Use Of Force - Shoot/No Shoot

[Deanimator]

The attacker points a weapon at you, all of the sudden the thin veneer of civilization is ripped away and we're right back in the jungle again. Fight, flight, or bleed out while he takes what he wants.

This is of course the key point. Armed robbery is NOT a "property crime". It's a crime against the PERSON. If you don't put somebody in immediate, credible fear of life and limb, you're NOT an armed robber. If I didn't think you were an immediate danger to my life and limb, I wouldn't shoot you. I'd just laugh in your face and walk away.

I wouldn't shoot somebody I saw climbing out my window with my stereo. If he pulls a gun (or a knife or a club) and says "Give me your stereo (or anything else) or I'll kill you!" or without saying anything at all, I'm going to shoot him and keep shooting him until he's no longer an immediate threat to my life and limb.

I'm a LOT more concerned about ending up dead or worse, a pathetic cripple or a vegetable who's a burden on my family or society because I "trusted" in the totally imaginary "decency" of a stranger threatening me with a gun, than I'll EVER be of getting sued.

Some people have a real contempt for armed citizens and their ability and indeed their RIGHT to use armed force to defend not their property, but their very lives.

 

[DHJenkins]

According to the story, he's got a gun and your address. If he gets away without incident, he'll also know you're easy pickings.

You can either take care of the problem now, or you can live the rest of your days waiting for him to come get more of your stuff - quite possibly with 'friends'.

It's a shame alot of you live in places where you're not allowed to protect yourself and your property, but that's no reason to try and talk the rest of us into laying down like dogs because you don't have decent rights.

 

[Deanimator]

It's a shame alot of you live in places where you're not allowed to protect yourself and your property, but that's no reason to try and talk the rest of us into laying down like dogs because you don't have decent rights.

I think that's a factor here.

Some people live in states where the government has determined that it's better for you to be robbed, raped or murdered than for you to defend yourself with a gun. Some of these people are so wedded to the myth of police "protecting" individuals, that they simply can't conceive of a citizen defending themselves in the street. Sometimes this shades into condescension and contempt for armed citizens.

 

[mgkdrgn]

You know, the real bottom line is ... I do not care.

Stick a gun in my face, and if it is all humanly possible you are going to get shot. I'm not going to stand around wringing my hands worrying about a possible civil lawsuit while you threaten my life.

BANG!

I really and truly hope that you never have to find out how wrong you are the hard way. Anyone can be sued by anybody for anything. No castle doctrine law makes it illegal to file suit. If someone wants to file suit against you and the castle doctrine law says you can't be sued, that doesn't mean that the court clerk is going to run the attorney out of his office when he shows up to file the suit. The clerk is going to accept the complaint, take the filing fee and put the case on the docket. When the process server shows up at your door about 6am to serve you with the complaint, he's not going to say, oh sorry I didn't know, when you tell him; "The castle doctrine law says I can't be sued for this." He's going to serve you and then you are going to have to hire an attorney who will answer a complaint with a motion to dismiss on the grounds that you are covered by the castle doctrine law. And here's where you may get in trouble. If the plaintiff's attorney makes a good enough case to the judge that the suit should be allowed to proceed because your actions were so over the top you don't deserve the protection of the law (shooting a thief in the back just might do it) then guess what? You're in court. As an example I give you the New York City lawsuit against the gun shops in Virginia and a few other states. Selecting the right judge allowed the city to keep the suit going in spite of the protections provided by the lawful commerce in firearms act.

And another thing to keep in mind is that no state law protecting you from civil suit is worth the paper it's printed on in federal court. Shoot the thief in the back trying to make a citizens arrest and you probably have deprived him of his life improperly under the color of law...the federal civil rights people love cases like that.

 

[Jeff White]

Stick a gun in my face, and if it is all humanly possible you are going to get shot.

The skill which many posters on here feel they possess just amazes me, how many times have you watched Collateral? Drawing on a drawn gun, foolish in real life, the sign of a hero on the internet............

 

[Deanimator]

The skill which many posters on here feel they possess just amazes me

The willingness of a few posters here to advise others to "trust" a total stranger threatening them with death just amazes me.

I'll trust my own skill before I trust the basic decency of a stranger threatening me with a gun EVERY time.

"Collateral" was a movie. The Tinley Park Lane Bryant massacre wasn't.

Anyone has the right to make the choice to let themselves be murdered on a whim by a stranger with a gun. NOBODY with utterly no concern for my welfare is going to deceive me into doing it myself.

 

[Jeff White]

I'll trust my own skill before I trust the basic decency of a stranger threatening me with a gun EVERY time.

It's your funeral..literally...

 

[DHJenkins]

It's your funeral..literally...

Since you're able to predict the outcome of every armed altercation and state it as fact, can I have the winning TX lottery numbers for the next drawing?

 

[Deanimator]

It's your funeral..literally...

It was those five women's funeral... literally.

I always have and always will absolutely reject the truly evil theory that it's better to quietly allow oneself to be murdered than to go down fighting.

 

[Mr. T]

Drill him

I would drill him only after I asked him to stop. That way he would turn around and I would already have the drop on him....and yes I would shoot to kill, not to wound. Once he was turned around, you could prove that he was attempting to shoot you, given the criminals resulting wounds would prove that he was facing you.

 

[Deanimator]

Since you're able to predict the outcome of every armed altercation and state it as fact, can I have the winning TX lottery numbers for the next drawing?

If you blindly trust total strangers threatening you with a gun to show compassion and decency (EXCEPT for not threatening you in the first place), there won't BE any "armed altercations". If that armed stranger decides to harm you on a whim, there'll only be an assault, battery or murder... YOURS. Some people find that preferable to armed self-defense.

 

[Deanimator]

and yes I would shoot to kill, not to wound.

You don't shoot to kill. You shoot to STOP.

Of course the most reliable ways of stopping someone frequently lead to death. But then choosing to unlawfully put others in immediate and credible fear of life and limb is a CHOICE... when things work out, sometimes your LAST choice.

I recommend that people don't put others in immediate, credible fear of life and limb. It's wrong. It's also dangerous to your health.

 

[COMPNOR]

True, but in this scenario, the guy pulled the gun, you willfully gave him your stuff, and now he's just walking off.

So then the question becomes, do you turn and shoot him in the back? Do you take off in the opposite direction?

He already has your stuff, you still have your life. The question is what do you do from there? While you may be able to justify the shooting, it might cost you to do it. So do you take the man's life to regain your $250 iPod and spend $25,000 in the process to do it?

 

[Deanimator]

True, but in this scenario, the guy pulled the gun, you willfully gave him your stuff, and now he's just walking off.

My point is that when the gun comes out, "negotiations" end.

If for whatever foolish reason I choose to "trust" a stranger threatening me with a gun not to hurt me, and he expeditiously departs, at least by Ohio law, he no longer constitutes an immediate and credible threat to my life and limb, at least in the street.

I'm saying that I'm not getting to that point. If you pull a gun on me, there's going to be a shooting right then and there, hopefully me shooting you. I'm willing to take the chance of getting shot in the front by you rather than that of getting shot in the back of the head, execution style like those women in that Lane Bryant or the Virginia Tech students. Others believe that you should just put your life in the hands of a total stranger threatening you with a gun.

 

[rainbowbob]

If I didn't think you were an immediate danger to my life and limb, I wouldn't shoot you.

IF the gun is in your face, finger on trigger, fighting - in that moment - may not be a good tactical choice.

My original question had to do with shooting the predator in the NEXT moment, i.e., when he is walking away with your stuff and his back is to you. I contend it ain't over yet, but the BG thinks it is. He is, arguably, no longer a threat to your life and limb.

What happens next is up to you.

 

[COMPNOR]

My point is that when the gun comes out, "negotiations" end.

If for whatever foolish reason I choose to "trust" a stranger threatening me with a gun not to hurt me, and he expeditiously departs, at least by Ohio law, he no longer constitutes an immediate and credible threat to my life and limb, at least in the street.

I actually understand your point. So for you, it would be different. Again, in this specific scenario, things are different. You let him rob you. What now?

The problem as I see it, people are talking about two different things. There are those who are saying "if a gun is present, I'll take my chances" and then there are those who are saying "ok, I gave him my stuff", and now we have those who will use it as an advantage to shoot, regaining the iPod, and those who are saying go right ahead, but just because its a good shoot doesn't mean it won't cost you in some way shape or form.

 

[Jeff White]

Too many people who have never seen violence up close and haven't been in an altercation more serious then a shoving match on the playground in the third grade think that they are so skilled that they can draw from concealment and shoot an assailant who already has a gun pointed that them before that assailant can shoot them. I don't know if it's hollywood, video games or misplaced machismo and it really doesn't matter. If you want to gamble your life that you can draw from concealment and fire on someone who already has his gun pointed at you, and disable him before he shoots you, just go right ahead and take that chance.

As for shooting the thief you just surrendered your possessions to in the back, again you pays your money and you takes your chances. In much of the country you're probably going to go to jail. If you don't go to jail you are likely to end up in civil court.

Real life is not the internet. There are serious ramifications anytime you use deadly force. Anyone who takes them lightly or dismisses them out of hand deserves everything he gets should he be unfortunate enough to be involved in a deadly force incident.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I actually understand your point. So for you, it would be different. Again, in this specific scenario, things are different. You let him rob you. What now?

+1. That's not the scenario the original poster posited.

If you draw your gun while looking down the barrel of a gun you've got really good odds of getting shot even if you're in the prime of life and have been extensively and well trained to fight with a handgun (not just static range work). But, outside the issue of whether you get shot or not it will be a good shoot most, but not all, places.

But that wasn't the question -- the question is do you pop a guy in the back after he's robbed you. "I always draw/shoot" sounds good on paper, but in the real world I'm willing to be we can wargame scenarios where you don't -- even if you'll always roll the dice if it's just you, what about if your wife or kids or other loved ones are standing right next to you? Are you going to escalate a gun pointed at you to an exchange of gunfire with them in the line of fire? (In some situations that might be the right thing to do, in some it might be reckless -- do you, or any of us, have the life experience and ability to recognize one from the other?)

 

[LRaccuracy]

A legal issue is a moral issue. Laws are made based on moral values. With that said: At anytime before, during or after the armed robbery, if I feel my life is in danger I will shoot to STOP.

If the perpetrator is walking away from me and if I feel he is going to turn and shoot, I will shoot to STOP.

If someone is pointing a firearm at me, I assume he is going to shoot. One never know's what another human is going to do at any point in time.

Police academy.... See a gun pull your gun. It is better to have your weapon out and not need it than have it in your holster and need it. You will never outdraw anyone who is holding a gun on you.

I will do everything I need to do, to return home safely to my family.

 

[COMPNOR]

If the perpetrator is walking away from me and if I feel he is going to turn and shoot, I will shoot to STOP.

And how do you "feel" he is going to turn and shoot you? Is it just a gut feeling? Is it the guy giving a slight turn of his body or his head, looking back over his should to make sure you aren't following him?

[/quote]
See a gun pull your gun. It is better to have your weapon out and not need it than have it in your holster and need it.
[/quote]

Which is all well in good in theory. But as you later say:

You will never outdraw anyone who is holding a gun on you.

Which would perhaps contradict the first part.

[/quote]
I will do everything I need to do, to return home safely to my family.
[/quote]

And what if that involves doing nothing?

 

[Deanimator]

If you want to gamble your life that you can draw from concealment and fire on someone who already has his gun pointed at you, and disable him before he shoots you, just go right ahead and take that chance.

If you want to gamble your life that the total stranger threatening you with a gun somehow believes that the THREAT of deadly force is ok, but not it's USE, just go right ahead and take that chance.

Those six women in the Lane Bryant store in Tinley Park did. Five of them are dead. The sixth is still alive, but not from a lack of effort on the murderer's part.

The "honorable" guntoting outlaw is a creation of the dimestore novel.

 

[DHJenkins]

As for shooting the thief you just surrendered your possessions to in the back, again you pays your money and you takes your chances. In much of the country you're probably going to go to jail. If you don't go to jail you are likely to end up in civil court.

And that right there is the problem with much of the country - people being forced into victimhood by the state and accepting it.

It's one of the many reasons I'll probably never move out of Texas; down here it's the BG's that 'pays their money and takes their chances', not the victims.

 

[Deanimator]

Which would perhaps contradict the first part.

I will do everything I need to do, to return home safely to my family.

And what if that involves doing nothing?

Doing nothing involves TRUSTING that a stranger threatening you with maiming or death won't actually maim or kill you because he wants no witnesses, because the "voices" tell him to, because he likes it, or for no reason at all.

I gave up religion because I had no faith in a supernatural god. You're asking me to have FAITH in CRIMINALS waving guns around. The answer is simply, "NO".

 

[COMPNOR]

Doing nothing involves TRUSTING that a stranger threatening you with maiming or death won't actually maim or kill you because he wants no witnesses, because the "voices" tell him to, because he likes it, or for no reason at all.

I gave up religion because I had no faith in a supernatural god. You're asking me to have FAITH in CRIMINALS waving guns around. The answer is simply, "NO".

We KNOW nothing happened to the guy. That is the whole point of this exercise. Anything done further at this point, you might not be going home. Doing nothing in this case is probably the wisest choice.

I'm also not asking you to have faith in anything or anyone. I'm simply asking, if going home means doing nothing, will that be the road you take?

 

[Deanimator]

We KNOW nothing happened to the guy. That is the whole point of this exercise. Anything done further at this point, you might not be going home. Doing nothing in this case is probably the wisest choice.

We "know" AFTER THE FACT.

LETTING somebody rob you requires TRUSTING that that person won't hurt you. Unless you can predict the future with 100% accuracy, you don't know WHAT he's going to do. You only have the choice of resisting or submitting, trusting that HE will choose not to harm you.

If you CHOOSE to trust him and you're lucky, and he walks away, you have no legal justification to shoot him, at least in Ohio. I'd never let it get to the point of him robbing me without a deadly force response.