self-defense


PDA






johnl285
June 27, 2005, 02:40 PM
if a burglar with a gun stole money and then walks away, are you allowed to shoot him in the back? it's california and he trespassed onto your yard.

If you enjoyed reading about "self-defense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dasmi
June 27, 2005, 02:45 PM
No, you are not. You will be convicted of murder. If you were going to shoot him, you should've done it when he was threatening your life. Once the threat ends, ie, he walks away, that's it.

scottgun
June 27, 2005, 02:46 PM
You can't shoot someone for trespassing (except maybe Texas)

And you can't shoot someone who is retreating.

If he is still a threat while his back is turned, they maybe. There are circumstances where shooting someone in the back maybe justified, but the short answer is no.

WT
June 27, 2005, 02:48 PM
No, you are not. He no longer poses an immediate threat to you as he is walking away.

dasmi
June 27, 2005, 02:49 PM
I could be wrong, but this smells like a troll. Like an anti trying to get us gun-toting redneck types to say "Hell yes! Shoot that mother-effer!"
Apologies if I am incorrect, and this was an honest question.

logical
June 27, 2005, 02:51 PM
No, but you are however allowed to follow him home and re-rob him of your money on his property.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 03:02 PM
no chance to shoot him while he was a threat. suddenly in a summer afternoon, while eating hamburgers grilled outside with kids around, a man wearing black points a gun at your head and takes money. the kids are crying and hiding behind bushes. the intruder has a malicious confidence and smiles with his "power." then rushes away with his back turned. you have a gun hidden in your pocket...

YOU'RE TELLING ME YOU CAN'T SHOOT HIM????

dasmi
June 27, 2005, 03:03 PM
You cannot shoot him. If you do, you will end up in prison.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 03:06 PM
and let me add to that, upon the assailant's death, investigators find that he has a criminal record, he owned an illegal unlicensed gun, he's an immigrant with an expired visa.

YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT SHOOTING HIM WAS ILLEGAL???? (and yes this is a legitimate question by me, and don't curse and say "hell")

dasmi
June 27, 2005, 03:07 PM
1) No, you cannot shoot him. That would be illegal.
2) It find it interesting that you tell me I can't say "hell" presumably because you find it wrong, yet you ask if it's legal to shoot someone, who is no longer a threat, in the back as he runs away.
3) he's an immigrant with an expired visa.
What does that have to do with anything?

scottgun
June 27, 2005, 03:10 PM
I hate to say this, but even illegal immigrant felon illegal gun owning thiefs are human. So all the rules apply.

Now, as he was running away, you could shout to him that he forgot something, maybe you had some extra cash in a different pocket. Then when he comes back.... :banghead:

Lennyjoe
June 27, 2005, 03:11 PM
Once the perp turns to flee he is no longer an immediate threat unless he is firing his weapon over his shoulder.

You can, if you want to try, to pull your weapon and shoot him while he has the gun to your head but you have about a 99.9% chance of loosing that fight.

WT
June 27, 2005, 03:12 PM
johnl - under the conditions you describe, you cannot shoot him.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 03:13 PM
You're Telling Me, If I Rob You With A Gun, All I Have To Do Is Turn My Back To You And I Have A Free Pass To Escape???

epijunkie67
June 27, 2005, 03:17 PM
Since you seem to be new to the whole self defense thing I'll try to answer your question.

You may shoot someone in self defense only if they present,or appear to present, a direct threat to you or someone else at the mment you pull the trigger. Period. Thats it. No other time.

If he is pointing a gun at you or a family member, or is in the act of doing so, you may fire to defend yourself. If he turns away and walks off, regardles of what else he did before that, then you may NOT legally shoot.

Dude breaks in, hold you at gun point, beats you and the kids, rapes your wife, and steals your mothers ashes from the urn on the mantle and leaves. As he walks away down the street you retrieve your gun and shoot him in the back.

Thats murder. Period.

The threat had passed. Now, same dude is walking away and turns around to come back, maybe for a little something more? Now he's a threat. Now you can shoot.

Bottom line. They must be a direct threat at the time of engagement or yu can't shoot.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 03:18 PM
you're telling me a cold-blooded evil loser just has to turn his back, and suddenly he's a good guy and i'm a bad guy for shooting back?

if someone knocks you down, are you going to stay down or get back up? is this sinful according to the bible?

R.H. Lee
June 27, 2005, 03:21 PM
johnl285- Rather than argue with the answers, why don't you try it and get back to us?

KriegHund
June 27, 2005, 03:22 PM
YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT SHOOTING HIM WAS ILLEGAL???? (and yes this is a legitimate question by me, and don't curse and say "hell")

Smells alot like troll bait to me.

Alot of us here dont feel like going to prison is worth revenge over a cash and a good scare.

You can type in caps all you want, but thats the simple truth.

epijunkie67
June 27, 2005, 03:25 PM
"you're telling me a cold-blooded evil loser just has to turn his back, and suddenly he's a good guy and i'm a bad guy for shooting back?"

Ahh, but you aren't shooting BACK. To shoot back you would be getting shot AT. But if they are walking away they aren't shooting at you, they are retreating.

And shooting retreating people in the back DOES make you a bad guy. Sorry. Thats life.

(And WAS illegal? I hope you mean WOULD BE illegal.)

Risasi
June 27, 2005, 03:26 PM
you're telling me a cold-blooded evil loser just has to turn his back, and suddenly he's a good guy and i'm a bad guy for shooting back?

No, now you are both bad guys. Only one is now dead.



if someone knocks you down, are you going to stay down or get back up?

Is that a legal question, or a personal question? If it's the former, the answer is no. If it's the latter, I don't think that is a fair question to ask us what we would do unless we have been in that situation.


is this sinful according to the bible?


It's legal, according to the laws of Israel, prior to their captivity by Babylon/Media-Persia, you were just in shooting someone caught in the act. You were not just in tracking that same guy down later and killing him.

Is it legal now? No. Only when an imminent threat to you (and perhaps someone else, Fed. State and local laws apply), are you allowed to use lethal force.

(Is there any other kind but lethal force?) :D

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 03:31 PM
http://www.mcsm.org/moreuse.html
check this out in the middle of the page.

"When robber Roger W. Green put a gun to the head of the wife of store owner In Doi Choi at his Minnesota Avenue SE convenience store on July 25, 1997, Mr. Choi killed the bandit with a shot in the back. The merchant was not prosecuted, either for the shooting or for illegal gun possession."

WHY WASN'T HE CHARGED IF IT'S ILLEGAL??

dolanp
June 27, 2005, 03:34 PM
If you get a DA sympathetic to self-defense who knows a jury will probably acquit out of sympathy then they may choose not to waste time prosecuting you. In CA, you are not likely to encounter such a mix of luck.

WT
June 27, 2005, 03:35 PM
Prosecutor's discretion.

Okay, john. You're a troll, setting up ambushes.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 03:41 PM
so you're saying it's legal if the prosector let's it go? hmmm. and what's a troll and ambushing?

epijunkie67
June 27, 2005, 03:42 PM
"When robber Roger W. Green put a gun to the head of the wife of store owner In Doi Choi at his Minnesota Avenue SE convenience store on July 25, 1997, Mr. Choi killed the bandit with a shot in the back. The merchant was not prosecuted, either for the shooting or for illegal gun possession."

WHY WASN'T HE CHARGED IF IT'S ILLEGAL??

Maybe becuse of this? "a gun to the head of the wife of store owner In Doi Choi " Now I don't know the incident but it sounds as though the bad guy had the gun at her head when he was shot. Thus, he presented a direct threat to someone. As I said before;
"You may shoot someone in self defense only if they present,or appear to present, a direct threat to you or someone else at the moment you pull the trigger."

Now if he is pointing the gun at you or the wife he can be shot by anyone from any direction. That removes the threat.

dasmi
June 27, 2005, 03:42 PM
if someone knocks you down, are you going to stay down or get back up? is this sinful according to the bible?
What?
Ok, you've had your fun. You're a troll, and not a very clever one at that. Move along.

scottgun
June 27, 2005, 03:43 PM
Well if you change the circumstances, then yes. If a thief has a gun pointed at your wife's head, then you shoot him in the back, you are legally justified.

Car Knocker
June 27, 2005, 03:47 PM
The answer may vary from state to state. If the robbery occurred here, the law states that the immediate flight after committing a robbery is considered to be "in the course of committing a theft" and an appropriate level of force, including deadly force, is justified to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. U.C.A. 76-6-301 U.C.A. 76-2-402

HOWEVER, I am not aware of such an action being taken here and I would not care to be the one to define case law in such an instance.

Then, of course, there are the personal moral consequences of killing someone who no longer posed a threat to you and the financial consequences as you tried to defend your actions, which, truth be told, would be the result of your injured pride or wounded ego.

Spreadfire Arms
June 27, 2005, 03:49 PM
there's a difference between robbery and burglary.

Robbery, in CA, is 211 Penal Code:
211. Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the
possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and
against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.

taken from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/211-215.html

Burglary, in CA, is 459 Penal Code:
459. Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement,
shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other
building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and
Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of
Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked
or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle,
trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any
house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited
camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as
defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as
defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any
underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit
larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this
chapter, "inhabited" means currently being used for dwelling
purposes, whether occupied or not. A house, trailer, vessel designed
for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for
dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not
occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the
occupants to leave the premises.

taken from: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/458-464.html

as you can see, Robbery is considered a violent felony because it is a crime against a person. Burglary is considered a felony (but not violent) because it is a crime against property.

Deadly force is generally justified if you are protecting yourself or another from a violent felony.

the issue will be, if this is a burglary or a robbery.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 03:54 PM
ok, thank you, car knocker. i consider my original post answered by him. and for the state of california, this issue requires further research and/or inquiry by the appropriate established attorney(s).

by the way, i'm still confused over what a troll and ambushing is

dasmi
June 27, 2005, 03:54 PM
Sure you are.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 04:03 PM
yes, i am. tell me what it is. does that refer to a previous post about someone being paranoid or fearful or whatever that i'm trying to "bait a fish in the pond" so to speak? is the term "troll, ambushing" a colloquial phrase used by thehighroad.org community?

dasmi
June 27, 2005, 04:06 PM
A troll is someone who posts on a forum, such as this one, attempting to get people riled up, or get a particular response from the members. For example, an anti-gun person might post something along the lines of what you have, in the hopes of getting the members here to advocate the shooting of a fleeing attacker in the back.

Khaotic
June 27, 2005, 04:08 PM
What is moral or immoral, doesn't always coincide with what is legal or illegal.

Many times the morally "right" thing to do is illegal.
Many times a morally "wrong" thing to do is perfectly legal.
(and yes, morality is an individual assessment anyway, so it varies.)

While one may feel it's not only morally "right" to blow them away from behind, or even that it's a moral duty to protect the community from them - this by no means makes it *legal* to do so.

I understand your outrage that the law in many cases, sets people up as victims and then protects their victimizers - that's more the realm of politics, and influancing the lawmakers, if you'd like something done about that.

-K

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 04:09 PM
that's not my intention. my post was about self-defense in case of an event where i may have to pull the trigger. in which case the accusers who call me a "troll" are guilty of making allegations against an innocent internet poster. i'm not anti-gun to law-abiding citizens.

dasmi
June 27, 2005, 04:11 PM
You didn't ask about self defense. You asked about shooting a person who was no longer a threat to your safety. While he may deserve to get shot in the grand scheme of the universe, that doesn't make it self defense, or legal. Welcome to THR.

rhubarb
June 27, 2005, 04:17 PM
California criminal code 463.25(b)(ii):
You may not defend yourself against a robber who had turned his back unless the intruder has a malicious confidence and smiles with his "power," he's an immigrant with an expired visa, AND is a cold-blooded evil loser.

That's what the law says.

:rolleyes:

scottgun
June 27, 2005, 04:21 PM
that's not my intention. my post was about self-defense in case of an event where i may have to pull the trigger.

If you have to pull the trigger, you will most likely need a gun. And if you are going to carry a gun you should get some training and do some more reading.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 04:37 PM
i consider my original post unanswered by scottgun's *previous post.

dasmi
June 27, 2005, 04:38 PM
Many people have answered you. No, as you desribe the situation, it would not be legal to shoot. If you are in doubt, check the laws of your state.

scottgun
June 27, 2005, 04:58 PM
Don't take our word for it, look up your state laws on the internet, contact an attorney or write a letter to your state's Attorney General for any clarification Then when you are old enough to get a handgun, several years from now, you will have all the answers.

Father Knows Best
June 27, 2005, 05:21 PM
Regarding trolls: http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

From that link:The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.

I suggest that this thread be allowed to die immediately. Any moderators reading this ought to consider locking it.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 05:57 PM
"When you suspect that somebody is a troll, you might try responding with a polite, mild message to see if it's just somebody in a bad mood. Internet users sometimes let their passions get away from them when seated safely behind their keyboard. If you ignore their bluster and respond in a pleasant manner, they usually calm down."

i am not a troll. and i don't like scottgun's belittling of me. is he an old wise man or something? posting his "badges" at the end of his posts, member of nra and such. good for yourself, leave me alone if you're not going to give me straight answers. "car knocker" answered my post well i think. if you want this post to die, then fine with me. i got a cool answer from "car knocker."

Spreadfire Arms
June 27, 2005, 06:49 PM
my post was about self-defense in case of an event where i may have to pull the trigger.

you should consult an attorney, not THR. this board has very little, if any, value if and when your t*t is in the ringer, so to speak.

i've found some people on this board to give some very poor advice, probably advice they themselves would not follow in real life. the anonymity of posting makes it easier for someone to interject something with no accountability.

some people also give good advice, but again, they are not attorneys. you should take their advice accordingly.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 07:35 PM
i already mentioned in a post about further research and attorney(s). i have anger against intruders, criminals. i don't want to have anger in general to other posters. this is a very serious issue concerning life or death.

no gun will guarantee 100% safety. dialing 9-1-1 will not guarantee safety 100% of the time. this is a cruel world we live in. wolves, snakes, lions out there. i wish we didn't have to talk about this. i'm sorry if i offended anyone with my ignorance and inquiry. truly, i had emotions against theoretical thieves with guns. i don't think i'm going to post in this thread anymore. i'm just going to have to try to suppress or not have retaliating anger if a stranger takes money from me and flees.

dasmi
June 27, 2005, 07:36 PM
No one here will argue that the law does not protect you, and that the police cannot protect you. We will argue that shooting a fleeing attacker in the back is not legal, even if he deserves it.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 07:48 PM
"We will argue.." argue, or refer to the written law?

i consider giving me scientific, medical, and ethical reasoning and examples as arguing for this case. so far, i don't think i got any why it is illegal, just a repetition and referral to the law.

what are the societal benefits of not shooting someone in the back? a calmer less angry community that blindly lets thieves go?

dasmi
June 27, 2005, 07:50 PM
It has been suggested numerous times that if you don't believe us, you ought to look up the law for yourself. We will not do your research here for you. Your original question was not about the theoretical societal benefit of shooting this hypothetical attacker, it was about the legality. This will be my last post in this thread. We've fed the troll quite enough.

scottgun
June 27, 2005, 07:51 PM
Learn a martial art. You don't have to let someone take your lunch money.

Too Many Choices!?
June 27, 2005, 08:34 PM
And it ain't yesterdays tuna salad :uhoh: !

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 10:46 PM
i'm not a troll. i want you to go beyond repetitions of the written law. what was the origin of it, and what's the societal benefit? this is a sociological interrogative sentence.

you're being an ENFORCER of existing law in certain jurisdictions if you simply say you can't shoot while they run away. i want to know an explanation for that law, the object of your enforcement.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 10:53 PM
as i understand it, shooting guns can be used for 3 main things.
1. competition shooting
2. self-defense
3. hunting

i'm interested in number 2. why is it that certain places may allow shooting a fleeing robber while california doesn't? why does the guilty aggressor with a gun suddenly become "innocent" to gun retorts if his back is turned? i'm not asking what the law is. i'm asking WHY THE LAW IS.

is it because california is more of a liberal state? is it because of the 60's generation with "peace"? hollywood movies? they want to give mercy to a fleeing robber AFTER he steals your money so you can't shoot him?

Guy B. Meredith
June 27, 2005, 10:54 PM
Your query was answered to the best of the ability of anyone here and repeatedly. Your questions need to be directed to someone with the background on the exact arguments made in legislatures on why such laws should be enacted.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 11:04 PM
my emotions and questions run more deeply than just a quick reply "no you can't, you'll go to jail, period" or "they'll take your lunch money" by mr. scottgun, nra member.

many people can be tunnel vision enforcers of written laws or say "peace, peace, don't shoot the robber with the gun after he rushes away"

and people can be so wanting of joy and peace in this evil world and say, "by the way, don't kill the chickens and cows on the farms because that's cruel"

if anyone can go beyond the written law, then i'd like to know the why's.

Derby FALs
June 27, 2005, 11:08 PM
as i understand it, shooting guns can be used for 3 main things.
1. competition shooting
2. self-defense
3. hunting


1 and 3 are good practice for 2.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 11:10 PM
the robber may rush away, and go kill and rob someone else in the future. he may use the money to buy drugs and supply the underground drug industry. he may rush away to try to get to his car to get more ammunition. you don't know 100% who he is, or where he's going to go if he's a stranger robber/killer.

Cavalry
June 27, 2005, 11:10 PM
The Golden Rule of Deadly Force in Self-Defense
In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents.
Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.
Grave bodily harm generally refers to crippling injuries. In some jurisdictions it is also known as great bodily injury.
When someone says, "Your presence offends me, I'm going home to go get my gun to shoot you," the threat is not immediate.
When someone says, "Your presence offends me, if you return here tomorrow, I will be waiting with my gun to shoot you," the threat is not otherwise unavoidable. Even if you must return to that location, you have ample time to contact law enforcement.
The other definitions require a little more explanation.
Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy
In order for you to claim that you were reasonably in fear for your life (or the lives of others you had a right to protect), three conditions must be met:
Ability: The assailant(s) must have the ability to inflict death or grave bodily injury.
This could be by means of a weapon, such as a knife, gun or club. This could also be by means of a weapon such as a brick, a scissors, a two-by-four, a bottle, etc.
This could be by means of a disparity of force, such as male versus female, much larger body size, special skills like being a professional fighter or by larger numbers (a group attack).
Opportunity: The assailant(s) must have the opportunity to employ the ability.
A group threatening to beat the tar out of you, which is behind a ten-foot-high chain link fence, lacks the opportunity, even though they have the ability.
A man with a baseball bat yelling threats at you from across a busy four-lane street lacks the opportunity, even though he has the ability. When he starts crossing the street, the dynamic starts to change.
An average person 21 feet (seven yards) from you can cover that distance in less than two seconds, so a person threatening you with a knife, say eight yards away, with no obstacles between you, has both the ability and the opportunity.
Jeopardy: The assailant must be behaving in such a manner that a reasonable person, knowing what you know at the time, would conclude that he is placing you in jeopardy. In some jurisdictions this is also known as motive.
A friend who takes out the latest addition to his knife collection to show to you has both ability and opportunity. What is lacking is the reasonable perception that he is placing you in jeopardy by showing you his latest acquisition.
As in the question of how far away is an assailant with a contact weapon still a threat, prior knowledge is a key element in judging your reasonableness. If you try to cite knowledge you didn't acquire until after the incident, it will not be allowed in court. Documented training can make the difference.
Ability, opportunity and jeopardy form a tripod. If all three are not present simultaneously, you cannot prove justifiable use of force. However, there's more ...
The Mantle of Innocence
I'm sure you've seen at least one Western movie where the evil gunfighter forces the innocent rancher to go for his gun. When the rancher is beaten to the draw, all the bad guy's buddies swear to the sheriff that the rancher went for his gun first.
Hollywood script writers notwithstanding, the law generally will not tolerate this kind of behavior. If you go armed in society and seek arguments and fights, you may find a judge or jury ruling that you gave up your mantle of innocence. If this is their finding, you will not be judged to have acted in self-defense.
Robert Heinlein's contention that an armed society is a polite society, like most truths, has two edges. If you choose to go armed, you'd better be polite, as well.

Guy B. Meredith
June 27, 2005, 11:25 PM
The law is the law. If you don't agree, take it up with someone who can respond to your concerns--your legislature. There is no one here who can help you.

johnl285
June 27, 2005, 11:27 PM
i'm impressed. hmmm, 5 levels of criteria. what a horrible world. there are 2 more issues here that can be added. interpretation and emotion.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitDate=2003929115734
a police officer killed a hearing impaired teenager for having a bb gun that the officer thought was a real gun.

what if during the few seconds i see the robber rushing away and looking around? i see bystanders on the street and with emotion i think that he is a threat with opportunity and ability. this is a very serious issue and i guess i would have no choice against the law of the land by myself. it's a horrible world with death, violence.

from my perspective, what the law does is give criminals an extra layer of protection as long as they can sheath their guns and turn their backs, while not preventing crimes.

dasmi
June 28, 2005, 01:05 AM
why is it that certain places may allow shooting a fleeing robber while california doesn't?
To my knowledge, no state in the Union allows the shooting of a fleeing robber in the back.

i'm not a troll. i want you to go beyond repetitions of the written law. what was the origin of it, and what's the societal benefit? this is a sociological interrogative sentence.
That was not your original question. If you would like to discuss hypothetical social benefit, that's a different matter.

johnl285
June 28, 2005, 08:12 AM
"The answer may vary from state to state. If the robbery occurred here, the law states that the immediate flight after committing a robbery is considered to be "in the course of committing a theft" and an appropriate level of force, including deadly force, is justified to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. U.C.A. 76-6-301 U.C.A. 76-2-402"

read car knocker's reply to get an answer to what you don't know to your knowledge of the states in the union.

that was not my original question, is it against the THR forum rules to state another question in the same thread? or should i make a new separate thread about this?

johnl285
June 28, 2005, 08:18 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=643116
read this article about the florida law change that the NRA supports or whatever.

apparently, there are those who say it will make a "wild wild west" while others think it will increase safety.

instead of going in a 1 directional line, "the law! the law! shut up and obey, you're stupid" i'd like some more answers.

also, washington d.c. bans guns but has one of the highest crime rates. http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html in 2003, it was considered as the "murder capital"

dasmi
June 28, 2005, 10:43 AM
The new law in Florida DOES NOT allow you to shoot someone in the back. It just says that you no longer have a duty to flee when attacked. You are allowed to stand your ground. If your attacker turns and runs away, you cannot shoot him in the back, in ANY state.
As far as D.C., you are correct, but that has nothing at all to do with this discussion. You asked if it is legal to shoot a fleeing attacker in the back, the answer is no.
This really will be my last post here, as this thread has become a waste of time. If you want to shoot someone in the back for the good of society, be my guest. I'll see you on the news.

richyoung
June 28, 2005, 11:12 AM
...the ONLY possible justification for such an action, (and this will vary state-by-state, as I will explain later), is if you decide the "bad guy" is a contiinuing threat to the community, and attempt to effect a "citizen's arrest", which he resists, rsulting in his death. This is a VERY problematic premise to operate on - some states, primarily those witha strong ranching and agriculteral background like Texas and Oklahoma, have fairly broad "citizen's arrest" powers, and allow "reasonable force", (up to and including lethal force, if "reasonable" in the circumstances), to apprehend the "bad guy". This is because ranchers used to just lynch horse theives and rustlers - the "citizen's arrest" laws were instituted to try to get the land owners to turn the bad guys over to law enforcement, instead of just killing them on the spot. Two points to keep in mind - you have to either notify a peace officer to come take custody of the arrestee right away, or take him to the nearest police station yourself. Interstingly, when shopkeepers hold a thief for the police, private security guards detain someone, or even peace officers that arrest someone outside of their jurisdiction do so under the "color" of having effected a citizens arrest. Such an approach is frought with potential pitfalls, such as being sued for "false arrest", the fact that peace officers and district attorneys take a dim view of this, even if it is coded in the law, and other dangers too numerous to mention. Although I generally dislike the police advice of "give them what they want", (easy to say when YOU aren't the one doing the giving!), in the case YOU describe, if you:
1. aren't living in a state with strong "citizen's arrest" law and precedent, AND a community that is at least neutral on the subject, including the DA...
2. aren't living in a state that considers fleeing to be a legal "continuation" of the violent felony...

...the best thing you can do is be a good witness, get a good description of the fleeing felon, try to get a description of his car, tag number, etc. If, in the course of doing so, he notices you, turns and points his weapon at you, then the ball game is different, but do you really want to risk your life to do the police's job?

johnl285
June 28, 2005, 02:10 PM
thanks, richyoung. interesting about the "citizen's arrest" ability. also, if one lived in the rural countryside, possibly it would take a long time for 1 police station to cover many farms with lots of square acres, so it makes sense to give some ability to them.

those articles are related i think broadly relating to the usage of the gun as a deterrant. more specific case examples are welcome relating to the issue of shooting a fleeing enemy in the back.

i'd like to know why california doesn't give more broad latitude to a homeowner.
1. i wouldn't want to shoot in the back a drunk homeless man with a gun, if he mutters incoherent words and wobbles away. i'd have some pity i think and i would let that go since it wasn't 100% intentional.
2. i wouldn't want to shoot a 7 year old kid who's playing with his dad's gun
3. i wouldn't want to shoot a friend from the past who is in a desperate situation and wants money then leaves.

people who i think this would work against though, are hitmen who take money to do the job, who are non-christians, who have planned an escape route and have read this thread and take advantage of the law. i think both options are bad, either let the robber go away free with your money or shoot him in the back. but i think shooting him is less worse than letting him go. i don't think with a gun you can find a 100% clean solution, but shooting him will be better for society as a whole. individual cases may vary.

dasmi
June 28, 2005, 05:53 PM
Excuse me, but what does this mean?
who are non-christians
You'll find that A LOT of people on this board are non-christians. What exactly are you saying here?

38SnubFan
June 28, 2005, 07:01 PM
i don't think with a gun you can find a 100% clean solution, but shooting him will be better for society as a whole.

John:

As a Christian (and I mean no disrespect to any non-Christian, as there are many here who I have befriended in the past year or so I've been a THR member), I have to disagree. I know Christian sects and beliefs vary, but they way I was taught; it is not the right of any man to decide the fate of an evil person in contrast to the whole community. That is for The Lord to decide.

What we ARE taught though, is to take care of our own, and to protect them when they are in immediate danger. To put this in layman's terms: If I see someone being robbed at gunpoint, the Bad Guy is getting "one to the dome", No Questions Asked. However, if the robbery has just occured, the victim is no longer in immediate danger, and the perpetrator has fled; then I'm going to get as much information about him as possible, notify the police of this information and his whereabouts, and allow them to arrest him and bring him before justice, among a jury of his peers (the community). It will be at that point, by the community (jury), for the community, to decide that man's fate.

Either way, speaking from a Christian standpoint, he'll eventually have to answer to The Man Upstairs.

I know I've repeated some of what others here have already told you. I hope I've answered some of your questions regarding the religous and social aspects of your original inquiry.

As for "why the law is", maybe I have answered that; maybe not. Do consider though: A lot of laws have been written looking to the Holy Bible for guidance.

Take care and stay safe.

-38SnubFan

P.S.: I'm not accusing you of being a troll, for no one really knows if you are one. I will say this: If you are "trolling", you're not going to get the "Yeah! Shoot him!" response from ANYONE in this forum. And we won't be keeping this going for your amusement, but for our own. If you continue to be amused (again, this is IF you're trolling, NOT an accusation), that's at your own discretion.

Farnham
June 28, 2005, 09:07 PM
you're not going to get the "Yeah! Shoot him!" response from ANYONE in this forum.

Man, that was gonna be my response... :( That and "use enough gun." ;)

johnl285
July 1, 2005, 12:54 AM
i thought of something. i wouldn't shoot twice if the fleeing burglar was bleeding and staggering and trying to run away... i think i might understand the "mercy" part more. if he had my cash but was still trying to get away while bleeding and holding on to his bleeding shoulder, i wouldn't want to try to fire again and again to kill him. i'd let him go.

then why the first? is it anger? i wish there was a non-lethal way to stop him.

If you enjoyed reading about "self-defense" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!