Shooting an unarmed man?

[expvideo]

I was in a 24 hour convience store when it got knocked over about 8 months ago. The robber had a rather large combat knife, was larger than me, and seemed to be very motivated to rob this place and would put up a fight. At the time I had my 9mm AMT on me, but opted not to use it and be a good witness instead of getting involved. I stayed near the fountain drinks with my hands insight to the badguy, he stole about $150 from the cashier, ignored me, and went on his way. I rushed to the door, got his license plate number and his heading. I then waited for the police to show up and calmed the lady behind the counter down.

I would have stopped him. I guess that's a personal decision. There is nothing wrong with being a good witness. I just really can't stand violent criminals, so I would ruin this guy's day by holding him at gunpoint until the police arrive.

 

[R3dundantC]

I had an entire $20 in my wallet. $20 isn't worth taking someone's life over, his or mine. Had he done something like jump over the counter and attack the cashier, I would have presented my weapon and/or shot if necessary.

 

[R3dundantC]

I would have stopped him. I guess that's a personal decision. There is nothing wrong with being a good witness. I just really can't stand violent criminals, so I would ruin this guy's day by holding him at gunpoint until the police arrive.

He was motivated and threatening, but wasn't violent. The situation ended with everyone unharmed (He was caught the next day).

 

[JImbothefiveth]

So, some drunk moron, mugger, whatever, comes up to you out of the blue and punches you, you can draw the gun and threaten him

That's probably illegal in most states.

 

[expvideo]

He was motivated and threatening, but wasn't violent. The situation ended with everyone unharmed (He was caught the next day).

Armed robbery is violent. I don't care if you are as charming as James Bond and as sweet as a carebear. Armed robbery is a violent felony, and I would not let that person get away with it. We see things differently, and you may not see this as worth the risk, while I see it as unacceptable and needing to be stopped. These opinions will not likely change, and I wouldn't say that either of us is wrong.

 

[RobNDenver]

You will have a much higher burden of proof to overcome. Google Harold Fish and you might see how a prosecutor will view the "unarmed man". You had better be able to clearly articulate the threat, and your inability to either defend yourself without resorting to deadly force or flee.

 

[mljdeckard]

There well may be exceptions to the rule, but if I ever shoot someone in self-defense, I am anticipating getting cuffed and booked. I would HOPE that the circumstances are so obvious as to make this unnecessary, but then again, I would hope to not have to shoot someone in the first place.

It all comes down to the circumstances, and the point of view of first the D.A., and second, the jury. Is your lawyer able to convince either or both of them that there was significant likelihood of death or serious bodily injury if you had failed to act?

There is a difference between really needing to act to protect yourself, and seeing circumstances line up where you know you can get away with shooting someone and not get prosecuted for it, even if it wasn't entirely necessary. Honestly, for most convenience store and bank robberies these days, the odds are very small that anyone is getting hurt. It's a guy threatening violence, not showing a gun, wanting $40 for his next boost of oxy or meth. I could probably get away with shooting that guy, but unless I see signs that it is MORE than that, I'm not going to. He'll eventually get caught anyway.

 

[Ianp240]

One thing that needs to be considered in this is the fact that you are armed and that during the altercation the attacker has an even chance of getting control of your firearm, you are now in a deadly force situation and the fear of him or her getting control of the firearm escalates the response and strengthens the use of a weapon in these circumstances.

What others have said about trying to retreat, instructing the attacker to stop and back off are all credible to your defense add that to the fear of losing the firearm to the attacker them you are strengthening your defense.

Whenever you get into a physical fight with a person and you are armed you are on a loser, you will always be aware that you have a firearm and will try to prevent that from being taken off you, all your attention will be on that retention and will limit your response in the fight.

The firearm will not remain concealed and the attacker will become aware of the firearm and its location and will try to take control of it.

Are you really sure that you can win the fight?

You really don't know the skill level of your opponent?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

deckard: "There well may be exceptions to the rule, but if I ever shoot someone in self-defense, I am anticipating getting cuffed and booked. I would HOPE that the circumstances are so obvious as to make this unnecessary ..."

Nothing is quite that obvious. You will want to prepare for questioning. If it took place in your home you may have had time to make non-digital audio recordings of the confrontation by setting a recorder as the assailant entered or ramped up the confrontation. Maybe you even have a video of it, though for reasons I won't get into here, I would recommend AGAINST videotaping a confrontation. You may have prior dealings with the individual, as documented in police incident reports. Physical evidence may exist -- photograph it yourself, fast. Be prepared to point it out to the responding officers. Study your state statutes for the "magic words." Practice saying them in a manner which, though obviously knowledgeable, does not sound overly rehearsed. Tell a story. A story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. When you reach the end, the listener (that's the detective, for those of you playing the home game) should not be wondering, "yeah, and then what happened?".

 

[mljdeckard]

Nope. I'm not saying JACK. I have already consulted an attorney. This is mostly because I have acquainted myself with my state's laws very well.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Yes, I should clarify: If you aren't up to saying the magic words, or if the shooting was "iffy", then by all means keep your mouth shut to avoid incriminating yourself. Expect a ride to the police station and probable arrest for keeping silent, though.

 

[TexasRifleman]

That's probably illegal in most states.

And that's a shame. Those states don't give law abiding citizens the edge, rather they let the criminals have the edge.

Can't believe Texas is the only state with a law like this, but I've never heard of one anywhere else. Anyone familiar with similar laws in other states? Gotta be another one somewhere.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

 

[ravonaf]

If you aren't up to saying the magic words, or if the shooting was "iffy", then by all means keep your mouth shut to avoid incriminating yourself.

It could have been the most justified shooting ever on record and I will always refuse to say anything to the police. More innocent men than I will ever be have ended up in prison for life because they waived their right to remain silent.

 

[mljdeckard]

Few people who know me would say I'm not up to telling any story I choose to. (My wife says I'm a good lawyer. I just need to get that formality of law school out of the way.) I'm shutting up.

To the police, ALL shootings are iffy, at least when they first show up.

 

[Tomasco]

I had to shoot an intruder in 1987. New Mexico, 2 AM on my property. I warned him, he kept coming, he got shot in the chest with a .32. He was shocked that I would actually shoot. Given the option of 5 more in the face from about 5 feet or driving himself to the hospital he chose option 2. I called the cops and went down to the station, front seat and uncuffed to give a statement. I was driven home after an hour. I was never arrested although it did go in front of a grand jury and was no billed. The DA told me she wished I had killed him. At 25 years old this guy had a sheet that was over twenty pages. Bad fellow.

 

[expvideo]

Yes, I should clarify: If you aren't up to saying the magic words, or if the shooting was "iffy", then by all means keep your mouth shut to avoid incriminating yourself. Expect a ride to the police station and probable arrest for keeping silent, though.

But don't try to escape that ride by being open and answering their questions. One should assume that you will always be arrested and spend the night in jail when you shoot someone, regardless of how justified it was. Regardless of the situation, you should always talk to a lawyer before you tell the police anything. When they say "anything you say can and will be used against you", they mean it. I'm not anti-cop, but when you get into a self defense shooting, the only thing you should say, and you might even want to say this word for word, is "He was trying to kill me and I was affraid for my life. I can't answer any other questions until I've spoken with a lawyer". Don't try to talk your way out of going to jail. You will be going to jail. Accept that as an inevitability and shut your mouth.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

expvideo: "Don't try to talk your way out of going to jail. You will be going to jail. Accept that as an inevitability and shut your mouth."

Well, I didn't do any of those things.

But I do wish I had considered that for many persons, the "magic words" may not work for them. They admittedly may carry more weight when pronounced at the scene by a criminal defense attorney, carefully used so as not to appear too rehearsed or leading, yet clearly informed. I'm not very self-conscious, but I do have to admit, sometimes my profession makes a difference.

Probably a lot of people ought to keep their trap shut. Most of my clients manage to incriminate themselves.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The thing that the law sometimes doesn't take into account is who was in the wrong. They tend to weigh unarmed assault vs armed assault without consideration of who instigated the violence, especially in the more liberal collectivist states.

An assault is not a sporting event. You are under no obligation to "play fair" unlike a boxing match where both boxers have agreed to participate and are therefore honor bound to obey the rules and conduct themselves as gentlemen.
A criminal assault is entirely different because you DID NOT consent to fight and are under no moral obligation to give your assailant a sporting chance.

There is an old martial arts proverb that says:

He that strikes the first blow is not in the wrong. It is he that insists in fighting who is wrong.

 

[Jeff White]

The thing that the law sometimes doesn't take into account is who was in the wrong. They tend to weigh unarmed assault vs armed assault without consideration of who instigated the violence, especially in the more liberal collectivist states.

Owen, could you point me to an example of a statute that says that? It's certainly not the case in Illinois, regarded here at THR as a liberal, collectivist state.

 

[WardenWolf]

If someone is in the process of physically attacking you such that you are in danger, it is within your rights to draw your weapon. If they take the path of stupidity and continue to attack, it is within your rights to shoot them.

 

[Guns and more]

moi self26: "Sadly, what it really boils down to is that ANYTIME you use lethal force, whether rightfully so or not...... you WILL be arrested ..."

Change "arrested" to "sued" and I might believe it.
Many people are not arrested after shooting a robber.

 

[Kat144]

Having that mentality could be a problem. I suggest you study disparity of force so you can understand how your physical disabilities do put you at a disadvantage, but they don't give you the right to just use deadly force in situations where your life is not at a real danger of death or great bodily harm.

If someone attacks me, I'm going to assume they intend great bodily harm...or they wouldn't be attacking me. A guy's not going to to come to you, me, or any one of us wanting to give us a black eye and leave (and for those of us who wear glasses, a fist to the eye could be a hell of a lot more serious than a bruise when shards of glass are involved). And if his fist is flying, I don't know if it's going to be a black eye or a crushed trachea or one punch knocking me out and allowing him to do anything else he wants to me...and don't care to find out which one of those things it is.

Doesn't anyone believe in the deterrent effect of SHOWING a firearm to an attacker?

I sure as hell would. Any guy who had the idea I might be a pushover because I'm female, small, and look young would at least get the chance to change his mind. And as you said, a brandishing charge that gets rid of the dude before anything worse happens, beats going up in front of a jury for actually shooting the guy, or ending up in the hospital.


Here's a question. What if you just TELL the guy you have a gun? That is, he's coming at you, and you say "stop, I have a gun." Does that count as brandishing? (Whether it would be effective is a different story. I have my doubts. Unless you're able to produce said gun extremely quickly when he doesn't believe you)

 

[ServiceSoon]

We have a law here, and I am wondering about other places, that addresses this exact thing.

If you are in a situation where you would be OK using force, but not deadly force, you may draw and aim your firearm to give the THREAT of deadly force without it actually BEING deadly force until you pull the trigger.

Do any other states have similar? Seems to make perfect sense to me.

Even if there was no such law I might risk a charge of "brandishing" before I'd let someone beat on me long enough to justify deadly force.

The only time I ever drew my concealed weapon was in exactly this kind of situation.

Sometimes just the bad guy SEEING the gun can stop things. If it's a tool why not use all of its capabilities?

Indiana has a provision like this. It is called reasonable force.

IC 35-47-4-3
Pointing firearm at another person
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily

injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1.

PS I have always wanted to use the exclamation point icon.

 

[Bubba613]

I don't know how often this topic comes up but it must rank there with .45 vs 9mm and AK vs AR.
If you're threatened, shoot the bastard. It's that simple. You don't want to do that? Fine by me.

 

[rondog]

I don't know how often this topic comes up but it must rank there with .45 vs 9mm and AK vs AR.
If you're threatened, shoot the bastard. It's that simple. You don't want to do that? Fine by me.

I'm with ya Bubba. If some maggot comes after me wanting to dance, I'm not gonna argue about who's going to lead. There's NFW I'm going to suffer months or years of pain, just because some fool with an attitude thinks he needs to beat me up for some reason.