Are we Policemen?

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

setting aside 'sentimental value' what is the monitary amount at which lethal force is appropriate?

$10? $100? $5,000?

It gets even more muddy when you try to translate that into the "bits of life." Are someone's possessions worth less because they make more money? For example, let's take a $1000 flat screen TV. To someone making minimum wage, that might be 5 weeks pay. To some of us doing a bit better, that's less than a week's wages. To someone like Oprah, that's less than a minute's salary.

Does that mean that people working for minimum wage have more of a right kill someone for stealing their TV than Oprah? It's the same crime, stealing a $1000 TV.

On the other hand, how much of your time is worth killing over? 15 minutes? A couple of hours? A year? Where exaclty is the line where someone deserves to die "stealing" your time?

 

[jonmerritt]

legal obligation, The police are not legaly obligated to protect you either, that is, according to the supreme court.

 

[sacp81170a]

For example, let's take a $1000 flat screen TV.

If you see 'em carrying your 50 inch plasma TV out the door, shoot the TV!!

Dang it, if I can't have it, neither can they!

 

[lloydkristmas]

I justify it in the sense that you never know if they could come back and try and get more of your things because they see you as weak for not taking action. Let the guy go, and you risk some sort of retaliation or second attack on your home or property. Thus, you might as well take care of things the first time. Fortunately, Texas is very open to most any outlook on lethal force.

 

[george29]

Are we Policemen?

NO! Not legally nor morally!

Are we obligated to perform as police because we have a gun?

Police Officers have belts and wear trousers, emmulating them in this respect also does nothing to obligate you to perform as a Police Officer.

Your CHL/CCW Instructor wasn't clear on this I suppose.

 

[dalepres]

I do NOT believe in the use of potentally lethal force for defending money/personal property.

While literally, true, this misses the point. Your pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness is worth defending with lethal force. If your property can be taken from you by any bully, anyone tougher than you are, or any robber with a gun, then that person most definitely attacks your pursuit of life, liberty and happiness - and very specifically your liberty. A free man does not have his property taken from him by any tough guy who wants it. A free man can defend his property because to fail to do so means he is not a free man.

That said, in Oklahoma you can only defend certain specified family members with a gun, concealed or not, away from home or at home. So if, in the scenario described in the original post here, you or your specified family members are not threatened, you could find yourself in trouble for using your gun. Of course, a man with evil intent waving a gun around could be perceived as a threat to everyone. There have been too many cases where bad guys who have succeeded in their crime randomly shot people on the way out of the scene.

 

[hso]

Are we obligated to perform as police because we have a gun?

No.

Every carry permit class you take will tell you to loose the idea that because you carry a gun that you're somehow a cop. Leave the police work to police and only use your firearm to prevent death or grave bodily harm.

 

[akodo]

Unknown person or persons have broken into your home and you have no idea of their further criminal intentions.

Absolutely. Of course, them taking my stuff or not taking my stuff is irrelevant, I fear them in general as law breaking intruders up to no good. I fear they will harm me and my family, and that is why I would say lethal force is justified.

but as I say, that is totally unrelated to the financial value of the items they may or may not be taking

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

If someone with a conceal carry permit finds themselves in a situation where there is a robbery in progress should this person use his weapon to stop the robbery?

NO. At least, not the robbery itself. You are not obligated to do so. No state I know of confers police duties or powers on even armed citizens. And it could be very dangerous, as I will explain below.

I made up my mind on this some time ago. If only money is being taken I will do nothing except try to observe and be a good witness. However, if the robber (or robbers; there may be more than one, unknown to you, e.g., a backup or lookout) exhibit wanton violence, start searching people proned out on the floor, try to herd people into a back room, tie you up, etc., these are preludes to being killed, and I will go to war.

 

[Erik]

"Are we Policemen? "

No.

As to what you should do, it should be reasonable and prudent, which may or may not involve a firearms you happen to have brought along.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Are we obligated to perform as police because we have a gun?

Self-defense is not police work.

Police work is not individual protection either.

You have a right to defend yourself against an imminent threat of death or grevious bodily harm. In Tennessee you may also act to defend an innocent third party from such a threat. But you are not obligated even to defend yourself, much less third parties: it is an option, a choice that depends on circumstances. Also, third party intervention is highly risky.

Judging what is going on with third parties isnt always clear. Cops arriving at a reported robbery a few years ago shot an armed storekeeper who had shot at and chased off robbers and either did not hear or refused to comply to their order to put his gun down. They thought they were dealing with the reported "man with a gun." Think what they have to live with.

Carrying a gun is not police work: there is a lot more to good police work than carrying a gun. And going into third party situations is a risk that cops are obligated to take.

Carrying a gun for self-defense is limited to response to an imminent threat of death or grevious bodily harm, and it is not an obligation, but a choice.

Part of Tennessee handgun carry permit class emphasises that the state attorney general does not want permit holders trying to act as policemen.

 

[Didorian]

No we are NOT police.

We have however given the police FAR to much power. The police don't have the obligation to stop a crime in progress... Their obligation starts once the crime is commited. So who's responsiblity is it to stop a crime in the process.... The victim and or any witnesses...
But oh yea... that's right... then you have to worry about YOUR safty and YOUR legal problems..... I think it's funny that here on The HIGH Road... you have so many people ready to throw someone under the bus... IF I SEE A CRIME HAPPENING I'M JUST GONNA BE A GOOD WITNESS.:banghead: or IF IT'S NOT SOMEONE THAT I KNOW OR CARE ABOUT I'M GRABBING MINE AND LEAVING.:banghead:

This country is in the sorry state it's in because so few people are actually willing to take responsibility for their actions, or help those in need. If you see a guy getting mugged, and you don't help... what are you going to think when you look at your self in the mirror later?? What about if you find out later that the guy didn't survive the attack??

So many people on here are so wrapped up in the legalities of an issue that they have stopped seeing the issue...

Crime is a problem.... And often times of late the police are either NOT helping or actually CONTRIBUTING to the problem. And what do we do?? We complain and talk about how it's not right... and everytime you hear of a person DOING something that to them is right, but not exactly legal... you are automatically in with the legal crowd. (Well if it didn't meet this criteria it was a bad shoot and they should have known better) And (Well they broke the law..they knew that it was against the law and they did it anyway. So they should get whatever punishment comes.) Sometimes it just makes me sick.

 

[Scoutsout2645]

No, carrying a gun does not obligate you to act on someone else's behalf. Moreover, most (if not all) states tend to follow the "American Bystander" rule for liability--namely that as a civilian you have no obligation to save another from harm, even if you are able and qualified to do so, and that your lack of action does not leave you criminally or civilly liable. You are not a police officer and your only obligation is to protect yourself from imminent bodily harm. I don't know what use of deadly force training CCW holders get in other states, but I know that if I am in a situation, on or off duty, and discharge my weapon then I had damn well better be correct in my judgement call. Whether you choose to act or not is a moral choice...just make sure that if you do choose to act you are legally justified in the actions you take. Also remember that even if you DO act in a justifiable way, you may still have to go through a trial to prove you were justified--cop or citizen, if you shoot and kill someone your case is going to go before at least a Grand Jury--this means stress, lost time and legal fees. Still better than being dead, but enough to make you want to be certain in your mind that your acts are justified first.

I am lucky to work for a department that puts us through a lot of tactical and force-on-force firearms training. Having done so, let me stress that when you decide to take on an armed BG there is a high probability of getting shot yourself. It may not be a fatal shot, but taking a round in the arm, leg or gut will HURT, may cause long term disability and will certainly take you out of work for a while--I am covered for that by my agency, are you?

While we're at it, I've seen a few posts with quotes similar to this one: "The police don't have the obligation to stop a crime in progress... Their obligation starts once the crime is commited."
Quite to the contrary, if I OBSERVE a crime in progress and I can act to prevent it without UNNECESSARILY endangering others then I am obligated to do so. What you fail to recognize, or conveniently ignore, is the difference between being obligated to and being able to do something. There are also legal restrictions of proof that we have operate under that often handcuff our ability to act BEFORE a BG makes an overt criminal act. There have been times that I have found BGs casing businesses for burglaries. I "know" what they were doing but I can't prove it and, since they weren't trespassing or doing anything else illegal, I have to let them go...we'll keep an eye out and hopefully act as a deterrent in this respect but we're not legally ALLOWED to do anything else. I don't like this part of the system any more than you do, but I have to work within the system or else I become just as bad as the BG. You're right that we CAN'T protect you from all the evils of the world, but that doesn't mean that we won't protect you when we can.
It's easy to be a hater, but if you try to understand the real world you'll see that it's not as black and white as you'd like.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Are we obligated to perform as police because we have a gun?

No more than you're obligated to perform as a mechanic by virtue of having a tool bag with you.

Are you morally obligated to 'get involved' to prevent harm to someone else or the loss of their property at risk to yourself because you happen to be armed?
You have to weigh that one in the balance for yourself.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Use deadly force to protect some strangers (federally insured) property?

I don't think so.

 

[Matt304]

What if you are in line, and the man in front of you pulls out a gun on the cashier?

You may not be certain he is going to kill her, and he probably isn't, but I can see that circumstance being questionable as how to act appropriately with a concealed weapon.

 

[Duke Junior]

What if you are in line, and the man in front of you pulls out a gun on the cashier?

You may not be certain he is going to kill her, and he probably isn't, but I can see that circumstance being questionable as how to act appropriately with a concealed weapon.

Very tough question.If I am that guy behind the BG and from the conversation that I hear and the actions that are taking place, and I'm 1000 per cent convinced this is a real robbery and a real threat of murder to the employee and customers,including myself,I pull out my Glock 27 and fire one or more shots immediately into the back of the BG's head.
I went through this scene in 1998 without having the drop.
It will never happen again.See:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=4817533#post4817533

The old, judged by 12 , rather than carried by 6 canard, will stay with me to the end.I have been there.

 

[dalepres]

I can never be "certain" whether a guy who pulls a gun on me is going to kill me. I can also never be certain that a guy who pulls a gun on a cashier is not going to turn around and kill me next.

At least in Oklahoma, the decision is based on whether a reasonable person would have feared for their life. If you believe the BG will shoot the cashier and then shoot you next then you can protect yourself.

So it may come down to whether you can convince a jury you are a reasonable person and that you feared for your life.

 

[art sr.]

Didorian, I want to thank you for understanding what I was trying to say. As law abiding members of society with a gun strapped to our hips are we not responsible to protect each other in life threating situations? I know if the bg is pointing a gun at my daughter and Iam not there to protect her, I would hope that a fellow CCW holder would have the balls to step up and do what is right and that is to protect the innocent. I would certainly protect the life of your loved ones if the situation was
reversed. I believe it is our duty to help each other and not to tuck tail and run. What is morally right and legally right is to help each other.

 

[mgkdrgn]

"What if you are in line, and the man in front of you pulls out a gun on the cashier?

You may not be certain he is going to kill her, and he probably isn't, but I can see that circumstance being questionable as how to act appropriately with a concealed weapon."

If he kills her, he isn't going to get his money .... bad move on his part.

I might well have "the drop" on him .... assuming he's alone. Pretty big assumption to make.

Bank robbers want money, not bodies, no profit in it. Given only whats been stated, I pull my shirt up a bit, but stand pat. Little bits of paper aren't worth killing for, at least not to me.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Sorry to be pedantic, but it strikes me that most of the responses to the question are irrelevent. Of course, the original poster may have used the wrong word, too.

The question was asking about "robbery." Robbery is a face-to-face encounter, and it's rare to hear of an UNarmed robbery. "Robbery" is when someone walks into a bank or a 7-11, and says (or hands over a note saying), "I have a gun -- give me all the money in the drawer." In such a situation, even the threat that the perp has a deadly weapon is legal justification to respond with lethal force in (I believe) every state. Whether you choose to intervene is a personal decision that will be at least partially dictated by the specific circumstances of the event.

That's a very different thing from someone breaking into a UNoccupied house and walking out with the stereo. That would be "burglary," not "robbery."

I'd like the OP to clarify eactly what he's asking about, "robbery" or "burglary." What I immediately envisioned when I saw the question was me standing in line at 02:00 at the local stop-n-rob when a guy pulls a gun on the cashier. Then all the responses started talking about it not being right to shoot somebody over a color television ...

 

[hoosier8]

The question is, "are you your brothers keeper?" The answer is no. You have no legal obligation. As for a moral obligation, that will be on a per person basis.

The best advice I have gotten is due to the litigious society that we live it. Use your license to protect your own life or that of your family. Other than that, be a good witness.

You will have to make your own call.

 

[mgregg85]

The moment the BG threatens a life in any way, including pointing a gun or getting too close with a knife, I would shoot.

 

[Duke Junior]

The moment the BG threatens a life in any way, including pointing a gun or getting too close with a knife, I would shoot.

Thank you,fellow Tarheel.
No question.I have seen the elephant in the living room.I am going to shoot to kill.
As the so called joke goes "when the shooting stops,we'll sort it all out later".
I want to be a survivor when they sort it all out.
I'll worry about the legal ramifications later.Really.

 

[danmoultrie]

It must be an NC thing

^^ I agree completely. If I am ever in a situation where someone's life is threatened and I have the ability to intervene, heck yea I am going to be involved. How would you feel if you were in the convienence store situation described above, the BG shot the clerk and walked out while you watched? If I had a clear shot (good backstop, element of suprise), the BG is getting a 180 grain lobotomy.