One More Example of Why it is Essential to Know the Law
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
- Status
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Apples to oranges.
When a man walks into an establishment pointing a gun and demanding money, it's no longer a question of theft. It's lethal threat.
The gun is the game changer. No reasonable person would ascribe the ability to determine his intent or to predict the future. Many "simple" robberies and burglaries go wrong and turn into murders. Sometimes the robber just wants to shoot or stab somebody. Sometimes, that determination is made before the robbery starts. Sometimes after, even if he had no intent to pull the trigger before he opened the door and walked in.
^^^^^^
Yes indeed. Spot on.
My comment was intended simply to underscore the importance of understanding such things.
Your post may well help someone who didn't know that, perhaps by leading them to look into and learn the important difference between theft and robbery.
Yes indeed. Spot on.
My comment was intended simply to underscore the importance of understanding such things.
Your post may well help someone who didn't know that, perhaps by leading them to look into and learn the important difference between theft and robbery.
Can i shoot is the wrong way to look at it
I don't see where one has to be a Philadelphia attorney in order to figure out all the laws. All one need ask is "do I have to shoot?" NOT Can I shoot? Can I shoot is a silly question for Keyboard Commando's and chest thumpers. Just my .02. If you have to shoot to protect your life you shoot. Its really quite simple
I don't see where one has to be a Philadelphia attorney in order to figure out all the laws. All one need ask is "do I have to shoot?" NOT Can I shoot? Can I shoot is a silly question for Keyboard Commando's and chest thumpers. Just my .02. If you have to shoot to protect your life you shoot. Its really quite simple
Archaic Weapon
member
Agreed. That is how it was described to me by our multi state manager at the security company. If you don't have to, you don't do it. That's why you aren't allowed to do warning shots. If you have time and freedom to try and warn them away, you didn't really need to shoot them.
FuzzyBunny
Member
Wow, shoot an escaping felon and then go to jail!
I live in Texas so what do I know.
I live in Texas so what do I know.
Many centuries ago, it was considered excusable at common law to employ deadly force if necessary to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon.
In those days, however, the only crimes that were classified as felonies were those for which the death penalty applied.
Also, in those days, once the felon was on the other side of the river, so to speak, he was as good as gone. The likelihood that he would ever be apprehended and charged was slight.
Neither of those reasons applies today.
There are in some jurisdictions conditions under which shooting a fleeing felon may be justified. From memory, here, so don't rely on it:
- The crime was just commited;
- the crime was very serious and particularly heinous;
- the shooter actually witnessed the crime;
- there is no other way to stop the felon from escaping; and
- the flight of the felon would present a serious, immediate risk to others.
mljdeckard
Member
This is actually an ongoing problem in Utah during the cold months. It is illegal to leave your car running and unattended, but a lot of people do it anyway in the mornings. Just about every year there is a rash of auto thefts from it from thieves cruising looking for running cars.
A very good philosophy indeed.
I recall that someone who used to post regularly on The Firing Line had a sig line that said about the same thing. It seems to have evaporated from the archives.
I just said it this way in another tread:
I added this:
The reason for that addition is that the actor must be able to decide when it is necessary to shoot to protect one's life; not everyone will see it exactly the same way; and and others will review the actor's reasons after the fact.
Bringing it All Together
It has been said here, and rightly so in my opinion, that no one should ever shoot a firearm at anyone else unless there is no other way to protect life and limb.
That might seem to preclude any reason to know the law. Just don't shoot unless you have to. Simple, eh?
In a perfect world, yes.
To be sure, no one should ever, ever be looking for justification for shooting anyone.
But in real life, things are not always so simple. If one does not shoot in time, one may suffer grievous harm. If one shoots at the wrong time, one may end up losing everything in the courts, criminal and civil, even if one's actions are ultimately found to have been justified.
So, the armed citizen has to understand all kinds of things. Just to name a few, consider the following:
Those are just a few important things. There are also the "tactical" realities. For example,
There's more to it than just deciding to never shoot unless it is necessary, and there's more to it than knowing something about use of force law. There's more to it than marksmanship.
Not only that, there's more to it than being prepared for a violent encounter. There's the whole strategy of avoiding a dangerous situation in the first place.
That's why we call this forum strategy, tactics, and training.
It has been said here, and rightly so in my opinion, that no one should ever shoot a firearm at anyone else unless there is no other way to protect life and limb.
That might seem to preclude any reason to know the law. Just don't shoot unless you have to. Simple, eh?
In a perfect world, yes.
To be sure, no one should ever, ever be looking for justification for shooting anyone.
But in real life, things are not always so simple. If one does not shoot in time, one may suffer grievous harm. If one shoots at the wrong time, one may end up losing everything in the courts, criminal and civil, even if one's actions are ultimately found to have been justified.
So, the armed citizen has to understand all kinds of things. Just to name a few, consider the following:
- What is meant by ability, opportunity, and jeopardy?
- What is a forcible felony?
- What constitutes an imminent threat?
- What is necessary to support a "reasonable belief"?
- What is "serious bodily harm"?
- What is meant by "preclusion"?
- What about actions short of shooting an attacker, such as dsplaying a weapon, or a warning shot?
- What constitutes excessive force?
- What if he is facing the other way?
Those are just a few important things. There are also the "tactical" realities. For example,
- What is it likely to take to stop an assailant?
- How quickly can one do so?
- Is trying to shoot the most effective thing to do first in every circumstance?
- How can one best avoid being shot or stabbed?
There's more to it than just deciding to never shoot unless it is necessary, and there's more to it than knowing something about use of force law. There's more to it than marksmanship.
Not only that, there's more to it than being prepared for a violent encounter. There's the whole strategy of avoiding a dangerous situation in the first place.
That's why we call this forum strategy, tactics, and training.
BaltimoreBoy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 255
Actually that is not quite true. Jury nullification is an old Anglo-Saxon common law theme that the courts would much prefer you not think about.
http://fija.org/
(Fully Informed Jury Association)
Note that in the Spokane case, the charges against Gerlach do not involve any assertion about his having intentionally shot the victim. Rather, he will be charged with having recklessly caused his death.
It will interesting to find out what the basis of his defense will be, should he decide to contest the charge.
I think that immediate necessity would likely be a non-starter.
A less serious conviction might involve a determination that he caused the death through criminal negligence with a firearm. Presumably, he could agree to that charge rather than face trial.
Arraignment is scheduled for tomorrow. It is useless to speculate.
But we can learn. Here's something to consider from kgpcr:
Had Gerlach had the same mindset, he would still have his future ahead of him.
Or had he not left his truck running unattended.....
We cannot know what was in his mind. Only that he publicly questioned his own actions after the shooting.
Let's not read about having any of our members get into this kind of terrible mess. It is avoidable.
It will interesting to find out what the basis of his defense will be, should he decide to contest the charge.
I think that immediate necessity would likely be a non-starter.
A less serious conviction might involve a determination that he caused the death through criminal negligence with a firearm. Presumably, he could agree to that charge rather than face trial.
Arraignment is scheduled for tomorrow. It is useless to speculate.
But we can learn. Here's something to consider from kgpcr:
Had Gerlach had the same mindset, he would still have his future ahead of him.
Or had he not left his truck running unattended.....
We cannot know what was in his mind. Only that he publicly questioned his own actions after the shooting.
Let's not read about having any of our members get into this kind of terrible mess. It is avoidable.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
"If you have to talk yourself into the right answer, then perhaps the answer you want isn't so right."
I use some variation of this all the time at work, especially for young engineers. It's always in the back of my mind and comes to the front whenever I find myself thinking too much or too long on the particulars of whatever it is I'm doing.
If you find yourself having to "justify" your actions, then the road you're on is starting to get rocky. ("Justify" here, meaning "to make something seem reasonable by coming up with excuses and not hard, valid reasons of fact".)
I agree very much with what kgpcr said: "All one need ask is "do I have to shoot?" NOT Can I shoot?" (Emphasis mine)
Lots of laws exist about deadly force and when it's justified. However, I've yet to find anything more clear and succinct than what I learned in the Navy:
Deadly force is that amount of force which I know, or should know, will cause serious bodily injury or death, to be used as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.
There followed seven conditions in which deadly force was authorized, but in civilian life only this applies to me: when I fear for the life of myself or another. And that, essentially, is what every state in the Union says in so many words (except Texas, apparently, with respect to property theft under certain conditions).
Vandalism, theft, bullying, fleeing criminal...all that kind of stuff is not even considered in the equation for me unless it carries with it an imminent threat to my life or the life of another.
It is my opinion that if people do not understand this, then they have no business carrying a firearm at all.
I use some variation of this all the time at work, especially for young engineers. It's always in the back of my mind and comes to the front whenever I find myself thinking too much or too long on the particulars of whatever it is I'm doing.
If you find yourself having to "justify" your actions, then the road you're on is starting to get rocky. ("Justify" here, meaning "to make something seem reasonable by coming up with excuses and not hard, valid reasons of fact".)
I agree very much with what kgpcr said: "All one need ask is "do I have to shoot?" NOT Can I shoot?" (Emphasis mine)
Lots of laws exist about deadly force and when it's justified. However, I've yet to find anything more clear and succinct than what I learned in the Navy:
Deadly force is that amount of force which I know, or should know, will cause serious bodily injury or death, to be used as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.
There followed seven conditions in which deadly force was authorized, but in civilian life only this applies to me: when I fear for the life of myself or another. And that, essentially, is what every state in the Union says in so many words (except Texas, apparently, with respect to property theft under certain conditions).
Vandalism, theft, bullying, fleeing criminal...all that kind of stuff is not even considered in the equation for me unless it carries with it an imminent threat to my life or the life of another.
It is my opinion that if people do not understand this, then they have no business carrying a firearm at all.
Mainsail
Member
Here in WA we don’t have training requirements to get a CPL, and no waiting period for gun purchases if you have a CPL. While I don’t want to start that debate, I think it’s important to recognize that those factors may be at play in this. There is no requirement to have any training on when you can/should employ a firearm required by law.
This is a good thing in my opinion. The onus is on you to know the laws before you employ deadly force. Our state has so far not tried to impose those restrictions. After all, we’re all adults here and firearms ownership is a responsibility that carries with it consequences, and serious consequences too.
If the only education a person is willing to get on firearms and their use comes from TV, internet (which is worldwide, so inaccurate for a particular state), or hearsay, they’re surely playing with fire. When I was renewing my CPL last month one of the applicants asked a use-of-force question, to which the clerk referred him to a pamphlet on the laws that the state provides. Sadly those are just a reprinting of the RCWs and thus written in legalese; incomprehensible to most of us on a single reading. For liability reasons the clerk cannot (and will not) give advice on those matters.
Nevertheless, the fact that this is such a rare occurrence says a lot about the necessity for ‘training requirements’ in all states.
This is a good thing in my opinion. The onus is on you to know the laws before you employ deadly force. Our state has so far not tried to impose those restrictions. After all, we’re all adults here and firearms ownership is a responsibility that carries with it consequences, and serious consequences too.
If the only education a person is willing to get on firearms and their use comes from TV, internet (which is worldwide, so inaccurate for a particular state), or hearsay, they’re surely playing with fire. When I was renewing my CPL last month one of the applicants asked a use-of-force question, to which the clerk referred him to a pamphlet on the laws that the state provides. Sadly those are just a reprinting of the RCWs and thus written in legalese; incomprehensible to most of us on a single reading. For liability reasons the clerk cannot (and will not) give advice on those matters.
Nevertheless, the fact that this is such a rare occurrence says a lot about the necessity for ‘training requirements’ in all states.
RevolvingGarbage
Member
Perfectly stated, and not said often enough.
I wouldn't take a life for my stuff. The moment a person demands your stuff at the threat of taking your life if you don't hand it over, everything changes. Your life is now in the hands of someone, and the threat is that if you don't give it to them, you die. Maybe if you do give it up, you live. Maybe they decide to kill you anyway.
The only acceptable response to such a threat, in my opinion, is massive and overwhelming physical violence, directed at incapacitating the aggresssor (aka, Deadly Force). Firearms are useful for generating the needed violence.
Absent this threat, deadly force is unjustified.
TonyDedo
Member
Anyone who owns a gun should take a course on deadly force - it's simply irresponsible not to.
Mainsail
Member
TonyDedo said:
That's not at all true. Knowledge can be acquired in many ways.
Blue Brick
Member
Would he have been justified if he had a child in a car seat?
Carl N. Brown
Member
"If you confront a property thief and he ends up dead," you have to convince a "reasonable person" that in your shoes they would have been in fear of death or greivous bodily harm and that the dead thief had the ability, opportunity and means to put your life or limb in jeopardy. A car thief disappearing around the corner in your vehicle don't meet that test; driving at you yes, driving away no.
The way a course instructor explained it to me in laymen terms;
The use of deadly force is justified When you use it to stop immediate threat of life or limb. In fear of this you use deadly force. If you have time to determine rather or not your justified under the law, that's called premeditation.
The use of deadly force is justified When you use it to stop immediate threat of life or limb. In fear of this you use deadly force. If you have time to determine rather or not your justified under the law, that's called premeditation.
beatledog7
Member
^^This is a great point.
There are way too many, "Please tell me the minimum justification I need to shoot somebody" type threads on here and in other fora.
No piece of property you or anyone else can own is worth anyone taking a bullet. There is only one justification for shooting someone, and that's been discussed until we're all turning blue. Anything short of thinking you or a person with you is in immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured, and shooting the perp is the only way to avoid that serious death or injury, is a bad shoot.
Regardless of the particulars of the law in your state, your goal must always be to find a way to not shoot while remaining unharmed yourself.
If your mindset is anything else, please change it.
There are way too many, "Please tell me the minimum justification I need to shoot somebody" type threads on here and in other fora.
No piece of property you or anyone else can own is worth anyone taking a bullet. There is only one justification for shooting someone, and that's been discussed until we're all turning blue. Anything short of thinking you or a person with you is in immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured, and shooting the perp is the only way to avoid that serious death or injury, is a bad shoot.
Regardless of the particulars of the law in your state, your goal must always be to find a way to not shoot while remaining unharmed yourself.
If your mindset is anything else, please change it.
Gail Gerlach Update
We will recall that Spokane resident Gail Gerlach shot and killed a thief who was driving off in his truck on March 25 of this year. Gerlach was subsequently charged with manslaughter.
Gerlach is reported to have spent all of his money on his defense, and is taking contributions.
He and his attorneys were in court last week attempting to argue some Miranda rights and evidentiary issues.
The trial is now scheduled for the end of March, 2014.
That's one year from the date of the shooting. The wheels of justice often turn very slowly, and they can be very expensive when they do turn.
We will recall that Spokane resident Gail Gerlach shot and killed a thief who was driving off in his truck on March 25 of this year. Gerlach was subsequently charged with manslaughter.
Gerlach is reported to have spent all of his money on his defense, and is taking contributions.
He and his attorneys were in court last week attempting to argue some Miranda rights and evidentiary issues.
The trial is now scheduled for the end of March, 2014.
That's one year from the date of the shooting. The wheels of justice often turn very slowly, and they can be very expensive when they do turn.
9MMare
Member
IMO it is not revenge, it is attempting to STOP a theft. Stop someone from taking your property.
However use of deadly force is not a legal option for that in this state, even if the intent is to disable or intimidate (Esp. when you hit the thief!)
Last edited:
9MMare
Member
I disagree with this, somewhat.
When you read...or even get a lawyer's opinion...on a specific law, it doesnt mean much without a context...or scenario...that we can envision. ANd as most probably realize reading these forums, there are alot of scenarios. Things most of us never even consider, at least in the details.
So framing state laws around actual incidents or questions and getting interpretations based on those makes some sense. I rarely see anyone posting advice without the caveat that they are not lawyers, it depends on your state, etc etc.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Sticky
