Who says you don't need a gun in a shopping mall?

Jay Gatz said:

You could try and make that claim if you wanted, but I wouldn't.

Personally I don't see the risk of a murder charge for shooting a man in the back to be worth it.

Click to expand...

There are a few situations where shooting someone in the back would be viewed as an excusable use of deadly force. Three come to mind right away.

SouthernBoy said:

There are a few situations where shooting someone in the back would be viewed as an excusable use of deadly force. Three come to mind right away.

Click to expand...

Please amplify with appropriate citations to support excusability or take you bloodlust somewhere else.

I'm serious. I want to read the case law that excuses shooting someone in the back.

Remember, you said excuses so do not bother to post a citation dealing with justification. Because I've already posted quite a bit on the history of justification of shooting a fleeing felon and how it got to be where it is today.

Moving slightly off topic - with the number of instances, if this is the same person then my earlier comments about perversion seem to gain even more strength. And that certainly includes the possibility that this person will escalate their attacks to the level of disfigurement or death as the goal. But even so, the possibility of that happening does not yet reach the threshold established in Garner.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Please amplify with appropriate citations to support excusability or take you bloodlust somewhere else.

I'm serious. I want to read the case law that excuses shooting someone in the back.

Remember, you said excuses so do not bother to post a citation dealing with justification. Because I've already posted quite a bit on the history of justification of shooting a fleeing felon and how it got to be where it is today.

Moving slightly off topic - with the number of instances, if this is the same person then my earlier comments about perversion seem to gain even more strength. And that certainly includes the possibility that this person will escalate their attacks to the level of disfigurement or death as the goal. But even so, the possibility of that happening does not yet reach the threshold established in Garner.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

IANAL so I haven't done case searches of self defense situations where people have shot someone in the back and it has been "justified".

With that said I can think of several reasons to shoot someone in the back, hostage situations, a rapist on top of a victim, a kidnapper that just shoved your daughter into his car.... I am sure there are many more. I seem to remember reading/viewing something about a swat sniper shooting a criminal in the back during a hostage scenario recently but can't remember where I saw it.

I understand that you have been a voice of reason and we need to avoid Blood Lust but are you telling me that if you were in a restaurant and a man started shooting (Luby's Cafeteria comes to mind) that you would wait until the man was facing you before shooting? There are scenarios were it is justified regardless of whatever the local,state or federal laws are. In searching for the above video I couldn't find (swat) I saw another one of an Israeli police officer that shot a second suicide bomber before he could activate his explosive vest. While he shot him 5 times in the head do we really care if it was the front of the head or back?

skidmark said:

Please amplify with appropriate citations to support excusability or take you bloodlust somewhere else.

I'm serious. I want to read the case law that excuses shooting someone in the back.

Remember, you said excuses so do not bother to post a citation dealing with justification. Because I've already posted quite a bit on the history of justification of shooting a fleeing felon and how it got to be where it is today.

Moving slightly off topic - with the number of instances, if this is the same person then my earlier comments about perversion seem to gain even more strength. And that certainly includes the possibility that this person will escalate their attacks to the level of disfigurement or death as the goal. But even so, the possibility of that happening does not yet reach the threshold established in Garner.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Your jerking knee betrays you, Skid. I'll expect an apology forthcoming for the bloodlust comment.

Now as to my source. A well-known attorney here in Virginia if you must know. And the examples given were the following three to which I referred;

o A BG, we'll assumed armed, makes his way up the stairs to the second floor and you shout for him to stop. He immediately turns and heads to an end bedroom which happens to be where your child sleeps.

o A BG has already fired a few shots at you in your home, or on your property, not that this makes any difference, and is running to his vehicle to retrieve a long gun (example, remember) from a cohort holding it out for him.

o Same as above except this time the BG sees your wife arrive home in the driveway and runs to her car to drag her out at gun point.


These examples were used in a seminar I attended so before you jump, make sure you have a net waiting for you at the bottom of your fall.

SouthernBoy said:

Your jerking knee betrays you, Skid. I'll expect an apology forthcoming for the bloodlust comment.

Now as to my source. A well-known attorney here in Virginia if you must know. And the examples given were the following three to which I referred;

o A BG, we'll assumed armed, makes his way up the stairs to the second floor and you shout for him to stop. He immediately turns and heads to an end bedroom which happens to be where your child sleeps.

o A BG has already fired a few shots at you in your home, or on your property, not that this makes any difference, and is running to his vehicle to retrieve a long gun (example, remember) from a cohort holding it out for him.

o Same as above except this time the BG sees your wife arrive home in the driveway and runs to her car to drag her out at gun point.


These examples were used in a seminar I attended so before you jump, make sure you have a net waiting for you at the bottom of your fall.

Click to expand...

There is also the situation, if I am not wrong, where an armed attacker swivels around after you draw down on him with your weapon. Should you not shoot because he reacts defensively by turning away? Has the threat been removed?

And I could be wrong but it seems reasonable to me.

SouthernBoy - are those excusable situations, or justified situations. Remember, it was you who picked the term. And I don't care what some well-known attorney had to say until that well-known attorney backs up their claim with some case law to make me begin to believe they actually know what they are talking about. No offense to the well-known attorney for not providing you with case citations in a self-defense seminar as I am willing to guess they were not intending to hold a mini law school session as part of the seminar. Well-known attorney's opinions, thoughts, beliefs and hopes have been known to be dashed on the rocks of the judicial bench when their citations are not sufficiently on point. And at other times they have prevailed because it was clearly established that the case law was on their side. That's why I asked for case law citations.

As for the bloodlust comment - if the shoe fits, wear it. If you can prove the shoe does not fit - which you have not, so far - I'll apologize. But not until. And my apology will be directed specifically at the person(s) to whom the accusation does not fit. It will not be a general apology.

Neplusultra - Force Science Institute has dealt with the sort of situation I think you are referring to. If they are the same/similar, those were situations where the use of deadly/lethal force was justified, not excused. We're looking for situations where it was declared excusable because that's the word that was thrown out there.

stay safe.

Neplusultra said:

There is also the situation, if I am not wrong, where an armed attacker swivels around after you draw down on him with your weapon. Should you not shoot because he reacts defensively by turning away? Has the threat been removed?

And I could be wrong but it seems reasonable to me.

Click to expand...

I wanted to answer this separately from the debate over excusable versus justified.

If you can control your body to stop yourself from taking the shot because the BG has turned away and is therefore no longer posing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, then you should stop yourself from taking the shot.

Whether he turned away defensively or submissively or tactically does not matter. The threat is no longer imminent, and therefore the shot is no longer legally sanctionable. I'd offer the same answer if you had said the BG raised the gun over his head (hands up gesture but gun still in his hand). Easy answer when not in the middle of the situation, isn't it?

As I mentioned, Force Science Institute has done a lot of work "proving" to juries that it was not physically possible in certain circumstances to stop the body from taking the shot even though the BG had turned away. Each time they had to recreate the situation as closely as possible to the already-provided testimony of what happened when. It costs a lot of money for that kind of expert witness, and they will not (to my awareness) lie for anybody.

We will not discuss tactics here. Your choice of what to do next when the BG turns is yours to make based on whatever training and/or personal thoughts you may have.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

If you can control your body to stop yourself from taking the shot because the BG has turned away and is therefore no longer posing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, then you should stop yourself from taking the shot.

Click to expand...

Warning to all bad guys: I do not have this level of control.

Sometimes I hold my breath when I shoot. Sometimes I blink.

I don't know. Maybe those things will actually save your life. Is it worth it?

skidmark said:

SouthernBoy - are those excusable situations, or justified situations. Remember, it was you who picked the term. And I don't care what some well-known attorney had to say until that well-known attorney backs up their claim with some case law to make me begin to believe they actually know what they are talking about. No offense to the well-known attorney for not providing you with case citations in a self-defense seminar as I am willing to guess they were not intending to hold a mini law school session as part of the seminar. Well-known attorney's opinions, thoughts, beliefs and hopes have been known to be dashed on the rocks of the judicial bench when their citations are not sufficiently on point. And at other times they have prevailed because it was clearly established that the case law was on their side. That's why I asked for case law citations.

As for the bloodlust comment - if the shoe fits, wear it. If you can prove the shoe does not fit - which you have not, so far - I'll apologize. But not until. And my apology will be directed specifically at the person(s) to whom the accusation does not fit. It will not be a general apology.

Neplusultra - Force Science Institute has dealt with the sort of situation I think you are referring to. If they are the same/similar, those were situations where the use of deadly/lethal force was justified, not excused. We're looking for situations where it was declared excusable because that's the word that was thrown out there.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

A citizen's use of deadly force, if warranted, is called excusable not justifiable in Virginia. Not my words... the attorney to whom I made reference.

And as for the attorney, I'm sure he might like to hear what you have to say about him, and what you might think of him. After all, he's defending you in your trail coming up next month.

SouthernBoy said:

A citizen's use of deadly force, if warranted, is called excusable not justifiable in Virginia. Not my words... the attorney to whom I made reference.

And as for the attorney, I'm sure he might like to hear what you have to say about him, and what you might think of him. After all, he's defending you in your trail coming up next month.

Click to expand...

#1 - you were asked to provide citations to back up your statements, as is both the rules of this board and customary on this state forum. You have not done so and appear to be refusing to do so, in spite your absolute assertion of what you claim is a fact. Saying someone else said so - regardless of how well-known, reputable, or learned, still does not provide the level of proof necessary. I'll give you just one citation that shows that at least the Virginia Court of Appeals disagrees with you -- http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/2193992.pdf .

I'll just copy the money quote here: "Killing in self-defense may be either justifiable or excusable. If it is either, the accused is entitled to an aquittal."

#2 - the gentleman in question knows full well what I think of him, and as he is a regular reader of this forum I have every reason to believe he has read my posts. In the past he has shown no hestiation in correcting me when I am not correct and/or accurate, and has in fact chastised me when he felt it was necessary. If you feel I have said something detrimental to or about him that he is not aware of and should be aware of, I suppose you will contact him and inform him of such.

In my mind carrying this any further will just be arguing on the internet. While I do enjoy the give-and-take of a good debate or exchange of differing ideas/opinions, I see nothing that could be gained by asking you to put up or shut up.

stay away.

"I slaughtered this horse last Tuesday. I think it's startin' to turn."

TFred

skidmark said:

#1 - you were asked to provide citations to back up your statements, as is both the rules of this board and customary on this state forum. You have not done so and appear to be refusing to do so, in spite your absolute assertion of what you claim is a fact. Saying someone else said so - regardless of how well-known, reputable, or learned, still does not provide the level of proof necessary. I'll give you just one citation that shows that at least the Virginia Court of Appeals disagrees with you -- http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/2193992.pdf .

I'll just copy the money quote here: "Killing in self-defense may be either justifiable or excusable. If it is either, the accused is entitled to an aquittal."

#2 - the gentleman in question knows full well what I think of him, and as he is a regular reader of this forum I have every reason to believe he has read my posts. In the past he has shown no hestiation in correcting me when I am not correct and/or accurate, and has in fact chastised me when he felt it was necessary. If you feel I have said something detrimental to or about him that he is not aware of and should be aware of, I suppose you will contact him and inform him of such.

In my mind carrying this any further will just be arguing on the internet. While I do enjoy the give-and-take of a good debate or exchange of differing ideas/opinions, I see nothing that could be gained by asking you to put up or shut up.

stay away.

Click to expand...

I provided the source of my information and that is where I received same. These questions arose in several seminars and were answered in kind by our mutual friend. As for the terms "excusable" and "justifiable", he explained that the difference lies in who is the subject in question. He explained that if the individual is a citizen, then the term excusable homicide is used. If the subject is a law enforcement office, the term is justifiable.

As for saying anything to the gentleman, I'm not going to say a damned thing.... no need to do so. Incidentally, I never made an absolute assertion of this as fact. I do admit without shame that someone whom I trust conveyed this to me, and others as well.

I also welcome a friendly and stimulating discourse be it via web postings or in person. I do not care for emotional digressions or other displays of a less-than-friendly air. Having read many of your posts over the years, I would suggest a measure of tact might be visited a skoosh more. I much prefer ending things on a positive, rational, and pleasant note rather than having them degrade into the mire. So I'll bit you a pleasant evening, sir.

This reminds me of the old TV commercial for Certs:

Certs is a breath mint!
No, Certs is a candy mint!

STOP! You're both right!

Click to expand...

The shootings Skidmark is referring to, in which people were shot in less than desirable positions, were made by cops; hence the argument that they were "justifiable". So, SouthernBoy, I think Skidmark is yanking your chain for having made an assumption about what he's talking about, and what's in his mind, and I'm sure he's thinking that if you'd read the articles he's referring to, you'd understand that.

The Tennesee v. Garner cite is also appropriate. The big door that was left open was the "continuing dangerousness" rule. It's a violation of a defendant's right to due process of law to kill him while fleeing, regardless of the crime. The exception is where the defendant poses a continuing threat to other people (e.g., if he's carrying a gun). As a practical matter, I'm thinking you and I would be charged with a crime if we'd shot the fleeing butt-slasher, but a cop would not (continuing dangerousness). That is to say, I think the phrase, "continuing danger" would be interpreted differently depending on the status of the defendant (a denial of equal protection of the law, btw).

user said:

This reminds me of the old TV commercial for Certs:

The shootings Skidmark is referring to, in which people were shot in less than desirable positions, were made by cops; hence the argument that they were "justifiable". So, SouthernBoy, I think Skidmark is yanking your chain for having made an assumption about what he's talking about, and what's in his mind, and I'm sure he's thinking that if you'd read the articles he's referring to, you'd understand that.

The Tennesee v. Garner cite is also appropriate. The big door that was left open was the "continuing dangerousness" rule. It's a violation of a defendant's right to due process of law to kill him while fleeing, regardless of the crime. The exception is where the defendant poses a continuing threat to other people (e.g., if he's carrying a gun). As a practical matter, I'm thinking you and I would be charged with a crime if we'd shot the fleeing butt-slasher, but a cop would not (continuing dangerousness). That is to say, I think the phrase, "continuing danger" would be interpreted differently depending on the status of the defendant (a denial of equal protection of the law, btw).

Click to expand...

I completely understand this (the concept of continuing dangerousness). And the examples I related which resulted from some questions a few of your seminars were clearly laid out. The best of those to me would be the BG who, when arriving at the second story of one's home, turns and heads for a young family member's bedroom. Of course I am also fully aware of your "real" position on such an example: he should never be allowed to get that far in the first place. But not everyone is privy to information like this.

As for shooting the butt slasher, yes technically that would be a mistake as once the perp had finished his deed and was off, the threat was no longer real. However, if the lady had done so, I would not be surprised if a jury would choose not to convict her.

In any case, I viewed the idea of shooting someone in the back as not being an absolute to the extent that one would be automatically guilty and would have no chance of acquittal. And then there are the cases where a victim fires several shots at an assailant and one or two enter in areas that could be in question. Well, people tend not to stay still and make nice easy targets when rounds are coming their way. So it's not uncommon for a hit or two to enter in the rear of the perp's side or his back in the heat of the moment. One would have to trust to the investigation and hopefully evidence to prove one's act was "justifiable".

Oh well, I mean no one any angst or ill will on these forums and Skid should know that. I so much prefer a quiet and comfortable discourse when opposing views are aired. Thanks for stepping in and clearing the air.

It appears according to Drudge Report this guy has been nabbed in PERU!

No need to tighten the borders for any reason.....

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=149&sid=2706261