Interviewed at the ATM

[Kleanbore]

Posted by vtuck2: Well here's what I'd really love to know: At what point would the OP have had legal justification ("reasonable cause") to shoot?

I'm going to borrow the following excellent response to a question in another forum regarding a home invasion scenario:

Posted by Sam1911: When the question can be distilled down to, "When MUST I shoot?," "When do I HAVE TO shoot?," or "When do I have no choice BUT to shoot to save life?," folks are on the right track.

Unfortunately one side effect of the Castle Doctrine laws seems to be the growth of a different line of thinking: "When CAN I shoot?," "When am I ALLOWED to kill?," and "When am I cleared hot to waste this scumbag?" The checklist mindset -- that once someone does x,y, or z, you have permission to plug 'em -- is very dangerous.

I do not think that the fact that the ATM scenario at hand is not a castle doctrine issue makes that answer any less pertinent here.

What it really boils down to is this:

1. If the facts at the time indicate that the use of deadly force is immediately necesary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, one would have no choice but to use such force.
2. If the investigators, charging authority, or should it come to that, the triers of fact decide, on the basis of totality of the evidence presented after the fact, that a reaonable person, knowing what the actor knew at the time, would have believed that deadly force had been immediately necessary, and that the actor had believed the same thing, the use of deadly force will be decided to have been justified.
3. There are some nuances regarding the lawful use of deadly force to prevent a forcible felony; those really involve the same concepts, because it is presumed that the victim is put in danger of death or serious bodily harm during the commission of such a crime.
4. There are some differences in Texas, where deadly force may be used under some limitied circumstances to prevent the unlawful taking of tangible, moveable property.
5. In some states, there is a duty to retreat before using deadly force if retreat is safley pssible; the absence of such a requirement in some juridications does not mean that retreat is not the wise thing to do.
6. In all jurisdictions, justification goes out the window if the actor knowingly precipitated the situation.

One really, really does not want to be in a position of having shot another person if it can be avoided. If one has to ask whether shooting would be justified, it is most likely that one should not do it.

 

[JRH6856]

If one has to ask whether shooting would be justified, it is most likely that one should not do it.

That. But from many comments I have read, there seems to be a lot of people that are already sure enough that they don't have to ask. This is really not good at all. Sam1911 is on point regarding the tendency to make this a checklist of when CAN I shoot rather then when is it NECESSARY to shoot. The law may describe when you can shoot, but it may only be a jury that can decide whether or not it was necessary.

 

[vtuck2]

Kleanbore and MicroT:

We are definitely on the same page. When I asked "At what point would the OP have had legal justification ("reasonable cause") to shoot?" my intent was, indeed, to ask "when MUST a "reasonable" person shoot? even if I did not articulate it that way. I hope that my post, taken in its entirety, made clear that I am not of the "when CAN I shoot?" mindset.

But again, back to this specific scenario: The OP's situation was, what the situation was. He presented in a way that was sufficient to break the (presumed) BGs forward momentum. He did this without drawing a weapon. Brilliant.

I say "brilliant" because once, long ago, on the streets of Mexico City, I foiled an imminent gang attack by doing EXACTLY the same thing the OP did. The one difference?

I WAS BLUFFING! But that's all I had (except for the grace of God??) and it worked. Those guys scattered like jackals.

So, regardless of how we parse the words, and realizing that we can never know for certain what MIGHT have happened had those fellows not backed off, I suppose what I'm hoping we will do is "play the grand jury". I imagine there are innumerable scenarios - all hypothetical. But I hope to evoke your views on what would have happened if the perps had not stopped, had NOT drawn or displayed a weapon, but CONTINUED TO ADVANCE toward the OP at the ATM.

There being so many unknowns (the real number of BGs both seen and unseen, the layout of the location, the position of the OPs van in relation to the BGS, that this may all be nothing more than academic.

Let's say that there are really only two BGs (but the OP doesn't know it!). Let's say that the OP has the "duty to retreat"? Does this duty trump the natural disinclination of a father to move closer to (or even farther away from!) his daughter - blissfully unaware and defenseless inside the mini-van?

Let's also say that additionally, the ATM has the OP's back. In other words, at least by remaining with his back to the ATM he is safe (or safer) from being blindsided by a third assailant.

The OP feels that he cannot (must not!) move toward his mini-van. The BGs continue to approach, smiling, shuffling, hands visible, - but now in a pincer.

What does he do next? And more importantly, at what point does he do it? i'm not even sure I know what I'd do or when I would draw. Even if I THINK I do, it's easy for me to be calm and heroic here at my computer. However, I am of the belief that if one draws one should fire - ideally taking maximum advantage of the element of surprise however this might be accomplished. My own answer to the scenario is "at the last minute". And under this hypothetical, that would be when a) either of them puts his hands where I can't see 'em or b) when either (or both) of 'em have refused a verbal request to halt and are now within a few feet of me. In my mind, that's the point at which the OP would "have to shoot" or have "no choice but to shoot" under THESE circumstances - the pivotal complication being that his daughter is in the minivan.

What I'd like to see where each of YOU would draw the line.

V

 

[JRH6856]

vtuck2,

I don't like playing the hypothetical game, because there is never enough information. Reality always provides more information that most people realize or realize they utitlize. The description of the ATM scene is limited and could apply to hundreds of real locations, each with important elements bearing on the situation but not apparent from the description. I want the whole picture, or as much of it as I can get. So give me pictures of the ATM site from different persectives, tell me where exactly where it is located, the demographics of the neighborhood, local crime statistics, police reports of recent calls in the area. What is the exact time of day the incident occurred? What state and city is in in so I can know what laws apply. That is just a start. I need a lot more info than "an ATM on a building with a parking lot" before I can play the hypothetical game.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The BGs continue to approach, smiling, shuffling, hands visible, - but now in a pincer.

...My own answer to the scenario is "at the last minute".

...And under this hypothetical, that would be when a) either of them puts his hands where I can't see 'em or b) when either (or both) of 'em have refused a verbal request to halt and are now within a few feet of me.

What I'd like to see where each of YOU would draw the line.

I would suggest that if the conditions exist as you've laid out, it might be too late.

There is a saying about having a hammer making everything look like a nail...but they aren't

How quickly can you clear a pistol and bring it to bear?
How much distance do you think a young healthy person could cover in that time?

There is a distance where attempting to draw a gun isn't the most tactically sound choice. I would suggest that open handed techniques or an edged weapon would be better choices.

 

[JRH6856]

I would suggest that open handed techniques or an edged weapon would be better choices.

A man's got to know his limitations. In my case, once upon a time in my youth those might have been viable choices. These days, not so much. But knowing ones limitations includes knowing what distance is too close and taking the necessary actions before that occurs.

 

[vtuck2]

Quote:
"A man's got to know his limitations. In my case, once upon a time in my youth those might have been viable choices. These days, not so much. But knowing ones limitations includes knowing what distance is too close and taking the necessary actions before that occurs."

Point well taken. However, on the other hand, the closer the distance the harder it is to miss and the more compelling the proof that the shooting was unavoidable. Taken to the extreme, it is nearly impossible to miss at point blank range. Logically, and conversely, the legal justification for shooting increases exponentially with distance. My understanding is that this is why self defense courses are shot at not more than 21'.

And for me, that's the value of this exercise, hypothetical though it may be. Better to think about it in advance than to bitterly reflect on it afterwards - or not be around to reflect on it at all.

V

 

[JRH6856]

My understanding is that this is why self defense courses are shot at not more than 21'.

That and the fact that as the Tueller drill has shown, a BG can cross that distance and kill or disable before most people can draw and fire. Let someone inside 21' with your gun in your holster and the fact you even have it might be irrelevant to your safety. And I think that is 9mmepiphany's point.

 

[9mmepiphany]

the closer the distance the harder it is to miss and the more compelling the proof that the shooting was unavoidable. Taken to the extreme, it is nearly impossible to miss at point blank range.

While the theory is sound, the reality has proven to be not so much.

I've seen folks miss targets from arm's length away, on a qualification line, when pressed for speed and shooting from Retention. If you try some Force on Force training, you'd discover how common missing at short distances really is

The Tueller Drill was name after Sergeant Dennis Tueller, of the Salt Lake City (Utah) Police Department when he developed it's parameters back in the early 80s. While it is often used as a guideline of the distance at which a attacker armed with a knife presents as danger to an officer...and hence, at what distance an officer can employ deadly force...it's original intent was to demonstrate the need for non-firearm skills at distances within that limit. If you watch knife attacks on YouTube, you'll see that almost all of them occur at much shorter distances

 

[coolluke01]

I have extensively tested this fact. I have been able to show that 26 feet is a very real amount of ground that can be covered before you can draw and fire.

In the academy we learned how to use deflective defensive moves to buy time to draw your weapon.

Having a weapon is half the battle. Being able to draw and use it is the other half.

Often the best first move is not for your weapon, but should be to deflect the attack and make distance.

The idea that you will be able to draw whenever you want and defend yourself is at best misguided.

 

[wasr10634unme]

well done! glad these things dont always happen to me

 

[Old Guy]

The problem with academic reflections, here, he who thinks to much? Is dead!

And the average person, waits to long. In Florida, we do not need to be fearful of shooting Criminals, their action causes your reaction.

My Sons Company had a job, that I was the only Security Officer to take.

Responding to requests for Guard Duty's, at ATM outdoor facility's (Drive Through)
the tec; would wait till I was on site, roll up, put out traffic cones, I would park, either behind him, or blocking off the next lane.

We carry 9mm pistols, in my case Glock 19, in a straight speed kydex holster.

I was only ever probed from a distance, but the potential for an attack was there, some times the vault was open for hours. Pucker factor is increased.

In watching the actions of the average person using the ATM (maybe I get there, Tec; is held up) I just watch from a distance.

Most individuals are clueless. A robbery waiting to happen.

Advice on ATM's, use sparingly, day time only. My Wife and I are always together on our monthly visits, she works the buttons/cash, I watch.