My home invasion last night. What are the odds?

Jeff White · May 4, 2021

BigBore44 said:
You cannot say “No it doesn’t.” And then in the next breath say you can under certain circumstances.

Read what I posted. I said that under certain circumstances the law gives a private citizen the same powers as a peace officer. I.E. the citizens arrest laws in many states. But and it’s a big but, you do not have the same legal protections that the law gives a sworn peace officer.

BigBore44 said:
You cannot shoot a fleeing suspect over a property crime. Here is the exact quote he used.

Just to clarify, you cant shoot a fleeing suspect unless the escape of the suspect would place someone or the public in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

BigBore44 said:
Yes! Although in certain circumstances, a reasonable and prudent person could certainly make the case that if, during a home invasion that the suspect used or attempted to use deadly force, and upon you entering and confronting the suspect, he flees, that shooting him as he was fleeing could be seen as protecting the public from serious physical harm or death.

Why don’t you give me a cite for a case where that defense was accepted? When the suspect flees the threat to you and your family has ended and with it your legal justification to shoot him. At the time you press the trigger you have no way of knowing what he will do after he escapes. If the courts bought that argument there would still be a lot of violent criminals shot while fleeing. Your argument might fly if the home invader was a known serial killer or terrorist. The courts are not going to buy that you had special knowledge that the guy who broke into your home was going to murder someone immediately after he got away from you.

BigBore44 said:
Here, I’ll make this easy for you. You come home from shooting at the range and find your family murdered. Upon seeing this you see the suspect attempt to leave the home and you shoot and kill him. Is it a good shooting? It’s rhetorical really. Because the answer is yes.

You can’t really believe that’s a good shoot. If you do I really hope you never find out how wrong you are in real life. You have no way of knowing that the person leaving your home did anything. You were at the range, you didn’t see him murder anyone.

A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force…

You do understand that all that does is give you a defense against criminal and civil charges. It doesn’t mean you can’t be charged or sued and if a judge decides your actions weren’t pursuant to subsections B and D those charges will go forward.

This is the biggest misconception about castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. Contrary to what most people think they do not give one Carte Blanche to use deadly force against anyone and everyone they find in their protected space. If you shoot an intruder in your home the sheriff is not going to shake your hand and pat you on the back for making society safer. They will investigate like a homicide and if your use of deadly force is not within the law you will be charged. It’s that simple.

I spent 25 years in law enforcement. I taught use of force. I’ve seen plenty of cases where the use of deadly force being legally justified hinged on how the investigating officers wrote their report and how the states attorney decided to apply the law.

If you want to believe otherwise that’s fine, it’s your choice……

BigBore44 · May 4, 2021

@Jeff White I’ve got another one for you. Washington County Arkansas 1999-2000. Homeowner comes home and finds an intruder in his home. Suspect flees and homeowner grabs deer rifle. Homeowner shoots suspect at 1/4 mile (still on homeowner’s property) and kills suspect. DA deemed justifiable. No charges. Suspect was armed but had not fired at the homeowner and homeowner didn’t know he was armed at the time he fired. This is the same country that holds Fayetteville and Springdale. So it’s not a podunk hillbilly county.

Jeff White · May 4, 2021

There is no telling what a prosecutor will do. I know of a case where I worked where a trucking company owner shot 3 people fleeing after stealing anhydrous ammonia from his place of business. Nothing about that use of deadly force was legal or justified by Illinois law. But he wasn’t charged because the states attorney wanted to send a message to the meth cooks stealing anhydrous. The tucking company owner would be getting out of prison about now had he been charged.

Just because no charges were filed doesn’t make the use of force legal, it just means the state decided for whatever reason it wasn’t in their interest to prosecute. That doesn’t mean that a similar case wouldn’t be prosecuted. A decision not to prosecute is not a legal precedent and the court isn’t going to accept “well Jim Bob over in Washington county Wasnt charged so I can’t be charged either!” as a defense.

Again, it’s your choice.

DustyGmt · May 4, 2021

For the deputy, transporting Psych patients....not fun. Meeting the family....less fun. I hope he learned his lesson and sticks to protocol next time, glad jimmy didn't do something heinous or even just disgusting to scar the wife and kids. Honestly I'd probably be really pissed off at the deputy but I probably would have cut him a break too even though he put you guys at risk....

Not locking the doors. I kind of get it. My sister had a rude awakening with a home invasion last month. People in tiny towns just don't seem to do it until something happens to them or someone they know. Glad you and yours are safe and that you didn't maime the guy and vice versa.

BigBore44 · May 4, 2021

Jeff White said:
Why don’t you give me a cite for a case where that defense was accepted?

That’s simple. There won’t be a case if the DA declined prosecution. See the above Washington County example. And as far as that goes, the person in your home in the scenario was not authorized to be there. You have your family dead, an unauthorized person in the home, and that person who was with your dead family when you got home attempts to flee. And you’re going to tell me that’s not a good shooting? Show me a single DA (or a married one for that matter) in the country who would, or has, prosecuted that successfully to a conviction.

I am not the law. You are not the law. My father, brother and friends are not the law. The attorney my grandmother worked for for 40 years who is a 3 Star in the USMC is not the law. Dad was 25 years also. SWAT, traffic investigation, DRE and DARE. Bother is 28 years SWAT, DT and DRE instructor, and FDTF. Neither you, my family and friends, nor I, are DA’s, judges, appellate court judges, or USSC Justices. All any of us have is statutory and case law, and hopefully a level head that helps us make good decisions in a stressful situation.

Frank Ettin · May 5, 2021

BigBore44 said:
@Jeff White... Washington County Arkansas 1999-2000. Homeowner comes home and finds an intruder in his home. Suspect flees and homeowner grabs deer rifle. Homeowner shoots suspect at 1/4 mile (still on homeowner’s property) and kills suspect. DA deemed justifiable. No charges. ....

Unverifiable anecdotes are two for a penny, and not worth even that. If you can’t provide corroborating documentation there’s no reason to believe it happened.

JohnKSa · May 5, 2021

And you’re going to tell me that’s not a good shooting?

YES. That is not a justifiable shooting. Self-defense laws do not allow a person to punish someone for committing a crime against them or another innocent person. There are no self-defense laws that allow a person to shoot another person in revenge for a crime that has already been completed.

Deadly force laws are about preventing imminent violent crime or stopping a violent crime already in progress. Generally, once the crime is complete and the perpetrator is fleeing the justification ends, no matter how heinous the crime was.

It's entirely possible that it might not be possible to find a jury to convict a person or a DA to prosecute, but that doesn't change what the law says.

It may FEEL right, it may be what the guy did in the movie, it may be what the guy over in the next county did a decade or two ago and got away with, but if you're shooting at someone for something they DID, and not for something they are about to do or are actually doing, then it's not justifiable. You may not go to prison, but you're definitely taking a risk.

BigBore44 · May 5, 2021

Frank Ettin said:
Unverifiable anecdotes are two for a penny, and not worth even that. If you can’t provide corroborating documentation there’s no reason to believe it happened.

My brother was an officer in that county at the time. The documentation would be a news story since the DA didn’t prosecute. And I can’t just drive on down to the Washington County sheriffs office and pull a file from 22 years ago. All I have is our conversation. I suppose you could call him a liar.

JohnKSa said:
YES. That is not a justifiable shooting. Self-defense laws do not allow a person to punish someone for committing a crime against them or another innocent person. There are no self-defense laws that allow a person to shoot another person in revenge for a crime that has already been completed.

And who said I would be shooting him out of revenge. Not me. Not once did I say that. He’s killed once and should he get away, very well may kill again.

But let’s hear it from the horses mouths @JohnKSa @GEM @Jeff White @Kleanbore
You see a man who has just killed a member of your family in your home with a knife or gun. Your choice. You’re armed. He looks at you and turns to walk out the door. Are you going to use deadly force against him or are you going to let him walk?

JohnKSa · May 5, 2021

And who said I would be shooting him out of revenge. Not me. Not once did I say that. He’s killed once and should he get away, very well may kill again.

I didn't claim you said that.

What I did was go through all the reasons a person might shoot someone AFTER a crime has been committed and explain how none of them are justifiable.

Ok, so what about shooting him to keep him from possibly committing a crime in the future after he leaves? It is legal to shoot someone to prevent them from committing certain serious crimes, but the commission of the crime must be imminent. As in, it is going to happen almost immediately if action is not taken now. Even if there's a firm and reasonable belief that the crime is going to take place, if it's not going to happen right away, then that's not going to be a justifiable shooting.

The deadly force laws are a safety net--for use in emergencies only. They're not there to give people law enforcement powers, they're to keep citizens out of prison if they are have no other choice but to use deadly force to stop certain very serious crimes that are in progress or that are just about to happen.

You see a man who has just killed a member of your family in your home with a knife or gun. Your choice. You’re armed. He looks at you and turns to walk out the door. Are you going to use deadly force against him or are you going to let him walk?

This is a discussion about legality--don't try to turn it into something else. You won't be allowed to.

What someone would or wouldn't do in a situation has no effect at all on whether it's legal or not. If the criminal no longer posed a deadly threat that would not be a justifiable shooting.

Jeff White · May 5, 2021

BigBore44 said:
You see a man who has just killed a member of your family in your home with a knife or gun.

Did you see him kill your family member? If so, why didn’t you shoot then in an attempt to save your family members life?

If you didn’t see him commit the crime then you are simply assuming that he killed your family member. “I thought that guy murdered a member of my family” isn’t justification to use deadly force in any state or territory. If it was we wouldn’t bother with trials we would just punish criminal suspects.

If you shoot that person you are throwing yourself completely at the mercy of the prosecuting attorney, a grand jury or if worse comes to worse, a trial jury. You are looking for legal justification for an emotional response. There is nothing in the law that provides for that.

You can come up with all kinds of incidents where a use of deadly force wasn’t prosecuted. I even gave you an example from my career. But just because no charges were filed or a grand jury didn’t indict or a trial jury didn’t convict doesn’t mean the use of force was legal.

We deal with what’s legal here, not with what wasn’t prosecuted, indicted or convicted. The reason we don’t deal with that is because those things aren’t repeatable. Like I said in an earlier post, “Jim Bob over in Washington county shot a fleeing criminal and he wasn’t charged” isn’t a defense. You can scream and yell “it’s not fair that he did it and wasn’t charged, you can’t charge me for the same thing” all day long and the only reply you are likely to get is “life isn’t fair”.

A jury acquitted OJ Simpson of murdering his ex wife and a young man who was with her at the time, but that didn’t make killing ex wives legal. It’s still against the law to carve up your ex everywhere in the country and as far as I know no one has successfully claimed that they couldn’t be convicted because OJ wasn’t.

Just because others haven’t been charged for what you want to do, doesn’t mean you can’t be.

We deal with the law here. Not with what you might or might not get away with. No one is going to tell you it’s ok to break the law here.

You are free to make your own decisions, but don’t expect anyone to validate them for you if they involve breaking the law.

Like the old carnival barker used to say: “You pays yer money and you takes yer chances” when you break the law. Go ahead, shoot the guy fleeing your home in the back if you want. Just be aware you are completely at the mercy of the police, the prosecutor and possibly the grand jury or a trial jury. You’re rolling the dice.

Let me tell you about the last questionable case before I retired. Here in Illinois you can use deadly force to stop a forcible felony. Burglary is a forcible felony.

It was a dark and stormy night in 2014. A man lived just down the road from his late mother’s house. He looked out the window and saw lights in his late mother’s house down the road. He arms himself with his Glock 19 and goes over to his late mother’s house and finds an intruder inside. He shoots the intruder.Then he calls the sheriff.

Deputies arrive and find him standing over the wounded intruder. An ambulance is called and the intruder is taken to the hospital. The shooter has his Glock taken as evidence but is not arrested.

The next day the detective starts running down the case. The intruder had nothing on him that came from the house and tells the detective he was walking home when the storm hit and took shelter in the house.

One of the elements of the crime of burglary in Illinois is that the structure is entered with the intent to steal something.

If the intruder was only trespassing then the shooting was not justified. If the intruder entered the late mother’s home with the intent to commit burglary which is a forcible felony the shooting is justified.

The fate of the man who shot the intruder in his late mother’s home now rests in the hands of the detective investigating the case and the states attorney. That case can go either way. He wasn’t charged because the states attorney didn’t think he could get a jury in the conservative county to convict.

Illinois law protects the person in a justified use of deadly force. But that protection isn’t enough to protect him from a civil suit from the intruder who claims he was illegally shot for trespassing. The fact that he wasn’t charged didn’t change the circumstances of the shooting and the judge in the civil suit declined to dismiss the case simply because he wasn’t charged. The fact that he wasn’t charged didn’t change the fact that there was no way he could prove the intruder was a burglar which would have made the use of deadly force justified. So while he escaped criminal charges he was out tens of thousands of dollars in the civil suit.

Deadly force cases are never simple and cut and dried. It’s not like a western movie where everybody in the saloon says: “the stranger drew first he had no choice, it was self defense sheriff.”

BigBore44 · May 5, 2021

JohnKSa said:
The deadly force laws are a safety net--for use in emergencies only. They're not there to give people law enforcement powers, they're to keep citizens out of prison if they are have no other choice but to use deadly force to stop certain very serious crimes that are in progress or that are just about to happen.

But that’s kind of my point. You don’t know that a crime is ABOUT to happen. You know that a crime HAS happened. There are certain circumstances where one could reasonably assume a crime was about to take place (4 men in balaclavas with shotguns crawl out of a van behind a Brinks truck). But what you guys are saying is that a man who has just killed a family member and now wants to leave, that I have to let him. Time after time I have asked for proof of this. And not one person has been able to produce anything past “Tenn v. Garner maybe you should read it” and that I watch too much TV and cop and now western movies. I’ve cited Oklahoma statutory law 3 times now. I’ve cited case after case after finding after finding. And I get “may and might” and “you should read a book and take a class” as a response. I even get told that precedent doesn’t matter (mind blown). I use legal terminology (stare decisis) and then get told what the definition is when I’m the one who used the terminology in the first place. I get told “No” and in the next sentence I get told “under certain circumstances”. It cannot be both. I should have been told told “Under certain circumstances it could be. But best to make sure of the laws in your state.”

I understand that not every situation is the same. I guarantee not one person on this forum has had what I had happen to me. Some, including Kleanbore have had much worse. Another member who is a teacher, lived through an active shooter in his school. So I’m not trying to make my situation traumatic. It was just really...unique. So what happened in my circumstance wouldn’t apply to theres. And vice versa.

Let’s take the member who was the teacher (I feel like his name contained “Cooper”). Active shooter in a school. Guy comes into his classroom and mows down a couple students. The suspect then turns to leave the classroom with firearm still in hand. Maybe he’s going to the next room to kill more students. Maybe he’s a disgruntled ex boyfriend of one of the kids in that class and has killed her kid which is all he set out to kill and now he’s leaving. The teacher is legally armed, and trained with his sidearm. He has the suspect at 10 feet with a clear shot. You’re saying legally, he can’t take the shot because he doesn’t know if the shooter is finished or if he intends to kill more students. So the law says he must be allowed to leave because he might be done. Right? According to Tenn v Garner, the person with an absolute ability to stop “possible” further bloodshed can do nothing.

Jeff White said:
Just because others haven’t been charged for what you want to do, doesn’t mean you can’t be.

That’s a hell of a statement Jeff. It sure sounds like I’m being accused of wanting to shoot people. If I wanted to shoot someone, I could have shot Jimmy.

Jeff White said:
Deadly force cases are never simple and cut and dried. It’s not like a western movie where everybody in the saloon says: “the stranger drew first he had no choice, it was self defense sheriff.”

I never said they were cut and dry. Ever. Your example didn’t involve a death. And Illinois law is not Oklahoma law. I cannot speak to the protections afforded the citizenry in Illinois. I know of no cases in that state for precedent. But I can speak for written Oklahoma law and our precedents. In Oklahoma, your perp met the requirements to have deadly fluoride used against him. There is no burglary requirement.

BigBore44 said:
A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

And btw, even though we may not be seeing eye to eye exactly, thank you for your service to your state and community. It’s a thankless job. Be glad you’re retired.

JohnKSa · May 5, 2021

You know that a crime HAS happened.

Deadly force laws aren't there to allow a person to punish someone who has committed a crime. There is a legal system to handle punishment for crimes.

Deadly force laws aren't there to allow for revenge. Revenge is not legal.

They aren't there to "insta-deputize" citizens and give them general law enforcement powers.

They are there to allow a person to prevent certain serious crimes from being committed or from being carried through to completion when there are no other reasonable alternatives.

Therefore a crime that HAS happened isn't justification for using deadly force. The crime that HAS happened can not be prevented. The crime that HAS happened has already been carried through to completion.

But what you guys are saying is that a man who has just killed a family member and now wants to leave, that I have to let him.

What THE LAW says is that you aren't justified in shooting him for his past actions. If he continues to pose a deadly threat then that's a different story, but the laws we are talking about are exclusively about preventing certain serious crimes that are just about to be committed or stopping certain serious crimes that are currently in progress.

Time after time I have asked for proof of this.

In general, it is illegal to shoot someone. However, the deadly force laws provide very limited circumstances where the act can be justified. If the situation doesn't fit one of those well-defined set of circumstances then it's not justified. Very simple. So unless you can find something in the law that says the shooting is justified, it isn't.

Part of the problem though, is that you are thinking about the deadly force laws incorrectly. They aren't there to LET you shoot someone, they are there to keep you out of prison if you are FORCED to shoot someone.

Let’s take the member who was the teacher (I feel like his name contained “Cooper”). Active shooter in a school. Guy comes into his classroom and mows down a couple students. The suspect then turns to leave the classroom with firearm still in hand. Maybe he’s going to the next room to kill more students. Maybe he’s a disgruntled ex boyfriend of one of the kids in that class and has killed her kid which is all he set out to kill and now he’s leaving. The teacher is legally armed, and trained with his sidearm. He has the suspect at 10 feet with a clear shot. You’re saying legally, he can’t take the shot because he doesn’t know if the shooter is finished or if he intends to kill more students.

No, that's not what I said at all. it seems like you're working very hard to misinterpret things instead of just reading what has been said.

If a reasonable person would assume that a crime that justifies the use of deadly force is about to be committed, or is in progress, then if there are no other reasonable alternatives, deadly force can be used to PREVENT that crime or to STOP the criminal from continuing the crime.

In the case you describe, (an "active shooter" to use your words) until the shooter is no longer considered to be an "active shooter" then it's very reasonable to consider that person to be a deadly threat. An armed school shooter walking out of a classroom is, for very obvious reasons, very different from a school shooter leaving the school.

The reasonable belief that a serious crime is imminent is quite different from just saying: "This guy committed a heinous crime, he might do something like that again at some point in the future so I'm going to shoot him." Deadly force laws are about about providing justification for a person who is forced to do something that would normally be against the law. So that someone doesn't go to prison if they MUST shoot someone to save a life.

In Oklahoma, your perp met the requirements to have deadly fluoride used against him.

It's not about saying: "Requirement 1 met. Requirement 2 met. Requirement 3 met. All requirements met! All clear to shoot this guy legally!"

It's about saying: "If I don't shoot, someone's going to be killed or maimed and there's no other reasonable way I can stop it. I have to shoot!" Then the deadly force laws come into play and keep you from going to prison for doing what would normally be a serious crime.

BigBore44 · May 5, 2021

JohnKSa said:
It's not about saying: "Requirement 1 met. Requirement 2 met. Requirement 3 met. All requirements met! All clear to shoot this guy legally!"

It's about saying: "If I don't shoot, someone's going to be killed or maimed and there's no other reasonable way I can stop it. I have to shoot!" Then the deadly force laws come into play and keep you from going to prison for doing what would normally be a serious crime.

I agree with everything you’ve said except this....kind of. Wouldn’t you think it prudent to know what your state laws are, and the requirements that are set forth in the statute, that need to be met, in order to justify use of deadly force? Like for example, duty to retreat. That could be a very serious requirement that, if not met, could have serious ramifications.

Again, I realize Oklahoma laws are very pro-homeowner. But not every state is like that. Just saying “I was in fear for my life” doesn’t really pass muster anymore.

For the record, I have no idea what the state or federal requirements are for the use of deadly fluoride. But I would assume there must be an eminent threat of cavities.

Kleanbore · May 5, 2021

BigBore44 said:
in certain circumstances, a reasonable and prudent person could certainly make the case that if, during a home invasion that the suspect used or attempted to use deadly force, and upon you entering and confronting the suspect, he flees, that shooting him as he was fleeing could be seen as protecting the public from serious physical harm or death.

That scanario does not describe the conditions prescribed by Garner to justify the use of deadly force.

BigBore44 said:
There won’t be a case if the DA declined prosecution

Many cases follow a prosecutor's decision to not file charges. First, the DA is not the final authority, and his recommendation can be overruled. Second, if the use of force results in a death, there is no statute of limitations.

BigBore44 said:
For goodness sake Kleanbore said you could shoot someone if they took property you couldn’t in any other way recover.

I referred to one aspect of Texas Code Section 9.42.

BigBore44 said:
. That’s explicitly against the Garner ruling.

It is not. Garner v Tennessee states that one may only use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon under certain very limited circumstances. The Texas law has do do with the protection of moveable, tangible property.

Kleanbore · May 5, 2021

BigBore44 said:
Let’s take the member who was the teacher (I feel like his name contained “Cooper”). Active shooter in a school. Guy comes into his classroom and mows down a couple students. The suspect then turns to leave the classroom with firearm still in hand. Maybe he’s going to the next room to kill more students. Maybe he’s a disgruntled ex boyfriend of one of the kids in that class and has killed her kid which is all he set out to kill and now he’s leaving. The teacher is legally armed, and trained with his sidearm. He has the suspect at 10 feet with a clear shot. You’re saying legally, he can’t take the shot because he doesn’t know if the shooter is finished or if he intends to kill more students. So the law says he must be allowed to leave because he might be done. Right?

No. Not right at all.

Garner states that the use of deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect is unlawful unless

The suspect has just committed a particularly heinous violent crime--that one seems to apply
The shooter actually witnessed the commission of the crime--seems to apply
There is reason to believe that, unless the suspect is apprehended immediately, he will pose an imminent threat of death or serious harm to others--seems to apply AND
There is no means other than deadly force to prevent the suspect from escaping.

Kleanbore · May 5, 2021

BigBore44 said:
And not one person has been able to produce anything past “Tenn v. Garner .... I’ve cited Oklahoma statutory law 3 times now.

Garner is the law of the land, in that it defines the application of the Fourth Amendment to cases of fleeing suspects.

State codes cannot violate the Fourth Amendment

Nothing you have cited regarding Oklahoma law applies to fleeing suspects.

Kleanbore · May 5, 2021

Kleanbore said:
Many cases follow a prosecutor's decision to not file charges. First, the DA is not the final authority, and his recommendation can be overruled. Second, if the use of force results in a death, there is no statute of limitations.

Let me edit that to correct it.

First, the lead DA is the final authority. His decision may in at least one state be overruled by the action of a court, upon petition; a Grand Jury indictment may occur in spite of a DA recommendation to not prosecute.

These are rare. The greater likelihood lies in the possibility of the D/A's changing his mind, for example due to public pressure, or in the fact that the D/A's successor is not bound by his predecessor's decision.

Thanks to Attorney Spats McGee for calling this to my attention.

JohnKSa · May 5, 2021

Wouldn’t you think it prudent to know what your state laws are, and the requirements that are set forth in the statute, that need to be met, in order to justify use of deadly force? Like for example, duty to retreat. That could be a very serious requirement that, if not met, could have serious ramifications.

It is important to know the laws, but not so you have a checklist in your head that you can work on until all the checkmarks are in place. In fact, if you're really thinking about the law in the middle of an encounter, that's probably a strong indication that shooting is not justified. Deadly force is for use as a last resort in certain types of emergencies, and most people in those kinds of situations aren't going to be thinking about anything other than trying to not die or trying to keep someone else from dying.

Where it's useful to know the law is so that you can develop a proper mindset about the philosophy of justifiable deadly force, and also so you don't do something illegal due to a misunderstanding about the law. Like shooting someone fleeing a crime scene, for example. In my opinion, having an understanding of the law will probably help most in the situations where deadly force is NOT justified.

But I also think it's useful to know it so you don't do or say things before or after a shooting that might call your motivation into question if you do have to use deadly force. Making statements about actions you would take in a situation, if those actions are clearly inconsistent with the law could come back to haunt you in a situation where you really do need to use deadly force. Similarly, saying, or doing something after a justifiable shooting based on a mistaken understanding of the law could really cause a lot of legal problems. One good example of this is the once common advice to drag a person back inside the house if you shoot them inside and they run outside and die there. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. In reality, where an attacker actually dies is not important under the deadly force laws even though where the encounter took place could be. The advice springs out of an incorrect understanding of the law and, if followed creates a tremendous legal liability even if the original shooting was perfectly justified.

This topic is really simple. If you or someone other innocent person is just about to be killed or maimed, or is in the process of being killed or maimed and there's no other reasonable option, then you use deadly force. If you don't have to, then you don't.

Remember, the laws were put in place to protect people who were forced to take action that would normally be illegal. It's a mistake to think about them as anything other than a safety net.

Kleanbore · May 5, 2021

JohnKSa said:
In my opinion, having an understanding of the law will probably help most in the situations where deadly force is NOT justified.

In mine, also.

It ids amazing how many people are surprised when they learn that they may not lawfully shoot the man who is getting into their neighbor's truck, shoot or threaten deadly force for trespass, shoot some one because he has committed a crime, or shoot a fleeing suspect.

BigBore44 · May 5, 2021

Kleanbore said:
In mine, also.

It ids amazing how many people are surprised when they learn that they may not lawfully shoot the man who is getting into their neighbor's truck, shoot or threaten deadly force for trespass, shoot some one because he has committed a crime, or shoot a fleeing suspect.

Unless....(what you posted above). But yes. I agree with you.

JohnKSa said:
One good example of this is the once common advice to drag a person back inside the house if you shoot them inside and they run outside and die there. I can't tell you how many times I've heard this. In reality, where an attacker actually dies is not important under the deadly force laws even though where the encounter took place could be. The advice springs out of an incorrect understanding of the law and, if followed creates a tremendous legal liability even if the original shooting was perfectly justified.

I have heard that many times myself. And I always correct them for the exact reason you stated. Where they die doesn’t really matter. Where they were when the shot made impact is what matters. Dragging a body is asking for problems. Not just from the investigating officers, but also a DA. It opens yourself up for a lot of “Why” questions.

One thing about Garner, that when it was stated earlier, I didn’t catch. I don’t see mention of an “immediate or imminent” threat. It just says:
Held: The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such 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. Pp. 7-22.
So the opinion does not include those two key words. It also uses the words unarmed and non-dangerous. But if the fleeing suspect is armed, then the suspect is considered dangerous. Correct?

However, being unarmed does not necessarily preclude him from being considered dangerous or non-violent. But since the opinion states “apparently unarmed and nonviolent”, it must meet both criteria.

Also, does mere possession of a weapon during a home break in constitute a violent crime? Under Oklahoma law, it says “used during the commission of”. So the weapon has to be intentionally spoken of (“I have a gun”) flashed, brandished, or pointed?

Kleanbore · May 5, 2021

This is the gist of the majority decision in Garner, written by JusticeByron White:

"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable…Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.”

Before any law person unschooled in that particular point of law decides to try to determine what he or she thinks it means, this is a good time to point out his rom the ST&T Rules:

Concerning the Law
The legality of actions suggested or advocated here is an essential part of the discussion.
It is incumbent upon everyone who carries a firearm to familiarize himself or herself with the relevant laws in their jurisdiction and anywhere else where they may be carrying.
While the basic principles of the laws pertaining to self defense are essentially comparable in all fifty states, there are significant differences among the details. Many of the differences lie in “castle doctrines”, which exist in some states as codified in law and in others as established in court decisions, and which differ in important detail; in other some jurisdictions, they are not provided for at all. It is essential to know and understand what applies where one lives.
We will provide a few generalities for those new to the subject of self defense:
In general, deadly force may be lawfully employed only when it is immediately necessary to defend oneself or a third person in the case of imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

In some jurisdictions, deadly force may be used to prevent specific serious felonies; these vary among jurisdictions.

In most jurisdictions, deadly force may not be used to protect property.

The threatening display of a weapon by a civilian is unlawful except under extenuating circumstances, which vary by jurisdiction.

It is unlawful to shoot a fleeing felon except under the rarest of circumstances.

While a citizens arrest, or its equivalent, is sometimes allowed under certain circumstances, there are limitations in criminal law, and little or no protection in civil law for anyone other than a sworn officer. The civilian may employ deadly force when it is immediately necessary to protect and defend, but not to enforce the law.

In this Internet age, many people have found it is easy to search for and read the state criminal codes. A warning is in order: trying to interpret a particular law in isolation by using lay dictionary definitions can lead to erroneous conclusions. Case law—decisions rendered by high courts in the interpretation of the laws—and relationships among other pertinent laws and constitutional principles can have as much to do with the real meaning of the law as the words in a single statute.
For this reason, we strongly discourage the rote cutting and pasting into posts of state legal codes to support one’s position in a discussion here, and we advise against the reliance on same to justify the lawfulness of a particular course of action.
Such reliance is particularly dangerous when it comes to justifying the use of deadly force. The use of a weapon, and even its display by a civilian in many circumstances, is normally an unlawful act. Relying upon a layman’s interpretation of the code to justify the use of a weapon is usually not a good idea. Probably the safest philosophy is that a deadly weapon should be used only when it is immediately necessary and when there is no alternative.
In a similar vein, trying to obtain legal advice over the Internet is not a good strategy.
Once more, what is posted here is public and permanent. You do not want to publish anything on ST&T, where it may be made available to plaintiffs and investigators, that you should more properly tell only to an attorney in confidence in a privileged legal communication.

Most importantly, it is important to avoid the trap of trying to decide when deadly force may be justified. The use of the legal knowledge dan prudently be used to get a fair ides of when it will likely not be.

There has been very extensive discussion of Garner and of its implications upon civilian use of force; on attempting to detain suspects; on citizens arrest; and on related matters, in ST&T over the last dozen years. We do not need to try to reconstruct it again.

old lady new shooter · May 5, 2021

Jeff White said:
Just to clarify, you cant shoot a fleeing suspect unless the escape of the suspect would place someone or the public in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

In the Sutherland Springs church shooting case, the good guy chased and shot the shooter, and said he was worried that another church might be the next target. He was hailed as a hero. Is the difference that that shooter had just committed mass murder in a semi-public place, as opposed to a family in their home?

BigBore44 · May 5, 2021

Kleanbore said:
This is the gist of the majority decision in Garner, written by JusticeByron White:

"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable…Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.”

Before any law person unschooled in that particular point of law decides to try to determine what he or she thinks it means, this is a good time to point out his rom the ST&T Rules:

Concerning the Law
The legality of actions suggested or advocated here is an essential part of the discussion.
It is incumbent upon everyone who carries a firearm to familiarize himself or herself with the relevant laws in their jurisdiction and anywhere else where they may be carrying.
While the basic principles of the laws pertaining to self defense are essentially comparable in all fifty states, there are significant differences among the details. Many of the differences lie in “castle doctrines”, which exist in some states as codified in law and in others as established in court decisions, and which differ in important detail; in other some jurisdictions, they are not provided for at all. It is essential to know and understand what applies where one lives.
We will provide a few generalities for those new to the subject of self defense:
In general, deadly force may be lawfully employed only when it is immediately necessary to defend oneself or a third person in the case of imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

In some jurisdictions, deadly force may be used to prevent specific serious felonies; these vary among jurisdictions.

In most jurisdictions, deadly force may not be used to protect property.

The threatening display of a weapon by a civilian is unlawful except under extenuating circumstances, which vary by jurisdiction.

It is unlawful to shoot a fleeing felon except under the rarest of circumstances.

While a citizens arrest, or its equivalent, is sometimes allowed under certain circumstances, there are limitations in criminal law, and little or no protection in civil law for anyone other than a sworn officer. The civilian may employ deadly force when it is immediately necessary to protect and defend, but not to enforce the law.

In this Internet age, many people have found it is easy to search for and read the state criminal codes. A warning is in order: trying to interpret a particular law in isolation by using lay dictionary definitions can lead to erroneous conclusions. Case law—decisions rendered by high courts in the interpretation of the laws—and relationships among other pertinent laws and constitutional principles can have as much to do with the real meaning of the law as the words in a single statute.
For this reason, we strongly discourage the rote cutting and pasting into posts of state legal codes to support one’s position in a discussion here, and we advise against the reliance on same to justify the lawfulness of a particular course of action.
Such reliance is particularly dangerous when it comes to justifying the use of deadly force. The use of a weapon, and even its display by a civilian in many circumstances, is normally an unlawful act. Relying upon a layman’s interpretation of the code to justify the use of a weapon is usually not a good idea. Probably the safest philosophy is that a deadly weapon should be used only when it is immediately necessary and when there is no alternative.
In a similar vein, trying to obtain legal advice over the Internet is not a good strategy.
Once more, what is posted here is public and permanent. You do not want to publish anything on ST&T, where it may be made available to plaintiffs and investigators, that you should more properly tell only to an attorney in confidence in a privileged legal communication.

Most importantly, it is important to avoid the trap of trying to decide when deadly force may be justified. The use of the legal knowledge dan prudently be used to get a fair ides of when it will likely not be.

There has been very extensive discussion of Garner and of its implications upon civilian use of force; on attempting to detain suspects; on citizens arrest; and on related matters, in ST&T over the last dozen years. We do not need to try to reconstruct it again.

And with almost all of that I do not disagree. It is sound legal advise.

What I still have not found is where you can use deadly force to defend property. This isn’t me arguing against you. This is me asking what are the circumstances. I could (almost) see it being used by a rancher to defend cattle. But cattle are usually insured. Past that, I’m just not sure. Any ideas?

While my questions in my previous post weren’t answered, I think I know why. You don’t know me. And I don’t know you. Just a member and a moderator(s) on a gun forum. So you very well may think along the lines that Jeff posted when he said I may want to do it and am just looking for justification that I could even possibly use in court should the unthinkable happen. Now you get dragged into the equation because it’s possible a few of you are attorneys. I know Frank and Spats are. It’s not true. It couldn’t be more untrue. But I understand. So I’ve got a friend who is the DA where I live. She’s been super busy because of the courts being closed for a year. But next time I go see her, I’ll ask her her opinion on the matter because she’d be the prosecuting attorney.

Offhand McFlan · May 5, 2021

Maybe I missed something, but how is it that "Jimmy" made it to your door and into your house from a squad car before the deputies did? Why would any pofessional LEO let him go by himself in that condition, knowing he is a mental patient, without first knocking on your door and asking to talk with the man or woman of the house??

I see gross GROSS negligence here on the part of the deputies, even if "Jimmy" was ultimately harmless.

Kleanbore · May 5, 2021

BigBore44 said:
It is sound legal advise.

Actually, it is not legal advice at all. It is the forum ruleset.

BigBore44 said:
What I still have not found is where you can use deadly force to defend property.

Texas, only, and under very limited circumstances, only.

BigBore44 · May 5, 2021

Kleanbore said:
Actually, it is not legal advice at all. It is the forum ruleset.

Texas, only, and under very limited circumstances, only.

It may be the ruleset. But in those rules is the caution (advice) on how or (more accurately) how not to, interpret laws for use of lethal force. You’ve not stated anything definitive. But as you, Jeff, and John have stated in this thread, when pertaining to use of force laws, nothing is definitive. So while it may not be legal council, it contains “suggestions” and “cautions” about interpretation of use of force laws. I call that legal advice. Advice pertaining to interpretation of law.

So you’ve peaked my interest in the Texas law. Now I have to find it. I bet it’s interesting. Probably a lot of “and”s and not many “or”s.

My home invasion last night. What are the odds?

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Moderator

Administrator

Member

Administrator

Moderator

Member

Administrator

Member

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Administrator

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Similar threads