Caught in an Armed Robbery

[gunslinger15]

Hey that bg made his choice he walked in the store, he could have stoped there if he decided to, but by walking to the cashregister and pulling the gun that says hey im ready to play with the BIG BOYS. If thats the road he decides to travel on, he needs to get his face pumped full of lead. He had his chance. STOP CUTTING THE FREAKING BG SLACK!!!!

-Gunslinger15

 

[HKGuns]

Michigan Law

I wasn't sure how to answer this question. So I looked up the pertinent laws in Michigan for any of you who may reside here.

“In Michigan, the killing of another person in self-defense is justifiable homicide if the
defendant honestly and reasonably believes that his life is in imminent danger or that there is a
threat of serious bodily harm.” People v Heflin, 434 Mich 482, 502, 515; 456 NW2d 10 (1990).
Deadly force may also be used “to repel an imminent forcible sexual penetration.” People v
Barker, 437 Mich 161, 163; 468 NW2d 492 (1991), habeus corpus relief granted on other
grounds sub nom Barker v Yukins, 199 F3d 867 (CA 6, 1999). Case law in Michigan also allows
one to use deadly force in defense of another. See People v Curtis, 52 Mich 616, 622-623; 18
NW 385 (1884), and People v Wright, 25 Mich App 499, 503; 181 NW2d 649 (1970).
Traditionally, the “defense of others” concept applied solely to those persons, such as a wife or
brother, with whom the defendant had a special relationship. See Pond v People, 8 Mich 150,
174; NW (1860); see also Curtis, supra at 622-623, Wright, supra at 503, and People v Burkard,
374 Mich 430, 438; 132 NW2d 106 (1965), partial abrogation on other grounds recognized in
Heflin, supra at 503 n 16. As recognized by CJI2d 7.21, however, the defense now makes no
distinction between strangers and relatives. See LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law (2nd Ed, 1986),
§ 5.8, p 463.

 

[Mauserguy]

Back in college, I knew this gal whose father was on a police department in Pennsalvania. He was a Vietnam War vet and a real tough guy. One night, after finishing his shift, he stopped at a convenience store on the way home. The clerk was missing, so he poked his head into the back room where he found an armed criminal raping the poor girl.

Sargent K. grabbed the guy, fought him, having his arm disslocated in the tussle. The guy ran out the door, and the good sargent chased after him, whith is injured arm flopping about. He chased him for a block, caught the guy, and so badly beat him, his his one good arm, that the rapist almost died.

Sargen K. was one bad dude!
Mauserguy

 

[Lew]

Hat's off to that man. A real hero in my book. I hold no quarter for that type of scum that he pounded.

 

[yongxingfreesty]

in texas, i know i would draw on him after giving him the money. but if i was in the back and saw him holding up the clerk. id probly be a witness, unless shots were fired.

armed criminals dont deserve a chance.

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

ROBBERS DON'T EMIT "VIBES"

Andy is right. Don't wait around for 'Vibes' or whatever. The BG has lethal force aimed right on the innocent clerk. Draw your weapon, take cover and DROP THE BAD GUY WHERE HE STANDS.

 

[brazz1]

One question that would help define this scenario:

Is it ALWAYS considered "IMMINENT DEADLY FORCE" when a person is pointing/covering another with lethal force?"


- For those that keep saying "quit cutting the BG slack, he's made his choice to play with the big boys, put him down, no hesitation, etc." I think your counterparts are not necessarily disagreeing with your sentiment. You could immediately draw and put the guy down and you'd potentially be saving lives. Although, you could also be going about things the wrong way, breaking laws etc. and end up in prison for your good deed.

The only thing I know I'd do for sure in this scenario is: Find cover/concealment where I could view the BG. Unholster my weapon. If I was near the exit I'd simply run out find concealment and call 911.

Options I consider as ponder this:
- Announce "You're pointing a gun at an innocent person, you've got 5 seconds to drop the gun and leave," and going from there.
- Firing unannounced, non-lethal shot.
- Staying concealed and calling 911.
- Attempting to recreate the scene in pulp fiction where samuel jackson and jon travolta are at that diner.

 

[Byron Quick]

Is it ALWAYS considered "IMMINENT DEADLY FORCE" when a person is pointing/covering another with lethal force?"

One question that would help define this scenario

: Only in states that have this concept in law. Which states are those?

This concept is not a part of the pertinent statutes of this state. Even the threat of force, i.e, the announcement by the robber that he is armed is sufficient to meet the definition of a forcible felony and it is legal to use lethal force to prevent ANY forcible felony in Georgia.
The laws of Georgia allow lethal force to stop a forcible felony and to defend the life of another from the threat of death or grave bodily injury. A forcible felony is a felony committed with the threat or the use of force.

No civil suit can be brought after a homicide is ruled justifiable.

If I can get an adequate sight picture on the robber(s) with no innocent in the line of fire or beyond the felon(s), I will commence firing.

I've seen the consequences of being a good witness-the felon is convicted, sent to prison, released, and returns to a life of crime...this time murdering a friend, an employee, or a family member. Since 1982, seven friends, employees, and family members of mine have been murdered by released felons. I'm simply not going to take the chance of being a 'good witness' and upon release the next victim is your daughter, son, friend,...or you.

I've never been present during an armed robbery. I have been present when a young, muscular man was assaulting an old man who could not put up even a feeble defense. I entered that house, saw the old man sitting in his chair being beaten and drooling a rope of bubbly blood into his lap. I drew my BHP and gave the assailant a choice: cease or be fired upon. I would not have given him a choice if he had been armed.

 

[Jeff White]

I can see that the passage of concealed carry laws has expanded the rookie cop's fantasy of jumping in to a robbery with his off duty weapon and becoming a hero into the ranks of the civilian gun owning population.

Unfortunately the average CCW holder will not ever have enough experience with the legal system to wet the fantasy down with common sense until it's not a fantasy any longer.

Once again the shoot first and ask questions later crowd hides behind the security of no retreat laws without actually reading and understanding them. Warnings about lawsuits are dismissed out of hand.

Well boys and girls, in this incident you're probably wrong. I doubt the provisions indemnifying you against civil action of your favorite no retreat law will apply against a negligence suit.

I would suggest that you look at your state's Good Samaritan Law before you decide to become a hero. There was an interesting Ask the Lawyer piece in today's St Louis Post Dispatch:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...B36AE9A1F3DCDC40862571A1000E9C1D?OpenDocument

In rescuing another, you may wind up liable
By John Roska
LAND OF LINCOLN LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION
07/04/2006

Q: I used to work as an EMT but now have a completely different job and let all my certifications lapse. When I attend my kids' sporting events, I wonder what could happen if I tried to help when someone got hurt. If I'm just a spectator, can I be liable for helping -or not helping - when someone's injured?

A: Bystanders can't be liable for doing nothing to help someone. You could, on the other hand, be liable for helping clumsily. The legal rule that applies is usually summed up by saying that there's "no duty to rescue." As the Illinois Supreme Court put it in a 1996 case, "Our common law generally imposes no duty to rescue an injured stranger upon one who did not cause the injury in the first instance."

There are some exceptions to this general rule, such as if you have some special relationship with the person needing the rescue (e.g., parent-child; common carriers, property owners to guests). The idea that you can watch someone drown upsets many people, and clashes pretty directly with lots of moral and philosophical teaching.

The no duty to rescue rule is usually explained by distinguishing between errors of commission and omission.

Others point out that this hard-hearted rule doesn't really stop people from trying to rescue others. In fact, one scholar's study says 60 times more rescuers die than accident victims who were left unaided.

Once you act, you have a legal duty to act reasonably. If you don't, it's negligence, and you could be liable.

The Illinois Legislature has passed a Good Samaritan Act, which shields from liability certain people and clinics for providing help. It mostly protects licensed health professionals (even veterinarians) against liability for providing free, emergency assistance. It also protects people who try CPR, or use a defibrillator, but only if they're certified or have taken training. Otherwise, the act only protects those who help choking victims in restaurants.

Questions for John Roska, a lawyer with the Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, should be sent to Q&A: The Law, 1817 South Neil, Champaign, Ill. 61820.This column is meant for informational purposes only. If you need legal help, you may qualify for aid from the foundation. Its phone numbers are: East St. Louis, 874-8214, Alton, 462-0029, Champaign, 217-356-1351.

This question deals with providing medical aid, but it's easy to see how the concepts could apply to a CCW holder acting to stop a robbery.


For all you shoot him down members;

How's your training? Are you absolutely sure you can make the shot? I'm not talking on the square range. I'm talking about when your arm is like jello from fear and stress. Can you document that you trained for this scenario? Will your trainer testify in court as to how you were trained?

What's behind your target? What's behind you? Are you ready to take full legal responsibility for every bullet that each of you fire in this exchange that you just initiated?

Peace officers who have duty to act have certain legal protections that civilians don't and they are still sued over shootings. Don't think for a minute that just because the no retreat law says the person you shot (or intended to shoot) or his/her estate can't sue you for your actions doesn't mean that the woman who was spattered with the perp's blood can't go after everything you've aquired in life because you tramuatized her or the heirs of the 9 year old boy who was killed in the crossfire of the gunfight you initiated can't take your home and 65% of all your future earnings.

Anyway you look at it, a shooting is going to change your life. You shouldn't dismiss the possible changes out of hand.

If you carry a firearm with the intention of using it in any circumstance except to save your own neck, then you have an obligation to train. That means training on the square range, force on force simulators, live fire simulators and many hours in the classroom going over the legal aspects of use of force.

Jeff

 

[JMusic]

Prior to Jeffs response I thought Biker described it best. Unless this was turning into a whole sale slaughter I'd stay out of it and get as much ID as I could. Folks every incident like this is different. You can turn a relatively harmless robbrey into a homicide scene. I have to pause at those who say drop them in their tracks. With a handgun nothing is for certain, don't think it will end with one shot from your handgun. CCW carriers is for self defense only. Trained LEO would not do much different than I just described especialy if they just walked into it. I do agree though if you are going to do something it needs to be quick and violent with no warning. How that goes over in court latter is anyones guess.
Jim

 

[PCGS65]

Hindsight is always 20/20 and there are too many scenarios here. So ponder this one.
You draw and shoot BG(like many here suggest)somehow he fires at the clerk before he dies/goes down, after all his gun is pointing at the clerk. The clerk is wounded but lives.
Now you thinking your a hero(to me you would be)and the clerk praises you for saving his/her life, but you are arrested untill things are figured out.
A couple months later one of several blood thirsty lawyers convince the low paid clerk to sue you. IMO it would be easy to convince a jury that if you didn't shoot the BG the clerk would not have been shot. Either way it costs you a ton of money not to mention lots of time off work.
The bottom line is no good deed goes unpunished. :banghead:

 

[BigO01]

I am rather surprised this thing is still getting regular responses , since it is let me add a bit I didn't think about when I started it

If I stopped at a full sized store there will be several cars on the lot owned by employees , however if I did the quicky Mart there may be only two cars when the BG rolls in the clerks and mine .

For those of you who like myself are inclined to try to stay out of it unless they started shooting at the clerk first , I ask .

What if there are two or more BG's and you hear one of them say something to the effect , "Go look and see if anyone is here" or "Go find the other guy" which would mean they probably saw you in the store as they pulled up/entered .

Does anyone know if being sought out is considered reason enough to use force in this situation ?

 

[XavierBreath]

I carry a gun to help me preserve my life, and possibly the lives of others. I do not carry a gun to prevent robberies or apprehend suspects.

Every case is going to be very different. All armed robberies do not result in death. The goal in an armed robbery is survival of all parties involved, not the apprehension of the criminal or the preservation of assets. All to often civilian shooters focus on making shots rather than living to tell the tale. Lethal confrontations are not about winning or getting COM hits. They are about survival. There are ways of telling if a robbery is about to turn lethal. As Biker said, there is a look, there is positioning, there is detachment, there is desperation. Where I live, it would be a darned good idea to get out of the cashier's line of fire.

So in the end, I just cannot say what I would do. There are just to many intangible variables in a printed scenerio. I must keep my options open to choose any of the three choices based on what my instincts tell me at the time. Saying beforehand whether I would do either a, b, or c limits my options when I need options the most.

 

[evan price]

said this about 100 posts back but gonna say it again: A CFL is not a license to be Batman. It is not your job, your place or your responsibility to start shooting.

Byron Quick:

No civil suit can be brought after a homicide is ruled justifiable.

What world do you live in that the rightness or wrongness of an action determine if a civil suit can or cannot be brought? SOME states give you this protection, MOST do not. A ruling of justifiable means no criminal charges. One may sue another for any reason (or imagined reason) they desire; it is up to the defendant to refute the claims of the plaintiff. Sure you might be able to find a friendly judge and get it dismissed in pretrial... but probably not likely... check out OJ Simpson...acquited of all charges... but found responsible in civil court.

And for those out there saying, "So you give testimony against the BG.. then he gets out and comes after your family!" That is a helluva lot LESS likely to happen, than if you gun down the BG, then his relatives would be a lot more angry and a lot more likely to come after you IMHO. Testify against BG, well, a lot of BG's family know BG is a "BG" and know the sh*t they get into and it's expected to do some time from job to job.

Either possibility is remote.. like the chances of this scenario in the first place.

 

[Working Man]

What if there are two or more BG's and you hear one of them say something to the effect , "Go look and see if anyone is here" or "Go find the other guy" which would mean they probably saw you in the store as they pulled up/entered .

Well at that point since they already know you are there.....

I would find good cover (the best that is available) and advise loudly and firmly
that seeking you out would be a rather unhealthy venture and it would be in their
best interest to simply be on their way, still breathing with the money (if any) that
they took. No one is leaking important bodily fluids and hopefully either you, the clerk,
or the camera has a good description of them. That seems High Road enough.

If they continue to seek you out I would think that you are now more than
reasonably assured that they seek to do you great harm. Please shoot to stop
and repeat as necessary.

 

[profshadow]

One of those situations when you don't know what you'd do until you're there...

Fantasy land: I pull my weapon, turn on the laser, dot the guy from behind cover and clear lane of fire. He sees the dot and runs.

Reality land: I pull my weapon, turn on the laser, check my lane, dot the guy and pull the trigger if he has the gun pointed at anyone.

Yeah, I love my laser sight....I have great confidence that my bullet will enter within an inch of where it is pointing...

Now, if I'm in line at the register being robbed.....

 

[Critter183]

sacp

(I don't say civilians, I say non-sworn citizens. That's because we're both civilians, it's just that I have an active, recognized-by-the-state obligation to intervene at risk to myself.)

I don't like cops as a rule, but once in a while, there's an exception to the rule. Any cop that recognizes the above is AOK in my book. One of the reasons for my overall dislike is that most do not.

 

[Caimlas]

Can't rightly say, but I'd like to think that I'd quickly de-escelate the situation before they knew I had. My reasoning is that it's safer for both myself and the store operator to do so than alerting them to my presence (resulting in someone innocient getting shot) and/or them deciding after the fact to exterminate witnesses (which would also result in them seeing me). The guilt from shooting a criminal would be substantially less than were I to stand by and let the criminal shoot some poor sap making minimum wage plus a buck fifty for his pain. I think.

 

[up_onus]

very situational.

but, I agree with earlier statement....
big boy games = very possible death
its justified IN MY STATE with no retribution.
Know your laws....

 

[Hook686]

c. ... but call 911 also.

 

[Maui19]

I have to say that I am always surprised and chagrined at the number of people who are perfectly willing to draw their gun and blast away as their first option.

 

[DRMMR02]

Well the OP specifically stated the BGs had produced guns and were using them to rob the store.

Since the BGs are armed with deadly weapons and are showing they have the will to use them, I pick A. Absolutely A.



To me, someone else's life is ALWAYS more important than my legal status. I will willingly give up every dime I have, and even go to prison if it means saving another innocent person's life. For me, it's just that simple.

 

[WolfMansDad]

The law will vary from place to place, but the right thing to do will pretty much always be the same. Stop the bad guy from harming the clerk. Yes, there are risks involved, both of being physically harmed or sued in court afterward. The right thing to do is not always the safe thing.

Doesn't it say in the Bible somewhere, "Do not stand idly by while your neighbor's blood is shed"? (Leviticus, I think, around chapter 19 or 20.) Put yourself in the clerk's postition. Would you want a CCW holder in the store to get involved if you were being robbed?

 

[DRMMR02]

If a criminal were threatening to kill me with a gun, I would most certainly hope a good citizen would stand up to put a stop to it.

 

[Kentak]

In the scenario described, the answer is C, without a doubt.

Reasons:

1) I didn't get a CCW to be the Lone Ranger. I'm not LEO and not paid to put my life on the line to protect strangers or shoot bad guys.

2) It is by no means a certainty that the robber will harm the clerk. Chances are that if the clerk complies, the robber will leave. It happens *all* the time, folks. Yes, sometimes they do shoot--and those make the headlines. But check your local newspaper--armed robberies without shooting happen all the time.

3) If I shoot the robber who is not directly threatening me, NOTHING, repeat, NOTHING good is going to happen to me. Chances are MANY bad things will happen. This is likely to include arrest, prosecution, and lawsuits.

4) Again, given #2 above, action on my part could actually increase the danger to the clerk, others, or myself. If the robber spots me with a weapon drawing down on him, he could easily panic and start shooting at the clerk, bystanders, and me. This is especially true if I shoot and miss or wound him.

So, the answer again is C. Get behind cover, but where I can keep an eye on what's going down, and with my hand on my gun. IF there is a rear exit, I'm through it and calling 911 or looking for a cop.

K