"Hand over the money or I will kill you!"

[IA_farmboy]

I had a conversation at work this last week where somehow we got to the topic of how to properly respond to a robbery. My response was that given the person has just threatened my life I am free to respond up to and including lethal force. My coworker said that given that a choice was offered (your money or your life) the proper response is to hand over the money and take it from there. At least that is how I interpreted his response. He didn't have time to clarify since work got in the way of our conversation.

So the question is who is right, legally speaking? Is the use of lethal force justified before or after handing over money once given the choice of handing over money or being killed?

Obviously there are a million ways for this to play out so I'll try to narrow it down. First I'll say that there is little doubt of one's life in danger, such as this is not some child with a cap pistol playing "train robber". In this case we shall assume the person is either obviously armed (gun, knife or, oddly enough what happened locally, a hold up with a hammer) or has a physical advantage (such as 220 pound man vs. 110 pound woman).

My philosophy is that the person did not offer a choice but an ultimatum. There is also little to assure that the person has any honor to back up their word that compliance will result in no harm, since after all the person has just demanded payment before services were rendered (as in NOT getting killed). There is also the matter that if the person follows through on their promise there is no guarantee that they won't return for more danegeld.

That if once you have paid him the Danegeld, You never get rid of the Dane.

 

[ahpd1992]

I would use deadly/lethal force. All you have to articulate it is you felt your life or someone elses life is in danger by the bad guy.

 

[MechAg94]

If someone threatens you with death or serious bodily harm, you are justified in using deadly force to defend yourself. At least I believe that is how it is defined in Texas. You can't know for sure if this is one of those cases where the guy will take your money clip and run off or if he will hurt you even if you hand over the money. Once he threatens you, you can respond to stop the threat.

I am sure there are lawyers who will tell you all sorts of things you should do. Given this is a hypothetical, you need to judge your justification for yourself.

 

[kingpin008]

I would imagine that a threat alone is not enough to warrant deadly force. I can say a lot of things to you, but until I have the means and opportunity to actually act on those statements, they're still just words.

Now, if an individual storms in on me at my work, pointing a gun at me and demanding money and threatening my life, that's different. They have both the means (a weapon) and the opportunity (they're right in front of me, pointing it in my face).

So, while I wouldn't necessarily agree that the right answer is to comply with the guy's demands and hand over the money without a fight, I certainly don't agree that you've got the right to legally blast him for simple spoken threats.

All you have to articulate it is you felt your life or someone elses life is in danger by the bad guy.

This is not entirely true. In most places, it is not enough to say "I was afraid for my life", simply for the fact that if you are ever on trial for shooting someone in self defense (which unfortunately is almost a certainty, regardless of what the law says) you'll have a hard time arguing that you were in fear of your life, when the deceased was simply threatening you. It'd probably go something like this:

Lawyer: So, Mr. X - you fired upon the deceased, because you allege that he threatened to kill you, and you were afraid for your life. Is that correct?

You: Yes sir, that's correct. I was afraid that he was going to kill me, so I drew my weapon and fired in defense of my life.

Lawyer: I see. What other indications did the deceased give, that he was actually going to follow through with his threats? Did he have a weapon? Was he approaching you in an aggressive manner?

You: No sir, he had no weapon that I saw. But he was approaching me in a threatening manner, yes.

Lawyer: So he had no weapon that you know of, but he was coming towards you as if he were going to do something to you.

You: Yes sir.

Lawyer: Did you order him to stop, or get away from you?

You: No sir.

Lawyer: I see. Let me review, to make sure I have all the facts - the deceased threatened you, but to your knowledge, had no actual weapon. You had your concealed firearm. After being threatened by the deceased, you failed to advise him to stay away, and you failed to attempt to escape. And then you gunned down the deceased.

You: Uh..correct..but...

 

[TargetTerror]

You have no duty to comply with a robbery, or with any other illegal act or threat. Some states have a duty to retreat, but that just means that if you can leave instead of use deadly force, you are legally obligated to leave. But complying with a robbery does not fall under the duty to retreat doctrine.

What matters self defense cases is whether you thought that you were in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm. So, if a 5 year old holding a squirt gun walks up to you and says "your money or your life," you wouldn't be justified in shooting him dead. But if a 15 year old pointed a Glock in your face and said "your money or your life" lethal force would be justified.

Your coworker may think you have a moral obligation to comply instead of kill, but that is a personal viewpoint and not one you are obligated to follow under the law.

 

[gretske]

I think that, anytime you are threatened with being killed, you are justified in using lethal force to neutralize the threat. So, if they threaten you with death for any reason at all, you are justified in protecting yourself. If the threat is made, and you believe you are in jeopardy, you are, generally, allowed to protect yourself. Each state has its own twist on this.

The real question in this situation is how to save your own life and get out of the situation, not in justifying a shooting.

 

[gretske]

Target, good points, but I don't think the act has to be illegal. I think anytime you are threatened, you can use force. For example, if your neighbor says, "give me back my lawnmower, or I will kill you," you are justified in using lethal force, even though it is his lawnmower. He cannot use an illegal threat to enforce a legal action. You would still be justified in neutralizing the threat, if you believe you are in mortal danger.

 

[The Tourist]

I'm not a mind-reader. Since the guy is already committing a felony, why should I believe anything the guy has to say? Perhaps he'll just kill me to silence a witness.

"No problem, young man, I've got your money right here..."

*slice*

 

[BammaYankee]

I think a good part of the responsibility that you assume by having a gun for self defense would at some point involve talking with a lawyer or local official to find out exactly what is and is not kosher in your jurisdiction when it comes to issues like these.

I also think completing a bona fide firearm self defense course would help you understand and plan for such events much better than trying to glean tactical response information from 'what do you think' posts.
You need to be 150% clear about what is or is not legal and what other options are available aside from deadly force because whatever the reason, once you commit to pull that trigger you WILL have a lot of explaining to do to the boys in blue afterward. Best to CYA upfront.

 

[SCKimberFan]

The problem I have with hypothetical situations is just that - they are what if... Unfortunately, unless we have been in that situation before, or have trained extensively, we don't know how we will respond.

Just my .02 worth.

 

[Glockman17366]

I've given some thought to this for a while...

If some thug wants my wallet...well, he can have it. I never carry more then 50 bucks anyway. The other stuff (licenses, credit cards, etc.) would be a pain to replace, but not as much of a pain as a court case would be.

If the thug wanted more then the wallet...well, he'd have a problem.

 

[Broadhead]

I would ignore whatever he said. I don't value a car or the contents of my wallet or home above human life, but property is not the key issue here.

If he is pointing a weapon at me, I will assume he is going to use it and I will move and respond with potentially lethal force to a physical lethal threat.

 

[Huddog]

IMHO there are too few facts here to make an honest determination of how to respond. However, if I can give up a few dollars to keep from taking a life I will do so. If it comes to me or him, well I will do everything in my power to go home.

 

[Cosmoline]

The threat of "money or your life", particularly when a deadly weapon is revealed or threatened, creates an imminent and unlawful threat of deadly force. You're not legally required to give him the money. It's not some contract negotiation. Whether you should give the money over depends on facts and circumstances. Basically do whatever puts you in a tactical advantage. There are too many variations to give any uniform answer.

 

[Cosmoline]

For example, if your neighbor says, "give me back my lawnmower, or I will kill you," you are justified in using lethal force, even though it is his lawnmower.

Do not forget the threat must be IMMINENT. So if he is just spewing threats out as crazy neighbors sometimes do, you can't just off and shoot him. There's a threat, but no imminence at that point--only words. If he comes marching right back after issuing the verbal threats, only now with his rifle in hand, THEN you can defend yourself with deadly force.

In the case of a street robbery, the robber is usually at least pretending to have a deadly weapon. Otherwise you can just push past the idiot. This would typically give rise to a reasonable conclusion that he does pose an imminent deadly threat.

 

[hksw]

My coworker said that given that a choice was offered (your money or your life) the proper response is to hand over the money and take it from there. At least that is how I interpreted his response.

So the question is who is right, legally speaking? Is the use of lethal force justified before or after handing over money once given the choice of handing over money or being killed?

Well, if you were in this particular situation, how would you have handled it if you were armed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_Bryant_shooting

Ask your co-worker the same.

 

[everallm]

These are the questions that make lawyers money.....

 

[3KillerBs]

If there is a weapon threatening me, even a raised fist (after all, I'm a 5'3" female), I am most certainly in fear of "death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault" (NC), and justified in using deadly force to stop the threat.

If there is no weapon threatening me and the putative robber truly intends me no harm then I can say, "No!" and walk away. In that situation he's not a robber, he's just a panhandler.

If he won't let me walk away -- attempting to restrain me or otherwise prevent me from leaving -- then I'm legitimately in fear of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault and fully justified in using deadly force.

 

[wyocarp]

I had a weird circumstance in Cheyenne, Wyoming two weeks ago where a guy ran across a street, confronted me by demanding that I give him money. He was being very forceful and aggressive so he was met with an equal amount of verbal aggressiveness and the barrel end of a .44 magnum as I told him to back off. I don't know at what point I would have pulled the trigger. I suppose if he would have continued to press and move towards me with my back against my truck I would have felt compelled to fire. He appeared to be someone passing through. He might now have a new and much more informed opinion of people in Wyoming.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

All too often, the animals who rob people will shoot their victims afterward, just for the fun of it. Do you want to take that chance?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Mainsail]

Are you sure he said that? I'm pretty sure I heard him say he planned to kill you no matter what.

 

[Treo]

This Is Not A Legal Opinion

This is a quote from the book Sackett by Louis L'Amour.

"When a man threatens to kill you and has, in his hands or on his person, the means to do so you have the right to assume that he means to do as he says."

 

[3KillerBs]

This is a quote from the book Sackett by Louis L'Amour.

"When a man threatens to kill you and has, in his hands or on his person, the means to do so you have the right to assume that he means to do as he says."

If a person doesn't want to be shot they shouldn't go around saying that they mean to kill people who may believe them and have the means of doing something about it.

 

[41magsnub]

I'll relate a story of what my boss did in exactly that situation while in Vegas last year on a side street (not sure what he was doing on the side street, not sure I want to know).

Two guys walked up and pulled a gun on him and asked for his wallet. He did not have a gun or any other sort of weapon on him. He is an old cowboy and not afraid of a fight, he threw his wallet into an alley. The two robbers just stared at him for a second and then ran off. He is very lucky he is still alive.

 

[wig]

It's actually very simple to explain, but difficult to prosecute either way... the jury will be asked "what would a prudent person do in this situation?"

In other words... BG is 4'5" and armed with a browning banana - you shoot, they'll fry your ass. BG is about your size, has a knife, is within the 7' radius of your body... have a great lawyer that can explain it to the jury of sheeple. BG is 7'1", armed with a street sweeper, you pretty much walk then and there.

YMMV.