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

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Isn't the same time that it takes to draw and fire the same to turn around? I've heard that has happened a few times with Cops.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Not exactly. Most CCW folks don't draw and fire in under 2 seconds. Most cops don't either from what I have seen at matches and if they do, it isn't under 1.5 (for most). Of course there are folks who are faster, but they train regularly and consistently.

My 77 year old father can turn around faster than that and he has bad knees, overweight, along with arthritis in numerous places of his body.

 

[Zoogster]

Isn't the same time that it takes to draw and fire the same to turn around? I've heard that has happened a few times with Cops.

Not exactly.

Drawing and firing from concealment is also often slower than drawing and firing from a duty holster.
A holster that is easy to draw from concealment with is also typically poor at retaining the firearm in an active lifestyle. A person that only moves at a slow pace may get away with it, but someone that runs, jumps, is ever inverted, or a number of other things is going to need a holster with some retention.
It would suck to have to limit how active or spontaneous your lifestyle can be because of how you carry your gun.
While a holster with good retention, covered by clothing, will have not only the clothing to move, but the straps, buttons, or other things to undo.


But the biggest thing that differs from the movies is the first person to draw and fire does not necessarily win the gunfight.
While the winner of a gunfight does not necessarily not get shot themselves.
You may have the advantage, and still get shot, even if you end up shot after you put a round or two in the bad guy.
If you don't have cover it is risky to give the bad guy the decision to shoot it out.

You can find plenty of stories of people exchanging multiple hand gun rounds.
From .380s to .45s, and taking numerous hits.
Firing the first shot, even a lethal shot, does not insure you won't get shot.
In the old western movies the first to draw and fire won. That is not reality, and wasn't the reality in the Old West (which actually had fewer murders per capita than many cities today.)
You can find gun fights back then, as well as duels where both sides get shot.
In fact one of our presidents fought just such a duel, getting a bullet almost in the heart that remained there for the rest of his life, before aiming, firing, and killing the guy he was dueling.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

And those would be the same circumstances where it would be justified to intentionally shoot a person in the front.

This is a blanket statement that cannot possibly apply to everyone in every situation. It would not, for example, be OK for me to shoot if he turns and runs from me. There would need to be some other accompanying circumstance(s).

 

[Double Naught Spy]

This is a blanket statement that cannot possibly apply to everyone in every situation. It would not, for example, be OK for me to shoot if he turns and runs from me. There would need to be some other accompanying circumstance(s).

Really? You mean you can't shoot a person in the back that no longer poses a threat to you (assuming nobody else is present and that no other laws apply)??? Wow, that is the same law that pertains to shooting a person in the front. If they don't meet the criteria for lethal force, then you don't get to use lethal force. The blanket statement works fine.

It really is fairly simple. Beyond that, there are no laws that state lethal force must be used on a particular side of the body.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Not exactly. Most CCW folks don't draw and fire in under 2 seconds. Most cops don't either from what I have seen at matches and if they do, it isn't under 1.5 (for most). Of course there are folks who are faster, but they train regularly and consistently.

This is a problem, in my opinion. If we can't train regularly and consistently, why do we think we should carry a loaded firearm in public? I can draw from concealment and place a "well" aimed shot on target in less than a second. Not everyone can, but we should all strive to. Like you said, I train regularly and consistently as I believe we all should. Just like knowing what you can and can't do with your firearm according to the law, you should know what you can and can't do according to your abilities as well.

This isn't really directed at you, but if I didn't quote you some might wonder what the heck I'm talking about.

 

[GEM]

The vast majority of CCW types have little or no training and never practice. Some practice by shooting shotgun sized patterns at paper once a year on the range.

Thus, they shouldn't carry.

Many folks don't read the NYTimes, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, the Atlantic, Foreign Affairs Quarterly, etc. Maybe they shouldn't vote - even though some of them run for President.

Yep, you should study and practice to exercise your rights but that isn't going to happen.

In fact, the untrained CCW type is probably more successful than the uneducated voter or politician if you see the set of idiots we have in government of ALL parties.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

The vast majority of CCW types have little or no training and never practice. Some practice by shooting shotgun sized patterns at paper once a year on the range.

Thus, they shouldn't carry.

Many folks don't read the NYTimes, the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, the Atlantic, Foreign Affairs Quarterly, etc. Maybe they shouldn't vote - even though some of them run for President.

Yep, you should study and practice to exercise your rights but that isn't going to happen.

In fact, the untrained CCW type is probably more successful than the uneducated voter or politician if you see the set of idiots we have in government of ALL parties.

It's quite unfortunate really. I'm divided honestly. On one hand, I wouldn't mind seeing an annual qualification similar to military or police quals in order to have a carry permit. Sort of weed out the incompetent. On the other hand, does that get into violating the 2A? And if we give that up, what else will the antis try to take from us?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Annual quals for cops haven't seemed to make the good shooters. The quals don't test stressed shooting.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Annual quals for cops haven't seemed to make the good shooters. The quals don't test stressed shooting.

It's better than a lot of the crap I see at civilian ranges. Honestly, some people scare me. And then I see them conceal the same firearm they couldn't handle while shooting at paper.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[luigi]

Yes there is

The very first "Make My Day" case in Colorado. The attackers broke into the victim's home, beat him to a pulp, told him they were gong to get a gun and come back to finish the job.

He was able to get to the gun case before they were able to drive away.
He fired one shot and hit the driver DRT in the back.

He was aquitted on the grounds that the beat down he suffered would make it reasonable to believe that the attackers meant exactly what they said when the they threatened to get a gun and come back.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It's better than a lot of the crap I see at civilian ranges. Honestly, some people scare me. And then I see them conceal the same firearm they couldn't handle while shooting at paper.

With no disrespect to LEOs here (and my father was a Dallas cop as well), but have you spent much time with very many cops? They are just people. Some have fantastic gun skills and others have the gun skills of an untrained child.

The notion that annual qualifications will make a person have "skills" is a bit silly. Talk to any cop training officer. You will find that the vast majority of cops who don't pass the shooting quals and have to retake the test this year are the same cops who didn't pass and had to retake last year for the most part, or run right at the P/F margin year after year after year.

Back to the relevance of the "shoot in the back" aspect of this, most cop quals don't involve much in the way of quick draw shooting even if the tests are timed. They are not going to be able draw and fire on a person before that person has a chance to turn their back on the officer. I don't know how you are going to get enough training for officers or the general CHL public that they will be able to safetly and consistently have sub 1.0 second draw, fire, and hit times, the cops from security holsters and the CHL folks from concealment, but keep in mind that the difficulty of the task increases dramatically as the time to accomplish that task decreases gradually.

 

[MikeNice]

The vast majority of CCW types have little or no training and never practice. Some practice by shooting shotgun sized patterns at paper once a year on the range.

Thus, they shouldn't carry.

There was a story earlier this year about a "master" level competitor getting in a shoot out. Some guys robbed his store as he was pulling up. He got out of his truck and emptied his revolver. Not a single shot hit a bad guy or their car.

I know a guy that qualifies as a "master" with his service weapon. He exchanged fire with three members of MS-13 at ten yards. He fired twelve shots and missed all twelve times. The targets were standing still on the front porch of a house. His back up hit one of the guys in the shoulder and arm. The group then took of running. His back up was supposed to attempt his third try at qualifying the next day.

I read a police report from another jurisdiction recently. A guy bought a Kel Tec p-32 because he was being threatened by a worker he fired. He took it home, he loaded it, he promptly put it in the dresser and forgot it. Three weeks later he fired his gun for the first time in his life. He shot a "home invader" four times at fifteen feet. The invader ran and was later arrested at a bus stop. He had passed out from loss of blood.

Don't think that super training scores will promise somebody is less dangerous or will win a fight. It improves the chances. Every day we see the effect of adrenaline though. It complicates things. Even the best trained officers and soldiers sometimes miss every shot. Honestly, they even freeze up a good portion of the time.

I do encourage people to practice. However, I think a simple one time qualifier is all that should be required for concealed carry. Show me you can put it on the paper and be gone. Denying somebody their right to defense because they don't meet your practice quota is called infringing.

 

[Kleanbore]

The OP's original question was "Would a police officer get crucified in court for shooting an unarmed, advancing attacker in the back? How about a private citizen? " I think the answer is probably yes to both, but for the life of me, I cannot image how such a scenario would play out.

The question in the subject line is, "Is there such a thing as a 'justified' shot in the back?".

That has been well discussed here. How's this for a try at summing it up?

• Yes. If the use of deadly force is lawful--that is, if it is immediately necessary and is justified under the law--it makes no difference where the entry wounds are located; but
• because one may not use deadly force if it is not necessary, as would be the case in which an assailant had decided to leave without harming anyone, the existence of entry wounds in the back could provide an indication that the assailant had been leaving, and possibly compicate the actor's defense of justification.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

At the end of the day where the shot came from is just one of a number of factors determining whether you were reasonably in fear.

If you were in the audience listening to Rep. Giffords, and shot Mr. Loughner from any direction while he was on his rampage I don't think you are going to have much explaining to do. Similarly, If someone beats you to a bloody pulp and then is on top of your wife raping her to death. I don't think a jury will fault you for not walking around to the front of the rapist to put a bullet in his head.

In any event in a true life or death situation, I doubt your are going to have the luxury of going to a law library and researching what precedents exists for your given predicament. All you can do is save yourself, and those close to you and **** until your lawyer gets there.