as simple as a loud reprimand while protecting the firearm from leaving your control up to some level of physical resistance or force applied to the "grabber."

Now, if I am in other circumstances and someone sees me with my firearm and even knowing that I am armed commits assault/battery and attempts to remove my firearm from my control.... the fight is on. The "grabber" is committing a crime against me, is attempting to forcibly arm themselves with my firearm and it is time for me to do what ever is needed to stop the threat and that means ANY METHOD OR MECHANISM UP TO AND INCLUDING ACTIONS THAT MAY POSSIBLY RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE CRIMINAL.

There is a difference in response based upon the circumstances from some curious youngster doing something unwise WHO STOPS UPON A REPRIMAND and / or my use of limited force to remove his hand from my weapon and the obvious attempt by someone who intends to forcibly remove my firearm from my control.

I would hope that my situational awareness is never so blind that I don't see something like this developing BUT if I am so prideful to boast that it would never happen to me, well I am certainly at INCREASED RISK OF IT OCCURRING.

My comments above are based upon my understanding of the laws in the location (UTAH) in which I live, YOUR locations laws may differ... and in order to be legal in your location, YOU NEED TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THOSE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.

In Utah, I have absolutely NO NEED TO RETREAT from any location in which I am legally located. I am able to legally defend myself and those in my presence from harm or injury and depending upon the severity of the threat (as understood by a reasonable man) I may use what ever force is necessary up to and including that level of force that may result in death.

In those other states where the victims of crime have a legal duty to retreat, please accept my sincere apologies and I encourage you to do what ever you can legally to CHANGE THE LAWS in your location so that you may legally defend yourself from what ever threat you find yourself facing in any location in which you are legally present!

darkego said:

This kinda reflects one of the reasons i question this issue and that's that law enforcement personnel will always have an easier time defending their actions then any joe-schmo off the street who happens to be packing.

Whenever i have gone onto police forms to ask defense related questions, somehow the conversation leads to if I as a civilian end up in a situation that should have been avoided in the first place "I.E. why are you in a bad place in town at night" then the law is going to look unfavorable upon any actions, however a police officer never come under such observations, and has his law enforcement history to defend him in court.

And since it looks like there is no legal history of this yet, i would like to see how the first case involving such a reaction will be treated. Murphy's can guarantee its only a matter of time.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's time some of us get in touch with our legislators and point out that just such an issue may not be properly covered under the law and MUST be treated as Deadly Force Assault (DFA) just the same as if it happened to a LEO. I've yet to see Missouri address this issue, fortunately it hasn't come up in a civilian shooting. (let's pray it never does)

eye95 said:

Are you sure it was a gun-grab? Several stories have been posted here purporting to be a gun-grab, but turned out to be something entirely different.

Click to expand...

I hear you. Yes, it was a gun grab. It was on Officer.com, but included link to an article or two. I just couldn't begin to know where to find it. I recall someone mentioning, "wow, that's a first," or something similar. I searched for others at the time, but my Google-foo was not strong that day (and apparently, my memory even weaker).

since9 said:

I hear you. Yes, it was a gun grab. It was on Officer.com, but included link to an article or two. I just couldn't begin to know where to find it. I recall someone mentioning, "wow, that's a first," or something similar. I searched for others at the time, but my Google-foo was not strong that day (and apparently, my memory even weaker).

Click to expand...

I faintly remember something in Washington State, I think about a CC being robbed at gunpoint and the BG did get the victims firearm... but I don't read this as a legitimate gun grab in this context.

A gun-grab is an automatic threat to life and limb and any force required to stop the grabber from accomplishing their goal is justifiable. I am of course not an attorney and have not been able to find any court rulings about law-abiding citizen responding by force to a gun-grab.

Consider:

You don't know the gun-grabber (maybe you do and the gun-grabber is mentally ill or on drugs)
You don't know their intent, but they are grabbing your gun

It seems a reasonable person would conclude that the gun-grabber would only grab the gun or it can be interpreted that their grabbing your gun is for the commission of an unlawful act that could include potentially using the sidearm to gravely injure or murder you.

since9 said:

I hear you. Yes, it was a gun grab. It was on Officer.com, but included link to an article or two. I just couldn't begin to know where to find it. I recall someone mentioning, "wow, that's a first," or something similar. I searched for others at the time, but my Google-foo was not strong that day (and apparently, my memory even weaker).

Click to expand...

Well, as they say, without a link, it didn't happen. This topic has come up on OCDO again and again, and no one has posted this story from Officer.com, so there is some disconnect here.

Beretta92FSLady said:

A gun-grab is an automatic threat to life and limb and any force required to stop the grabber from accomplishing their goal is justifiable. I am of course not an attorney and have not been able to find any court rulings about law-abiding citizen responding by force to a gun-grab.

Consider:

You don't know the gun-grabber (maybe you do and the gun-grabber is mentally ill or on drugs)
You don't know their intent, but they are grabbing your gun

It seems a reasonable person would conclude that the gun-grabber would only grab the gun or it can be interpreted that their grabbing your gun is for the commission of an unlawful act that could include potentially using the sidearm to gravely injure or murder you.

Click to expand...

See, you're in the same boat as the rest of us. With no case precedent set (somewhat thankful for that) and no written protection under Use of Force statutes in the States it becomes very difficult to even attempt to interpret what the courts might say about the issue.

This is why a lot of us who carry feel that a gun-grab is a gun-grab regardless of it it happens to a LEO or not. If a gun-grab is Deadly Force Assault when it happens to a LEO, then it should be so with the general populous as well.

Where this gets really scary is in a State that says you must see the presentation of deadly force to use deadly force...or you cannot draw until presented with a clear identifiable threat. Without protection under the law for the gun-grab, that dramatically raises the possibility that you're disarmed AND you're going to be seriously injured or killed OR that you'll be charged with a crime for using force against the gun-grab. This might be especially true if said attacker gets to court and says they had no intent to do you harm, they only wanted your gun and had you given up your gun the attacker would have fled with it without conflict.

It's a far stretch, but we all know how defense attorneys can be and just how dirty they can play the game in court. The right defense attorney will make the actual victim out to be the attacker and the actual attacker out to be the victim of YOUR violence. Clearly you're a violent person...if you weren't you wouldn't be carrying a gun. (this is a statement you'd be guaranteed to hear from the defense)

We could go on and on with this, but I hope those who don't understand how this puts us in limbo will have a better grasp of the issue.

The second you pull the trigger you are the perp and they are the victim until proven otherwise.

If someone is grabbing at my sidearm, I am immediately going to start fighting. I think people should be prepared to get physical in a situation like that because you don't know the ability, intent or state of mind of the person grabbing for your sidearm.

If it was a teenager, meaning, it is apparent they are young, restraining them isn't excessive IMO. If they are in their mid-teens up, especially male or bigger than me, I will fight. The prosecutor is going to "sort" it out in the end anyhow. I would rather be sitting in a cell than laying in a grave or waking up everyday knowing that I let some POS use my sidearm against me or to harm people.

I am sure, eventually, this issue will come up and we will see how it plays out in court. My guess is it will likely be considered a sign of aggression and have the potential of inflicting grave bodily harm and/or death.

let's hope none of us have to find out what way it will be found.

heresyourdipstickjimmy said:

Where this gets really scary is in a State that says you must see the presentation of deadly force to use deadly force...or you cannot draw until presented with a clear identifiable threat. Without protection under the law for the gun-grab, that dramatically raises the possibility that you're disarmed AND you're going to be seriously injured or killed OR that you'll be charged with a crime for using force against the gun-grab. This might be especially true if said attacker gets to court and says they had no intent to do you harm, they only wanted your gun and had you given up your gun the attacker would have fled with it without conflict.

It's a far stretch, but we all know how defense attorneys can be and just how dirty they can play the game in court. The right defense attorney will make the actual victim out to be the attacker and the actual attacker out to be the victim of YOUR violence. Clearly you're a violent person...if you weren't you wouldn't be carrying a gun. (this is a statement you'd be guaranteed to hear from the defense)

We could go on and on with this, but I hope those who don't understand how this puts us in limbo will have a better grasp of the issue.

Click to expand...

I think saying "he had a gun drawn and I was afraid for my life" would go a long way toward proving justification for deadly force in self-defense. Especially since the person likely laid hands on you in order to get the gun.

Even in this terribly anti-gun state, with restrictive self-defense laws like a duty to retreat, a person is allowed to use "reasonable physical force" to recover stolen property. If someone takes your gun, and you bust his head to get it back, and he decides to fight rather than run, he's now threatening you with deadly force and you have the clear right to use deadly force in your self-defense, just the same as if he had drawn his own gun at that point. Duty to retreat absolved if you say that you did not believe you could safely retreat because he had a gun. Of course, it might not be a good idea to hit someone with a gun, be it yours or his.

Additionally, in this state, drawing a gun is as much "deadly force" as actually firing it. Drawing a gun without good reason is assault with a deadly weapon--justification for the use of deadly force in self-defense.