Would you have any qualms with shooting an armed assailant in the back?

[Rockrivr1]

I'm sitting at work on a very long and boring conference call. While I'm only partially paying attention I'm staring out the windows to the parking area. One of my co-workers just got out of his car with a large gym bag. I was thinking that the bag could easily conceal a rifle/shotgun etc. My desk is right next to a side entrance. My work space is enclosed but I have a door next to my desk that opens to the hallway where the side entrance door is. As my co-worker entered the building I though about what I would do if he actually did have a gun and came in that entrance. Would I call security and then scram out of the building or would I try to take him out before he killed a bunch of my co-workers.

With my current location next to the entrance, if I did decide to engage the person with the gun, I would probably wait a few seconds to get behind him. Basically so when I entered the hallway I would have a straight shot at his back. Probably the safest way. The door to my space is secure and not accessable from the hallway unless the guy shot through it, so I'm reasonably sure he'd go down the hallway. Not exactly sure about how I feel about shooting someone in the back though. I know, the guy probably doesn't have the same reservations.

I guess my question is two fold. Would you engage the assailant or scram out of the building after calling the police? Also if you did engage the guy and had a free shot at his back, would you take it?

[WinchesterAA]

I'd tell 'em to drop the gun.

[dpesec]

Well, unless your State has something like Florida's Stand Your Ground law, you must bug out, unless your life is threatened. With the BG's back to you it would be hard to convince the DA.

It would make me mad but I would have to leave. I wish more States would adopt Florida's law.

[PlayboyPenguin]

Depends on the circumstance. If the assailant was actively shooting people and I happened to be able to get behind them I would have no problem at all. Or if they had shot already and other people were in their path and therefor in danger. If they were in the act of fleeing and noone was injured or noone was in their path I would not because my rear would be on the line if I or someone else was not in immediate danger. I read a story once about a guy here in Oregon that shot his wife and then fled the house. A neighbor had seem him entering his estranged wife's home and retrieved his rifle to go confront him. By the time the neighbor got there he had already shot his wife and was running down the sidewalk. The neighbor shot him in the back and I do believe killed him. The neighbor was convicted of a lesser degree of manslaughter or something and then found guilty in civil court for damages. His mistake was shooting a fleeing man that was not threatening him or any other bystanders.

[Biker]

If the guy opened up on people, the back would be just fine with me. Even better than the front.;)
Just make sure that he's not there to show a new shotgun he got for his B Day to his co-workers first.
Biker

[Kramer Krazy]

I recall a thread a while back about the mall shootings where the guy had a rifle and a CWP carrier got shot because he told the guy to drop his gun, first. I agree with a few of those posts on that thread.....if he's already shot people and is still shooting, take him out any way you can....but, if he hasn't shot anyone or even threaten to, yet, I'd have to tell him to drop the gun. If he didn't drop the gun and made a quick turn or something, I'd drop him. Shooting him in the back, if he hadn't shot at anyone or even made a threat, may be a bit overboard and may turn out to be really bad for you.......I'd be bad to find out the gun was a prop for a demonstration in another part of the building, and you just shot the person who was going to teach a self-defense course or something like that.

Edit - I need to type faster. PlayboyPenguin and Biker had the jump on me.

[cmidkiff]

Carefull... What if the guy was bringing a rifle in because he had sold it to one of his co-workers? Can't just open up on someone because they have a firearm. Heck, many of the members here have firearms on them at all times (myself included).

Now, if they guy's shooting at people and I'm behind him, first thing's first, find some cover. Once I'm behind good solid cover, if I think I can make the shot, I would. Don't care which side of him is exposed, if he's in the process of shooting people, I am justified in stopping him.

Good cover, and an acceptable handgun range would be very important. Firing at a guy with a rifle, at long range, when all I have is a handgun... seems like a good way to get shot to me!

[M2 Carbine]

I would have to be SURE in my mind what was going on.
If I thought I had to shoot to stop a killing (or more killings) I'd shoot him anywhere that presents a good target.

[Vern Humphrey]

"Of course I shoot my enemies in the back. After all, the idea is for me to kill them."
-- Uncle Herbivore

[Correia]

There are 3 aspects to consider in any lethal force encounter. Legal, Tactical, and Moral.

Legal, depends on your state. Here it is dependant on if the assailant had the ability, opportunity, and is an immediate threat of causing you grevious bodily harm. Your state is going to be different.

Tactical, does it make sense for you to engage the assailant, or run away? Getting shot sucks. You may be legal to use lethal force, but it might be tactically unsound.

Moral, that is up to you. Getting involved vs. running away is a decision for each individual, and outside of the internet (where everybody is filled with courage, has ninja like shooting skills, and is good looking to boot) life is often not black and white, good vs. evil kind of situations.

Legally speaking, in my state, shooting an assailant in the back is fine. As long as a reasonable man would make the assumption that they were still a threat. In a mass workplace shooter scenario, shooting them in the back is fine.

Verbal challenges are great, when they work. But see above, it might not be tactically sound. If there is a crazy guy shooting up my workplace, my first warning is going to be a 230 grain TTI .45 impacting his center of mass.

Edited to clarify. This is using the reasonable man doctrine I mentioned above. You need to be sure that the assailant is actually a threat before you engage them.

[PlayboyPenguin]

and outside of the internet (where everybody is filled with courage, has ninja like shooting skills, and is good looking to boot
Awww...you read my profile. I am flattered. :D

[Darth Ruger]

You need to read this book:

Surviving Workplace Violence (http://www.paladin-press.com/detail.aspx?ID=1166)

It teaches you how to prepare for exactly those types of situations, regardless of what type of environment you work in, and what to do and not do if something actually happens. Well worth the $15.

My wife thought it was silly for me to buy the book, until a co-worker of hers went through his cheating wife's suicide last summer and started acting like he was going to explode. Then she read the book real quick! It finally blew over and nothing happened, but she still feels better even now for having the knowledge beforehand.

[LeoC]

I recall a thread a while back about the mall shootings where the guy had a rifle and a CWP carrier got shot because he told the guy to drop his gun, first.
There are accounts that say the CWP guy told the shooter, "Son, you'd better put the gun down." If true, it certainly played a part in the CWPer getting shot, that, and the CWP carrier coudn't make the mental decision to shoot.
News excerpt about the Tacoma mall shooting aftermath:
Mall victim held fire at ‘kid’
‘I would have had to shoot him in the head,’ man says from hospital bed

M. ALEXANDER OTTO; The News Tribune
Published: November 29th, 2005 02:30 AM

Tacoma Mall shooting victim Brendan “Dan” McKown, who has worked as a stand-up comedian, often makes his bedside guests laugh in his room at Tacoma General.

Brendan “Dan” McKown said Monday that he briefly drew his gun on Tacoma Mall shooting suspect Dominick S. Maldonado, but he’s not sure Maldonado saw it.
He could have shot Maldonado, McKown said, but hesitated.

From his bed in Tacoma General Hospital, McKown told The News Tribune what he saw and did during the Nov. 20 mall shootings.

McKown, 38, said he carried a gun and even trained for situations where he could keep innocent people from getting hurt.

But the situation in the mall was just too surreal to fully comprehend, he said: A young man wearing a baseball cap turned backward strolling through the mall in white tennis shoes.

It looked like he could just as easily have been carrying a guitar, McKown said, instead of a semi-automatic rifle.

“I’m looking at this guy,” McKown said. “He’s a kid. I would have had to shoot him in the head.”

McKown just wasn’t ready for that. It’s not easy to shoot someone in the head, McKown said. McKown also didn’t want to get in the way of the police if they were handling the situation, and he knew he could get in trouble for brandishing a weapon in the mall.

McKown was struck by as many as five bullets, leaving his left leg paralyzed. He has about 10 percent movement in his right leg, said hospital spokesman Todd Kelley. Five other people wounded that day were treated and released from area hospitals.

In reply to the original question, if the BG was shooting at coworkers and I was in a position to shoot to stop, I'd do so, even if his back happened to be turned toward me. I doubt any jury would fault you for that.

[EddieCoyle]

I'd keep shooting him in the leg until he turns around.

[Correia]

Eddie, I sure hope you're joking, because if you aren't, I don't even know where to start about why that is just a BAD IDEA. :p

[EddieCoyle]

Yeah, I was joking - actually "borrowing" from Ron White.

[DunedinDragon]

I'd step out in the hallway, ask the co-worker to fill in for me on the long, boring conference call, take the gun out of his bag and head for the range to try my new gun.:neener:

[Thefabulousfink]

"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

That being said, anytime you shoot someone you will have to prove that you felt in fear for you life or the life of another. I would feel justified if their back was to me and they were pointing a gun a someone else and making clear threats to that persons life. Or if their were multiple assailants who show a clear intention to do harm to myself or the others present. Any other situations, where there is a danger but not a direct threat, I would draw on them and demand that they drop the weapon. If they then made a hostile move, I would fire.

The key is (even in states w/o duty to retreat laws) that the suspect is showing a CLEAR threat to life. And what may seem like a clear threat to you may not look like one to the other witnesses, police, DA, judge, or jury.

The First rule of surviving a gun battle is not to get in one.
The Second rule is to kill the other guy before he kills you.

[Hook686]

If the assailant(s) had their back(s) to me, odds are (they)he is leaving the scene of the assault. In this case, I no longer fear for my life, or limb. No, I would not shoot fleeing assailant(s).

[NineseveN]

Correia nailed it.

[M2 Carbine]

If they fall within this law I would consider stopping them a duty.:)
You'll notice according to 9.32.3(B) that in the Great State of Texas a person does not have to wait until their very life is in danger before the BG can be "stopped".
And deadly force can be used to protect PROPERTY.

"Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;
~ ~ (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
~ ~ (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
~ ~ ~ (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
~ ~ ~ (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
~ (b) [added 9/1/95] The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor. "

[Technosavant]

Anybody ever seen El Diablo?

"Of course I shot him in the back. His back was to me!"

If is a madman bent on mayhem (killing people or very obviously about to begin), his back is what gets the bullets if that is what I see.

[Correia]

NineseveN, I better have. I teach this stuff for a living. :D

[NineseveN]

Our resident Obi Wan Kenobi. :D

Why couldn't you guys have opened up shop in Pennsylvania? :(

[AirForceShooter]

Back shooting has a long and honored tradition behind it.
Ask any fighter pilot.
They do shoot from behind the enemy that's if they even let the enemy see them.
The idea is to win.

AFS

[Zak Smith]

Correia
Verbal challenges are great, when they work. But see above, it might not be tactically sound. If there is a crazy guy shooting up my workplace, my first warning is going to be a 230 grain TTI .45 impacting his center of mass
+1, except I don't think they are especially "great" in ANY case.

If you are justified to use lethal force legally and morally (in defense of life or grave bodily injury, opportunity, means, and intent) AND you decide to fight.. Talking to the BG just serves to communicate that you are about to fight. It should be over before he knows he IN a fight.

[Nitrogen]

I'd have no qualms shooting to stop anyone that was threatening me or a loved one, no matter what direction he was facing.

[JesseJames]

Remember that scene in "Death Wish 3" when Charles Bronson used his Wildey AutoMag to blow that guy away?
:D :neener:

[griz]

Would I shoot an assailant in the back? The key here is the word assailant, not which direction he is facing. If he is an assailant, I'm not going to run around to the other side before I shoot.

[sturmruger]

I have absolutely no qualms about shooting an obvious agressor in the back. I would do it in a second with out any thought other then what is in front of the guy and where my bullets might end up.

This guy in Tacoma made a serious mistake by issuing a verbal challenge. I think he got trapped by the classic hollywood movie armed standoff where someone shouts to the bad guy to freeze and the good guys takes care of the situation by disarming the bad guy. In real life I don't think it always works out that way.

[Correia]

NineseveN, I'm really more of a wookie kind of guy.

Zak, I'm mostly in agreement with you. I'm really hesitant about recommending a verbal challenge, but I know of a few instances where a challenge was issued, as the gun was coming into play, and it ended with the bad guy running away. (this actually happened to my wife) Now these are usually in robbery/assault kind of things, not an active shooter. When you've got an active shooter, shoot them in whatever is available, as fast as you can.

[MAURICE]

If the person poses a threat to the life or well being of myself or those nearby, absolutely. If he has proven that he would/has already killed, absolutely.
Once you prove yourself a danger to society there is no reason to keep you around.

[JesseJames]

MAURICE, are you a smoker, a joker, and a midnight toker?:D :neener:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Working Man]

If the guy opened up on people, the back would be just fine with
me. Even better than the front. Just make sure that he's not there to show a
new shotgun he got for his B Day to his co-workers first. Biker

Hey Jim... look what the wife got me for my bir... BLAM BLAM BLAM. :neener:

If it's a good shoot it's a good shoot. Front to back or back to front, it's still
a good shoot.

[imas]

Well the safest thing for no.1 is to leave. However, I carry to protect those around me just as much as I do to protect myself. In my state I have the duty to retreat if possible but I may defend others if they do not have the opportunity to retreat. So in this case I would tell him to put the gun down and shoot him if he tries to turn it on me. Now if he had already opened fire I would shoot him in the back for sure.

Yeah its stupid to get involved when I can escape unscathed but it's better than the alternative. If I ran out when those people needed help and let them die then it would haunt me. I couldn't live with myself unless I tried. I'd rather fail and be dead or crippled than to live with their blood on my hands. Now I never go looking for trouble and I realize how truly horrible it is to shoot someone. My gun is one tool I hope I never have to use. So don't think I'm trying to be a superheromallninja. Could you live with yourself if you just let innocent people die?

[MrTwigg]

And I thought my life was boring ! :neener:

No wonder you drive so fast ! :D

[Frandy]

Imas, Thanks for your words. My sentiments exactly.

I say Bravo without the bravado! You can be in my foxhole anytime.

[JohnKSa]

Let's say that a person is threatening a family member with firearm and you approach from his rear. If the situation warranted the immediate use of deadly force then shooting the person in the back would definitely be acceptable.

If you were the only person being attacked, then it's a bit harder to justify shooting someone in the back. I guess it would depend on the situation. Let's say that it was obvious to you that the person was simply retreating to cover to continue the attack and that for some reason you couldn't retreat. Then the situation would probably warrant you doing your best to prevent him from reaching cover where he could mount a more effective attack. It would probably be good to scream for him to drop his gun before shooting. If he retains it, that could be seen as evidence that he was not vacating the scene but merely trying for a better position to continue the attack.

[hillbilly]

This thread shows something else, too.

In the Tacoma mall shooting, the bad guy was bent on murder and mayhem.

The citizen with the gun, the good guy, wasn't bent on murder and mayhem, and as a result, hesitated and issued a verbal challenge when he should have fired instead.

Note the news story where the good guy says he just couldn't shoot the kid in the head.

Well, "the kid" was randomly shooting people in a mall.

It highlights another thing to always keep in mind.

"Good guys" quibble over things such as "is it fair and moral for me to shoot this guy in the head, or in the back?"

And while "good guys" ponder these weighty moral questions, the bad guys are busy shooting and killing or robbing or raping or doing whatever bad thing they've set out to do.

In a way, that's the real downside of being "the good guy" in a situation.

Instead of thinking of ourselves as a " the good guys" would we be better served as figuring out how we are going to come home alive in such a situation, and be willing to do whatever it takes to come home alive?

Come out alive, and worry about that other stuff when you have time to do so.

hillbilly

[JohnKSa]

Good point.Note the news story where the good guy says he just couldn't shoot the kid in the head.That kind of thinking has no place in the world of self-defense.

Anyone who can stop in the middle of a massacre and "humanize" a threat is not equipped for self-defense and should run or hide when things get dangerous.

A 16 year old shooting shoppers with a rifle is NOT a "kid", he is a threat and must be dealt with exactly like any other deadly threat.

[cbsbyte]

No I would not shoot a assiliant in the back. Mostly because It would be hard to convince a District Attorney that you acted in self defence when the bullets are in the BG back. Maybe in some jursdiction in Flordia you could get away with that but not in Massachusetts. In Mass you can only shoot if attacked by an assiliant in owns own home. Anyway, I really want the criminal to see me plug him. ;)

[DKSuddeth]

not a single qualm at all, unless he'd already shot someone. then I might feel bad that I didn't shoot faster.

[psychophipps]

I would have more qualms about this dumb SOB making me shoot his a$$ than actually pulling the trigger on him. Every time I've been in an engagement where I had to hurt someone I keep asking them, "What you go and make me do that for? What were you thinking?"

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

[sturmruger]

Hillbilly that was very well put.

[carpettbaggerr]

I'd have qualms about shooting someone in the back. I'd worry a shot in the back wouldn't put them down, that's why I'd shoot them in the head.............

[Jamie C.]

If a person needs shooting, you shoot 'em. Back, front, top, bottom... doesn't matter. Make holes in 'em 'til they don't need shooting anymore.
The tricky part is figuring out what constitutes "needs shooting". After that it's all easy.

Here in TN, any person that is trying to cause death or serious bodily harm to yourself or others, or has forceably entered your home pretty much needs shooting. However, if you live elsewhere you may be working with an entirely different standard.


J.C.

[Sam]

If they need shooting at all, it's my preferred AoA. Never give an enemy an even break, NEVER.

Sam

[Lupinus]

would depend on situation

If he was shooting others, had already shot someone, was threatning someone else, was on his way twoards someone else and I had a good idea he was going to shoot someone....then absoloutly I'd shoot him in the back.

If he thought he was a big shot with a gun and I pulled a gun back on him and he about crapped his pants turned whitter then casper and ran for the hills....then can't say I likly would shoot him.

[crofrog]

I guess it depends on how much I like my co-workers.

[Carl N. Brown]

I might feel bad about it, but I would feel worse if
by inaction I allowed an assailant to kill an innocent
third party.

The problem with defending a third party involving strangers,
the "victim" could be the original attacker and the "assailant"
be acting in self defense.

[hurrakane212]

If I am certian that my life or limb or the life/limb of a loved one is in danger then I have no moral qualms about putting a .45ACP through the back of their skull, a knife between thier ribs or kidneys, kicking them when they are down, etc.
I am very machiavellian when it comes to violence and I value my life and the life of my loved ones much higher than some SOB that wants to hurt us.
As Jeyne Cobb (Adam Baldwin in Firefly & Serenity) once said... "Hell, I'll kill a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight, or if he bothers me, or if there's a woman, or if I'm gettin' paid - mostly only when I'm gettin' paid."
~Nathan

[sacp81170a]

Clint Smith once said it and I agree. "If you're ever in a fair fight, your tactics suck." Amen, brother Clint.

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, unless your State has something like Florida's Stand Your Ground law, you must bug out, unless your life is threatened. With the BG's back to you it would be hard to convince the DA.

I believe that states requiring retreating before use of lethal force are in the minority. I don't recall there being more than a couple that required this, but I may be in error.

There are many reasons to shoot a bad guy in the back, and not all pertain to your life being threatened. While you might not be in direct danger from a guy with his back to you, there may be others in front of the bad guy whose lives are being threatened.

In some places, lethal force is justified to stop various non-life threatening or no longer life-threatening jobs. For example, the owner of a store may shoot robber making away with all of the store's money. Besides, whether or not you may be in danger is usually superceded by whether or not you perceived yourself still being in danger.

Given there are no laws in the US that preclude back shots, shooting a bad guy in the back isn't going to be that significant.

You know, if the bad guy is so stupid to make the tactical blunder of turning his back on your, shooting the bad guy in the back potentially represents the absolutely best time for the task. If the bad guy can't see your actions, then he isn't likely to try to be defending your actions.

Clint Smith once said it and I agree. "If you're ever in a fair fight, your tactics suck." Amen, brother Clint.

There is nothing unfair about shooting a bad guy in the back when it was his decision to present his back to you.

In the Tacoma mall shooting, the bad guy was bent on murder and mayhem.

The citizen with the gun, the good guy, wasn't bent on murder and mayhem, and as a result, hesitated and issued a verbal challenge when he should have fired instead.

Note the news story where the good guy says he just couldn't shoot the kid in the head.

There are several reasons why McKown failed to shoot the bad guy in the Tacoma Mall. First, he didn't know the law and so was afraid of getting arrested for brandishing. He did not want to get in the way of police if they were handling the situation, only there were no police there at that time and defending your life or the lives of others in such a situation isn't going to be getting in the way of the police in an active shooter situation.

Of course he claimed that he would have to shoot the bad guy in the head and it is hard to shoot someone in the head, as if he had tried.

The primary reason McKown did not shoot the bad guy because he didn't even have his gun drawn.

Given that McKown claimed to carry a gun to protect others, that wasn't going to happen because of his fear of brandishing.