Are we Policemen?

[divemedic]

Again- if you are in a business that is being robbed at gunpoint, why do you think your life isn't being threatened? Sure, most robberies end without shots being fired, but are you willing to place your life in the hands of an armed criminal? You are willing to trust in a criminal's sense of morality?

If a weapon being displayed during a robbery is not a threat, at what point does it become one? When they point the gun at you? When they start shooting other patrons? When they shoot you? Your child?

Me, I see a weapon during a robbery (or even the hint of a weapon), I consider my life to be in immediate danger.

 

[dalepres]

You'd better shout out, "4-1-1 Robbery In Progress!" first. Apparently, if you can't quote the paragraph of law being violated, you are not qualified to defend yourself.

 

[divemedic]

Huh? I can quote the law that allows me to do so. I never said I couldn't. Here:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

Defining "forcible felony"

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

 

[dalepres]

treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy

Ok, now define each of these terms.

 

[Jeff White]

No, define the elements that must be present for the offense to have occurred. If you don't know what the offender has to do to actually commit the offense, how will you know you are legally shooting him?

Jeff

 

[divemedic]

It would take a lot of space to define ALL of them, but lets look at robbery, since that was the OP:

812.13 Robbery.--

(1) "Robbery" means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.

776.013 (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Now to me, the real question that gets many people is the phrase "reasonably believes that such force is necessary." The "reasonable man" clause is one that is used throughout the laws of this country as a yardstick of behavior. Essentially, it means that you are committing an act which any other reasonable person would commit, if that person were faced with the same situation and the same information. In certain cases, you will note that you may be able to use deadly force against an unarmed man, such as a robbery in which the perpetrator SAYS he has a gun, but in fact does not. As long as any other reasonable person would believe the robber, the shooter would be jsutified in using deadly force.

The best part is, in Florida when you are cleared of the criminal charges, you then have an affirmative defense to any civil suits that follow, and you cannot even be arrested or detained:

776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.--

(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

So in my post above:

Again- if you are in a business that is being robbed at gunpoint, why do you think your life isn't being threatened?

I would obviously be authorized to use deadly force, and would be immune from arrest, lawsuit, and prosecution.

 

[sacp81170a]

define the elements that must be present for the offense to have occurred

More importantly, can you articulate those elements later in a court of law? That's the problem. You also have to articulate what constituted your justification for using deadly force.

Also, remember that you will be paying for your own defense. If you don't have the cash on hand for that(think $40-50K to start, and that's just for the criminal side, not the civil suit(s) you might have brought against you), the court will appoint an attorney for you based on whether the judge thinks you have any tangible assets. Got a house? You can afford a lawyer(2nd mortgage or sell it). Got a good job? You can afford a lawyer. Got lots of vacation and sick time accrued? You're gonna need it. Not many jobs that I know of will suspend you with pay while your case is sorted out. The court system has just become your sole and primary focus in life, trumping your family, your job and anything else.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't protect others from being harmed, but you need to be aware of what you're committing yourself to when you act to protect 7-11's daily receipts from being stolen. Oh, and 7-11 would gladly ban you from carrying your gun on their premises. Ingrates...

 

[sacp81170a]

I would obviously be authorized to use deadly force, and would be immune from arrest, lawsuit, and prosecution.

Don't confuse authorized for justified. And remember, immunity is a condition that has to be determined by the court. You will not be "immune" from arrest, which is separate entirely from the prosecutorial process. If you're smart, you'll still need a lawyer, who will expect to be paid. The laws are being revised in many jurisdictions to make it easier for law abiding citizens to use force to defend themselves, but there are still processes involved that you aren't going to be able to get past. Better hope everyone who witnesses the incident sees it the way you did, or you're in for a bumpy ride trying to establish your "immunity".

If you think the law was written as a "Get out of Jail Free" card, you're completely unaware of the workings of the entire criminal justice system.

 

[dalepres]

divemedic, I was being facecious. I didn't really expect or believe that you should be able to define the terms.

First off, I would never shoot a person for armed robbery. I would shoot him, though, if my life was threatened. That is a choice only I can make. Then my duty would be to convince a DA or a jury that any other reasonable person would have felt their life was threatened in the same circumstances. That's the only criteria to be considered.

 

[Ignition Override]

People can financially ruin you with civil lawsuits, whether criminals with a "junk yard dog lawyer", or not. This has "allegedly" been done by the mysterious, invisible leaders of a large, so-called "church" against people convicted of libel. These and similar types can be almost scarier than an armed, amateur criminal. Check where the word amateur is Not used in a previous sentence.

 

[divemedic]

Don't confuse authorized for justified. And remember, immunity is a condition that has to be determined by the court. You will not be "immune" from arrest, which is separate entirely from the prosecutorial process.

Right- so I guess this law is a waste of paper?

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

Unlawful arrest- that would allow you to get a nice paycheck from the police officer and department that does the arresting.

 

[Kentak]

Who's going to determine the justification for the use of force? That law makes no sense. How can justification be determined until an investigation has taken place and all evidence and witnesses examined? Is the shooter to remain free until that determination is made? Stupid.

K

 

[sacp81170a]

As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

Yep, the law is contradictory. All that's needed for PC for a lawful arrest is conflicting stories from witnesses. If I were an officer on scene faced with three different versions of events, I'd reasonably make an arrest and let the judge sort it out. Again, you may beat the rap, but you ain't gonna beat the ride.

Again, immunity is something you prove in court, not something that's handed to you on the street. Any lawyers care to chime in?

 

[3KillerBs]

We are not cops. "Citizen's Arrest" does not exist in my state. There is no legal obligation to act and a distinct possibility that action may have adverse consequences.

Two things though, ...

First, in response to this,

If it is your reasonable belief that the perpetrator does NOT intend to harm anybody, and merely intends to take money and/or property---let him go and try to get a good description, license plate number etc.

Here's a question I've asked before. If the criminal is not presenting a threat of "death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault" why is anyone giving him the money? A robber who is not presenting a credible threat of an "or else" to get his victims to comply with his wishes is not a robber at all -- just a panhandler who can safely be refused and ignored.

2. As free citizens in a free society we share a mutual moral obligation to uphold each others' rights when we can. A person who could have stopped a crime and did not, IMO, shares some of the guilt by helping to create a society and culture that empowers criminals rather than honest citizens.

 

[3KillerBs]

How many of our soldiers have died in past wars to protect our countries freedom and liberties? I agree, too many, and I salute each and every one of them. The point is we as a nation will band together to fight a foreign threat to protect our way of life,I would like to see the day when every law abiding American citizen carries a gun and a promise to every other law abiding American citizen that together we can protect each other from the BG's in this country who would rather see us crawl away and hide and let them have their way with us. I say NO, I will fight and I hope you will fight with me, I am not prepaired to let the bg's take my freedom and liberties that were fought and died for by so many brave American soldiers. Just say NO to the bg's and take the fight to them if that's what want. Carry a gun and be ready to use it if someones life is being threatened. AMEN.

Beautifully said.

DH and I discussed this a couple weeks after taking the Concealed Carry class. If a danger is present and either of us is capable of acting to stop that danger, we will.

No "crazy hero charging into fire" business, but either of us will act.

And if the consequences of that action is injury or death then our kids will know to honor the memory of parents who always strove to do the right thing even when doing right was difficult or dangerous.

After all, the only alternative is to live out our days knowing that when tested we proved to be miserable, sniveling cowards who loved our own skins more than we loved doing the right thing.

Societies where courage is a virtue and cowardice a shameful thing are always better places.

 

[divemedic]

Again, immunity is something you prove in court, not something that's handed to you on the street. Any lawyers care to chime in?

Under this law, all the police have to do is know two things:

1 A forcible felony was taking place

2 You shot someone to stop it from taking place

That's it. If a cop arrests you, he is in hot water. I may not beat the ride, but I will own the cop's house and bank account when I sue him for violating the law, thus violating my civil rights. Oh, yeah- and the PD and plaintiff in any civil case gets to pay for my attorney bills, too. That means most no-recovery/no-fee attorneys will avoid such cases like the plague.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

 

[sacp81170a]

Under this law, all the police have to do is know two things:

1 A forcible felony was taking place

2 You shot someone to stop it from taking place

Again I ask, any lawyers want to chime in? I'm sorry to break this to you, but most times things on the street aren't anywhere near this cut and dried. Ya really need to check with one of your local PA's or LEO's about this. You're making a lot of assumptions without much knowledge, as I am. What seems simple when you read it gets a lot more complex when reality rears its ugly head. Of course, if you don't mind being a test case...

 

[Jeff White]

divemedic,

Read the law you posted again. Pay special attention to the part I highlighted:

2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Probable cause doesn't mean that there is enough evidence to convict you for unlawful use of force, it means that there is something that would make a reasonable person believe the use of force was unlawful and would indicate that further investigation is necessary. So in sacp81170a's example of conflicting witness statements, there will likely be probable cause to make an arrest. You won't beat the ride, and you won't get squat from the officer or his agency.

What that law effectively does is put a stop to the practice that happened in some jurisdictions of just automatically arresting the shooter while the investigation is ongoing. If you want to use that part of the law to shield yourself from arrest, you'd better be very certain that your use of force was a textbook internet gun forum use of force, i.e. you're standing in line at the convenience store, guy ahead of you in line gets to the counter, fires a round into the ceiling to show everyone he's serious and asks for all the money.

Any use of deadly force that evolves from any kind of interpersonal conflict or you walking up on a situation that isn't what you think it is, i.e. what looks like a street robbery is a plainclothes officer making an arrest, the situation is going to be much murkier and there is very likely going to be PC to make an arrest. Then, the bill for your defense is all yours, even if the charges are dropped after the investigation is completed you will still be out bond and attorney fees. And the second you file suit under this law to collect the money you think is coming to you, the city, county or state is going to come right back and say that they did have PC to arrest. Your case is going to rest on your ability to prove that there wasn't PC to make the arrest. And I hate to tell you this, but if there are witness statements saying you acted improperly, you're probably are going to lose that argument in court. You're going to be trying to beat literally thousands of precedents where witness statements did constitute probable cause for an arrest.

Under this law, all the police have to do is know two things:

1 A forcible felony was taking place

What's important is that you know that a forcible felony was taking place. Being able to cite the list of crimes that are forcible felonies is nice, but if you don't know what things have to be present for the action to actually meet the definition of the offense in the law, you might shoot someone who actually wasn't committing a forcible felony. Probably not a problem with an intruder in your home, but out on the street where you happen on a situation, it could be a big problem because you will be acting on incomplete information.

Jeff

 

[divemedic]

I was going by the OP, which stated that you were in a store when the robbery took place. In that case, I cannot see how you would not be justified. Of course, we can throw all kinds of what-ifs in there. "What if what you really saw was a cop making an arrest." Sure, "what if, what if, what if"

Anyone can what if a situation into anything they want it to be, if enough what ifs are thrown in there.

The premise here from the OP was that:

1 A robbery was taking place
2 You were in the store with a weapon
3 I contend that if 1 and 2 above are met, the police cannot arrest you, nor can you be successfully sued. Th only way there is probable cause that you unlawfully used force is for the store surveillance video to show that no robbery was taking place.

As another poster said, it is going to be difficult for a cop to say that a reasonable person would not be threatened, because if they weren't, the store occupants would not be handing over the money.

All of you continue what-iffing. Most of you are so afraid of mythical unlikely situations, you will be shot dead while consulting your pocket law guide while on hold with your attorney, trying to get permission to draw your weapon.

 

[Geronimo45]

Have changed my mind on this point in the last year or two.
No, we're not police. No, we don't have a legal obligation to act. You may have the legal option to do so.
Morally? Up to everybody to decide on their own. As for me, I'm not sure anymore. Have seen the error of my ardor.
There is a saying: "All that is takes for evil men to prosper is for good men to do nothing." All the same, "Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines."

 

[Fred Fuller]

I'd strongly suggest taking a look at Skip Gochenour's lecture notes, titled "LEGAL PRINCIPLES IN THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE USE OF FORCE," at http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm . It's pretty long to cut and paste here, so I'll let it go with the title and the link.

The lecture and accompanying slides were delivered at at least two major training venues I'm aware of, and provided some of the best classroom material I have ever been exposed to- good enough that I sat through it twice. Some translation is necessary, for anyone not previously exposed to ATSA-speak, and I hope I get all the initialisms covered:

VCA- violent criminal actor
SODDI- some other dude did it
TODDI- that other dude did it
AOJ- ability, opportunity, jeopardy
ADEE- avoid, de-escalate/disengage, escape, evade

Carrying a gun as an armed citizen is no small responsibility. Preparing oneself to do so is not a task that should be taken lightly, and minimal state mandated training classes are far from enough training IMHO. The place to get good training is at the hands of a good instructor in the classroom and on the range IMHO- not on an Internet forum, even a good one, not with books or videos, even good ones, not practicing alone on an improvised range.

hth,

lpl