mljdeckard
Member
Normally no, unless I had reason to believe that immediately after leaving me he would go to another place and commit another violent crime against someone else, and that knowledge is rather difficult to imagine.
Would you shoot a fleeing intruder in the back?
- Thread starter Bear2000
- Start date
- Status
Paladin_Hammer
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 137
I wouldn't want to shoot someone period. If they were running away, I wouldn't shoot them even in the instance he/they were shooting while running.
Cyborg
Member
Fleeing Felon Rule
Unless a Peace Officer would be justified in shooting him I would not. The cops are bound by what I was taught as the "fleeing felon rule". You P.O.s out there correct me if I am wrong but if someone is running away you can only use deadly force if they present a danger to others. In Tennessee v. Garner SCOTUS ruled that deadly force may not be used unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Unless I am prepared to defend myself in a criminal court, if he is running away I am not going to shoot him (or her - we had a home invasion here in Alamo Town last week where a female knocked on someone's door and asked to use the phone, when the homeowner unlocked the door the female's two acomplices burst in, shot her husband and sexually assaulted the homeowner while her 4 year old watched from the top of the stairs). Of course, I really don't know what I'll do if this really happens. I'll tell you folks what I did if it does.
Cy
Unless a Peace Officer would be justified in shooting him I would not. The cops are bound by what I was taught as the "fleeing felon rule". You P.O.s out there correct me if I am wrong but if someone is running away you can only use deadly force if they present a danger to others. In Tennessee v. Garner SCOTUS ruled that deadly force may not be used unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Unless I am prepared to defend myself in a criminal court, if he is running away I am not going to shoot him (or her - we had a home invasion here in Alamo Town last week where a female knocked on someone's door and asked to use the phone, when the homeowner unlocked the door the female's two acomplices burst in, shot her husband and sexually assaulted the homeowner while her 4 year old watched from the top of the stairs). Of course, I really don't know what I'll do if this really happens. I'll tell you folks what I did if it does.
Cy
theotherwaldo
Member
As an intellectual exercise, I would say that I could only justify shooting someone in the back if:
1) They had just done something truly heinous, and/or;
2) They had just promised or threatened to do something truly heinous, and/or;
3) They were running toward cover, weapons, or hostages while otherwise breaking the law.
Questions?
1) They had just done something truly heinous, and/or;
2) They had just promised or threatened to do something truly heinous, and/or;
3) They were running toward cover, weapons, or hostages while otherwise breaking the law.
Questions?
I would shoot a fleeing intruder in the back if he/she had broken into my house and posted a poll on the Internet from my computer with a question or subject such as:
I have no doubt whatsoever that any jury of rational, reasonable, thinking human beings would find my shooting absolutely justified and righteous.
- What caliber handgun for bears?
- What do you put in your BOB?
- What rifle for SHTF?
- 45ACP or 9MM?
- What handgun for my wife or girlfriend?
- Would you shoot a fleeing intruder in the back?
- Would you be so astonishingly brain dead as to make potentially self-incriminating statements on a public bulletin board?
I have no doubt whatsoever that any jury of rational, reasonable, thinking human beings would find my shooting absolutely justified and righteous.
BADUNAME37
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,434
No, I would not shoot any person for ANY reason.
I would specifically have to feel that there is physical danger to my life and/or the life (lives) of others around me.
Last edited:
shooter429
Member
I will answer as long as it is clear we are talking about FPS video game scenarios, n
We are talking about Call of Duty or something, right
It depends on who you are and under what authority...
It also depends on the totality of circumstances. If a guy came into my house grabbed say some jewelry and upon seeing me rant out the door, and did not stop or make any furtive movement, I would not.
If, however, it was an armed intruder who was carrying an UZI and running toward a door, I would drop him without hesitation. Why? Because I assume he is just running for cover or concealment, he has the ability to kill me, has demonstrated intent etc.
Now lets say that I see a guy taking a bike off the back portch. He is pedaling away, has not confronted me, and I see a gun in his waistband-I would not unless he turned toward me etc.
Now as a public servant, ya also need to consider "is this subject an immediate danger to the lives of others in the community and if I don't stop him is he likely to kill somebody in the next whatever 30 seconds." He is an armed felon who I stopped wherupon he opened fire at me breaking out the lights in my car and then fleeing toward a nearby school. In that case, yes, because he presents a clear, imminent threat to the safety of others I am sworn to protect and has proven he is willing to kill.
We are talking about Call of Duty or something, right
It depends on who you are and under what authority...
It also depends on the totality of circumstances. If a guy came into my house grabbed say some jewelry and upon seeing me rant out the door, and did not stop or make any furtive movement, I would not.
If, however, it was an armed intruder who was carrying an UZI and running toward a door, I would drop him without hesitation. Why? Because I assume he is just running for cover or concealment, he has the ability to kill me, has demonstrated intent etc.
Now lets say that I see a guy taking a bike off the back portch. He is pedaling away, has not confronted me, and I see a gun in his waistband-I would not unless he turned toward me etc.
Now as a public servant, ya also need to consider "is this subject an immediate danger to the lives of others in the community and if I don't stop him is he likely to kill somebody in the next whatever 30 seconds." He is an armed felon who I stopped wherupon he opened fire at me breaking out the lights in my car and then fleeing toward a nearby school. In that case, yes, because he presents a clear, imminent threat to the safety of others I am sworn to protect and has proven he is willing to kill.
astark
Member
I would not shoot the Fleeing intruder.
sturmgewehr667
member
not unless i am sure he is retreating for cover to shoot at me from. i would follow him out of the house to make sure he isn't coming back and call the cops. i dont want to give the media any basis for an anti gun story and i especially dont want to have to shoot someone or deal with a grey area in the law.
My property (land and posessions) is just that; MINE. It does not belong to the US Gov't, so it does not belong to any taxpayer other than myself (assuming the intruder pays taxes).
It is a matter of risk and reward. If they feel like their personal safety is worth violating my property, then that is what they will pay.
I do not know what the exact laws are in Wyoming, but anyone who takes my stuff or trespasses on my land and refuses to see the cops will be forced to wait for them.
Any intruder poses a threat if not dealt with.
Criminals are like animals, if they find a soft target they will continue to exploit it. If they find a hard target, they will continue to look until they find a soft target.
Don't shoot to kill unless immediately threatened, BUT, make sure that person can not go on to threaten someone else. Do yourself and your neighbors a favor.
just my .02.
It is a matter of risk and reward. If they feel like their personal safety is worth violating my property, then that is what they will pay.
I do not know what the exact laws are in Wyoming, but anyone who takes my stuff or trespasses on my land and refuses to see the cops will be forced to wait for them.
Any intruder poses a threat if not dealt with.
Criminals are like animals, if they find a soft target they will continue to exploit it. If they find a hard target, they will continue to look until they find a soft target.
Don't shoot to kill unless immediately threatened, BUT, make sure that person can not go on to threaten someone else. Do yourself and your neighbors a favor.
just my .02.
It is all situational. If the scenario was he sees me, he immediately turns and runs, he heads straight for the door and never looks back, and I have no evidence of him being armed, the answer is a strong "NO!" If I have any reason to think he is armed and I can articulate a present threat to my life or the life of another, he is probably going to get lit up. There's a whole lot of "vague" in there, and that's just the way it is. Each situation is different.
The better question would be "would you shoot an intruder in the back as he ran in the opposite direction from you?" The answer is still a resounding "maybe", but at least the question has been stripped down to a matter of position and action, not position, action and intent.
In other words, yes you darned well can justify shooting someone who is running away in the back, legally, morally and tactically.
Mike
The problem is with the choice of wording. "Fleeing" implies a motive or intent on the part of the intruder; in this case, he's trying to get away. You don't know exactly what his intentions are, all you can know is what you see. Now, you can infer intent from action, but the inference cannot be 100% accurate. As was said, was he fleeing, or attempting to maneuver on you? Was he turning his back to gain distance and time to draw a gun?
The better question would be "would you shoot an intruder in the back as he ran in the opposite direction from you?" The answer is still a resounding "maybe", but at least the question has been stripped down to a matter of position and action, not position, action and intent.
In other words, yes you darned well can justify shooting someone who is running away in the back, legally, morally and tactically.
Mike
expvideo
Member
The last thing I want to do is shoot someone. If I don't feel that they are a threat to me or my family, then I'm not going to shoot them. But like it's been said in this thread, there is a huge grey area. I'll shoot someone in the back on the way to my kid's room (if I had a kid). But if he's running away from my house, that would be murder. At least the way I see it.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
7.62x25:
Gunshot wounds and their treatment at hospitals or elsewhere are a legal thicket.
Docs have to report them, so perps limp downtown to "Quasidocs."
In areas with significant numbers of GSWs, there are always a few former doctors or other practitioners who lost their licenses for one reason or another and will treat a GSW for a cash fee (or dope). Others still are licensed but in debt to gangsters for gambling or drugs.
Surreptitious GSW treatment itself is chargeable as a crime --- for anything from hindering apprehension to conspiracy to accomplice liability for the underlying crime -- remember Doctor Mudd and John Wilkes Booth's leg?
The situation can create dramatic little scenes for television shows -- the young idealistic doctor who wants to treat the man bleeding to death in front of him in an alleyway, but who worries -- rightly-- about legal liability.
When the perp is delivered on a stretcher to the ER with a GSW, the detectives call it "Meat on the Table."
Gunshot wounds and their treatment at hospitals or elsewhere are a legal thicket.
Docs have to report them, so perps limp downtown to "Quasidocs."
In areas with significant numbers of GSWs, there are always a few former doctors or other practitioners who lost their licenses for one reason or another and will treat a GSW for a cash fee (or dope). Others still are licensed but in debt to gangsters for gambling or drugs.
Surreptitious GSW treatment itself is chargeable as a crime --- for anything from hindering apprehension to conspiracy to accomplice liability for the underlying crime -- remember Doctor Mudd and John Wilkes Booth's leg?
The situation can create dramatic little scenes for television shows -- the young idealistic doctor who wants to treat the man bleeding to death in front of him in an alleyway, but who worries -- rightly-- about legal liability.
When the perp is delivered on a stretcher to the ER with a GSW, the detectives call it "Meat on the Table."
Why I Posted This Question
I posted this question because of the support some on this board showed for the British farmer who was jailed after shooting two intruders in his home. They were both fleeing the scene, and he shot them both, killing the sixteen year-old with a shot to the back. See:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=419066
The video did not mention this crucial fact, but instead portrayed a probably angry farmer looking for revenge as a victim. The fact is the case is much more complicated than the reporting makes it out to be.
I would NEVER shoot a fleeing intruder, even if they were armed. I'm glad most of THR members agree.
I posted this question because of the support some on this board showed for the British farmer who was jailed after shooting two intruders in his home. They were both fleeing the scene, and he shot them both, killing the sixteen year-old with a shot to the back. See:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=419066
The video did not mention this crucial fact, but instead portrayed a probably angry farmer looking for revenge as a victim. The fact is the case is much more complicated than the reporting makes it out to be.
I would NEVER shoot a fleeing intruder, even if they were armed. I'm glad most of THR members agree.
MP3Mogul
Member
A fleeing intruder is no threat to myself or my family.. No
politicaldookie
Member
Yes. My home is my castle.
Carl N. Brown
Member
I would not shoot a fleeing, unarmed intruder in the back.
If an intruder can flee without being an imminent threat of death or greivous bodily harm to me or an innocent third party, good riddance. An armed intruder fleeing to cover to possibly open fire on me would be a whole 'nother situation.
If an intruder can flee without being an imminent threat of death or greivous bodily harm to me or an innocent third party, good riddance. An armed intruder fleeing to cover to possibly open fire on me would be a whole 'nother situation.
WardenWolf
member
I would never shoot a fleeing intruder unless, instead of fleeing the house, they instead fled to a room where they could endanger others or have access to loaded or loadable weapons. Thus I would be doing it to protect myself or my family. I would have reason to believe they posed an immediate threat to life and safety, and thus it would be legal under the laws of most states.
Refused to stop? EHL, check the law in Idaho. Consult a lawyer. In most places, one is permitted to use deadly force if the intruder refuses to leave. In most places, using deadly force to restrain a trespasser is unlawful. I'll wager that you'll find that to be the case in Idaho.
pith43
Member
Personally, I try to keep it real simple, if there's a threat, I'm shooting till the threat stops. If there's no threat, I'm not shooting.
Ohio Gun Guy
Member
I voted no,
I know I couldn’t do it unless I (Or my family) was threatened. Running away clearly isn’t threatening. Like other replies, if it is in my house; I'm not taking a survey on what is going on.
One of the worst scenarios I can think of would be holding an intruder at gun point, especially if they were on drugs, drunk, or desperate (Or all three). Likely they would not cooperate or would push you as much as possible. You would have to be willing to actually shoot them if you thought they could get your gun! That is the scenario that I really wouldn't want to deal with. You can see this on the show "Cops". Often the drugged up people take 2-3 police officers a taser and a can of mace to subdue them and they don’t care about pain or anything else (at the time).
I know I couldn’t do it unless I (Or my family) was threatened. Running away clearly isn’t threatening. Like other replies, if it is in my house; I'm not taking a survey on what is going on.
One of the worst scenarios I can think of would be holding an intruder at gun point, especially if they were on drugs, drunk, or desperate (Or all three). Likely they would not cooperate or would push you as much as possible. You would have to be willing to actually shoot them if you thought they could get your gun! That is the scenario that I really wouldn't want to deal with. You can see this on the show "Cops". Often the drugged up people take 2-3 police officers a taser and a can of mace to subdue them and they don’t care about pain or anything else (at the time).
- Status
