Is there such a thing as a 'justified' shot in the back?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Combat Handguns has an article dealing with this in their current issue. They also have a short piece on what to do after a shooting. Pick it up and read both articles. It is information all gun owners should know and consider.
 
Been a lot of posts saying yes. Bottom line, if you shoot someone in the back who is fleeing, you better have your ducks in a row.
Click to expand...

No, the bottom line is that if you shoot anybody anywhere that you better have your ducks in a row.
 
SnowBlaZeR2, your original comment was "That last part [(the whole scenario where a person is in your home but they are fleeing, whether they have any of your property or not, you cannot shoot them)] is not true. In your home, fleeing or not, is game on".

This has been discussed here before, numerous times. "Castle laws" do vary, but the Florida law as codified is not entirely unique.

The law there, as in Texas to name one other example, simply provides that, if he or she has reason to believe that someone is attempting to enter "unlawfully and with force" or has done so, an occupant is presumed to have "held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another".

It is a matter of law that such a presumption is rebuttable.

Regarding the "fleeing or not" part, if you have reason to believe that they were fleeing, you may not shoot. That is, should the evidence indicate the intruder had in fact been attempting to depart and that the actor had had reason to believe that, the actor would not be provided with an assumption that he had held a reasonable fear, etc.

For reasons discussed in prior posts about the dynamics of a shooting encounter, wounds in the back would probably not suffice alone to support that conclusion, but they could prove troublesome. Given that evidence in combination with other facts, such as forensic evidence indicating the respective positions of the occupant and the person who had been shot, or the testimony of the person shot or an earwitness, the charging authority or trial court could come to the conclusion that the shooting had not been justified.

Regarding the "in your home" part, circumstances indicating that the occupant had had a prior relationship with the person and possible motive, combined with any indication that he had invited him in (a lack of evidence that he had entered "unlawfully and with force" could weigh in here) would also negate that presumption.

In my state, there is no reference to such a presumption in the law as codified, but I would not want to test that against the common law.

I do no not know your intended meaning of "game on", but we need do to be careful to not give the impression that we are looking for ways to justify the use of deadly force.
 
Kleanbore said:
SnowBlaZeR2, your original comment was "That last part [(the whole scenario where a person is in your home but they are fleeing, whether they have any of your property or not, you cannot shoot them)] is not true. In your home, fleeing or not, is game on".

This has been discussed here before, numerous times. "Castle laws" do vary, but the Florida law as codified is not entirely unique.

The law there, as in Texas to name one other example, simply provides that, if he or she has reason to believe that someone is attempting to enter "unlawfully and with force" or has done so, an occupant is presumed to have "held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another".

It is a matter of law that such a presumption is rebuttable.

Regarding the "fleeing or not" part, if you have reason to believe that they were fleeing, you may not shoot. That is, should the evidence indicate the intruder had in fact been attempting to depart and that the actor had had reason to believe that, the actor would not be provided with an assumption that he had held a reasonable fear, etc.

For reasons discussed in prior posts about the dynamics of a shooting encounter, wounds in the back would probably not suffice alone to support that conclusion, but they could prove troublesome. Given that evidence in combination with other facts, such as forensic evidence indicating the respective positions of the occupant and the person who had been shot, or the testimony of the person shot or an earwitness, the charging authority or trial court could come to the conclusion that the shooting had not been justified.

Regarding the "in your home" part, circumstances indicating that the occupant had had a prior relationship with the person and possible motive, combined with any indication that he had invited him in (a lack of evidence that he had entered "unlawfully and with force" could weigh in here) would also negate that presumption.

In my state, there is no reference to such a presumption in the law as codified, but I would not want to test that against the common law.

I do no not know your intended meaning of "game on", but we need do to be careful to not give the impression that we are looking for ways to justify the use of deadly force.
Click to expand...

Perhaps my one sentence answer wasn't clear. This may be of interest:

Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
- Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
- Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Now, you can interpret that how you like, and I will do the same. In my home, someone unlawfully entering will quickly leave or will likely be shot. Will I shoot someone with one foot out the door? Of course not. However my home is a split floor plan, with our bedrooms separated. Do you really think if someone turns and heads towards my children's bedrooms, I'm going to give them a chance to reach them? I have no desire to wait to find out their intentions when my family is involved. If they were heading for the door instead, that's not good for them I guess, but my family is safe. Coming into my house they had numerous warnings:

1. They knew it was morally wrong.
2. They knew it was legally wrong.
3. My doors were locked.
4. My alarm was activated.
5. My dogs were barking.
6. I gave verbal commands.
7. I pointed my weapon at them.

If they still are in my home, "game on". All that means is that I will do what I feel is necessary to protect my family from the felon that has entered my home. I'll be damned if I let legal advise on a forum deter me from that, no matter how well intentioned it is. ;)
 
Posted by SnowBlaZeR2: Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:
- Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
- Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Click to expand...
At the moment, I cannot think of any state in which that is not true. In all states including Florida, a reasonable belief that there is immediate necessity is, of course, a prerequisite.

In some states, not including Florida, there is a duty to retreat if retreat is safely possible. That requirement is not always specified in the code.

Florida and several other states reduce the burden on the defender by specifying that forcible, unlawful entry provides the defender with a presumption of a reasonable belief that persons in the home or automobile are in imminent danger. In most if not all of those states, the duty to retreat from the home has been eliminated.

There are those who have occasionally misunderstood overlooked the key word "prevent". Except under limited circumstances in Texas, or except in the rare circumstance in which the several conditions exist that allow the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon, one may not employ deadly force against a person after he has committed a burglary (unless of course he has not departed and remains an imminent threat to the occupants).

Now, you can interpret that how you like, and I will do the same.
Click to expand...
Neither of our interpretations matters, but there are numerous interpretations that have been handed down by appellate courts in Florida that should suffice.

In my home, someone unlawfully entering will quickly leave or will likely be shot.
Click to expand...
That does not sound unreasonable to me.

I have been very fortunate in that on all three occasions in which that choice presented itself, the intruders elected to depart.

Do you really think if someone turns and heads towards my children's bedrooms, I'm going to give them a chance to reach them?
Click to expand...
That, of course, is an excellent answer to the question embedded in the subject line of this thread.
 
The statement "game on" smells a bit of bloodlust. Besides not being the high road, we must keep in mind that what we say here IS discoverable by the courts.

I wear a badge. One of my PD colleagues went through a legal wringer in the late 1980's, after what I and quite a few others considered a textbook-correct, righteous shooting, of a motorist who, during a traffic stop, moved suddenly toward a handgun visible on his center console. Yes, the errant motorist was indeed hit in the back, due to the LEO being in a tactically advantageous position, as the motorist reached forward and downward to his right, toward the handgun.

One might think, that if a motorist is asked to step from his vehicle by an LEO, and instead lunges toward an illegally-possessed handgun, the officer has a clear and justifiable right to defend himself. Right? Well, it seems my LE colleague had made the mistake of not only being an IPSC shooter, but had actually attended the SOF convention, where he competed in an early version of a three-gun match. The local newspaper managed to acquire a photo of this LEO posing next to a tripod-mounted machine gun, a photo taken at the SOF convention, a photo which ran on the front page of the big-city newspaper. Do we see where this was going?

This was before the days of the Internet, but the local "community activists" and news media managed to find a co-worker who seemed to love reciting all the non-PC jokes that had been supposedly told by the officer who had fired the shots.

OK, now, when the grand jury returns a no-bill, does the left and media shrug it off and let it go? No! Political pressure is such that a second grand jury is tasked with re-examining the case! This is a very unusual step, as second grand juries rarely examine a case, unless new evidence is discovered. The second grand jury also returns a no-bill, but the uproar continued. I cannot remember if a third grand jury was also given the case, or not, but I do remember there was pressure to do so.

The LEO who had fired the shots was not re-hired after being cleared. He went to work for a sheriff in a rural area, to get away from pressure, but certain journalists still followed his actions closely, and so my former colleague is question is no longer an LEO. In some social circles, to this day, he is sometimes baited, by fools at both ends of the political spectrum.

Does anyone really want to have a "game on" statement, made on the
Internet, shown to a grand jury, petit jury, or judge or shown to the world via the news media?

OK, mild rant over. I felt I needed to say this. Perhaps y'all went to sleep two paragraphs up, anyway.
 
Kleanbore said:
At the moment, I cannot think of any state in which that is not true. In all states including Florida, a reasonable belief that there is immediate necessity is, of course, a prerequisite.

In some states, not including Florida, there is a duty to retreat if retreat is safely possible. That requirement is not always specified in the code.

Florida and several other states reduce the burden on the defender by specifying that forcible, unlawful entry provides the defender with a presumption of a reasonable belief that persons in the home or automobile are in imminent danger. In most if not all of those states, the duty to retreat from the home has been eliminated.

There are those who have occasionally misunderstood overlooked the key word "prevent". Except under limited circumstances in Texas, or except in the rare circumstance in which the several conditions exist that allow the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon, one may not employ deadly force against a person after he has committed a burglary (unless of course he has not departed and remains an imminent threat to the occupants).

Neither of our interpretations matters, but there are numerous interpretations that have been handed down by appellate courts in Florida that should suffice.

That does not sound unreasonable to me.

I have been very fortunate in that on all three occasions in which that choice presented itself, the intruders elected to depart.

That, of course, is an excellent answer to the question embedded in the subject line of this thread.
Click to expand...

I think we are close to being on the same page. I agree that there is a very thin line to walk, but there is no line when it comes to defending my families' lives. I'm a Marine NCO and a combat vet. I've been relied upon to make tough decisions under heavy stress, and I will always maintain a cool, level head above all. Anyone that doesn't understand that really shouldn't be using firearms in the first place.

Thankfully, in my state, I have no duty to retreat in my home or my vehicle. Either the bad guy promptly departs, or I will defend myself. If he's got a foot out the door with my property, great for him. I've got law enforcement and insurance to deal with that. Anywhere inside of my home without direct intention to leave, and relating to the point of the thread, I feel I would be justified in firing. I know I may sound like a broken record, but I don't want to give off the impression that I am looking for an excuse to use my weapon, only that I wouldn't hesitate to use it if I felt that it was necessary.
 
Rexster said:
The statement "game on" smells a bit of bloodlust. Besides not being the high road, we must keep in mind that what we say here IS discoverable by the courts.

I wear a badge. One of my PD colleagues went through a legal wringer in the late 1980's, after what I and quite a few others considered a textbook-correct, righteous shooting, of a motorist who, during a traffic stop, moved suddenly toward a handgun visible on his center console. Yes, the errant motorist was indeed hit in the back, due to the LEO being in a tactically advantageous position, as the motorist reached forward and downward to his right, toward the handgun.

One might think, that if a motorist is asked to step from his vehicle by an LEO, and instead lunges toward an illegally-possessed handgun, the officer has a clear and justifiable right to defend himself. Right? Well, it seems my LE colleague had made the mistake of not only being an IPSC shooter, but had actually attended the SOF convention, where he competed in an early version of a three-gun match. The local newspaper managed to acquire a photo of this LEO posing next to a tripod-mounted machine gun, a photo taken at the SOF convention, a photo which ran on the front page of the big-city newspaper. Do we see where this was going?

This was before the days of the Internet, but the local "community activists" and news media managed to find a co-worker who seemed to love reciting all the non-PC jokes that had been supposedly told by the officer who had fired the shots.

OK, now, when the grand jury returns a no-bill, does the left and media shrug it off and let it go? No! Political pressure is such that a second grand jury is tasked with re-examining the case! This is a very unusual step, as second grand juries rarely examine a case, unless new evidence is discovered. The second grand jury also returns a no-bill, but the uproar continued. I cannot remember if a third grand jury was also given the case, or not, but I do remember there was pressure to do so.

The LEO who had fired the shots was not re-hired after being cleared. He went to work for a sheriff in a rural area, to get away from pressure, but certain journalists still followed his actions closely, and so my former colleague is question is no longer an LEO. In some social circles, to this day, he is sometimes baited, by fools at both ends of the political spectrum.

Does anyone really want to have a "game on" statement, made on the
Internet, shown to a grand jury, petit jury, or judge or shown to the world via the news media?

OK, mild rant over. I felt I needed to say this. Perhaps y'all went to sleep two paragraphs up, anyway.
Click to expand...

I did indeed go to sleep, but before your post. :p

I get your point, but the media out to get an officer for shooting an "unarmed" criminal in the back is much different from a homeowner shooting an intruder. If I ever end up in a situation where a two word phrase on the internet is the deciding factor, I will guess I shouldn't have put myself in that situation in the first place.

As I said in the post above, a cool, level head is more important than what I post on the internet. You can take that statement as blood lust all you like, but you would be wrong. The fact that I am a Marine marksmanship instructor, combat veteran and even that I own several firearms could also be used against me by some. Will any of that change? It sure won't.
 
Posted by SnowBlaZeR2: If I ever end up in a situation where a two word phrase on the internet is the deciding factor, I will guess I shouldn't have put myself in that situation in the first place.
Click to expand...
The problem is that one may have little control over the situation into which one is put.

A shooting involving a forcible unlawful entry into an occupied structure is usually not likely lead to questions regarding justification, but there's no guarantee; see this. It is much more likely that potential evidence pertaining to state of mind would tip the scales after a self defense encounter occurring outside the home, in which the actor could produce little if any evidence supporting justification, and statements the person against whom deadly force had been used were corroborated at least in part by the testimony of witnesses who did not notice the events that led up to the use of deadly force.

As I said in the post above, a cool, level head is more important than what I post on the internet.
Click to expand...
That is not to say that the latter may not prove pivotal.

You can take that statement as blood lust all you like, but you would be wrong.
Click to expand...
I understood your meaning the second time around, but someone else repeating the words over and over is not something you want others to hear.

There are three reasons why we urge caution in posting here. The first is to present a positive impression of THR and its members and of those who exercise the right to keep and bear arms; the second is to reduce the likelihood that someone will act on bad advice; and the third relates to the concerns raised by Rexter.

The fact that I am a Marine marksmanship instructor, combat veteran and even that I own several firearms could also be used against me by some.
Click to expand...
That's possible, and it is indeed unfortunate.
 
Kleanbore said:
The problem is that one may have little control over the situation into which one is put.

A shooting involving a forcible unlawful entry into an occupied structure is usually not likely lead to questions regarding justification, but there's no guarantee; see this. It is much more likely that potential evidence pertaining to state of mind would tip the scales after a self defense encounter occurring outside the home, in which the actor could produce little if any evidence supporting justification, and statements the person against whom deadly force had been used were corroborated at least in part by the testimony of witnesses who did not notice the events that led up to the use of deadly force.

That is not to say that the latter may not prove pivotal.

I understood your meaning the second time around, but someone else repeating the words over and over is not something you want others to hear.

There are three reasons why we urge caution in posting here. The first is to present a positive impression of THR and its members and of those who exercise the right to keep and bear arms; the second is to reduce the likelihood that someone will act on bad advice; and the third relates to the concerns raised by Rexter.

That's possible, and it is indeed unfortunate.
Click to expand...

What I meant by putting myself in that situation, was my decision making that led me to whatever situation I was in. As I said, I feel that owning and carrying firearms is not something to be taken lightly at all. If you aren't confident in your abilities to handle any situation where you may need to use a weapon, leave it in the safe or at the range. Too many think that going and picking up a Glock and a CWFL makes them a citizen police officer. My only intentions are to provide safety for my family and myself, and to enjoy some range time.

I get what you are saying, and in the future I will choose my words more carefully and explain myself the first time around. :D
 
I have never shot anyone but I did punch a drunk in the kidney once. He took a wild swing at my head and I ducked. He spun like a weather vane and I countered with right to the body that caught him in the back. I can see how this sort of thing could happen in the dynamic cahos of a gun fight.
 
There is a difference between purposely shooting in the back, and some or all of your shots happening to hit in the back. But it would be a blanket statement to say never shoot in the back. There are still narrow circumstances where the former would be acceptable.
 
He was moving to a better point of cover to continue he attack when I caught him moving from one firing position to another!
 
My state doesn't have nice Castle laws or anything else like that defining what is and isn't illegal. Therefore, it's really iffy for me to open up, even if it were to save my own life.
 
Posted by mortablunt: My state doesn't have nice Castle laws or anything else like that defining what is and isn't illegal. Therefore, it's really iffy for me to open up, even if it were to save my own life.
Click to expand...
Virginia, perhaps? It's all in the case law.

Every state provides for the natural right of self defense.

But back to the question in the subject line: If the shooting is lawful, "yes, there is."
 
Many years ago, I was a police dispatcher. We had an officer shoot a kid in the back as the kid was running away. Problem was, the kid was running but had turned his body and was firing at the officer with a revolver.

Justified shooting.
 
When i took my Kansas CCH, I was told that I am permitted to use lethal force to defend my life or the life of a third party. If the BG is standing with his back to me, pointing a weapon at someone else, it's not technically "self" defence, but permitted.
At least that's the way i heard / understand it.

K
 
Posted by Kaptain Five: When i took my Kansas CCH, I was told that I am permitted to use lethal force to defend my life or the life of a third party. If the BG is standing with his back to me, pointing a weapon at someone else, it's not technically "self" defence, but permitted.
At least that's the way i heard / understand it.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Note that the elements of the defense of justification would be the same as in a case of self defense per se.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
New findings from FBI about cop attackers & their weapons
Replies
13
Views
2K
Fred Fuller
F
I
  • Locked
Training vs. Experience
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Infidel4life11
I
K
  • Locked
"Avoidance", and the Other Things
Replies
2
Views
392
Kleanbore
K
J
  • Locked
An example of the use of force issues that are brought up in civil actions
Replies
18
Views
2K
Striker
Striker
T
  • Locked
The only thing more important than shot placement is knowing when to shot
Replies
8
Views
547
TheFederalistWeasel
T
Back
Top