Loaded question, who do you protect?

[priv8ter]

Had to read the law:

Here is what Washington State Code says about 'justifiable homicide':

In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished

So...given the above scenario, where someone has already been shot in an unprovoked act. And now, I'm not sure how much money is going to be stolen, but, I am quite certain the clerk, in my presence is about to suffer 'great personal injury'.

If I am across the store(figure 10 yards) firing from a protected position, which means I probably have the opportunity to shoot from a rest also...I am taking that shot. I am aware that when the police come, I will probably go into cuffs, and my gun will get confiscated. That's why I am 10 more at home for the wife to use to protect herself while I am waiting to be released.

I don't think that is macho talk. Like I said, givn the exact scenario above, I would have no qualms about pulling the trigger.

greg

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Detectives investigating Genovese's murder discovered that no fewer than 38 of her neighbors had witnessed at least one of her killer's three attacks but had neither come to her aid nor called the police. The one call made to the police came after Genovese was already dead.

Didn't want to get involved. Not related to her. None of my business. Not my job. Could lose everything in a civil lawsuit.

Things haven't changed all that much, have they?


http://www.newsday.com/extras/lihistory/8/hs818a.htm

 

[SKN]

proven,

My apologies for not being clear in my point which had nothing to do with how much that clerk earns. To re-state: compare the attachment, the dependence, the love and the obligation I have to the mother of my children versus someone whom I've never met, have no attachment to or investment in (NOT $), and who knows more about any merchandise item in that store than he knows about me and mine.

It ain't about money. It is about what one is willingly to risk tangibly and intangibly for a stranger when there is no legal or moral, in terms of the 10 Commandments, obligation to do so. Having served in the armed forces of the United Sates and law enforcement for almost all of my adult life I was obligated to take those risks, was willing to do so and did without hesitation. Now, I gotta give it some rational thought, but I hope you took note of my response to the scenario.

 

[PBIR]

Here's another scenario: You do nothing, the clerk is murdered. His family finds out you were there with your CCW, thereby with the means to save their relative. They haul you into civil court on that fact. I'm not so sure it couldn't happen in this day and age.

 

[Chris Rhines]

You do nothing, the clerk is murdered. His family finds out you were there with your CCW, thereby with the means to save their relative. They haul you into civil court on that fact.

Although anything is possible, I'd rate this scenario as very, very unlikely.

...

My primary obligation is to myself, then to may family, then friends. Unknown strangers are a distant fourth.

- Chris

 

[Baba Louie]

Say you are in a convenience store and someone comes in and shoots a stranger standing in line and points the gun at the cashier. You and your wife are on the other side of the store and very well hidden for the robber/murderer. You really feel that the bad guy is going to shoot the cashier as well. Do you save the cashier or not since you and your loved ones are in no immediate danger?

We're on the other side of the store, very well hidden... and I SAW him shoot the stranger in line and can now SEE HIM pointing gun at clerk? IF I can see him, he can see me.

Where is my wife? Is she armed as well?
What CCW piece do I have on me? (mouse, snubbie, Glock 19/26, etc)
Where am I in relation to BG, Clerk and MY line of fire?

If wife is not armed, I'd probably stay put in front of her, covering approach zone, sights on target, eyeballing clothing, hgt, description of BG.

If wife IS armed and can protect herself... move closer and take the shot(s)... Maybe. If dynamics of moment allow/require it.

Once action is over, look for getaway car/driver, call 911, then either render comfort or first aid to stranger in line/clerk. Call attorney. Help police by being good witness.

It's all gonna be on camera anyway.

Get ready for the Monday morning QB's who'll tell you what you did wrong. Get ready for lawyers who'll strip you of $$.
Find another convenience store.

 

[Diggler]

Remember that if the clerk sees you moving and glances towards you, the perp will too, and you'll be spotted.

 

[38SnubFan]

As any good THR member, I'd do the right thing!

I have to go with Proven and all those in favor of defending the convenience store clerk.

He has already shot one person and killed them. Now he's aimed at the cashier. There is no doubt in my mind here he has no conscience of the value of human life at this point. I now consider him a threat to everyone in that store, including myself.

As long as I am sure I can get a clean hit and not hit anybody innocent, I'm taking that shot.

...cashiers sign on knowing the risk. IMO they should take some responsiblity for their own protection.

I don't disagree with that, but you'd be suprised how many convenience stores in my area do not allow their employees to have ANY type of weapon while on duty. I'd could safely say that at least 90% of all workplaces have policies in place with strictly prohibit having any weapon on the property while on duty. It's funny, but a well-known sporting goods/outdoor store chain in my area doesn't even allow their firearms sales personnel to carry while on duty either. I really don't think (outside of military and LE) that anybody goes to work each day prepared to die while just doing their job. However, most of us have to work for a living and are forced to take that risk each day, because simply put, "we need the money." I've worked a couple of convenience stores myself when I was younger, and unfortunately had to conform to these ant-self-defense corporate/management policies if I wanted to keep a paycheck flowing.

Let's look at this in another light: I know all of us here at THR would be glad to walk into a convenience store and know that the employees there were all armed and able to protect themselves from robbery or armed attack. However, let's play the role of the "average" citizen - they may feel quite intimidated seeing or knowing a cashier is "packing heat" and this it may deter business. By my standards, I feel if you're that nervous around my gun then there's something "shady" about you that I should be cautious of. Unfortunately those people buy bread, milk, cigarettes, coffee, a newspaper, etc., and without them the profits go downhill, so you have to keep everyone happy in order to turn a buck.

Steve in PA, you make an interesting point, but have me somewhat confused. From what you're saying, in PA I wouldn't have the right to defend the life of another unless my life was in jeopardy as well, and you have cited a section of PA Crimes Code in regards to use of force in protection of self (18 PA §505) and protection of others (18 PA §506) to this effect. I'm not doubting your abilities and knowledge of the law as a LEO, but I'm having difficulty with how you interpreted §506. I work in the Public Safety profession myself and interact with LE on a regular basis, with my chief being a police officer himself. The way he, other officers, and myself have looked at it in this type of situation was this: If the person whom you are protecting would be justified to use deadly force to stop the threat, then you yourself would be justified to use deadly force on their behalf.

Before submitting this post and possibly OMIK (opening mouth, inserting keyboard), I called my chief to pose the scenario described here and asked him, "If I were in this same situation, would I be justified in shooting the perpetrator?" He responded in the affirmative, also citing §506, stating not only has he pulled a gun with the intent of killing someone, but the fact that he has already shot and killed someone would be sufficient grounds to use deadly force against him. He further stated that the difference between a LEO and a private citizen in this situation is that a LEO is OBLIGATED to intervene and use deadly force, whereas a private citizen is not obligated to do so. However, both would be justified in using such force, the power to either of them given by 18 PA §506.

Trust me Steve, I'm not looking to "step on your toes" here. I just feel that your interpretation of the laws regarding this issue might be incorrect (or possibly stated wrong here).

As far as the moral issue of all of this, I'm glad to see that most of the people who replied are on the side of doing the right thing and saving a human life when the oppurtunity presents itself.

For those who figure, "As long as nothing bad is happening to me or my family/friends, why should I get involved?" I'm really sickened here and have been trying to fathom here and for a long time how people can live with themselves by thinking so selfishly. Just seeing how these people react to a SHTF situation like this has made my brain hurt and given me a headache. :banghead: My only response to those people, as it has always been, is that weird look on my face followed by some choice words of English language .

It's going to be great to see how further responses go.

Sincerely,
Matthew Webb
Franklintown, PA

 

[Steve in PA]

Snub,

What do you mean by, how I interpreted 506?? I said you would be justified in shooting the bad guy because he had the gun pointed at the cashier and was more than likely going to shoot him. I also said you can't shoot the bad guy just because he has already shot someone, and no threat is directed at anyone else. If the bad guy has the gun pointed at the cashier, then you can use deadly force, under 506. If the bad guy shoots him and is now robbing the store, you can not shoot him. Where is the threat?? Well, he's already killed someone??? That is not a reason to shoot him. You just committed murder. If he turns the gun on you, then things change.

Tell your LEO friend he better talk to the DA's office, and quick. I'm a LEO, an Asst Chief and a Firearms Instructor.......and if I rolled up on the scene I can't shoot him because he (the bad guy) has already shot someone!!!! Somebody better brush up on their use of deadly force, and fast!!

I can't believe your friend would tell you its ok to shoot the bad guy. And he's the chief of police somewhere????

For use of deadly force there has to be four things present....all four!!

Ability - yeah, he has the ability (the gun) to cause death or serious bodily injury to you or another person

Opportunity - are the circumstances present for him for the above? Not quite, he hasn't noticed you so no action is directed towards you

Imminent danger - are you in imminent danger? No, no threat is directed at you. You are in a dangerous situation, but that doesn't justify use of force.

Preclusion - did you/do you have to do what you did (use deadly force)? No, you could have stayed where you were and wait until he left.

No where in 506 does it say that you can shoot someone just because they have shot someone!!!!!

The only way a LEO can shoot this individual is under 508 - Use of Force in Law Enforcement.

508 Use of Force in Law Enforcement
(a) Peace officer's use of force in making arrest-
(1) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to arrest. He is justified in the use of any force which he believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using deadly force only when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or such other person, or when he believes both that;
(1) such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) the person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony or is attempting to escape and possesses a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless arrested without delay.

Take note that means the LEO was trying to arrest the individual, not just rolling up on the scene and shooting him because he's already shot someone!!!

Please, tell your friend to read the sections again!

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Take note that means the LEO was trying to arrest the individual

So the cop has to say 'You're under arrest'? Does he have to wait until the BG actually points the gun at him?

 

[CEShooter]

This scenario is a very rough one to answer. I hope that if I was in that situation I would have the clarity of mind and steadiness to shoot the BG. That is my personal choice based upon my beliefs and the way I was raised. Not everyone is me. (Trust me, a good thing)
My question though to those that have brought into play the potential cost of legal representation and/or jail time as affecting your decision is this: Your wife/child/family member is the cashier, John Doe is the guy with the CCW and the clear shot and you are standing right beside him unarmed, unable to physically intervene but John is asking you what to do. What do you say to John Doe? Do you say, don't attempt to save my wife's life, her life is not worth the $20,000 in legal fees? Do you say, don't try and save my daughters life, there is a chance you may go to prison? or, Do you beg him to pull the trigger so that you may be able to embrace that loved one with the new appreciation for how quickly life can come down to the actions of a single honorable man?

 

[38SnubFan]

Steve in PA....

Steve,

I'm going based on the original post to this thread, which stated he had the gun pointed at the cashier, so you're absolutely right and in agreement with me about the justification of shooting him then.

However, you further went to state that if I shot him after he shot the cashier and proceeded to rob the store that I would not be able to use deadly force against him. The original post said nothing about that - you chose to take it there. However, in that case, since I'm occupying the same space as someone unlawfully using lethal force, my own life is then threatened, to where I would be justified in using force to defend myself (§505).

So, per the four things present for the use of deadly force, let's review:

1. Ability. We both agree here. The brandished handgun proves the ability.

2. Oppurtunity. (We're going to start disagreeing again here.) Just because he does not see me does not mean he is not a threat to my life. In analogy, does a intruder into my home in the middle of the night mean he has to see me before I can use deadly force to stop him? Why would I wait for him to point the gun at me first? I would take the oppurtunity to engage and neutralize the threat before he has the oppurtunity to engage me. The difference between LEO and civilian here is that the LEO is obligated to attempt an arrest prior to using deadly force.

3. Imminent danger. Every innocent person occupying that convenience store is in imminent danger of losing their lives. It would only take him a split second to turn the gun from the cashier and shoot someone different. A reasonable civilian cannot be expected to take that risk and just sit there and take that risk, per §505(b)(3).

4. Preclusion. Again, per §505(b)(3), I am not legally obligated to retreat or surrender to his use of force. Thus, if I choose to get away from the situation, I would be justified to use deadly force in order to stop the threat and get away from such a situation.

And yes, my friend did tell me it would be OK to shoot the BG. No, he is not a Chief Of Police. He is a Chief (Director) of Public Safety (for a company providing private protection services). He is in addition to that title a police officer serving part-time with two jurisdictions here in PA. Prior to that, he served for over five years as an officer in the "ghetto" district of a major metropolitan police department. During those five years, he has responded to robberies, shootings, drug crimes, and other violent offenses on a frequent basis. Not only has he threatened deadly force to effect an arrest, he has used it. Please do not judge his abilities as a cop. Firstly, you do not know him from Adam. Secondly, for one cop to speak negatively of another cop IMO is just plain unprofessional and discourteous to the LE society as a whole. I don't know your history as an officer, but I do know he's seen more bad things happen in five years in a major metro than most police officers in PA (outside of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Scranton/Wilkes-Barre areas) will see in their entire careers.

However, per your request for him to re-check the law regarding use of force, either by a private citizen or law enforcement officer, I shall pass on a copy of our conversation in this post for his review and reply.

Also, per Jeff White's (moderator) rules of this forum, personal attacks on members of public safety professions (police, private security, etc.) or any profession of that matter is not permitted. I did not attack your knowledge of a law(s); I simply questioned your interpretation of them. I expect the same consideration in return.

Also, as a QUESTION (not an attack) regarding your certification as a Firearms Instructor: It is my understanding a Firearms Instructor is knowledged to teach about safety and marksmanship with a firearm, not necessarily the laws regarding its use in self-defense, defense of another, or to effect an arrest (in the case of LEOs). Please correct me if my assumption is incorrect.

I look forward to conversing with you again in the near future, and I will let you know my chief's response as well regarding the issues of §505, §507, and §508.

Sincerely,
Matthew Webb
Franklintown, PA

 

[0luke1]

Legal issues aside, from a morality point of view, in college I was a clerk in a "Humpty Dumpty" convenience store (true name, they no longer exist). The manager informed us that a guy was robbing Humpty Dumpty stores with a 45. He told us to keep the cash low in the drawer (keep putting it in the drop safe).

I kept the drawer stuffed and had a roast beef sandwich ready when I worked overnights. Just in case...

Bottom line, as the clerk, I would not expect an average citizen to start shooting. I could not blame a person for not wanting to be involved, not to mention that once lead starts flying, you don't know what the outcome is going to be.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I just love these overly simplified scenarios as they often leave out critical information present in the real world. So one guy is down and the robber has the gun pointed at the cashier and you and your wife are well hidden. Do you act on behalf of the cashier?

As near as I can tell from the described situation, you have poor situational awareness as you have become visually fixated on the robber and the cashier. You seem to be completely clueless about what is going on OUTSIDE the store. You have assumed that the robber is working alone, but that could be a fatal mistake as many robbers operate as part of a team. When you pop out to shoot the robber at the cash register, maybe the bad guy's buddy outside with the shotgun blasts you through the store's plate glass windows. As it turns out, you were only hidden from the robber at the register, not to the bad guy outside who is watching the back of the robber at the register.

I know, I violated the scenario by adding information that was not originally present, but my point is clear here. You don't have total situational awareness. You have no way of knowing whether the robber is alone or not. If you could be 100% certain the robber was along, that might be one thing, but more than likely, you don't know how many people might be involved in the robbery. So I just filled in the hypothetical information about which you would not have awareness so as to show how easily things that seem clear cut can turn out to be much more complex that you realize.

 

[grislyatoms]

My first duty is to my family, all others are secondary priorities. Removing them from the situation is job #1, in whatever manner I can accomplish it. If it seems under the situation that sneaking them out a back door or into a restroom is the best course, I will take that course. If the safer course is for me to draw and shoot, that's what I will do.

After satisfying my first duty as reasonably as I could, my second duty is my own safety, and I would take whatever steps I thought needed to be taken to ensure my safety.

My third duty are my fellows. If I had satisfied my first and second duties as reasonably as I could, and I had a clear shot under the circumstances, I would take it without hesitation. BG already murdered one person, that would leave me with little doubt he would kill the clerk.

So, under those guidelines:

If I believed I could sneak my family and myself out a back door unseen, that's what I would do. I would then get as far away as I could, and get on the phone to 911 with a description.

If I believed I could not get my family and myself out safely, I would shoot.

 

[38SnubFan]

Double Naught Spy,

You made a very good point. Even though the original post did not state that their was an accomplice, it did not state their wasn't one either. In any defense situation, whether it be self-defense or defense of another person, one needs to be aware of everything around them at that time. This is something I practice with all the time when I go for a walk - simply paying attention to everything going on around me and noticing the little details in what I see.

Working in a profession where learning this always-valuable skill is critical to officer safety, I can confidently say it has saved my behind as well as help me keep other officers safe on more than one occasion.

It even helped me to prevent a Retail Theft when visiting my girlfriend once when she worked at a cigarette outlet. Two persons walked in, one of them being overly friendly to her while the other was walking around. When I noticed the second person standing right in front of a rack of cigarette cartons and looking around nervously, I walked up and asked him if there was anything I could help him find. Spooked by my presence, he replied, "No sir, thank you," and both promptly left the store.

Again, if you would be in the situation described in the original post, you need to look around and take notice before presenting your weapon (if that's what you're going to do) and be aware of who is inside the store as well as outside, not only for your safety, but for the safety of every other innocent person in that store with you.

Sincerely,
Matthew Webb
Franklintown, PA

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

SEQUENCE OF ACTION

* Take Cover
* Call 911 - describe number & appearance of Bad Guys
* Identify yourself as a CCW holder and what you're wearing.
* Take Swift, quiet lateral Flanking Movement
* Distract the Bad Guy with something (if possible) - throw a can or something that makes him move and give you the biggest target.
* Take him out and immediately thereafter tell everyone "It's Okay. You're Safe Now. The BG is down and I've already called the Police. They're on the way. Let's help the victim(s). Anybody know first aid?"

 

[Steve in PA]

First, yes your assumption is wrong about Firearms Instructors. Part of being a LEO Firearms Instructor includes teaching Use of Force which is the first part of training that is covered, extensively. So, I do know what I'm talking about. And I do work in the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre area, so I've been involved in a thing or two.

Second, unless a threat is directed at you or someone who would be justified in using deadly force to protect themselves (PACC 506) you can not use deadly force. Your mixing up the two points;

(1) shooting to protect the life of the cashier; and
(2) shooting the bad guy because your in a tense and dangerous situation with no threat directed at you, your family or another person in the store.

If no threat is directed at you, you can't claim your life was in danger. If we follow your logic then, anyone can start shooting because they were in a "situation".

"well, the guy didn't know I was in the store so I just shot him?"

Given the scenario where he does not know you are in the store, if he has no knowledge of you being there, then he has no opportunity to do you harm.

Every person has a different level of fear for there life, but again, following your logic, every "dangerous situation" I get into, I would be justified in shooting someone. It doesn't work that way.

Um, you do have a duty to avoid the use of force,

PACC 505
(c)(2) the use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if;
(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete saftey by retreating or surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take.

So, if you are safely in another part of the store, you do not have a right to shoot him.

So, to "get away from the situation", your going to shoot someone who has no knowledge that you are there, and has directed no threat at you?

I'll stand by everything I have posted, but your friend is wrong. I did not mean to slam him, but I can not believe someone would say its ok to shoot the guy, when there is no threat to you. That is an assasination. But what do I know, I only teach use of force.

You can listen to your friend if you like, thats your decision.

Again, yes would be justified in shooting the bad guy in defense of the life of the cashier.

No, you would not be justified to shoot the bad guy, just because you happen to be there, safely out of view with no threat directed at you.

 

[Diggler]

Steve in PA

Again, yes would be justified in shooting the bad guy in defense of the life of the cashier.

No, you would not be justified to shoot the bad guy, just because you happen to be there, safely out of view with no threat directed at you.

I'm not sure I get what you mean with this. PA law says that you can intervene on behalf of someone who meets the criteria but is not in the position to defend themself. So, to make sure I get your point...

If there is one cashier, he shoots him and takes the till, then runs out, you can't shoot him because you're not in immediate danger. You can't shoot to prevent escape unless you are LEO attempting arrest.

If there are two cashiers, and he kills one and turns the gun on the other, you have the right to shoot the BG because the cashier staring down the barrel of the perp's gun meets the four prerequisites. It doesn't matter if you are hidden or in any danger at this point or not, because you are acting on behalf of the cashier, not yourself.

Correct?

 

[Steve in PA]

In PA, under Section 506- Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons:

you are justified in using force to protect the life of another person, if that person would himself be deemed justified in using force to protect his own life.

It does not directly state "deadly force" in this section, but Section 505- Use of Force in Self-Protection does specifically mention when you can use deadly force. All 506 does is extend the justification for its use to protect another person.

Yes, if there was another cashier and the bad guy was pointing a gun at him, and you were out of sight or hidden, and this second cashier would be justified in using deadly force, you would be justified in using it to defend the cashiers life. Assuming of course you can "take the shot" under these conditions. Your life does not have to be threatened at this point. You are protecting the life of another person.

And yes, a non-LEO has no authorization, requirement or duty to shoot to stop the bad guy from fleeing.

PACC 508 Use of Force in Law Enforcement
(b) Private person's use of force in making arrest
(1) A private person who makes or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of deadly force ONLY when he believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.

You can argue that you were going to make a citizens arrest on the bad guy and had to use deadly force to protect yourself, but you can't automatically shoot the bad guy just because you are in a bad situation. And remember, you as a non-LEO are under no obligation to attempt this arrest.

Take the example given, out of the store and onto the street. Your across the street and see someone get shot by a bad guy, who is now taking the guys money. You are going to shoot the bad guy because you are now in a bad situation and he "might" come after you next, assuming he even knows your there?

A PA LEO is justified in using deadly force under 508 (a)(1) Peace officers use of force in making an arrest when;
(1) he believes such force is necessary to prevent death or seriouos bodily injury to himself or such other person, or when he believes both that; (i) such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(ii) the person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony or is attemptiing to escape and possesses a deadly weapon, or other wise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless arrested without delay.

Use of force in law enforcement is based upon Graham v. Connor 490 U.S. 386 (1989). In this case the use or allegation of excessive use of force is based upon using an objectively reasonableness standard. Meaning would a reasonable officer, in the same circumstances conclude that a threat existed, justifying the particular use of force. The level of force to be used also depends upon;
(1) the severity of the crime
(2) whether the officer had probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a threat of serious physical harm to the officers or others
(3) whether the individual is actively trying to resist or evade arrest.

The use of deadly force in law enforcement is governed by Tennessee v. Garner 471 U.S.1 (1985). In this case the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally reasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatend infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given."

Under this, if the bad guy shot one or two people and is attempting to flee and I believe (by his actions or words) he will shoot other people (this does not mean in another robbery a week or two away) then I would be justified in using deadly force.

 

[38SnubFan]

Steve...

I believe your quoting §507 helped to clear up some of the confusion I was having with your statements and has put you and I on the same page.

Yes, if there was another cashier and the bad guy was pointing a gun at him, and you were out of sight or hidden, and this second cashier would be justified in using deadly force, you would be justified in using it to defend the cashiers life. Assuming of course you can "take the shot" under these conditions. Your life does not have to be threatened at this point. You are protecting the life of another person.

OK, this was the point I was making. The scenario stated that he shot someone in line, then turned and aimed at the cashier, so there wasn't ANOTHER cashier. However, in this case, since the cashier would be justified in using deadly force to protect his/her life, then I would be justified in using deadly force to protect the cashier. Am I correct?

And yes, a non-LEO has no authorization, requirement or duty to shoot to stop the bad guy from fleeing.

I agree with you 100% that on the requirement or duty part. As far as the authorization part goes, I'm left with one question, which I will break down into two parts, with the first part here: Let's say the BG puts down the gun, then bolts. Would I be justified in using non-deadly force (read: chasing the guy into the parking lot and planting him to the asphalt) to stop him? I would think the situation would then change, as the threat of deadly force is no longer present.

Under this, if the bad guy shot one or two people and is attempting to flee and I believe (by his actions or words) he will shoot other people (this does not mean in another robbery a week or two away) then I would be justified in using deadly force.

I'm assuming you're referring to §508(a)(1). This is where the second part of my question comes in. Since he has already shot one person, he has changed the crime from Robbery to Manslaughter. I know that as an LEO you have the right to shoot him to stop him from fleeing in this case, but I'm not so convinced that it's solely a LEO-only right, since per §508(b)(1), he has shown intent (by already shooting one innocent person) that he is a threat to others. If it was solely a robbery attempt, and he fled without shooting somebody, I would be convinced to NOT use deadly force or to stop him from fleeing, and to simply provide police with an accurate description and last direction of travel. However, since this is a manslaughter, would I be justified to stop him at lethal force means then?

Let's try to look at this from another scenario: Someone comes in my home, shoots and kills my spouse or another family member, then attempts to bolt for the door. Would I be justified to shoot him then? I may be comparing apples to oranges here, but I'm making this comparison in regards to the Tennesee v. Garner case you cited (again, this may be an LEO-only issue).

Once again, I'm looking forward to your response on these questions. I'm also going to ask my LEO friend on these as well and compare the responses.

By the way, his response to your "use of force" concern was, "I'm not that stupid to just roll up to scene and start blasting away! I'd assess the situation first." He does agree with you on a lot of points you made though, and further believes that it's not necessarily safe for the "average Joe Citizen" to intervene, as they may not necessarily be as well-trained, conditioned, and experienced as LEOs to maintain their own safety while attempting to stop a crime. However, since we're also talking about the moral issue of intervening, I believe that it would be an individual, personal decision; should they intervene, they shouldn't have a legal problem should they stay inside of the law's limitations when doing so.

Again, I look forward to conversing with you again. I mean you no disrespect to your profession, as I have a great respect to anyone who goes out there everyday and puts their life on the line to save my a**.

Sincerely,
Matthew Webb
Franklintown, PA

 

[Jarhed]

I disagree with the statement that it will cost you a fortune to defend yourself. Of course it depends on the state MA, NY its probably applicable. Down here in Florida, if the guy had just killed someone I doubt you would be prosecuted for drilling the robber, even in a civil suit.

I would tend to base the decision on how I felt about the shot. Is it a huge store and I'm 50 feet away and you have a snub nose revolver? Does he have a shotgun? Gotta figure my chances. Can I drill him from behind the Frito's from ten feet without hitting the clerk? In a situation like this, you ain't gonna think about lawyers.

With that said, if I can put him down, he's a dead man. And I'm gonna shoot him till he can't even twitch.

 

[Cosmoline]

No question. If you have a shot, you take it. If someone has just shot another person in the store, you are very much in imminent deadly peril. Trying to run will probably get you a round in the back. And I don't know how you expect to safely stay "hidden" in a convenience store. I would strongly advise that ANY sense of safety you have is an illusion, and your life is in very real danger. You don't have to wait for the killer to point his piece at you and say "I'm going to kill you" before you fire. Shoot. Shoot Shoot! For the love of mike shoot.

 

[Mannlicher]

So, Steve in PA, if you really believe this "Tell your LEO friend he better talk to the DA's office, and quick. I'm a LEO, an Asst Chief and a Firearms Instructor.......and if I rolled up on the scene I can't shoot him because he (the bad guy) has already shot someone!!!! Somebody better brush up on their use of deadly force, and fast!!

.....then I am NOT comfortable with you being LEO. I certainly would not want to wait around for you to arrive wearing any of your 'hats'. One guy is dead already, another is getting ready to be shot, and my family is in danger...... but I guess thats no concern of yours, as long as the letter of the law is observed.
The way I see it here, is that there is a clear and present danger for my self and my family, I personally would feel obligated to shoot the guy, right then, yes, as Judge, Jury, and executioner. Period.
If I made the right decision, I may be off to court, but if I guess wrong, I may well be dead. Easy decision for me to make.

 

[Steve in PA]

You can use force, to include deadly force, in protecting the life of another person, so long as you are justified in using the force (deadly).

Given your scenario, can you chase after the bad guy, tackle him and hold him until PD arrives? Yes. Would I recommend it? No. But thats your decision.

As for you (non-LEO) shooting him because he is getting away, my advice to is DON'T!!!! Again, you do not have any authority to do this, so don't even think about it.

If this person does kill someone in your house, then runs for the door, where is the threat as defined my 505, 506 or even 508? Is he running out the front door, or to another room in the house where another person may be? In the case of him running out or toward the door your going to shoot him now, because you are the judge, jury and executioner? Remember, even a (suspected) killer is entitled to due process of the law. I know that is a tough pill to swallow, but thats the way our system works. Shooting him while he flees is just revenge.

Would a vast majority of the people say you did the right thing? Probably.

Will his family say you violated his rights by killing him? You bet. Just because he has violated someone's rights, (and this really sounds stupid), does not mean you can violate his.

Would a DA charge you with a crime? Probably not, based on the situation you described. But you not being charged is not a certainty. There are way too many things to take into consideration to put anything into black and white in writing laws for use of force. They can't cover everything.

I'm glad your LEO friend saw some of the points I was trying to make.

As you said, how one acts or reacts to a situation is indeed a personal decision, especially for a non-LEO, or even an off-duty LEO. That decision needs to be based upon knowing what a person can and can not do.