Shooting at fleeing attacker/robber/assailant?

[Rapidfire_85]

I've been lurking the boards here for quite some time, and this is my first post.

I'm fairly sure most people have seen the recent video of a hotel clerk who draws and fires on an armed man who demanded money. The 3 shots (that I can see) are after the assailant is clearly running for the door.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk

2nd video in question is a jewelry store robbery, weapon drawn, owner (ex-marine) exchanges gunfire with robber, and shoots bad guy #2 (accomplice?) while he is moving for the door, paralyzing him.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XacfOtv7wxo

I understand that their lives were clearly threatened, and that committing or be a part of a crime threatening another person's life is a good way to take a long dirt nap. Is there a point where the running bad guy equals a 'threat eliminated'?

I guess they could be possibly running for cover to fire on the clerk from, or running to get reinforcements, or a different weapon...etc.

Are there cases where a court would side with a fleeing attacker, claiming the clerk no longer had the right to use deadly force?

I understand im not getting legal advice, and really dont need it, I just wanted to hear the opinions/views of thr.org members on this subject. I hope I am not beating a dead horse.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Howdy,
Iam no lawyer but I would assume it would have a lot to do with the DA in the area, some would shake your hand and send you on your way, others would try to get you thrown in jail for life, but generally if the threat leaves you should stop shooting unless they are shooting back.

And Welcome to The High Road!

 

[Jeff White]

When the threat to you ends, the fight ends. PERIOD!

Yes, in some circumstances people who shot and killed their assailants after the attacked ended and the assailants were fleeing the scene were not charged. For some reason it seems that in most of those cases the person attacked was elderly.

There are plenty of examples where people who followed their assailants out the door or shot them after they turned to run away were charged, convicted and sent to prison for it.

It's all going to depend on the exact circumstances and the legal/political climate where you are. It's probably better to let the assailant run away then to risk a costly court fight and your freedom to shoot him once the attack is over.

Jeff

 

[Geronimo45]

Legality is dependant on your state. In Texas, shooting BGs is practically seen as community service. It's allowed in the majority of crimes (true crimes, not speeding and such)... it's as if the Texas Legislature was desperately wanting citizens to shoot the bad guys wherever they find 'em, whenever they find 'em.

As for the 'tactical' assessment:
Is he armed while running?
No? This could be from him not having a weapon in the first place, or throwing the weapon away. Then it's probably best to avoid shooting. May be legal, but isn't needed.
Yes? Is that weapon a gun? He may decide to lay down suppressing fire on you as he's running, or he may stand back and shoot you from further away, or... anything else. Whenever a BG is armed - especially with a gun - they should be considered dangerous as long as you can see 'em (though this does not mean to keep shooting at him). With a knife, not so much of a likelihood that he'd come back.
Distance is your friend, even more so with a knife involved. If I'm 25 yards away from a man with a knife, I'm pretty darn safe from his knife, no matter what his technique or skill level. If I'm that same distance from a man with a gun, I'm only as safe as his aim is bad. He's less of a threat at a greater distance, but still a potentially lethal threat. Don't write him off as a non-threat because he's retreating. That doesn't mean shooting after him or chasing him down guns-a-blazing - just be aware that the danger still exists.
In those cases - I expect that there's some allowance given by courts for the high stress of first few moments of the situation... I really think you'd need to have nerves of steel (or a lot of training) to avoid the panic-like firing of the gun that I saw in those videos (thought processes seemed to be: "Bad guy. With gun. Must shoot"). Seems like all the shooting was within seconds of the robbery attempts, and inside the building or very close to it. The shooters didn't run outside to chase the BGs down - they shot the BGs out of their specific area, and stopped. They were scared and high on adrenaline, but stopped to think after their initial reactions, and didn't go further.

 

[Zangetsu]

Those situations in the video happened so fast I can't see how you can blame them for shooting at the fleeing criminals. I think they were within their bounds. Now that being said, if the jewelry clerk stepped outside and started shooting at the guy who got away, I think he would have been outside the law. The same for the guy in the first video. But yeah, until they leave, how are you to know they just aren't trying to find some cover so they can shoot back?

 

[cambeul41]

For a robbery or attempted robbery, I’d let them go. However if someone near and dear to me had been seriously hurt in the encounter – e.g. I found my wife on the floor bleeding and the perp going out the door – It would be very hard not to shoot.

 

[Pax Jordana]

Those situations in the video happened so fast

Agreed - and it's awfully damning to have it on video. But unless the threat is turning tail and hitting the door, how am I to decide whether he's fleeing or flanking?

Especially while there's lead flying?

 

[hso]

You shoot to stop an imminent threat and nothing more.
Anything else puts you closer to criminal prosecution for unjustifiable actions.

The speed that events occur at in most shootings can leave a gray area where your reaction to the threat is lagging behind the actions of your attacker, but at some point the threat is clearly over and continuing to shoot is no longer justified.

 

[Titan6]

Outside of combat no. In combat you don't want to give the guy a chance to come back tomorrow. So even if he is disarmed and running away shooting is just fine. If he surrenders or is completely ineffective then shooting is not okay.

We are not talking about combat here. So no threat to you or others = no shoot.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

When the threat to you ends, the fight ends. PERIOD!

I agree with this, but may differ on the interpretation of when the threat has ended. I don't perceive a person moving away but still in close proximity to be a threat that has ended. Defensively, I plan to be trying to move away from the bad guy as well, and pressing my defensive volleys at the same time.

Is he armed while running?
No? This could be from him not having a weapon in the first place, or throwing the weapon away. Then it's probably best to avoid shooting. May be legal, but isn't needed.

Ah, the omniscience doctrine. How do you know he isn't armed? In the jewelry store video, we know that one guy was definitely armed, but only knew that after he produced the gun. We were all surprised and so we don't appear to be omnipotent. We know the other guy was a confederate. We don't know that he is or is not armed, but it would be a potentially deadly naive risk to assume that he is not armed given that he was with a guy that just threatened to kill you.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Obligatory disclaimer- IANAL.

In many jurisdictions, even LEOs are not authorized to fire at fleeing felons. That should be some indication as to what opinion the legal system holds on the issue in those jurisdictions.

I'd suggest studying the lecture notes at http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm for starters. As a followup, I'd suggest having a sit-down with a good criminal defense attorney in your jurisdiction, and addressing your specific questions to him.

hth,

lpl/nc

 

[Zangetsu]

Outside of combat no. In combat you don't want to give the guy a chance to come back tomorrow. So even if he is disarmed and running away shooting is just fine. If he surrenders or is completely ineffective then shooting is not okay.

The criminals in the video didn't surrender. In fact, that would have saved that one guy his legs if he dropped to his knees and put his hands up. Just like we can't know what a criminal is going to do when they attack us, they can't know what we're going to do when we produce a weapon. Everyone gets freaked out and no one is thinking clearly. In a situation like this, the only reasonable thing you can do is keep pulling the trigger until they aren't around anymore or they completely surrender, and I use the term "aren't around any more" very, very loosely.

 

[goon]

I have no legal basis to make this statement but it sounds very situational.
If your attacker has a 4" switchblade and is running away from you, you really don't have any justification for shooting him when he's 50' away, even if he deserves it.
If the guy has a MAC-10 and is running away and firing it back at you over his shoulder that would probably be different.

 

[CWL]

So even if he is disarmed and running away shooting is just fine.

I'm having a hard time believing that this is good practical advice to any reader interested in defending home & property but wants to stay out of prison.

 

[hso]

CWL, Zangetsu,

Titan6 is referring to shooting at an unarmed fleeing combatant in combat, but not in a SD/HD shooting.

He states,

Outside of combat no. In combat you don't want to give the guy a chance to come back tomorrow. ... We are not talking about combat here. So no threat to you or others = no shoot.

at the end of his post.

He's not advocating shooting at someone fleeing in a SD/HD shooting. He's doing the exact opposite.

I hope that clears that misunderstanding up.

 

[Titan6]

CWL- It is not good advice for HD and terrible ethical advice. That is why I prefaced about combat in my post. Some people with guns seem to have issues with the difference between combat and defending your property under the situations most people encounter everyday.

Combat is very different in that you can be reasonably certain that if the guy gets away he will try to come back to kill you. Most criminals once they hit the streets running are not interested in ever seeing you again, especially if you were armed or dangerous. They will likely move on to an easier target. I merely illustrate the difference.

 

[Torchman]

The only LEGIT reason is if you can ARTICULATE that the fleeing felon was an immediate danger to others. I was a judgemental shooting instructor in the Coast Guard, one of the scenarios was three fleeing felons after an armed robbery where they shot and killed the bait shop owner. When their boat gets to the dock, 2 shoot at you the third runs down the dock. The first two are immediate shoots obviously. On #3, he turns and fires at the end of the dock. (Ohhh, to clarify..all 3 had previously fired ..so no DOUBT about being armed). My biggest critique to new people was "Why did you wait to shoot until he turned and fired?" Answer..."I didnt want to shoot him in the back". HELLO...Armed, murdering felon running into the general public. FRONT, BACK or SIDEWAYS....STOP THEM. That said, its like everything brought up here..be able to articulate your actions IAW the REASONABLE PERSON standards.

 

[Crunker1337]

If the guy is not a clear and imminent threat to you and others, you are not allowed to use deadly force. Yes, you'd probably do society a favor by putting him down, but that's not the issue here.

It doesn't matter if you think he's heading for cover or going to get reinforcements. If he's not threatening you, do not use deadly force.

I'm aware that an assailant could shoot you while running away. If the gun is aimed at you, that's a clear and imminent threat and you can defend yourself, regardless of which direction he's moving in.

 

[obxned]

If he is still armed and within range, the threat isn't over!

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Prudent folks will follow that ... if you believe he is armed and within range, the threat isn't over! They may not choose to shoot the person, but they won't just automatically assume the threat is over..

 

[Pilgrim]

In many jurisdictions, even LEOs are not authorized to fire at fleeing felons. That should be some indication as to what opinion the legal system holds on the issue in those jurisdictions.

The basic U.S. Supreme Court decision that regulates the shooting of fleeing felons by police is Garner vs. Tennessee.

Essentially, the use of deadly force to stop fleeing felons is not permitted for non-violent felonies.

About the only situation that justifies the shooting of a fleeing felon is if the escape of that felon would constitute a grave danger to the public.

In the private sector, that about limits a private person's use of deadly force to stop a fleeing felon only when he has just witnessed that fleeing felon commit a terrible violent crime resulting in brutally murdered people.

Pilgrim

 

[Zoogster]

In that first video the criminal actualy got a shot off at the guy with the CCW. You can see it if you look for evidence of the explosive gases rushing towards the area behind the counter prior to the CCW holder firing his first shot.
Considering he just had his ears instantly put into a ringing sensation, and a firearm fired at him from such close range, with the resulting muzzle flash, he may not have been seeing much more than the shape of the criminal.

There is several situations on video where bad guys step back, or flee for a split second and then fire. A guy that just shot at you from a couple feet away and is running parralel to you while you are suffering the effects of the noise and muzzle flash from his gun is best assumed to be a threat until he is outside the building or around a corner. That does not mean one should step outside and shoot at the fleeing criminal, but if a bullet ends up in thier back mid firefight its still self defense.
In fact even when a suspect is facing someone and multiple shots are fired, bullets are often found in the back or side of the suspect as they fall or reach for a weapon.

So if it is mid firefight, the guy is looking back as he runs and has a firearm in his hand, then it is a grey area. A person can just as easily shoot to thier side or behind them in a split second as they can in front of them.
Now if the guy is sprinting away and shows no interest in continuing the fight, or someone follows them and places some aimed shots at thier back as they run down the street then that is totaly different.

You shoot to stop the threat, not to stop escape or punish. If you are still in danger then you probably won't have time to think about what someone else will think.

 

[ihopewewin]

This has been said before Shoot to STOP. If you feel the threat is still there keep shooting if the threat is no longer there then stop shooting. If you think he's going for cover keep firing if he's running for his life let him go it's not worth it. Either way I would take my chances in court if it came down to it id rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6.

 

[Novus Collectus]

In a very few states it is lawful to shoot a fleeing thief if they are fleeing with property which is vital to livelyhood and which cannot be replaced.
I think Texas is the only state that goes a step further and says if it is any property which cannot be recovered by other means one can shoot a feeling theif (as I undersyand it as a non-lawyer).
Almost everywhere else in this country shooting at a fleeing person, unless they are armed and shooting back or still present an imminent threat to the person or others immediately nearby, will most likely get a charge and probably a conviction.

Also, many states have a duty to retreat from a threat if available before using deadly force, especially in public. Chasing after them would not be a retreat.
In some states there is a stand your ground law or understanding of existing law and this may be a grey area. For instance in my state of Maryland one is allowed to stand one's ground in the home (and maybe the curtillage too) and can confront the attacker, or even seek the encounter with the attacker of one's "dwelling", but as soon as one is in public you must run the other way the moment it is safe to do so.

Now what is good tactical/possibly moral/legal/ethical sense, many in more the know than I have already stated that shoot to stop the attack and nothing more and I would guess they are correct.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Yeah...unless you're in the mid east and you've got a flag on your shoulder I'd say don't shoot unless you are in imminent peril.