Calling BS on "Combat Handguns" magazine

[Manedwolf]

The latest issue had a "story" published in it that I feel is absolute and utter BS, as it would have landed the shooter in jail by any judge I know of.

The guy said while working in a convenience store, a robber held him up with a .22 revolver...and, of course, he had a .45 under the counter.

The thing is, he said as the guy turned to the door, he drew and shot at him, kept shooting at him as he ran out the door, and finally nailed him when he was about 75 feet away, running away, fatal shooting.

Uh...hello? In what state would THAT be legal? I would expect that guy would be in jail for at least voluntary manslaughter?

I call absolute and total BS on that magazine.

 

[Preacherman]

One story does not a whole magazine make - the other articles might be OK, for all I know.

Also, if the guy was armed and still trying to point his gun at the clerk, even while fleeing, the shooting would be justified under most states' laws. Not enough info given to make a judgment call.

 

[progunner1957]

Open season on armed robbers

Sounds to me that the BS, if there was any, came from the guy who shot the thug in the back - not from the magazine.

While we are at it, when someone commits a crime such as this, it should be legal to shoot and kill them any way you can - sort of like killing a rabid dog for the safety of others it could attack.

As Jeff Cooper once said, "The only proper resolution of an armed robbery is a dead robber on the floor."

Roger that.

 

[WT]

I have not seen the article. However, it may have covered an event which happened years ago. Did the article note the date of the incident?

I believe, up to a few years ago, it was legal to shoot at fleeing felons. It still may be if they are an imminent risk to others. After all, the bad guy still had a weapon.

 

[MechAg94]

Also, some jurisdictions may be more friendly about things like that. Not all places have prosecutors and grand jurors that are in a hurry to drag someone to trial for shooting a robber.

 

[Wags]

Sensationalism at it's finest......

 

[El Tejon]

There's BS in gun rags now!

Where did that start?

 

[ElTacoGrande]

It's not legal, but it's good shooting!

Seriously, in general, for civilians, deadly force can only be used to prevent an immediate threat of serious bodily harm. Someone who is 75' away and running could not reasonably be considered an immediate threat of serious bodily harm, unless maybe he's shooting while running bakcwards or something crazy like that. So unless there is some crazy thing like he's shooting over his shoulder while running, the store owner made an unacceptable shot.

However, depending on jurisdiction, a lot of people aren't going to get very upset about that. A lot of people (potential jurors) would say to themselves, "if this guy didn't want to get shot he shouldn't have robbed the place."

 

[Bobarino]

this same scenario happened in WA several years ago. the clerk was aquitted. apparently in WA, as long as the perp is on the property, the crime is considered still in progess and the perp is still considered a threat. i really don't think i could bring myself to shoot someone in the back as they are fleeing though. especially if it wasn't my store's money that he stole. that's what insurance is for.

Bobby

 

[SteveS]

I don't know where this happened, but some states follow the fleeing felon doctrine. I know that MI is one of those states. I'll have to poke around to find the exact law (or case). I remember there was a local incident a few years back where a video store clerk chased a robber several blocks before catching him and hitting him with a baseball bat. The robber was killed and the PA said they would not prosecute, citing the fleeing felon doctrine. IIRC, the requirement that the person be an imminent risk to the public only applies to police (TN v. Garner).

 

[Thefabulousfink]

To paraphrase Mark Twain, you can't reform some people except with a shotgun .


Also, without hearing more it sounds like an illegal shoot; not a bad shoot, just illegal.

 

[Bigreno]

What state would that be legal in?

Answer: Texas.

We had a similar case here in my town where an individual robbed a liquor store and the owner chased him into the street and shot him. The liquor store owner was not charged with an offense under the protection of Texas Penal Code Ch 9.42. In Texas, force (including deadly force) can be used to pretect property.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE[0] TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force[0] against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force[0] against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force[0] is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent[0] the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft[0] during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent[0] the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft[0] during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use[0] of force[0] other than deadly force[0] to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

That being said, if you do this you can expect an excessive use of force civil suit to follow. Being covered criminally and being covered civilly are two totally different animals.

 

[atblis]

You actually read the articles?

I just look at pictures.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

That being said, if you do this you can expect an excessive use of force civil suit to follow. Being covered criminally and being covered civilly are two totally different animals.

I remember Massad Ayoob (sp?) wrote that if one carries a firearm, one should go ahead and retain an attorney for just such an event.

 

[CentralTexas]

Scenario- You are in the aisle at a convenience store, at the counter a fellow pulls a gun and demands money. Would it be murder to put a round in the back of his skull?

Let the opinions fly....
CT

 

[Sistema1927]

Bigreno beat me to it, but as soon as I read the scenario I thought "Texas". I was well aware of this aspect of Texas law while living there, but decided that my own concience would not allow me to shoot a fleeing thief with my property. I set my own personal "rules of engagement" that established a higher standard than that allowed by Texas law.

 

[WayneConrad]

Scenario- You are in the aisle at a convenience store, at the counter a fellow pulls a gun and demands money. Would it be murder to put a round in the back of his skull?

You must, at a minimum, know which state you are in, and totality of the circumstances (is the gun aimed at someone? Is the gun close enough to be a real danger? etc.)

So the answer is "it depends upon everything." This and other, similar questions have been asked enough times that a forum search will uncover many threads of that sort.

 

[Sistema1927]

Scenario- You are in the aisle at a convenience store, at the counter a fellow pulls a gun and demands money. Would it be murder to put a round in the back of his skull?

Not in Texas. I also don't think that any jury in New Mexico would convict me in this case, and I doubt if I would be indicted. We had a situation recently where a CCW holder observed a man knifing his wife while she was working at Wal-Mart. He shot the bad guy dead, and he was not indicted.

 

[Bigreno]

Like stated earlier, in Texas, it would not be murder. You can use deadly force in defense of a third person just as you would to defend yourself. Can't comment about anywhere else in US.

 

[CentralTexas]

Famous case here in Austin that DA Ronnie EArl (yes of Tom Delay fame) took to the grand jury THREE times and was no-billed every time.
Gentleman and lady returned to their car in the downtown area and found a nice fellow rummaging through it, guy pulls gun and says stop etc. Nice underprivileged type says I have your personal info and I'm going to get my "homies" and kill you, this went on for several blocks as he followed the perp.
Texan gets tired and wastes scum. Yes, perp was unarmed, yes Texan could flee blah blah blah.
Three Grand Juries agreed he was just cleaning the streets & Ronnie Earl learned something (maybe)
CT

 

[hillbilly]

I make no claims as to how much BS there may or may not be in the account from the gun rag.

However, an attorney who has taught the self-defense and the law portion of my Arkansas CCW class typically brings newspaper clippings about a similar shooting in Arkansas.

I believe it was in Russellville.....or maybe Clarksville.....one of those towns east of me on I-40.

A convenience store clerk suffers through an armed robbery. When the two perps leave the store with the money, the clerk runs outside and shoots them both as they are fleeing.

Under Arkansas law, the case seemed pretty cut-and-dried...not a legitimate shoot.

However, the prosecuting attorney refused to follow through with any charges against the clerk, considering the lengthy records of the two shooting victims (both lived, I think) and the very small likelihood of getting a conviction against the clerk.

The attorney used this example to drive home the point that in every situation, there is what the law says, and then there are the specific details peculiar to every single individual incident......and they don't always mesh in nice, neat ways.

hillbilly

 

[Rockstar]

Don't expect the same treatment in New England as one might receive in the Red States. Sounds like the shooter deserves a medal, to me.

The idea that all of us who carry should retain attorneys is infantile.

 

[CAS700850]

This story was in a recent copy of "CH"? I haven't bought a copy in well over a year, and I distinctly recall reading that story, or one darned similar. Wonder if the same "shooter" resubmitted his story, or if "CH" recycles letters and articles.

So, do you guys hate teh gun rags? I was kind of toying with the idea of trying to submit a couple of artilces, thinking I might be able to score some extra bucks for guns and ammo.

 

[Manedwolf]

In NH, if a third party is under threat of the use of lethal force (as in, a store robber has a gun out at the register and is demanding money), yes, you can shoot them. Laws are pretty common sense, here. You can not, however, shoot a fleeing suspect in the back.

And the civil suits...that's not geographic, that's just due to the fact that every many-times-arrested violent crackhead has money-grubbing family that will swear they were a "good kid who was turning their life around", and there's always a sleaze lawyer trying to get a cut of damages.

And yeah, the story was this month's copy...one of the mags I don't buy, just peruse at Barnes & Noble (which stocks LOTS of gun magazines!) over a coffee. I'd picked it up to look at an article about Kahr's new pocket .45, but the author was one of the .45 only disciple sorts who referred to it "maturing" from the 9mm and .40S&W versions.

 

[Desk Jockey]

Well, apparently, in Colorado it's OK. Assuming you pull the right jury....


http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1313093&secid=1

When Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him again, the jury in his murder trial was told.

That left them no choice, the jury foreman said in an e-mail defending last week’s harshly criticized verdict, but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day law.

“The fact that the group was not leaving and continued to engage Mr. Hill,” the foreman wrote in an e-mail to The Gazette, “led us to determine that it was reasonable for Mr. Hill to believe that the group of assailants might use physical force against him.”

Hill, 24, was found not guilty in a Colorado Springs courtroom Dec. 14 of first-degree murder in the shooting
death of John David Knott, 19. Knott was shot in the back while sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.