Flfiremedic
Member
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2007
- Messages
- 447
If you are going to spend the time to train, plan, and prepare for Self Defense, post event plans must be part of your preparation.
Is there such a thing as a 'justified' shot in the back?
- Thread starter NoirFan
- Start date
- Status
sidheshooter
Member
+1 on reading a bit of Ayoob on this one; it's worth the time to dig up some of his writing. The posts starting at 14 and continuing on hit the salient points, and you can always find some sort of "what if" scenario that works.
Here is one, just for kicks: You are out walking the dog and you turn the corner to see a fresh traffic stop, close up, in action. All of a sudden, you hear shots as the driver in the car opens up on the uniformed officer. The Officer goes down but is still moving, and the guy scrambles out the door (with his back to you), moving in with a handgun pointed towards the officer who is trying to crab away from the assault in progress. You were at IDPA practice that morning and still have the master blaster of your choice in your strong side...
As LL mentions, it depends, and it also depends on the mood of the various finders of fact afterwards.
If there is one rule, it is the same old don't shoot unless there is imminent/unavoidable death/grievous to the innocent looming, in which case you have no real choice, and you just have to work with whatever aftermath chips you've been dealt. I'd want Mas in the courtroom at some point on that one though (in addition to sitting in front of him in class, I've also seen Mas get a local cop acquitted on a shooting that I think most of us on this board would have been wise enough to pass up, as an aside...).
IANAL, of course, and JMO.
Here is one, just for kicks: You are out walking the dog and you turn the corner to see a fresh traffic stop, close up, in action. All of a sudden, you hear shots as the driver in the car opens up on the uniformed officer. The Officer goes down but is still moving, and the guy scrambles out the door (with his back to you), moving in with a handgun pointed towards the officer who is trying to crab away from the assault in progress. You were at IDPA practice that morning and still have the master blaster of your choice in your strong side...
As LL mentions, it depends, and it also depends on the mood of the various finders of fact afterwards.
If there is one rule, it is the same old don't shoot unless there is imminent/unavoidable death/grievous to the innocent looming, in which case you have no real choice, and you just have to work with whatever aftermath chips you've been dealt. I'd want Mas in the courtroom at some point on that one though (in addition to sitting in front of him in class, I've also seen Mas get a local cop acquitted on a shooting that I think most of us on this board would have been wise enough to pass up, as an aside...).
IANAL, of course, and JMO.
The shooter at the Panama City school board meeting was shot in the back, and the security guard was cleared (as he should have been).
A gunman came into the school board meeting and dismissed the public and female board member's, but held the male board members hostage. When he begins firing on the board members the security guard comes in the front door and shoots the gunman in the back.
So yes there are such things as justified shots in the back, however rare they may be.
Here's a link with video:
http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/...ay_County_School_Board_meeting_111871839.html
Disclaimer: In the video that I just watched it appeared to edit the man being shot (it could have been some kind of lag in the video), but when this was on the local news, it showed the man actually being shot and killed. So use discretion if you decide to watch the video.
A gunman came into the school board meeting and dismissed the public and female board member's, but held the male board members hostage. When he begins firing on the board members the security guard comes in the front door and shoots the gunman in the back.
So yes there are such things as justified shots in the back, however rare they may be.
Here's a link with video:
http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/...ay_County_School_Board_meeting_111871839.html
Disclaimer: In the video that I just watched it appeared to edit the man being shot (it could have been some kind of lag in the video), but when this was on the local news, it showed the man actually being shot and killed. So use discretion if you decide to watch the video.
Yes, defense of a third party is certainly the most common justifiable scenario for deliberately shooting an attacker in the back and/ or side. LEO partners will routinely approach suspicious and known dangerous persons so that one LEO can shoot the subject person in the side or back if the other LEO is attacked with deadly force, or even if a furtive move that appears to be deadly force occurs. (Of course, then a grand jury must believe the furtive move presented what reasonably appeared to be a credible and
imminent threat.)
Plenty of cases where there is a justified shooting in the back.
Exact legal requirements vary by state, but generally the following is true most places:
A couple examples that come immediately to mind would be witnessing a situation that would justify lethal force.
For example an armed robbery taking place.
If a criminal is holding people at gunpoint, demanding money, making threats, or otherwise is doing things that would warrant the person being held at gunpoint using lethal force it also warrants lethal force by someone else in their defense.
You have no requirement to announce yourself, tell them to drop it, or engage in a 'fair' fight where you may exchange handgun rounds and both get shot. You can end the threat and they never have to see it coming.
Another scenario would be a typical violent kidnapping, especially of someone you know. The kidnapper/kidnappers are stuffing them into a vehicle and are about to get away, you have every legal right to use any means of force to stop the violent felony taking place. You can shoot them from the front, the back, etc
Any force necessary to stop the threat. The threat has not subsided in any way because they are not facing you, the threat is ongoing and actually increasing to the victim.
Now in both scenarios it better actually be a crime being committed. Not a LEO making an arrest in the first instance, or a parent forcing a kid into the family mini van against their will in the second.
But if you have enough evidence it is an actual crime, and other people are in serious danger, you can use the force allowed under the law in their defense, without the criminal facing you.
Another scenario where shots can strike someone in the back and often do is in your more typical self defense scenario between attacker and defender.
While firing multiple shots it is not uncommon for one side to duck down, fall, shift, spin, have the side of their body (and so their back as well) facing the other. Or a criminal to make rapid moves not clear to the other in a life and death situation with muzzle flashes, blast, and other factors reducing clarity of the target and thought at the exact moment in an ongoing gun battle.
To go with the last example scenario here is an old video of someone legally defending themselves, where the bad guy appears to have been shot in the back, although he was facing the defender initially:
http://youtu.be/3AA_dgRdDhk
In the video it appears all three of the good guy's fired shots are as the robber is fleeing.
The bad guy got off some shots in that encounter as well but hit nobody. The entire gunfight lasted about 2 seconds, and the bad guy hit with three rounds, all three of them fired at his back, collapses outside after going out the door.
Good guy pulled a gun, bad guy seeing the gun opens fire with some shots and misses, good guy returns three rounds as the bad guy is running away.
It was rapid, fluid, and the end result was the bullets fired ended up hitting the backside of a fleeing criminal who was and had just fired, but it was justified.
It can actually be safer for everyone involved if the bad guy never sees it coming, shot from behind without warning, as it is more likely to avoid a shootout with rounds wildly flying, especially rounds from the bad guy's gun which may be fired with less precision.
Handguns are also not death rays, and the initial shots may not be immediately effective, so if the bad guy has to spend the initial seconds figuring out where the unexpected rounds they just were hit from came from, they may be incapacitated before they can return fire. While if they are told to drop the weapon or some other Hollywood move, they may turn to fire at the good guy, and even if the bad guy is hit first and multiple times can often complete the action they already decided on and fire their own rounds in return.
Shooting the bad guy before they know there is even a threat can also allow well aimed fire more likely to lead to immediate incapacitation. While once they are alerted, moving, and shooting such precision from a handgun is unlikely.
All of these examples of course assume the justification for the use of lethal force, in defense of self or more likely others is met at the time of firing.
Exact legal requirements vary by state, but generally the following is true most places:
A couple examples that come immediately to mind would be witnessing a situation that would justify lethal force.
For example an armed robbery taking place.
If a criminal is holding people at gunpoint, demanding money, making threats, or otherwise is doing things that would warrant the person being held at gunpoint using lethal force it also warrants lethal force by someone else in their defense.
You have no requirement to announce yourself, tell them to drop it, or engage in a 'fair' fight where you may exchange handgun rounds and both get shot. You can end the threat and they never have to see it coming.
Another scenario would be a typical violent kidnapping, especially of someone you know. The kidnapper/kidnappers are stuffing them into a vehicle and are about to get away, you have every legal right to use any means of force to stop the violent felony taking place. You can shoot them from the front, the back, etc
Any force necessary to stop the threat. The threat has not subsided in any way because they are not facing you, the threat is ongoing and actually increasing to the victim.
Now in both scenarios it better actually be a crime being committed. Not a LEO making an arrest in the first instance, or a parent forcing a kid into the family mini van against their will in the second.
But if you have enough evidence it is an actual crime, and other people are in serious danger, you can use the force allowed under the law in their defense, without the criminal facing you.
Another scenario where shots can strike someone in the back and often do is in your more typical self defense scenario between attacker and defender.
While firing multiple shots it is not uncommon for one side to duck down, fall, shift, spin, have the side of their body (and so their back as well) facing the other. Or a criminal to make rapid moves not clear to the other in a life and death situation with muzzle flashes, blast, and other factors reducing clarity of the target and thought at the exact moment in an ongoing gun battle.
To go with the last example scenario here is an old video of someone legally defending themselves, where the bad guy appears to have been shot in the back, although he was facing the defender initially:
http://youtu.be/3AA_dgRdDhk
In the video it appears all three of the good guy's fired shots are as the robber is fleeing.
The bad guy got off some shots in that encounter as well but hit nobody. The entire gunfight lasted about 2 seconds, and the bad guy hit with three rounds, all three of them fired at his back, collapses outside after going out the door.
Good guy pulled a gun, bad guy seeing the gun opens fire with some shots and misses, good guy returns three rounds as the bad guy is running away.
It was rapid, fluid, and the end result was the bullets fired ended up hitting the backside of a fleeing criminal who was and had just fired, but it was justified.
It can actually be safer for everyone involved if the bad guy never sees it coming, shot from behind without warning, as it is more likely to avoid a shootout with rounds wildly flying, especially rounds from the bad guy's gun which may be fired with less precision.
Handguns are also not death rays, and the initial shots may not be immediately effective, so if the bad guy has to spend the initial seconds figuring out where the unexpected rounds they just were hit from came from, they may be incapacitated before they can return fire. While if they are told to drop the weapon or some other Hollywood move, they may turn to fire at the good guy, and even if the bad guy is hit first and multiple times can often complete the action they already decided on and fire their own rounds in return.
Shooting the bad guy before they know there is even a threat can also allow well aimed fire more likely to lead to immediate incapacitation. While once they are alerted, moving, and shooting such precision from a handgun is unlikely.
All of these examples of course assume the justification for the use of lethal force, in defense of self or more likely others is met at the time of firing.
Last edited:
To continue with my above post, as editing is a pain with an iPad, do make SURE that defense of a third party is legal in your locality, and keep in mind that things are not always as they appear, so best not choose sides in a conflict involving unknown persons, unless you are willing to bet your freedom and safety on the outcome of your actions.
Flintknapper
Member
I can think of at least a dozen reasons/scenarios where shots to the back would be valid, necessary and reasonable, so the answer is a resounding YES!
To address those that commented on Texas Law concerning the use of Deadly Force to Protect Property, we need only turn to the applicable Penal Code: (there are very definite restrictions).
To address those that commented on Texas Law concerning the use of Deadly Force to Protect Property, we need only turn to the applicable Penal Code: (there are very definite restrictions).
NMGonzo
Member
Things happen fast.
One may be shooting someone going for cover in your own house.
One may be shooting someone going for cover in your own house.
SharpsDressedMan
member
I could give lots of scenarios, but you probably won't have to think long before you come up with one or more. Nowadays, the very real presence of people in our society set upon mass destruction, serial killing, theft of secrets that would put national security at grave risk, etc, would make such an act a necessary thing for the protection of the masses. Of course, one would have to be prepared to articulate personal knowledge that such crimes were in effect or iminent, that stopping the suspect could not be achieved more peacefully, and that lethal force was necessary and without any better options. So, yes, it is sanctioned in rare isolated cases, not discussed openly much, and I personally would not want to be the guy that HAS to do it, for all the Monday morning quarterbacking and hanging-out-to-dry one would experience after the fact.
The fear of imminent great bodily harm, or death, is not exclusive to only those threats directly facing you, and it is ludicrous to believe that you can't stop a threat just because their back happens to be turned. We won't have the luxury of choosing our shots, and must take what is given, even if it is the back.
Just because a threat is not directly focusing their attention on you does NOT mean you are NOT in imminent danger that would justify the use of deadly force.
Loosedhorse
member
Yes. Absolutely, yes.
Doesn't mean you won't be convicted.
Doesn't mean you won't be convicted.
Cyborg
Member
Two observations:
One, LEOs have to be MIGHTY careful about shooting at a fleeing suspect. I know some cops and they were trained that the "fleeing felon rule" is well nigh ironclad. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Even if the suspect is going to get away, unless the officer can articulate their probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a "significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" they should not fire upon the suspect. Remember, It's REAL easy to miss under such circumstances and bullets today are WAY too stupid to know who you INTENDED to shoot.
Two, even if you avoid criminal prosecution, there's STILL civil (save "civil war" is there anything LESS "civil"?) court. IIRC, homestead law doesn't shield you in civil actions. You could lose everything you own.
Me? If they're runnin' away I'm not likely to fire on 'em. Course following a distant cousin's (who happens to be an attorney) advice, I wouldn't shoot 'em in my home until they crossed the threshold into my bedroom. That would pretty well nail down intent. That's why I keep a light burning in the main part of my house. My dark adapted eyes would see him silhouetted perfectly in the doorway. 'Course the little red dot on his chest would help, too.
One, LEOs have to be MIGHTY careful about shooting at a fleeing suspect. I know some cops and they were trained that the "fleeing felon rule" is well nigh ironclad. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." Even if the suspect is going to get away, unless the officer can articulate their probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a "significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" they should not fire upon the suspect. Remember, It's REAL easy to miss under such circumstances and bullets today are WAY too stupid to know who you INTENDED to shoot.
Two, even if you avoid criminal prosecution, there's STILL civil (save "civil war" is there anything LESS "civil"?) court. IIRC, homestead law doesn't shield you in civil actions. You could lose everything you own.
Me? If they're runnin' away I'm not likely to fire on 'em. Course following a distant cousin's (who happens to be an attorney) advice, I wouldn't shoot 'em in my home until they crossed the threshold into my bedroom. That would pretty well nail down intent. That's why I keep a light burning in the main part of my house. My dark adapted eyes would see him silhouetted perfectly in the doorway. 'Course the little red dot on his chest would help, too.
Deltaboy1984
Member
TX gives me a wider playing field than any other state that I know of. But if you are saving a 3rd parties life then by all means shot the perp in the back if that is what it takes.
I tell teenagers all the time about not fooling around with peoples property at night time.
As the Mods have stated learn YOUR states laws and rules on this. What we can do in TX might get you 20-life in another state. :banghead::banghead:
I tell teenagers all the time about not fooling around with peoples property at night time.
As the Mods have stated learn YOUR states laws and rules on this. What we can do in TX might get you 20-life in another state. :banghead::banghead:
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,195
See "Why is the suspect shot in the back?: Finally, hard data on how fast the suspect can be - in 11 different shooting scenarios" at http://www.forcescience.org/articles/shotinback.pdf
bubba in ca
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 373
confusing 2 issues
1) shooting at fleeing felon. This will get you in trouble in most states. right or wrong, it`s the law.
2) Shooting somebody in the back in the course of a legit shootout. You are legally right, people turn and spin, but you may have a tough time convincing the jury, etc. Good luck.
And then there are special cases! Movie star and body guard give chase to a local street hoodlum over a verbal altercation. they lose him and then find him in a public park. They shoot him in the testicles from the rear. He is unarmed and dies and they plead innocent by way of self defense. Acquited of all charges. My late mother was one of the 3 jurers who voted for conviction. 3 out of 12!
The next time you see your kids watching a Snoop doggy dog movie, slap them.
1) shooting at fleeing felon. This will get you in trouble in most states. right or wrong, it`s the law.
2) Shooting somebody in the back in the course of a legit shootout. You are legally right, people turn and spin, but you may have a tough time convincing the jury, etc. Good luck.
And then there are special cases! Movie star and body guard give chase to a local street hoodlum over a verbal altercation. they lose him and then find him in a public park. They shoot him in the testicles from the rear. He is unarmed and dies and they plead innocent by way of self defense. Acquited of all charges. My late mother was one of the 3 jurers who voted for conviction. 3 out of 12!
The next time you see your kids watching a Snoop doggy dog movie, slap them.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
There are no laws in Texas or elsewhere that state the biological location in which the use of lethal force is to be administered on the offending party.
Regarding property incidents in Texas, the issue of shooting in the back has been raised and quelled multiple times. Two instances come to mind, both of shootings at night, both at least initially involving property and both of unarmed bad guys. In one case, no charges were filed. In the other, filed and found innocent.
In the first, kids stealing fighting cock poults in 2001 near San Antonio were shot at by the owner. He killed a 14 year old thief. No charges filed. The kid was shot in the back and was unarmed.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64313&highlight=fighting+cock
Paul A. Saustrup in 1998 shot an unarmed man in the back twice while the man was in pseudo flight from burgling his girlfriend's car (girlfriend was present). Saustrup pulled his gun and attempted to detain the burglar who walked away. Saustrop followed and the guy made furtive moves as if going for a gun and Saustrup shot and killed him. He was acquitted.
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/071098/LD0649.002.shtml
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27129
Add to these...
car burglar shot in butt (which is the back side) http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=52851&highlight=shot+back+texas
two teen carjacker/kidnappers were shot in the back and no charges against the shooter...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=202726&highlight=shot+back+texas
unarmed teen, part of gang invading a mobile home, shot in back and killed, homeowner acquitted...
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=395872&highlight=shot+back+texas
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
That is what happened with Saustrup.
mgkdrgn
Member
Guy swings a baseball bat at my head, misses, and turns around on the follow through.
I have no qualms about shooting him in the back before he lines up for another swing.
So long as they continue to be a threat, they continue to be a legitimate target.
I have no qualms about shooting him in the back before he lines up for another swing.
So long as they continue to be a threat, they continue to be a legitimate target.
CJ
Member
This doesn't change with the direction he's facing...although it CAN get trickier to convince others of the situation largely because of this perceived taboo.
Shadow 7D
Member
Someone posted a link a while ago to how long it takes a person to move, the point was, if a person is reacting during the first shot, which enters the side of chest at an angle(~45*) your second shot, fired a fraction of a second later WILL hit them in the back.
Some one else brought up a situation where two ballistic experts disagreed, one said the shots started on the back and over tens of seconds, ended with the round where the heart was shot, the defenses expert put forward the correct scenario, where the man was fatally shot, and continued to turn while the shooter fired the follow on shots, and it all happened in less than a second.
Some one else brought up a situation where two ballistic experts disagreed, one said the shots started on the back and over tens of seconds, ended with the round where the heart was shot, the defenses expert put forward the correct scenario, where the man was fatally shot, and continued to turn while the shooter fired the follow on shots, and it all happened in less than a second.
SnowBlaZeR2
Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 643
That last part is not true. In your home, fleeing or not, is game on.
Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk
Sunray
Member
"...make a reference to a movie..." What you see in movies or on TV have nothing whatever to do with reality.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
