Use Of Force - Shoot/No Shoot

[rainbowbob]

The following incident was reported in my local press this morning. It got me to thinking. Questions follow story:

On 7/19/09, at approximately 9:00 p.m., the victim was walking northbound in the 1700 block of Harvard Av. on the west side of the street, when he observed the suspect approaching him from the north. The victim stepped aside on the sidewalk to allow the suspect to pass. The suspect stepped with him to the same side and stopped.

The victim saw that the suspect was pointing a black handgun at him. The suspect was also wearing a partial face mask or black bandanna over the lower portion of his face.

The suspect demanded money. When the victim said he did not have any, the suspect demanded his cell phone, IPOD and backpack, which contained his wallet. The victim complied and gave the suspect the items. The suspect then walked off southbound on Harvard Av from E Olive St.

Assume you are armed and were taken by surprise and did not see the gun until it was pointed at you at close range.

Assume you give up your stuff (except your firearm), and the robber begins walking away.

Do you watch him walk away? (It's only replaceable stuff.)

Do you draw your firearm and command him to halt? (At which point he may turn and fire.)

Do you draw your firearm and shoot him in the back? (Scratch one violent predator.)


I would like to discuss the legal/moral/tactical considerations of your choice.


As for the legal consequences, it would appear from my reading of my state's (WA) statutes on the use of force (excerpted below), that it might be justifiable to shoot the violent predator in the back.

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:

(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;

As for the moral dilemma: It might seem hard to justify killing someone when you are no longer in imminent danger.

On the other hand, he has demonstrated his complete lack of consideration for the safety and well-being of others - and may kill the the next unfortunate victim he meets.

From the tactical perspective: If I'm going to have to use deadly force for any reason - I would not be overly concerned about making it a "fair" fight.



I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

 

[mbt2001]

Much better to just pull your piece when he is trying to rob you. He wouldn't know you were not going for your wallet until you had shucked the gun and were bringing it up. Chances are you could absorb a shot supposing he didn't hesitate, run or miss.

Under no circumstances do you shoot the dude in the back.

There is a story about a monk who was walking along on the road to Osaka. He was still in the relative country, with a day more to his journey. He had stopped for a small lunch when s group of young Brigands came up and demanded his money. He told them that he had no money. Grumbling they began walking away. After a minute, the monk remembered that he had one gold piece in his pocket and chased after the gang and gave it to them saying that he had forgotten that he had it.

The gang was astonished and they shaved their heads and followed him.

My point is that depending on what was in the bag and your state of readiness it would be dishonorable for you to demand for your equipment back. If you are unarmed, then it isn't a problem. But if you have the means to resist, but give them the material and when they walk away you pull a gun and demand the "goods" back, I would think that would be dishonorable.

 

[DHJenkins]

Down here, you can shoot them in the back if they're making off with your stuff.

So, scratch one bad guy.


Once again, Texas Penal Code:

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY


Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.



Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

 

[rainbowbob]

My point is that depending on what was in the bag and your state of readiness it would be dishonorable for you to demand for your equipment back.

Well...that's interesting. I wasn't expecting that one.

It would not have occurred to me that any dealings with a violent predator are subject to and bound by considerations of "honor".

I was thinking more along the lines of a discussion of tactics, legal considerations, and so forth.

Much better to just pull your piece when he is trying to rob you. He wouldn't know you were not going for your wallet until you had shucked the gun and were bringing it up. Chances are you could absorb a shot supposing he didn't hesitate, run or miss.

Now that could be considered from a tactical perspective. Can you draw and fire effectively before he does? Maybe. But I don't believe I'm going to base my tactics on hoping I can "absorb a shot" simply to provide an honorable playing field for my adversary.

 

[rainbowbob]

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means...

Texas statutes are pretty darn clear.

Mine (Washington State's) are less explicit and perhaps open to some interpretation.

 

[Kleanbore]

You quoted a part of the code that refers to the use of force. what does it say about deadly force?

 

[DHJenkins]

Re-read my post. It clearly says "Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

 

[rainbowbob]

You quoted a part of the code that refers to the use of force. what does it say about deadly force?

I think kleanbore is referring to my OP.

The Revised Code of Washington has this to say about that:

9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

That may still be open to some interpretation as to whether "...resistance of an attempt to commit a felony..." includes actions taken AFTER the felony has occurred but BEFORE the felon has escaped.

 

[Kleanbore]

Re-read my post. It clearly says "Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY"

Sorry, I was asking Rainbow Bob about the Washington statute.

 

[WTBguns10kOK]

If he already has a gun on you, I wouldn't bother drawing unless he looked away or started shooting. Then call the cops and try and lead them to where he went off to. You're not defending yourself or your property if he's already stolen your stuff and leaving, and you plug him. But I guess that's just the way I look at it, seems easier in the long run.

 

[catspa]

Bob, as your neighbor to the west here in WA, I don't think it's legal to shoot him in the back. However, I'm gonna say something here that'll sound kinda crazy.

When I was robbed at gunpoint (long ago), I completely froze up with fear and did nothing to resist. In fact I came I came out from behind the store counter and laid face-down on the floor as the robber demanded. At that moment, I fully expected he would kill me so I couldn't testify against him.

Since then, I have thought long and hard about that situation, and have resolved that I will not put myself at the mercy of a criminal like that again. So...

Don't assume that I'll give him my stuff. I might act like I'm starting to, I might say something like, "Don't hurt me!", but the first order of business is to get the muzzle of his gun off me. If he's that close, I'm going to grab his hand that's holding the gun and do my best to break it off in a "safe" direction. Kicking, elbowing, eye-gouging, head-butting, all the dirty tricks I've ever seen to inflict as much damage on him in the shortest time possible.

It might not work out well for me, I might "absorb a bullet", as they say. I might even die right there. But I won't enter the next life (if there is one) on my knees in helpless shame.

Like Pa used to say, "Boy, it would be tragic to lose ya, but worse if you disgraced the family name..."

Parker

 

[rainbowbob]

I won't enter the next life (if there is one) on my knees in helpless shame.

catspa: The incident you describe doesn't sound like any fun at all, and I can understand how it might effect your tactics the "next" time.

However, this is another take on the issue of "honor".

I don't personally believe honor has anything much to do with it.

I, too, would rather fight than lay down on the floor and wait for a bullet. Not out of any desire to preserve my honor - but to preserve my life.

Like you, when "asked" to "give it up" at gunpoint, I froze and complied with the robber(s). I was young (18) and unarmed at the time. Fortunately, no demands where made to submit other than to hand over the money in my wallet (all $3).

In retrospect, I probably could have easily evaded them by running behind them and yelling my head off, as they were in a car at a busy intersection in Hollywood in broad daylight. Cars behind them would have prevented them from chasing me in reverse.

If I thought giving it up was the safest thing to do based on my gut instincts in that moment, I would do so.

But nowhere in the statutes to I read a prohibition against shooting a predator in in the back to prevent the completion of a violent felony.

It is my opinion that it is still an armed robbery in progress until the BG is out of sight with your possessions.

 

[mbt2001]

It would not have occurred to me that any dealings with a violent predator are subject to and bound by considerations of "honor".

Everything in your life should be subject to your honor.

Obviously if you are unarmed, it doesn't mean squat to give him your stuff and then when he turns around to jump him; however if you have a weapon (in this case a gun) then it would seem that you have everything you need to resist save the WILL to do so. In a sense, when you gave him your stuff, you agreed to let him have it in exchange for no violence. In essence, you gave your word.

In that case if you were to give him your stuff and then when he turns around to shoot him, you might LEGALLY be able to do it, but LEGALITY shouldn't be MORALITY or ETHICALLY sound. That is one of the problems with America today. We have traded in philosophers for 9 Supreme Court Justices.

That is why if I am by myself, I would pull my piece and blaze and let fortune decide. Wife / kids around would change it slightly.

But I don't believe I'm going to base my tactics on hoping I can "absorb a shot" simply to provide an honorable playing field for my adversary.

Just because criminals don't have honor doesn't mean that we should sacrifice ours.

Also, I might say that you the very hight of the warrior tradition is to treat the enemy with honor in combat. I just have a huge problem with shooting a dude that robbed me but otherwise didn't injure me in the back to regain possessions that I GAVE him (see above) while I had the means to resist.

Listen, if you are going to die you are going to die. You can't avoid that anyway. Fate is fate and if you draw and die, then tough break. At least you will be entitled to the epitaph "He died game."

 

[DeepSouth]

If I can get out of a situation without shooting someone that is what I'd do.

But if I felt my life (or possibly someone else's determined by the circumstances) is threatened I wouldn't hesitate to say fire.

I heard it said once, "I will avoid shooting anytime I can, but if I have to shoot, I hope I don't miss."

 

[BullfrogKen]

A long-standing concept in the development and history of Western Law is the concept of necessity.

What you'll have to convince those in the judicial system, looking at your circumstance from a position far removed from it, is that what you did was necessary.

The legal definition of self-defense contains the components of necessity. To claim that affirmative defense - meaning that you admit you did it, and you were justified in doing so - you must show what you did was reasonably necessary at the time you did it.

 

[AK kind of guy]

I was raised not to let someone take anything from you no matter how small or big and being that i have had someone attempt to mug me and another person try and carjack me i would choose to pull my gun and take my chances i work hard for what i have and do not plan to give it to some thug wanting a easy dollar at my exspense

 

[nitetrane98]

Oh ye of little imagination.

 

[rainbowbob]

...when you gave him your stuff, you agreed to let him have it in exchange for no violence. In essence, you gave your word...

mbt2001:

I'm going to assume you aren't joking here and so will respond in all seriousness.

The concept of participating in a "contract" with a violent predator is simply ludicrous. The other party to the contract has already made it crystal clear by their actions that they have no honor, do not have any respect for your safety or well-being, and are entirely untrustworthy.

If I chose to give them stuff in the hope they don't harm me, I would have absolutely no faith - only hope - that they will keep their end of the "bargain". I would only do so if I believed that any other response was tactically unsound.

Giving up my stuff at the point of a gun does not by any stretch of the imagination constitute my "word of honor" or any other form of contractual obligation.

...the very hight of the warrior tradition is to treat the enemy with honor in combat...

This is NOT some kind of chivalrous exchange between identifiable enemy combatants. And if it were, it would be a mutually agreed upon code of conduct adhered to by both sides.

That is clearly NOT a relevant consideration in this instance.

 

[rainbowbob]

Oh ye of little imagination.

 

[rainbowbob]

What you'll have to convince those in the judicial system, looking at your circumstance from a position far removed from it, is that what you did was necessary.

BK:

Although shooting a fleeing felon in the back might not be necessary to preserve one's life, it could be argued that it was necessary to use deadly force to prevent the completion of a violent felony (i.e., armed robbery).

And the statutes in Texas and Washington indicate this might be an affirmative defense for doing so.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Bob,

Once he has your belongings and is leaving the area, you are no longer preventing the crime. It has already taken place.


Anyone is free to take whatever actions they choose, and if someone chooses to shoot a thief in the back then that's his choice. The problem is convincing someone else that the act was necessary and justified to protect your well-being. And that someone else isn't me.


Neither society, nor the law itself grants an individual the authority to kill a man to prevent him from committing unspecified, vague and non-immediate futher acts of violence. That's the purpose of the justice system. Our history and tradition of Western law allows an individual to use force, even deadly force, to protect himself or for those he has a moral/legal/ethical responsibility in an immediate and finite time period. Those circumstances are subject to concepts of necessity and justification.

There may be a situation when shooting a man in the back can be both justified and necessary. But making an argument that you're doing it to protect society-at-large probably won't be a successful one. It might if you get the right jury, but its a big gamble to take.


The only situations I'm aware of that have recognized a person had justification to kill another when he/she was not in immediate danger in some recent cases of spousal abuse. Over the past decade or so some courts recognized a wife was justified in killing her husband when he threatened grave harm to her, "after I get out of the shower", or "after I get home." I can't recall the specific case right now, but in one particular case a woman shot and killed her husband in the shower after he had beaten her, and threatened to beat her more severely after he was done cleaning himself up.

The defense argued the threat was foreseeable, and although not immediate but imminent, predictable based on past behavior and found her actions justified as self defense. They also argued that she was a small woman, he was a large man, and she would have had less chance of success had she waited until he began beating her again. As to why she didn't call the police, apparently her attorney successfully argued that she had contact with the justice system in the past, and that the system had earlier failed to protect her.

 

[rainbowbob]

BK:

I understand your remarks and - for the most part - agree with them.

I am not necessarily advocating the use of deadly force to prevent a predator from making off with your stuff.

I am interested in discussing the legal/tactical/ethical ramifications of chosing to do so.

Once he has your belongings and is leaving the area, you are no longer preventing the crime. It has already taken place.

This is where it is not clear to me.

IF the BG has your stuff but has not escaped with it yet...

...and IF you can legaly use force up to and including deadly force to "arrest" the felon in the act of attempting to abscond with your stuff (and the statutes of at least Texas and Washington seem to indicate it would be)...

...an argument can be made that it would be legal to use deadly force to do so, regardless of whether you had a reasonable fear for your life at that point.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

depends what belongings are leaving. nowadays most things i will let go. to quote my daughter "daddy you are too old and fat to fight"

 

[DHJenkins]

...an argument can be made that it would be legal to use deadly force to do so, regardless of whether you had a reasonable fear for your life at that point.

This is why our penal code includes the use of deadly force to protect property; it has nothing to do with self-defense or being in fear for your life - therefore no argument is necessary.

All of the 'ramifications' are going to depend on your local laws, community & LEO's. Given the same situation, one place may treat you like a criminal or a pariah, while another will treat you like a hero.

 

[CPerdue]

Draw, declare you are armed, and order a halt.

Giving up the stuff was a tactical move which succeeded when the robber foolishly turned his back. If 'dishonor' were even possible when dealing with a thief, there is none in taking advantage of an adversary's bad tactics. Beyond that, the confrontation is still on, there is no guarantee the robber will not turn and shoot you in the next instant. If the thief runs let him go, but kill him if he twitches the wrong way.

I think the moral, philosophical key is are you acting in defense or in revenge. Attempting to effect an arrest looks legal and is acting in defense of self and society at large. Shooting without warning is cold blooded revenge and not acceptable.

C.