• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Scenario type question

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Just because he runs does not mean the gunfight is over,or that the threat is over.
Why wait for them to take a better position ,or better cover. If I still felt threatened in any way, then GAME ON.

Granted that just because he runs does not mean the gunfight is over; yet the OP does not say the BG turns and shoots again, or dives sideways into some bushes, or...

The OP does not even say "he runs". The OP says he turns and runs away. How are you going to still feel threatened by someone who runs away, and continues running away, and continues running away?
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Ok was waiting for a You cant shoot the guy in the back responses. From what Ive seen is most shooting the bad guy is shoot in the back. Most BGs who shoot, tend to fire a couple and run. In the one second it takes to draw and fire, most peoples minds are made up as to their next actions.
In a high stress situation like that people know to draw and shoot back, this happens so fast, coupled with tunnel vision they dont even notice that the guy had turned around until after they shot back.


My Answer. Shoot him until he is no longer a threat. In my opinion he is not Running away, he is running for cover so he can clear a jam or shoot at me from a better position.

QFT

Jeremy05 wrote, "In the one second it takes to draw and fire, most peoples minds are made up as to their next actions." This is crucial to Jeremy's justification to shoot.

Massad Ayoob, who testifies on behalf of wrongfully accused shooters, including police, explains something entirely different. Ayoob explains that shooters shoot bad guys in the back because they were already firing at the bad guy when he was facing them, the bad guy turns very fast to avoid the shots, and the defender doesn't react to the turned bad guy fast enough, meaning the shooter can't stop shooting fast enough, thus you end up with hits on the bad guy behind the mid-line (vertical centerline on the sideview of a person). Basically, action beats reaction. The bad guy turns (action) in reaction to the defender's shots, and the defender can't stop shooting fast enough (reaction) to prevent side shots and back shots.

This is way different from Jeremy's justification where the time frame is longer. Its one thing to fire one or two more shots rapid fire. Its something entirely different to draw, present, aquire some vague sight picture, and fire. The time frame is much more compressed in the Ayoob example.

Then Jeremy goes on enforce his alteration: "My Answer. Shoot him until he is no longer a threat. In my opinion he is not Running away, he is running for cover so he can clear a jam or shoot at me from a better position."

Jeremy just told us he plans to suspend judgement and shoot whether the person is running away or running for cover. Shooting him until he is no longer a threat, even if he wasn't one at the time Jeremy started shooting; even if Jeremy has to pre-suppose he is a threat in order to possibly "make" him one when he isn't.

Unless Ayoob has published more, Jeremy's "justification" is a twisted version of a natural action/reaction sequence. I'm sure Ayoob will appreciate it.

Glad to hear government agents are so careful with the law. And, are inventing reasons to shoot people.

QFT
 
Last edited:

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
Tennessee versus Garner (1985) states "...Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given..."

While Tennessee versus Garner is primarily aimed at LE in regards to deadly force as it relates to a fourth amendment seizure, the principle of any deadly force situation is based on it. Killing someone is a seizure under the fourth amendment. If someone is retreating from me, and if I am not a LEO, can I reasonably claim self defense? Where does it cease to be seizure under self defense and where does it become a seizure to prevent escape?

The OP sounds like the the person engaged is a LEO of some sort. He can articulate that 1) the suspect threatened the officer with a weapon, 2) threatened infliction of serious physical harm, and 3) deadly force is necessary to prevent escape because his back up is a considerable distance away and he still poses a threat to the LEO and to society at large.

Articulation. A new word to be added to the forum's repertoire.
 

Bailenforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,077
Location
City
I have a number of Massad Ayoob books on my library shelf, and he is a good writer and I have often and still do recommend his books, now that all aside.

There is a pungent aroma of attitude here without justification. You make the assumption he is a Government employee and you could be correct or you could be dead wrong, and since Jeremy has yet to state his employment status, we can only guess, and this morning I don't feel the need to stick my foot in my mouth, thus I will not venture a guess as to his employment status.

You obviously have not been in a firefight and until you are alone with one or more poor excuses of human beings trying to kill you for no good reason, you can never understand this scenario, and like most everyone take wild guesses. The shooter set the rules of engagement he attempted to "murder" me thus rule are now in play, and I am forced to play by "his" rules. Out in the desert at this close a combat range one has only a couple of options, and that's to engage and remove the threat, or wait till he circles around me and shoots me in the back. I am glad for you that you would just sit there hoping the foreign invader, felon, murderer, and drug runner wouldn’t try again to murder you. But where I come from this is called a “fools folly”. It is so quaint that some keyboard commando who has only seen a gun from the safe side, and has not had to deal with people intent on murdering you, or having to recover from having a bullet dug out of you.
You will also note the OP never mentioned the Murderer, drug runner, Felon and foreign invader didn’t throw down his gun or make it known his intent at some point was to NOT murder. He in fact kept the rules of engagement intact as he originally set them, as full out combat.
I stated what would happen if he engaged me, and I stand by it and my past does not contradict me.

You may wish to surrender or wait till he decides once again he has a clear opening to finally complete his mission to MURDER you. I wish to be alive and NOT a fool.

So keep running your mouth assuming things you have not proved, make inane attacks on people and force your standards on others. But you best believe this, once you draw a weapon on me the rules are set and unless you throw it down as quick as you drew it, you will quickly find out if there is a GOD and a Judgment for your acts, I am betting there is.

I love how these keyboard heroes try and set standards for others they can not meet themselves. And being that I am one of those who will quickly call out official misdeeds and behaviors, I can in no way expect anyone much less a Police Officer or other Law Enforcement Officer to just stand there and risk being killed by a “known” shooter who just seconds before made his intentions extremely clear that he is trying to Murder that Officer, just stand there and take the bullets intended for him or her. Only a complete fool would demand such and a fool with MURDER in his own heart. As much as I beat up on the Law Enforcement community even I can not muster as much hate as you have, to think the way you do, much less write it here for the world to see. Your true colors have shown well.






QFT

Jeremy05 wrote, "In the one second it takes to draw and fire, most peoples minds are made up as to their next actions." This is crucial to Jeremy's justification to shoot.

Massad Ayoob, who testifies on behalf of wrongfully accused shooters, including police, explains something entirely different. Ayoob explains that shooters shoot bad guys in the back because they were already firing at the bad guy when he was facing them, the bad guy turns very fast to avoid the shots, and the defender doesn't react to the turned bad guy fast enough, meaning the shooter can't stop shooting fast enough, thus you end up with hits on the bad guy behind the mid-line (vertical centerline on the sideview of a person). Basically, action beats reaction. The bad guy turns (action) in reaction to the defender's shots, and the defender can't stop shooting fast enough (reaction) to prevent side shots and back shots.

This is way different from Jeremy's justification where the time frame is longer. Its one thing to fire one or two more shots rapid fire. Its something entirely different to draw, present, aquire some vague sight picture, and fire. The time frame is much more compressed in the Ayoob example.

Then Jeremy goes on enforce his alteration: "My Answer. Shoot him until he is no longer a threat. In my opinion he is not Running away, he is running for cover so he can clear a jam or shoot at me from a better position."

Jeremy just told us he plans to suspend judgement and shoot whether the person is running away or running for cover. Shooting him until he is no longer a threat, even if he wasn't one at the time Jeremy started shooting; even if Jeremy has to pre-suppose he is a threat in order to possibly "make" him one when he isn't.

Unless Ayoob has published more, Jeremy's "justification" is a twisted version of a natural action/reaction sequence. I'm sure Ayoob will appreciate it.

Glad to hear government agents are so careful with the law. And, are inventing reasons to shoot people.

QFT
 

jeremy05

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
426
Location
Arizona, ,
once again this is a scenerio based question open to a forum.

Obviously anyones reaction will be dictated by actual scenarios.

I personally would only shoot to stop the threat, so IF I believe he is still a threat to myself why would I not shoot? For that matter why wouldnt you shoot at someone that you believe is a threat to your life?

Also Its a few sentences for a Deadly Force encounter scenario so there are TONS of variables!

Maybe I should have said he ran away towards some cover, or something. Maybe I should have been more specific in the fact that maybe he didn't drop the gun when running.

With a suspect that has Intent to kill me, shown by shooting at me. Future intent is debatable

Still having the means to do so, Gun still in hand

And the Opportunity, clearly close enough.

If you meet those three ( Means, opportunity, Intent ) I would believe you have the green light in any case for the use of deadly force.
 

Bailenforcer

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
1,077
Location
City
Well put. In that potential three second scenario it would take me to draw and answer his deadly force with my own, only a clear demonstration of a change in intent, like him throwing his gun down might cause me to not respond with a defensive use of deadly force.

Short of someone severely mentally retarded, it is obvious to anyone that opening fire on someone is in fact intent to murder, or defend oneself from a murderer.

once again this is a scenerio based question open to a forum.

Obviously anyones reaction will be dictated by actual scenarios.

I personally would only shoot to stop the threat, so IF I believe he is still a threat to myself why would I not shoot? For that matter why wouldnt you shoot at someone that you believe is a threat to your life?

Also Its a few sentences for a Deadly Force encounter scenario so there are TONS of variables!

Maybe I should have said he ran away towards some cover, or something. Maybe I should have been more specific in the fact that maybe he didn't drop the gun when running.

With a suspect that has Intent to kill me, shown by shooting at me. Future intent is debatable

Still having the means to do so, Gun still in hand

And the Opportunity, clearly close enough.

If you meet those three ( Means, opportunity, Intent ) I would believe you have the green light in any case for the use of deadly force.
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Having learned that the OP is a BP Agent, let me ask another question --

Why is the OP posing a tactical scenario that has vastly different rules of engagement for him and fellow LEO (as if BP is not some form of LEO) than for the vast majority of members here at OCDO? If his situation/scenario has/had some confusing aspects for him, why did he not pose it to his training folks rather than come to a board that is populated by vastly more non-cops/security/operators than "extra-special circumstances" LEOs?

The information from Mas and the Force Science Institute on turning/running shooters has little application to the kind of encounter most of us are going to find ourselves in the middle of. And if we do find ourselves faced with a BG who turns away/starts to run to another location, we are still constrained by the rules of engagement for self defense. Those rules say that at the instant that the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury ceases we no longer are justified in or excused from using lethal force.

Yes, it sucks. But them's the rules.

stay safe.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
Having learned that the OP is a BP Agent, let me ask another question --

Why is the OP posing a tactical scenario that has vastly different rules of engagement for him and fellow LEO (as if BP is not some form of LEO) than for the vast majority of members here at OCDO? If his situation/scenario has/had some confusing aspects for him, why did he not pose it to his training folks rather than come to a board that is populated by vastly more non-cops/security/operators than "extra-special circumstances" LEOs?

The information from Mas and the Force Science Institute on turning/running shooters has little application to the kind of encounter most of us are going to find ourselves in the middle of. And if we do find ourselves faced with a BG who turns away/starts to run to another location, we are still constrained by the rules of engagement for self defense. Those rules say that at the instant that the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury ceases we no longer are justified in or excused from using lethal force.

Yes, it sucks. But them's the rules.

stay safe.

If someone shot at a citizen that is attempted murder, he just committed a felony. Most states allow citizens to use deadly force on a fleeing felon.
 

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
The one reason this scenario is unrealistic:

If I had an M4 in hand, and someone shot at me, within ten feet, I'm willing to bet he wouldn't have had the opportunity to run away.

Disclaimer: This is a novice opinion of someone who has never been in a firefight.

Although:

EC's Theorem said:
means + motive + opportunity = threat

threat + recent activity [ie. being shot at] + variables [available cover/escape routes etc.] = perceived threat

perceived threat = reasonable man standard [would a reasonable man in an identical situation have made the

same decision, used as a court standard] = reality [since it is used as an indicator of what the average real person would do]

perception = reality

In other words, even in a situation where, for example, a shooter attempts to run away, a defender's perception of the situation based on the factors that comprise said situation may lead the defender to reasonably conclude [more reasonably when you consider the truncated time frame] that the shooter still poses a threat, even if this may prove false when examined after-the-fact. So long as a reasonable person in the same situation would likely have followed suit, and I believe in the OP's scenario they would, they are not in the wrong.

We have plenty of time to sit and analyze this... but if it were actually happening to you, I would put money on a 4-seconds-or-less encounter resulting in some red sand.
 

jeremy05

Regular Member
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
426
Location
Arizona, ,
Hey! Thats me! :)

I dont know of LEOs deadly force encounter being different from the average citizen. Like I said if someone has the means, opportunity and intent, you should be able to shoot, LEO or not.

Also I know when deadly force is used, the judge explains to the jury that they have to try and put them into the shooters shoes, not quarterback the decision that had to be made in seconds.

A bad shoot is a bad shoot LEO or not.
 

NHCGRPR45

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
1,131
Location
Chesterfield Township, MI
my worry would be that the shooter is leading the agent into an ambush.

pop off a few rounds, then run. leading said agent straight into a fatal funnel. i would be very cautious of this type of situation.

stay safe agent.
 

CharleyMarbles

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2010
Messages
151
Location
Clio, Michigan, USA
I can tell you that if I am fired at close range and I'm holding an M-4 the radio call is going to be for back up AND a medic for the downed suspect PEROID !!!

I'm not a vengeful man but I AM a man who is going to do EVERYTHING in my power to be able to see my family again.

Even if I have to see them thru the bars it beats them only being able to see me in my casket.
 
Last edited:

palerider116

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2010
Messages
572
Location
Unknown
I dont know of LEOs deadly force encounter being different from the average citizen. Like I said if someone has the means, opportunity and intent, you should be able to shoot, LEO or not.

A bad shoot is a bad shoot LEO or not.

There are two landmark cases governing use of force for LE: Tennessee versus Garner (1985) and Graham versus Connor (1989). Every LEO should have a firm grasp of both cases before he hits the beat because these cases govern use of force. Use of force or improper use thereof will hem up a LEO faster than anything else.

There are other cases, but Tennessee versus Garner created the "reasonable officer standard" as it applies to deadly force, and Graham versus Connor applies the "reasonable officer standard" to all uses of force.

Articulation is EVERYTHING for anybody involved in a lethal force encounter. Each state has its own laws concerning lethal force as it applies to the engagement and obligations of the innocent party. LE has those two major cases that are the benchmarks for a lawful shooting. For a uniform answer to the scenario, there is none. LEO's can answer a certain way, someone in Texas will say something else, a Virginian will answer another way, so forth and so on.

Its incumbent upon every gun owner to learn the laws of his/her state, and wherever he/she travels. A righteous shoot in VA may be illegal in another state.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
There are two landmark cases governing use of force for LE: Tennessee versus Garner (1985) and Graham versus Connor (1989). Every LEO should have a firm grasp of both cases before he hits the beat because these cases govern use of force. Use of force or improper use thereof will hem up a LEO faster than anything else.

There are other cases, but Tennessee versus Garner created the "reasonable officer standard" as it applies to deadly force, and Graham versus Connor applies the "reasonable officer standard" to all uses of force.

Articulation is EVERYTHING for anybody involved in a lethal force encounter. Each state has its own laws concerning lethal force as it applies to the engagement and obligations of the innocent party. LE has those two major cases that are the benchmarks for a lawful shooting. For a uniform answer to the scenario, there is none. LEO's can answer a certain way, someone in Texas will say something else, a Virginian will answer another way, so forth and so on.

Its incumbent upon every gun owner to learn the laws of his/her state, and wherever he/she travels. A righteous shoot in VA may be illegal in another state.

But a citizen can use deadly force on a fleeing felon. Some info on fleeing felon. Can't find a statute, so perhaps it's common law.

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/11/michigan-rules-for-arrest-advice-to-gun-owners/
Michigan Rules for Arrest, Advice to Gun Owners
by Daniel Bambery, Author of “A Common Sense Guide to Michigan Gun Laws”


A private person can use more force than a police officer to arrest a fleeing felon without criminal consequences; but in more limited circumstances. Michigan courts have ruled that the use of deadly force by a private person to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon is justifiable where the following three circumstances are present: (1) the evidence must show that a felony actually occurred, (2) the fleeing suspect against whom force was used must be the person who committed the felony, and (3) the use of deadly force must been necessary to ensure the apprehension of the felon. (That is, if the arrestee resists the arrest or would escape without the use of deadly force.)


In Common law, the Fleeing Felon Rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers. In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment. According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... " Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes." [1]

U.S. Law

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited to non-lethal force in most cases byTennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Fleeing felons may be followed into places not open to the public without a warrant if the officer is in "hot pursuit." (see Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 [1967])[2]. Deadly force executed by a co-defendant against an accomplice is not justified by the fleeing felon rule. Campbell v. State (MD, 1982) [3] With respect to Government benefits the Fleeing Felon Rule has been used to say that "If you are a fleeing felon you are not eligible for SSI. Period."[4] Nor can you get food stamps.[5] Nor housing assistance. [6] PDF
<LI style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: square; MARGIN: 0px 30px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
Samuel Alito
's memo written while working in the Solicitor General's office regardingMemphis Police v. Garner which was the Sixth Circuit appellate case leading toTennessee v. Garner. May 18, 1984 PDF<LI style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: square; MARGIN: 0px 30px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">People v. Crouch 1990 in the Michigan Supreme Court held that Tennessee v. Garner was<LI style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: square; MARGIN: 0px 30px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">civil rather than criminal action;<LI style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: square; MARGIN: 0px 30px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">did not affect Michigan's Fleeing Felon Rule; and<LI style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: square; MARGIN: 0px 30px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">that a citizen may use deadly force when restraining a fleeing felon in a criminal matter.<LI style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LIST-STYLE-TYPE: square; MARGIN: 0px 30px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">State v. Weddell, The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that a private citizen may not use deadly force under the common law fleeing felon rule.
 
Last edited:
Top