Shooting at fleeing attacker/robber/assailant?
- Thread starter Rapidfire_85
- Start date
- Status
with all of the cases where an attacker returns 30 seconds later after recovering a gun form their car, i say the threat isnt over till the cops get there...
that being said, firing on an attacker that is 3 steps out the door is a whole lot different from firing across the parking lot as the car speeds away
that being said, firing on an attacker that is 3 steps out the door is a whole lot different from firing across the parking lot as the car speeds away
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
I think what is apparent and critical here is there needs to be a specific and known determination of when a person is in flight and one of when a person is actually unarmed. These may both be tough to ascertain positively in a real life situation.
Okay, we can play the stats game. Most robbers won't hurt you if you comply. Does that make you feel safer? Probably not. In fact, in some 13% of cases, they harm the victim and/or other parties (such as customers in a convenience store) after getting full compliance. In some of those cases, the robbers physically leave the store only to return seconds later to do harm.
Okay, we can play the stats game. Most robbers won't hurt you if you comply. Does that make you feel safer? Probably not. In fact, in some 13% of cases, they harm the victim and/or other parties (such as customers in a convenience store) after getting full compliance. In some of those cases, the robbers physically leave the store only to return seconds later to do harm.
Titan6
member
Well if he returns he returns he is no longer fleeing now is he? In fact he is almost certain to do you harm. It isn't as though he forgot his gun or stolen money and had to come back and get it.
So if armed you should be ready and if unarmed it realy does not matter...
So if armed you should be ready and if unarmed it realy does not matter...
JMusic
member
Jeff said it best when he metioned the "political climate". I have seen store owners or workers get away with shooting them out in the parking lot, but these were special circumstances. One if a store owner has been robbed before. Two robberies were prevalent in the area at the time. All these went to the Grand jury and the grand jury had little remorse for bad guys at the time. I've had the oppertunity to shoot at fleeing felons and never did so. It is too gray an area. Only time I would do so as an LE would be in the commision or just after the commision of a life threating crime.
Jim.
Jim.
CNYCacher
Member
NY has a short list of crimes where it is legal to use deadly physical force to prevent the immediate egress of the criminal. Murder, forcible rape and forcible . . . what is the legal term for mugging? This visual learner is having a hard time remembering the term, but the example the instructor used was a guy knocking down an old lady, stealing her stuff, kicking her and running.
Either way, that partially answers your question, some states have laws like that.
About your examples:
Hotel clerk: What I saw was the clerk drew and fired. At the time he drew and fired, the criminal was a threat. The criminal continued to be a threat until he fell, dropping his gun. At that point, the clerk ceased firing.
Either way, that partially answers your question, some states have laws like that.
About your examples:
Hotel clerk: What I saw was the clerk drew and fired. At the time he drew and fired, the criminal was a threat. The criminal continued to be a threat until he fell, dropping his gun. At that point, the clerk ceased firing.
None of these guys were charged with anything even though the robber was exiting.
Just because the robber appears to be leaving doesn't mean that they are not a threat. I've heard of armed robbers shooting over their shoulder as they fled or turning around real quick to pop off a few rounds before they left the scene.
CHL holder shoots teen robbery suspect in Ft. Worth after he recieves call from his wife while he's in the parking lot. He went in and shot the fleeing armed robber in the butt and in the back of the leg as he was running from the building. No charges were filed against the CHL holder.
http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_185074228.html
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2007/07/man-wounds-suspected-robber-at.html
http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=5207&print=1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1860695/posts
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=286786
http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/viewtopic.php?t=8244&highlight=
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspect shot while leaving store.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zFiRKGYdT_Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This guy wasn't charged with anything.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a54882d4e99.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This guy wasn't either.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=392_1191032775
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
These videos show that you can't always predict what armed robbers will do. I guess that the people in the above cases didn't want to end up like this poor guy, the robber was about to leave in this case too.
Robber shoots clerk when he doesn't have much money in the register.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pH3z7H4S-XI
Or they didn't want to end up like these poor people.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rfHMAYL0FJY
They complied with the robbers demands and got shot anyway.
Just because the robber appears to be leaving doesn't mean that they are not a threat. I've heard of armed robbers shooting over their shoulder as they fled or turning around real quick to pop off a few rounds before they left the scene.
CHL holder shoots teen robbery suspect in Ft. Worth after he recieves call from his wife while he's in the parking lot. He went in and shot the fleeing armed robber in the butt and in the back of the leg as he was running from the building. No charges were filed against the CHL holder.
http://cbs11tv.com/local/local_story_185074228.html
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2007/07/man-wounds-suspected-robber-at.html
http://www.newsnet14.com/?p=5207&print=1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1860695/posts
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=286786
http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/viewtopic.php?t=8244&highlight=
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspect shot while leaving store.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zFiRKGYdT_Y
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This guy wasn't charged with anything.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a54882d4e99.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This guy wasn't either.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=392_1191032775
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
These videos show that you can't always predict what armed robbers will do. I guess that the people in the above cases didn't want to end up like this poor guy, the robber was about to leave in this case too.
Robber shoots clerk when he doesn't have much money in the register.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pH3z7H4S-XI
Or they didn't want to end up like these poor people.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rfHMAYL0FJY
They complied with the robbers demands and got shot anyway.
Slugless
Member
More info that, in certain states, a clear and present danger is not the only reason to shoot.
I am not a lawyer, check your own state codes w/DA, your laywer, read the law yourself, etc. You'd be hard pressed to defend yourself for shooting a guy taking a TV set you had insurance on.
The above is taken from an "answer" website, http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/50630
The response (from last year) goes on about some wording in the old Texas law (last year's) that when in danger, one had to retreat. That's never been true under common law - you **always** have the right to defend yourself - and as such the law was irrelevant if you felt in fear for your life or any major bodily parts. It might have caused trouble in some of the grey areas mentioned if you ran afoul of an idiot DA or were being "unreasonable".
That bit of law got fixed to be in line with common law.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808187/posts
I am not a lawyer, check your own state codes w/DA, your laywer, read the law yourself, etc. You'd be hard pressed to defend yourself for shooting a guy taking a TV set you had insurance on.
The above is taken from an "answer" website, http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/50630
The response (from last year) goes on about some wording in the old Texas law (last year's) that when in danger, one had to retreat. That's never been true under common law - you **always** have the right to defend yourself - and as such the law was irrelevant if you felt in fear for your life or any major bodily parts. It might have caused trouble in some of the grey areas mentioned if you ran afoul of an idiot DA or were being "unreasonable".
That bit of law got fixed to be in line with common law.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808187/posts
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Actually, the point is that just because he went outside or APPEARED to be leaving, he never was. He was not in flight. I don't consider an aggressor's actions to be that of leaving until they have physically left the area and are no longer physically capable of being a threat. Otherwise, they are simply changing positions. Just because an armed robber goes out of a store door does not mean he is in flight and just because he is in flight does not mean he isn't a risk.
It boils down to two primary (survival, law) and two secondary issues (prosecutorial climate & ethics).
1. Survival trumps all. Do what you have to do to ensure it.
2. The law comes next. If you have satisfied #1 while staying within the law, you it might be prudent to halt. If you have to break the law to survive, do so with the understanding that you might spend some of that extra life you just fought for in the pokey.
3. Prosecutorial climate has a great effect on whether you might be charged for breaking the law or charged despite being within the law. It still is subordinate to #1 and might make #2 moot.
4. Ethics comes in dead last, unless you are an inveterate navel-gazer. The assumption is that YOU are the one attacked. Defending yourself and doing what is necessary for survival is ethical, barring some hyper-extreme circumstances.
-------------
The two videos in the OP are no-brainers for me. The retreating goblins were still threats.
If you look closely at the jewelry video, the accomplice only draws his weapon after beginning his retreat. So was the accomplice NO threat until he drew or was the fact that his motion was toward the door negate the threat of drawing a weapon?
I wonder how many folks will give the accomplice money in sympathy for his now-paralyzed state. Will he mention that he got that way threatening to kill and trying to steal from a small businessman and then drew a gun as things heated up?
1. Survival trumps all. Do what you have to do to ensure it.
2. The law comes next. If you have satisfied #1 while staying within the law, you it might be prudent to halt. If you have to break the law to survive, do so with the understanding that you might spend some of that extra life you just fought for in the pokey.
3. Prosecutorial climate has a great effect on whether you might be charged for breaking the law or charged despite being within the law. It still is subordinate to #1 and might make #2 moot.
4. Ethics comes in dead last, unless you are an inveterate navel-gazer. The assumption is that YOU are the one attacked. Defending yourself and doing what is necessary for survival is ethical, barring some hyper-extreme circumstances.
-------------
The two videos in the OP are no-brainers for me. The retreating goblins were still threats.
If you look closely at the jewelry video, the accomplice only draws his weapon after beginning his retreat. So was the accomplice NO threat until he drew or was the fact that his motion was toward the door negate the threat of drawing a weapon?
I wonder how many folks will give the accomplice money in sympathy for his now-paralyzed state. Will he mention that he got that way threatening to kill and trying to steal from a small businessman and then drew a gun as things heated up?
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Here is a classic example. Attempted robbery where shots are exchanged and robbers take flight, attempt to leave. HOWEVER, apparently noting the lull in gunfire from the intended victims, on robber stops, turns and fires more, then the intended victims return more fire. The intended victims were CCW folks and apparently fired 15 rounds with no indication of having hit the bad guy, but you get the idea. The bad guys re-engaged the attack after apparently taking flight. So as long as they were in proximity, they were dangerous and still posed a danger.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-concealed0707nov07,0,613083.story
Orlando victims scare off armed robbers with own guns
They draw permitted concealed weapons when suspect shoots
Henry Pierson Curtis | Sentinel Staff Writer
November 7, 2007
Two holders of concealed-weapons permits surprised armed thugs who approached them in west Orlando this week.
Both men opened fire rather than surrender their wallets. The robbers beat it.
"They left with broken egos. They didn't get nothing from us," Juan Amezaga said Tuesday. "If more people stood up for themselves, a lot of crime could be prevented. And the concealed-weapons permit, that's great."
The men say they exercised their constitutional right to own guns, carried them legally and defended themselves within the state's deadly force law.
"If it's appropriate, people have to defend themselves," said Sgt. Barbara Jones, Orlando police spokeswoman. "It's no different from us using a gun. It has to be justified, and we will, of course, investigate what happened."
The gunfight erupted at 6:10 p.m. Monday near Clear Lake, according to a police report on the incident.
Amezaga, 25, and Stephen Soto, 23, were enjoying the fall weather outside Soto's apartment on South Wilts Circle when two strangers walked by them two or three times. Thinking that was suspicious behavior, Amezaga and Soto took notice when both strangers walked up to Amezaga's parked car, where the men were standing.
"What time is it?" one of the strangers asked.
Soto looked down at his watch and said, "It is 6:10." Raising his head, Soto heard the stranger say, "Hey, run them," as the man drew a black snub-nose revolver from the pouch in his sweat shirt.
As Soto pulled a 9 mm Keltec pistol from his right front pants pocket, he heard the robber's gunfire and felt a bullet graze his left shin, breaking the skin. Still standing, Soto fired two or three times before both robbers turned and ran, the report states.
"They tried to rob me and my homeboy," Soto said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "Man, put it like this: If I didn't have a concealed-weapons permit, it would have been a lot worse."
When the robbers fled, one stopped, turned and fired an unknown number of shots.
Soto shot back and fired two to three more times, and Amezaga drew his .357 Magnum Sig Sauer pistol and fired eight or nine times at the robbers. Crime-scene technicians later collected 15 shell casings ejected by both of the men's handguns, the report said.
Both men were unsure whether they hit either robber. Police did not determine where the 15 bullets fired by the men struck in the neighborhood.
Police are looking for two young men who sped away after getting into a gray or silver Chrysler 300 or Dodge Intrepid sedan. It had stock rims and dark tinted windows, and one headlight was not working. The vehicle was last seen speeding north toward Mable Butler Boulevard.
Amezaga and Soto bought their pistols after becoming concerned about Orlando's increase in violent crime.
Nearly 20,000 people in Orange County legally carry concealed firearms, records show. The number of licenses for concealed weapons in the county has jumped 20 percent in the past year and rose 57 percent in the past five years.
The state Division of Licensing had sent out nearly a quarter-million applications for permits statewide by June, a 33 percent increase from five years ago.
Soto, who installs sound systems, arrived four years ago from New York and obtained his concealed-weapons permit last year. Amezaga, a warehouse worker who moved here eight years ago from Puerto Rico, also obtained a permit last year. Both practice at public gun ranges in Orlando and Apopka.
"It could have been real bad last night if it wasn't for the quick thinking and our concealed-weapons permits," he said. "We might not even be here."
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-concealed0707nov07,0,613083.story
Orlando victims scare off armed robbers with own guns
They draw permitted concealed weapons when suspect shoots
Henry Pierson Curtis | Sentinel Staff Writer
November 7, 2007
Two holders of concealed-weapons permits surprised armed thugs who approached them in west Orlando this week.
Both men opened fire rather than surrender their wallets. The robbers beat it.
"They left with broken egos. They didn't get nothing from us," Juan Amezaga said Tuesday. "If more people stood up for themselves, a lot of crime could be prevented. And the concealed-weapons permit, that's great."
The men say they exercised their constitutional right to own guns, carried them legally and defended themselves within the state's deadly force law.
"If it's appropriate, people have to defend themselves," said Sgt. Barbara Jones, Orlando police spokeswoman. "It's no different from us using a gun. It has to be justified, and we will, of course, investigate what happened."
The gunfight erupted at 6:10 p.m. Monday near Clear Lake, according to a police report on the incident.
Amezaga, 25, and Stephen Soto, 23, were enjoying the fall weather outside Soto's apartment on South Wilts Circle when two strangers walked by them two or three times. Thinking that was suspicious behavior, Amezaga and Soto took notice when both strangers walked up to Amezaga's parked car, where the men were standing.
"What time is it?" one of the strangers asked.
Soto looked down at his watch and said, "It is 6:10." Raising his head, Soto heard the stranger say, "Hey, run them," as the man drew a black snub-nose revolver from the pouch in his sweat shirt.
As Soto pulled a 9 mm Keltec pistol from his right front pants pocket, he heard the robber's gunfire and felt a bullet graze his left shin, breaking the skin. Still standing, Soto fired two or three times before both robbers turned and ran, the report states.
"They tried to rob me and my homeboy," Soto said in a telephone interview Tuesday. "Man, put it like this: If I didn't have a concealed-weapons permit, it would have been a lot worse."
When the robbers fled, one stopped, turned and fired an unknown number of shots.
Soto shot back and fired two to three more times, and Amezaga drew his .357 Magnum Sig Sauer pistol and fired eight or nine times at the robbers. Crime-scene technicians later collected 15 shell casings ejected by both of the men's handguns, the report said.
Both men were unsure whether they hit either robber. Police did not determine where the 15 bullets fired by the men struck in the neighborhood.
Police are looking for two young men who sped away after getting into a gray or silver Chrysler 300 or Dodge Intrepid sedan. It had stock rims and dark tinted windows, and one headlight was not working. The vehicle was last seen speeding north toward Mable Butler Boulevard.
Amezaga and Soto bought their pistols after becoming concerned about Orlando's increase in violent crime.
Nearly 20,000 people in Orange County legally carry concealed firearms, records show. The number of licenses for concealed weapons in the county has jumped 20 percent in the past year and rose 57 percent in the past five years.
The state Division of Licensing had sent out nearly a quarter-million applications for permits statewide by June, a 33 percent increase from five years ago.
Soto, who installs sound systems, arrived four years ago from New York and obtained his concealed-weapons permit last year. Amezaga, a warehouse worker who moved here eight years ago from Puerto Rico, also obtained a permit last year. Both practice at public gun ranges in Orlando and Apopka.
"It could have been real bad last night if it wasn't for the quick thinking and our concealed-weapons permits," he said. "We might not even be here."
Once the BG forces you to 'go to war', I think what ever happens is his fault. A peace loving, honest citizen should NOT be held responsible for 'over-reacting' once the fit hits the shan.
Sadly, the law does not see it that way.
Sadly, the law does not see it that way.
alsaqr
Member
If the BG is running away with a gun after having shot at me he is going to die.
jr_roosa
Member
Another thing to remember is that in general the laws are not written as "you may use deadly force when threatened." They are much more carefully written. Usually they say something like "If you are in a situation where a reasonable person in the same situation would be afraid that there was imminent threat to life, limb, or property then you may do something to stop the threat."
I put in all the italics because those are all things that are usually up for argument. For example, if you tell the police that you were angry at the guy you shot, rather than afraid, that can poison your self-defence. Or, in these cases it might help if you (read-your lawyer) argue that as long a the bad guy with the gun was in your store, you were still afraid that your life was in danger. The "reasonable person" part is important too. That means that you don't get to decide if you were right, but rather a jury of "reasonable people" get to, and jurys can decide whatever they please.
-J.
I put in all the italics because those are all things that are usually up for argument. For example, if you tell the police that you were angry at the guy you shot, rather than afraid, that can poison your self-defence. Or, in these cases it might help if you (read-your lawyer) argue that as long a the bad guy with the gun was in your store, you were still afraid that your life was in danger. The "reasonable person" part is important too. That means that you don't get to decide if you were right, but rather a jury of "reasonable people" get to, and jurys can decide whatever they please.
-J.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
I'm closing this one on a high note, being the last post by jr_roosa. The previous two comments contain the kind of bloodlust rhetoric we don't want here. I'm closing it down before the Staff is compelled to get more involved than just closing a thread.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
