self-defense

Status
Not open for further replies.
i'm not a troll. i want you to go beyond repetitions of the written law. what was the origin of it, and what's the societal benefit? this is a sociological interrogative sentence.

you're being an ENFORCER of existing law in certain jurisdictions if you simply say you can't shoot while they run away. i want to know an explanation for that law, the object of your enforcement.
 
as i understand it, shooting guns can be used for 3 main things.
1. competition shooting
2. self-defense
3. hunting

i'm interested in number 2. why is it that certain places may allow shooting a fleeing robber while california doesn't? why does the guilty aggressor with a gun suddenly become "innocent" to gun retorts if his back is turned? i'm not asking what the law is. i'm asking WHY THE LAW IS.

is it because california is more of a liberal state? is it because of the 60's generation with "peace"? hollywood movies? they want to give mercy to a fleeing robber AFTER he steals your money so you can't shoot him?
 
Your query was answered to the best of the ability of anyone here and repeatedly. Your questions need to be directed to someone with the background on the exact arguments made in legislatures on why such laws should be enacted.
 
my emotions and questions run more deeply than just a quick reply "no you can't, you'll go to jail, period" or "they'll take your lunch money" by mr. scottgun, nra member.

many people can be tunnel vision enforcers of written laws or say "peace, peace, don't shoot the robber with the gun after he rushes away"

and people can be so wanting of joy and peace in this evil world and say, "by the way, don't kill the chickens and cows on the farms because that's cruel"

if anyone can go beyond the written law, then i'd like to know the why's.
 
the robber may rush away, and go kill and rob someone else in the future. he may use the money to buy drugs and supply the underground drug industry. he may rush away to try to get to his car to get more ammunition. you don't know 100% who he is, or where he's going to go if he's a stranger robber/killer.
 
The Golden Rule of Deadly Force in Self-Defense
In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents.
Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.
Grave bodily harm generally refers to crippling injuries. In some jurisdictions it is also known as great bodily injury.
When someone says, "Your presence offends me, I'm going home to go get my gun to shoot you," the threat is not immediate.
When someone says, "Your presence offends me, if you return here tomorrow, I will be waiting with my gun to shoot you," the threat is not otherwise unavoidable. Even if you must return to that location, you have ample time to contact law enforcement.
The other definitions require a little more explanation.
Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy
In order for you to claim that you were reasonably in fear for your life (or the lives of others you had a right to protect), three conditions must be met:
Ability: The assailant(s) must have the ability to inflict death or grave bodily injury.
This could be by means of a weapon, such as a knife, gun or club. This could also be by means of a weapon such as a brick, a scissors, a two-by-four, a bottle, etc.
This could be by means of a disparity of force, such as male versus female, much larger body size, special skills like being a professional fighter or by larger numbers (a group attack).
Opportunity: The assailant(s) must have the opportunity to employ the ability.
A group threatening to beat the tar out of you, which is behind a ten-foot-high chain link fence, lacks the opportunity, even though they have the ability.
A man with a baseball bat yelling threats at you from across a busy four-lane street lacks the opportunity, even though he has the ability. When he starts crossing the street, the dynamic starts to change.
An average person 21 feet (seven yards) from you can cover that distance in less than two seconds, so a person threatening you with a knife, say eight yards away, with no obstacles between you, has both the ability and the opportunity.
Jeopardy: The assailant must be behaving in such a manner that a reasonable person, knowing what you know at the time, would conclude that he is placing you in jeopardy. In some jurisdictions this is also known as motive.
A friend who takes out the latest addition to his knife collection to show to you has both ability and opportunity. What is lacking is the reasonable perception that he is placing you in jeopardy by showing you his latest acquisition.
As in the question of how far away is an assailant with a contact weapon still a threat, prior knowledge is a key element in judging your reasonableness. If you try to cite knowledge you didn't acquire until after the incident, it will not be allowed in court. Documented training can make the difference.
Ability, opportunity and jeopardy form a tripod. If all three are not present simultaneously, you cannot prove justifiable use of force. However, there's more ...
The Mantle of Innocence
I'm sure you've seen at least one Western movie where the evil gunfighter forces the innocent rancher to go for his gun. When the rancher is beaten to the draw, all the bad guy's buddies swear to the sheriff that the rancher went for his gun first.
Hollywood script writers notwithstanding, the law generally will not tolerate this kind of behavior. If you go armed in society and seek arguments and fights, you may find a judge or jury ruling that you gave up your mantle of innocence. If this is their finding, you will not be judged to have acted in self-defense.
Robert Heinlein's contention that an armed society is a polite society, like most truths, has two edges. If you choose to go armed, you'd better be polite, as well.
 
The law is the law. If you don't agree, take it up with someone who can respond to your concerns--your legislature. There is no one here who can help you.
 
i'm impressed. hmmm, 5 levels of criteria. what a horrible world. there are 2 more issues here that can be added. interpretation and emotion.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking-news-story.asp?submitDate=2003929115734
a police officer killed a hearing impaired teenager for having a bb gun that the officer thought was a real gun.

what if during the few seconds i see the robber rushing away and looking around? i see bystanders on the street and with emotion i think that he is a threat with opportunity and ability. this is a very serious issue and i guess i would have no choice against the law of the land by myself. it's a horrible world with death, violence.

from my perspective, what the law does is give criminals an extra layer of protection as long as they can sheath their guns and turn their backs, while not preventing crimes.
 
why is it that certain places may allow shooting a fleeing robber while california doesn't?
To my knowledge, no state in the Union allows the shooting of a fleeing robber in the back.

i'm not a troll. i want you to go beyond repetitions of the written law. what was the origin of it, and what's the societal benefit? this is a sociological interrogative sentence.
That was not your original question. If you would like to discuss hypothetical social benefit, that's a different matter.
 
"The answer may vary from state to state. If the robbery occurred here, the law states that the immediate flight after committing a robbery is considered to be "in the course of committing a theft" and an appropriate level of force, including deadly force, is justified to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. U.C.A. 76-6-301 U.C.A. 76-2-402"

read car knocker's reply to get an answer to what you don't know to your knowledge of the states in the union.

that was not my original question, is it against the THR forum rules to state another question in the same thread? or should i make a new separate thread about this?
 
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=643116
read this article about the florida law change that the NRA supports or whatever.

apparently, there are those who say it will make a "wild wild west" while others think it will increase safety.

instead of going in a 1 directional line, "the law! the law! shut up and obey, you're stupid" i'd like some more answers.

also, washington d.c. bans guns but has one of the highest crime rates. http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html in 2003, it was considered as the "murder capital"
 
The new law in Florida DOES NOT allow you to shoot someone in the back. It just says that you no longer have a duty to flee when attacked. You are allowed to stand your ground. If your attacker turns and runs away, you cannot shoot him in the back, in ANY state.
As far as D.C., you are correct, but that has nothing at all to do with this discussion. You asked if it is legal to shoot a fleeing attacker in the back, the answer is no.
This really will be my last post here, as this thread has become a waste of time. If you want to shoot someone in the back for the good of society, be my guest. I'll see you on the news.
 
...the ONLY possible justification for such an action, (and this will vary state-by-state, as I will explain later), is if you decide the "bad guy" is a contiinuing threat to the community, and attempt to effect a "citizen's arrest", which he resists, rsulting in his death. This is a VERY problematic premise to operate on - some states, primarily those witha strong ranching and agriculteral background like Texas and Oklahoma, have fairly broad "citizen's arrest" powers, and allow "reasonable force", (up to and including lethal force, if "reasonable" in the circumstances), to apprehend the "bad guy". This is because ranchers used to just lynch horse theives and rustlers - the "citizen's arrest" laws were instituted to try to get the land owners to turn the bad guys over to law enforcement, instead of just killing them on the spot. Two points to keep in mind - you have to either notify a peace officer to come take custody of the arrestee right away, or take him to the nearest police station yourself. Interstingly, when shopkeepers hold a thief for the police, private security guards detain someone, or even peace officers that arrest someone outside of their jurisdiction do so under the "color" of having effected a citizens arrest. Such an approach is frought with potential pitfalls, such as being sued for "false arrest", the fact that peace officers and district attorneys take a dim view of this, even if it is coded in the law, and other dangers too numerous to mention. Although I generally dislike the police advice of "give them what they want", (easy to say when YOU aren't the one doing the giving!), in the case YOU describe, if you:
1. aren't living in a state with strong "citizen's arrest" law and precedent, AND a community that is at least neutral on the subject, including the DA...
2. aren't living in a state that considers fleeing to be a legal "continuation" of the violent felony...

...the best thing you can do is be a good witness, get a good description of the fleeing felon, try to get a description of his car, tag number, etc. If, in the course of doing so, he notices you, turns and points his weapon at you, then the ball game is different, but do you really want to risk your life to do the police's job?
 
thanks, richyoung. interesting about the "citizen's arrest" ability. also, if one lived in the rural countryside, possibly it would take a long time for 1 police station to cover many farms with lots of square acres, so it makes sense to give some ability to them.

those articles are related i think broadly relating to the usage of the gun as a deterrant. more specific case examples are welcome relating to the issue of shooting a fleeing enemy in the back.

i'd like to know why california doesn't give more broad latitude to a homeowner.
1. i wouldn't want to shoot in the back a drunk homeless man with a gun, if he mutters incoherent words and wobbles away. i'd have some pity i think and i would let that go since it wasn't 100% intentional.
2. i wouldn't want to shoot a 7 year old kid who's playing with his dad's gun
3. i wouldn't want to shoot a friend from the past who is in a desperate situation and wants money then leaves.

people who i think this would work against though, are hitmen who take money to do the job, who are non-christians, who have planned an escape route and have read this thread and take advantage of the law. i think both options are bad, either let the robber go away free with your money or shoot him in the back. but i think shooting him is less worse than letting him go. i don't think with a gun you can find a 100% clean solution, but shooting him will be better for society as a whole. individual cases may vary.
 
i don't think with a gun you can find a 100% clean solution, but shooting him will be better for society as a whole.

John:

As a Christian (and I mean no disrespect to any non-Christian, as there are many here who I have befriended in the past year or so I've been a THR member), I have to disagree. I know Christian sects and beliefs vary, but they way I was taught; it is not the right of any man to decide the fate of an evil person in contrast to the whole community. That is for The Lord to decide.

What we ARE taught though, is to take care of our own, and to protect them when they are in immediate danger. To put this in layman's terms: If I see someone being robbed at gunpoint, the Bad Guy is getting "one to the dome", No Questions Asked. However, if the robbery has just occured, the victim is no longer in immediate danger, and the perpetrator has fled; then I'm going to get as much information about him as possible, notify the police of this information and his whereabouts, and allow them to arrest him and bring him before justice, among a jury of his peers (the community). It will be at that point, by the community (jury), for the community, to decide that man's fate.

Either way, speaking from a Christian standpoint, he'll eventually have to answer to The Man Upstairs.

I know I've repeated some of what others here have already told you. I hope I've answered some of your questions regarding the religous and social aspects of your original inquiry.

As for "why the law is", maybe I have answered that; maybe not. Do consider though: A lot of laws have been written looking to the Holy Bible for guidance.

Take care and stay safe.

-38SnubFan

P.S.: I'm not accusing you of being a troll, for no one really knows if you are one. I will say this: If you are "trolling", you're not going to get the "Yeah! Shoot him!" response from ANYONE in this forum. And we won't be keeping this going for your amusement, but for our own. If you continue to be amused (again, this is IF you're trolling, NOT an accusation), that's at your own discretion.
 
38SnubFan said:
you're not going to get the "Yeah! Shoot him!" response from ANYONE in this forum.

Man, that was gonna be my response... :( That and "use enough gun." ;)
 
i thought of something. i wouldn't shoot twice if the fleeing burglar was bleeding and staggering and trying to run away... i think i might understand the "mercy" part more. if he had my cash but was still trying to get away while bleeding and holding on to his bleeding shoulder, i wouldn't want to try to fire again and again to kill him. i'd let him go.

then why the first? is it anger? i wish there was a non-lethal way to stop him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top