Shooting Home Robber in the Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
lexjj,

Thank you for the sound, level-headed analysis.

Everyone must understand that "castle doctrine" simply shifts the burden of presumption of threat, but does not remove any of the responsibility for reasonableness.
 
hey 61 chalk

see you guys all have it so much different than the people in NJ if you shot at someone outside in NJ the cops would come your house lock you up and take all of your guns it stinks NJ stinks to live in I'm trying to move too expensive to live here and ridiculous gun laws
 
A quick comment on chasing down a burgler with a gun in your hand. At some point, YOU become the person committing the assault, and THEY become the person who can legally defend themselves with deadly force.

Let's see how the deal with the OK pharmacist plays out.

Steve
 
Run for office Canadians. Fix the Bull plop yourself or it won't get fixed.

Depends a whole lot on what robber is stealing and just got out the door with.

Robber carrying home electronics out the door? Don't shoot. Maybe covertly follow if he's slow and use cell phone to direct police to him.

Robber carrying expensive medicine I need to live (insulin, cancer meds, etc....)/child of mine/unloaded firearm of mine he somehow grabbed and will surely use to murder or rob others? Shoot to stop and call police/ambulance.
 
While I think that they deserve to be shot, I would use discretion due to the legal ramnifications of shooting someone. If they were fleeing with no other objective other than taking my posessions I would probably let them go and call the police. They will get caught sooner or later. Burglars are habitual creatures and will continue to burglarize until caught in most cases. However, if the person was armed and I felt that they endangered myself or my neighbors, I would blow them away.
 
I don't think this is a legal matter if he's sill in the house, but more of a moral issue. Would you shoot him?

Oh but it is a legal matter. You had better learn about the Administration of Justice. I don't have time to read through the 4 or 5 pages of this thread but I hope someone has mentioned AOJ. Check previous threads if not.

I woman who has just been raped cannot shoot the bum in the back w/o expecting to be run through the legal mill and the worst, charges filed against her, has happened more than once.

We have to get past thinking we can do anything we want in a self defensive act, there are laws that have to be obeyed even then.

(you can talk to God about the moral issue when you get to heaven)
 
I think shooting anyone retreating from a home invasion in the back would be a legal nightmare and morally wrong. But I'd sure try to shoot his legs out from under him if he was running out the door carrying one of my kids, and expect then to face the consequences.

Les
 
I guess the last thing I want to say is... shooting someone retreating or leaving would be bad, but shooting someone in the back could go either way.

If the BG is retreating, then hold your position and wait for help or retreat even further yourself.

If the BG has simply put his back towards you, but is still shooting, seeking cover, moving towards hostages, etc, etc... he is still a threat.

The description in the OP is to vague to know if there is still a threat, only the direction of travel was indicated...

Leroy
 
Background: I live in the state of Florida. Florida has the Castle Doctrine for homes. I interpret the law to mean that anyone who forcefully and without authorization enters your dwelling has forfeited their life, for whatever reason.
Fail

It means you can use deadly force to protect yourself and others in your home (and in Ohio, your vehicle), with a legal presumption of justification. It doesn't mean that you can shoot fleeing non-violent offenders or that you can execute an already incapacitated offender.

On the other hand, if you're standing behind a home invader who is presenting an imminent, credible threat to life and limb of another innocent party, shoot him in the back until he's not a threat.
 
Anybody in my house who isn't supposed to be there I will go after aggressively. I don't really give a crap about my vcr or tv, it's my family I'm worried about. Shooting somebody over 50 bucks worth of stuff just ain't worth it IMO. If they are clearly leaving then I don't think you can or should shoot them. If they have their back to you and you feel they are a threat, I'd take the shot in those circumstances. I'm not a lawyer or a cop though, if you know one talk to them.
 
shoot robber in back???

I personally would never consider shooting a THIEF, fleeing from my home period. If the THIEF is fleeing, he/she is NOT a threat to me or my family. Sure I'd be extremely upset and feel violated that someone broke into my home. BUT I never want to face my MAKER with the death of another on my hands.

Now I simplify things by saying what I said the way I've said it.
If it's 3:30AM and I hear someone removing the TV from the stand and opening the door to exit will I have time to check my son & wife to be certain they are unharmed?
Well I really can't say. BUT I would definitely shout for the thief to stop and if they didn't by that time I would already be at the door because my home is small.

So IF everyone is alright I would not, I would never shoot a human being for stealing "THINGS" material possessions that is. The sanctity of human life, even that of a criminal weighs far heavier that the value of things, material items, with me.

Now if it's 3:30AM and I hear someone (not my wife-not me) entering my sons's room or my bedroom or even rummaging around in the house appearing to be in the midst of a home invasion and NOT fleeing, well look out thief because you're life is now endanger of ending. We have every right, obligation in fact, to defend our helpless children against one that breaks into our homes.
 
One thing about it, a dead thief wont be tempted to hurt or kill someone on another invasion. Maybe one would tell it a little diferent than it happend, but protect future lives. I'm not sure what I would do.
 
Shooting Home Robber in the Back
Hello y'all,
I just started taking a serious stance on home defense and while thinking about it, I had a problem that was plaguing me. I'm not sure what I would do in this (realistic) scenario, so I wanted to gather your opinions.

Background: I live in the state of Florida. Florida has the Castle Doctrine for homes. I interpret the law to mean that anyone who forcefully and without authorization enters your dwelling has forfeited their life, for whatever reason.

That being said would you shoot a home invader in the back as he is heading out the door (but still within the confines of the house) if he was only stealing [insert valuable MATERIAL possession here]. I guess I'm imagining a robber running out of the house with VCR, or Earrings, etc... I don't think this is a legal matter if he's sill in the house, but more of a moral issue. Would you shoot him?

Thanks for your thoughts.

This type of question always bothers me as it presupposes knowledge that certainly may not be known at the time.

How do you know the robber is heading for the door? It very well may be that the robber is simply heading for a position of cover or better firing position. He may be going for a weapon left behind or an opportunistic weapon. He may be moving in the direction of the door, but that does not mean that he is leaving. He might be leaving...or maybe not.

While this would not go with castle doctrine, it did take place in Florida and is an example of robbers running away only to turn and fire...

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."
 
Dont shooot them

:evil:Why would you care if the robber stole your vcr player if you shoot them you might get charger with murder and if you shoot them you might shoot the vcr player but when the robber falls it wil be in more than one peice but the robber was running why care what they and they might have a gun and turn on you!:what::what::what::what::what::what::what::what::what::what::what::banghead::cuss:
 
To answer your question, it all depends on the laws in your particular state.

In New York State, for instance, robbery and burglary are two entirely different crimes. Burglary involves unlawfully entering the premises of another and remaining with the intent to commit a crime therein while robbery is using or threatening to use physical or deadly physical force to take control of the property of another or to maintain control of said property once it has been taken by larceny.

For example, if a thief breaks into your home and you see him take your VCR and climb out the window with it he has committed second degree burglary and petit larceny. If you confronted him as he was stealing your VCR and he threatened you with physical or deadly physical force or actually used physical or deadly physical force against you then it would be robbery. The degree of robbery would depend on whether he was armed and if he had additional persons on hand to assist him in committing the crime. The key, then, is violence or the threat of violence. That is what separates a robbery from a burglary.

Why is this important? Well, because in New York State you are permitted to use deadly force against a fleeing robber but not against a fleeing burglar. New York State law allows the use of deadly physical force to prevent or terminate the commission of burglary, where necessary, but once the crime is complete and the criminal is fleeing deadly physical force cannot be used. You can chase the burglar and try to grab him but you cannot simply discharge your firearm as a first resort.

New York State law authorizes the use of deadly physical force to effect the arrest of certain classes of criminal and I quote the appropriate portions of NYS Penal Law ART. 35 (Defense of Justification) below:

4. A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical
force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to
the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to
effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom
he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in
fact has committed such offense; and may use deadly physical force for
such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she
reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical
force; or
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.


(italics and underlining not in the original)

You can, under NYS law, shoot a fleeing robber in the back. However, your use of deadly physical force must be reasonable and necessary. Be prepared to contact a good lawyer, spend a small fortune and appear before the Grand Jury to justify yourself and your actions.

The key here is that you weren't trying to kill him, maim him, hurt him, get revenge on him etc. you were instead attempting to effect his arrest for the crime of robbery while he was in immediate flight therefrom and you didn't see any other reasonable way of effecting such arrest.

Would I shoot a fleeing felon, even if justified? It would depend on the totality of the circumstances.

Also, nothing above constitutes legal advice. If you want a definitive answer to your question contact a reputable attorney and pay him for some of his time.
 
Fla. Concealed Carry License laws

I am a Floridian with a CCL. My understanding of the law is, yes you can shoot a home invader because if he invades your home it is very likely that he means to harm you and/or your family. The Fl CCW law permits deadly force whenever you have reason to believe that the miscreant means to inflict severe bodily harm to you or anyone else. Other portions of the law say that a fleeing assailant no longer is a threat of serious bodily harm, hence can NOT be shot. Therefore I conclude that in the instance you present, it would not be a "Good" shooting and you could be prosecuted. I have also seen cases here in the Gunshine State where a fleeing criminal has been shot and the shooter wasn't even charged. The bottom line, I guess, is up to the local authorities and/or the courts.
 
You can, under NYS law, shoot a fleeing robber in the back. However, your use of deadly physical force must be reasonable and necessary. Be prepared to contact a good lawyer, spend a small fortune ...

This sort of goes without saying for any SD/HD shooting. You say it like it is some sort of dreaded warning but in reality it is just SOP.
 
I carry a gun to protect my family and myself. I will only use that gun to do that. If a person in my house is running away and is not a threat I am not going to shoot them in the back. I do not care what the law is. Now, I would watch, track and follow out of my house to ensure they exit and do not poise a threat.

I do not want to have to deal with the moral implications of taking a persons life over a “name that piece of crap”. I have had long association with ex-military members who have taken someone’s life at close range, 35+ years later it still haunts them

I have felt that too many people “think” that they want to be in those situations. I have never had to shoot anyone. (Hey, does stabbing count?) I have had guns pointed at me, and I have pointed guns at others. I would not have hesitated to pull the trigger if events had gone bad. But if I can avoid doing so I will.
 
Great El Diablo line...

"You just shot that man in the back!"

"His back was to me."

(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder,
manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible
criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom.


One thing I see a lot of on these forums is the mis-use of the term robber and burglar. At least under Texas definition if somebody is in your house stealing your stuff he is a burglar and is burglarizing your house, not robbing it. Robbery OTOH is a crime against a person, like a mugging where he is stealing directly from a person. In the above example, they say robbery, not burglary. Many times the devil is in the details.

Should have read the whole post po2010 nails it well.
 
Last edited:
The key here [in shooting a fleeing robber in the back in NYS] is that you weren't trying to kill him, maim him, hurt him, get revenge on him etc. you were instead attempting to effect his arrest for the crime of robbery while he was in immediate flight therefrom and you didn't see any other reasonable way of effecting such arrest.

I woudn't want to try it.

In fact, I wouldn't want to try to arrest anyone. A peace officer, who acts under approved departmental procedure, is indemnified against civil suits. A citizen is not. Even if he should win the civil trial with no damages being awarded, the citizen may end up spending a very large amount of money just to achieve that outcome. Kinda dumb to try to arrest a robber just to end up owning next to nothing.

And that could be the best case scenario. Claiming to have necessarily and reasonably used deadly force to effect an arrest may well not prove successful as a defense against a murder charge.

Not for me, thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top