Shooting in the back
This is a discussion on Shooting in the back within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I believe I may have come up with a solution for this and many other scenarios and people involved in them.
As you are going ...
March 23rd, 2010 11:45 PM
I believe I may have come up with a solution for this and many other scenarios and people involved in them.
As you are going out or staying home (don't think it matters to some). Take your cellphone and dial 911. Have your finger poised to hit SEND at all times. This way you'll not have to make all these decisions.
March 23rd, 2010 11:58 PM
You take a class on the lawful use of force, and you take a 2 day pistol class from a reputable shooting school.
Originally Posted by dimsum
If you can't do either of those, buy The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery & The Gun Digest Book Of Concealed Carry (Paperback)
& In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection by Massad Ayoob
Carrying a handgun with the minimal training required for the permit is borderline negligent.
That's not an attack on you, just a statement of fact.
If you are carrying around a handgun, you have a responsibility to everyone around you to understand it and know it, it's rules of use and the laws surrounding the use of force owed to everyone in your presence.
With so much information and training available to you, their really isn't an excuse for people not to take advantage of it.
March 24th, 2010 12:13 AM
After all these shots and verbal warnings, no one mentioned that while you were behind the bad guy with the gun, his partner also with a gun is standing a few feet behind you and.....
March 24th, 2010 01:06 AM
The OP is just providing a situation, and like most times, instead of answering it, everyone keeps trying to change the hypothetical.
While all the ifs and this and thats are valid, somestimes it might be nice just to at least answer given the parameters, then provide the caveats.
It was already mentioned more than once.
Originally Posted by NC Bullseye
March 24th, 2010 01:41 AM
If you read my post that you quoted please note I referred to the ones that issue commands or start shooting. The ones that mentioned a possible second bad guy have stated they were taking cover and assessing the situation. Just trying to reinforce the logic to evaluate the entire situation before acting.
Originally Posted by Thanis
March 24th, 2010 02:03 AM
In NC, If I use deadly force to defend someone who has forfeited their ability to use such force I am in big trouble. If someone starts the fight, then starts loosing, and I unknowingly shoot the victim who is now winning I get charged assault, murder, whatever. So, the state forces me to figure out who the aggressor is and whether the "victim" did anything to start it.
If it's cut and dry and I have witnessed it from the start, I might act. If I choose to act against a gunman why would I warn him? Also the law does not instruct me as to where I have to apply deadly force, just that I need to be justified in doing it. It may look bad to some, but in the immediate when I need to act I would not be as interested in that. Surviving the encounter is job one. And surviving may include hiding, scooting, or shooting depending on the situation.
I'll give you a scenario. I live in a split bedroom home. My kids are on the other end of a hallway from my bedroom. If someone gets into my home it's not a matter of if they get shot in the back, they will, period, end of discussion, no verbal. It may not answer your question, but it's one instance where I would not think twice about it.
I prefer to live dangerously free than safely caged!
"Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun. And you might meet 'em both if you show up here not welcome son." Josh Thompson "Way Out Here"
March 24th, 2010 04:00 AM
The Florida Three Conditions
In Florida, the Stand Your Ground Rule goes like this:
- Are you in a place where you have a legal right to be? YES, you are a customer in the convenience store.
- Are you meeting force with equal force - up to and including deadly force? YES, the Bad Guy has a firearm pointed at the clerk, and therefore has established the capability and intent to use deadly force.
- Is the Bad Guy carrying out an Immediate Forceable Felony? YES - they are trying to pull off an Armed Robbery.
As long as these three are a YES, you are legally cleared to fire.
The question is now tactical, if and how. You are not required to retreat, so any movement is geared to taking the shot. I would fire, without any warning, as soon it safe and practical to do so, based on the assumption that as long as the Three Conditions exist, the Bag Guy is a threat to the clerk first, and anybody else (including you) until one of the conditions stop being met - i.e., they holster or put the gun away, or the leave the store to the point that they can not hit anybody if they fire.
There should be NO HESITATION as long as the Three Conditions exist. You must be willing....
George H. Foster
March 24th, 2010 05:24 AM
Draw your weapon and shoot the bad guy. Then just to make sure you are covered, use his gun to shoot the clerk and all witnesses. Destroy all video. Call 911.
I am a non attorney spokesperson.
March 24th, 2010 08:03 AM
Exactly, as a conceal carry civilian you have NO legal obligation to enforce the law or protect property and/or people, so your family, house, and savings are on the line when you pull that trigger. If you do take the shot... your testimony in court will then become your weapon, Facts of the shooting, your mind set in making the decision to shoot, your experience/training in the Use Of Deadly Force, the best advice i could give anyone is stay out of the HOT SEAT.
Originally Posted by Treo
Every person has to make their own decision, but i will tell you that when ever a projectile comes out of your weapon... your life changes.
Each State's laws apply.
March 24th, 2010 08:58 AM
That's why all the NYers move to Florida, where we're allowed to shoot BGs--even pretend ones!
Originally Posted by JonInNY
Retired USAF E-8. Official forum curmudgeon. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid...
Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
March 24th, 2010 06:25 PM
1. Many of you made great points about having many variables
2. I would not post on the web what I would do, due to item #1
March 24th, 2010 09:00 PM
Thanis, if I didn't express it in my first post correctly I apologize
Thanis, I thought I was answering your question:
Originally Posted by Thanis
Originally Posted by Thanis
Anyone know what an LE would be required to do?
I guess I should have said it differently and to the point=I'm required to take action/intervene.
Originally Posted by 64zebra
its not so much what we would be required
to do as what we would be allowed to do......each state's law are different, as usual, regarding this situation....but here in the Lone Star State its the same for cops and non-cops...you have the right to intervene to save a 3rd party
I as a LEO am required to take action in this situation, a non-LEO is not (in Texas), however they are allowed to use deadly force in this situation to protect the life of the 3rd party
no good samaritan law for or against any action and no comparison to a LEO actions or non-actions in the law, I've never heard of anyone in Texas being judged in their actions based on what a cop is required to do in the same situation but rather they are judged in what they are or are not allowed to do according to the law in Texas, others I can't say anything about
if I didn't express it in my first post correctly I apologize
Assuming the 3rd party wants to act, assuming the relevant laws allow action, if action is taken the 3rd person (assuming non-LE) must do what is reasonable / rational.
This 3rd factor is a good samaritan giving aid. In a medical situation most of the time those that act that do not have a duty, must have acted rationally, in good faith and in accordance with their level of training.
you mean if the victim does something to the suspect? or if the 3rd party does something and inadvertently injures the victim?
However, I'm thinking good faith / level of training will only apply to the victim.
you mean if 3rd party intervenes and suspect ends up injuring/killing vic it would be up to the judge/jury to decide if the 3rd party was negligent in their actions vs it was the suspect's sole fault for the injury/death?
Odds are if 3rd party gets involved, and something happens to victim, it would be a matter of meeting gross negligence vs the negligence of the criminal who put the victim in danger.
agree in that good samaritan won't apply to suspect, but I think that the court would look at what is allowed by law, not compare it to what a LEO would do/be required to do/allowed to do
I don't think good samaritan aid would apply to 3rd party damage to criminal. Most likely regardless of the level of training, the courts will look for some reasonable standard, and that standard is what actions would LE be allowed.
would depend on the circumstances and what is proved to have taken place of course
So depending on the jurisdiction, you may find you are protected from the damages you or the criminal inflict on the victim, because odds are the criminal was more negligent.
I think that would depend a lot on where you are (state), at least here I don't think so
However you may actually be held to a higher standard for the injury you might cause the criminal.
in some situations I would agree, in others maybe not
I'm going on a limb and saying, in general, warning may be prudent.
there is a saying that goes something like this:
when its time to shoot, shoot.....don't talk
every situation will be different and a quick decision will have to be made
do you think he is about to pull the trigger? has he already shot someone else? is he boxed in/no escape possible? does he have the gun directly on their head vs. waiving it around, etc?
lots of variables in the mix on the OP situation and all other hypotheticals
I hope none of us are ever faced with it.
Certified Glock Armorer
"I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?
March 25th, 2010 03:02 AM
The dicey part to me would be: your shot may cause the BG to fire his gun, out of a startle response, a muscle spasm depending on where the bullet hits, or a number of other reasons. If he's targeting the clerk and his finger is on the trigger - I don't really know, but is seems dicey. Don't know what cops would do at that point either. Given this doubt, I'd probably wait to see what the next few moments would bring.
March 25th, 2010 03:51 AM
As far as I know, if someone has a gun pointed at someone else, a civilian can shoot them in the back and is not required to give a verbal warning.
Not sure if that's all states. And definitely not a choice without it's hazards.
Fortune favors the bold.
Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.
The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)
March 25th, 2010 08:14 PM
Also, what he said
Originally Posted by Treo
Listen, Think and React.....Nuff Said.....
By 1911luver in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: May 1st, 2012, 04:46 AM
By rammerjammer in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
Last Post: January 4th, 2011, 07:16 AM
By cammo in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: April 19th, 2010, 10:24 PM
By Beergut in forum Defensive Carry Guns
Last Post: July 11th, 2009, 10:54 AM
By ridurall in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
Last Post: August 5th, 2008, 12:06 AM