Back Shooting. Why not?

This is a discussion on Back Shooting. Why not? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by CUMMINS Doesn't our duty and legallity of carry allow us to use deadly force to prevent commission of a forcible felony No, ...

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 107
Like Tree33Likes

Thread: Back Shooting. Why not?

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,195
    Quote Originally Posted by CUMMINS View Post
    Doesn't our duty and legallity of carry allow us to use deadly force to prevent commission of a forcible felony
    No, it does not. You were not sworn to uphold any laws. Morality may dictate you do something, legality does not.
    baren and 9MMare like this.
    It could be worse.
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams
    "A gun is kind of like a parachute. If you need one and don't have one, you'll probably never need one again".

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    Quote Originally Posted by CUMMINS View Post
    Doesn't our duty and legallity of carry allow us to use deadly force to prevent commission of a forcible felony
    No.

  4. #48
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,577
    Cummins asked, "Doesn't our duty and legallity of carry allow us to use deadly force to prevent commission of a forcible felony"

    Quote Originally Posted by MitchellCT View Post
    No.
    That's a state specific answer.

    From our code, "Deadly Force in Defense of Person: To prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery or aggravated robbery."

    "Deadly Force to Protect Property: To prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery."

    I think this is what Cummins was driving at, and the exact wording of
    "parallel" code will be very state specific.

    Maybe the "No" answer was only to the part of the statement about "duty." But, I read that as applying to permissibility and lawfulness.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  5. #49
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,840
    That's a state specific answer.
    That is exactly correct.

    Some states, not all, allow the use of deadly force in the commission of a felony in which the use of illegal deadly force is imminent...meaning that if someone is about to use deadly force in the commission of a crime, then deadly force is legal to prevent it.

    Therefore, shooting a someone in the back that was committing or about to commit a crime with deadly force would be a moot point.

    It is entirely dependent on the laws in which that act occurred.

    Some states would be OK with it. Others would not. As always, what may be perfectly legal in one state may not be in another state, they is why it is very important to know and understand what is justifiable and when it is justifiable and when it is not.

    A crook that got shot in the back while committing a felony in Texas, might see the shooter being somewhat inconvienced by going to the Police Station and giving a report. He might even get to bed late that night.

    The same scenario is Massachusetts or Rhode Island would have the shooter placed in jail for a long time, while lawyers are deciding his fate. It he gets an average lawyer,and he mortgages the house, loses his job, and loses his life savings to pay for the lawyer, it still might not be enough to keep him out of jail until he is old and gray.

    And yes...there is that much disparity in the laws that deal with deadly force between the various states.

    The responses on this forum might be correct...for that state in which the poster lives. The answer might be entirely wrong for a reader one state over. So goes the Internet. That's just the way it is.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  6. #50
    Member Array sd976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    I think a constant rain of fire into their back will drastically put a hitch in the assailant's OODA loop.
    So you would put rounds in his back while he is between you and the bank teller? Wow. I think you should rethink that one.

  7. #51
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by sd976 View Post
    So you would put rounds in his back while he is between you and the bank teller? Wow. I think you should rethink that one.
    Lets say you can take him with a shot to the back without endangering any innocents? Any moral or legal to hold you back now?

    Michael

  8. #52
    AOK
    AOK is offline
    Member Array AOK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    382
    Quote Originally Posted by sd976 View Post
    So you would put rounds in his back while he is between you and the bank teller? Wow. I think you should rethink that one.
    No rethinking necessary. Common sense tells you it could depend on the angle but we could what if this to death. Your idea of a distraction to throw of his OODA loop seems a little Hollywood to me that's all. All plans are great until it doesn't work and he turns around and immediately engages you. Now you lost your "tactical advantage" that you initially mention. How much more of a tactical advantage do you think you can get than having your gun drawn without the assailant even know you are there?

  9. #53
    Member Array guardmt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    404
    Blah blah blah, we can what if this all day. Who knows maybe the punk doesn't like the way you look at him on his way out of the place and shoots you. Undercover cop?ok he should dang well know the risk of his current role. If I have the shot knowing that no one else around me is gonna be hit by that shot except the bad guy, he's done. I know that being an armed citizen doesn't give me a right to be a hero or a guy who thinks he has a badge in his wallet. You came into that place with a weapon pointed into someones face, he made his choice clearly to me that he is willing to shoot people if he doesn't get the money or even if he does. I won't take the chance of the possibility of watching people shot in front of me. I notice people around here on this forum call themselves shepards, a Shepard doesn't just look out for himself, but in most cases puts the sheep(yes the sheep) in front of his life, knowing that they are incapable of defending themselves.
    “What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pike

  10. #54
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,177
    Quote Originally Posted by carverelli View Post
    depends on the situation, but I'd say if their back was to you then you're life wasnt in grave and immediate danger and you'd prolly go to jail
    All states have different laws,in TX we would be covered under several laws,If I'm in a store during an armed robbery as long as the robber has a gun he is threatening people with HE IS A THREAT,there have been documented cases where Robbers shoot people as they leave,or herd them into a back room and execute all the witnesses
    garyacman likes this.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  11. #55
    Member Array Sarisataka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    189
    Had to do it

    Gomez Addams: You'll have to challenge Pomeroy to a duel.
    Uncle Fester Frump: No, I'd rather shoot him in the back.
    Morticia Frump Addams: Uncle Fester! That is not the honorable way.
    Uncle Fester Frump: I know, but it's the safe way.
    Hopyard likes this.
    Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power.
    -Ben Franklin

  12. #56
    VIP Member
    Array tacman605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Arkansas/On the X in Afghanistan
    Posts
    3,031
    Duke not disagreeing it would be state specific but generally you cannot base shooting someone on what he woulda, coulda, shoulda done.

    You have to be able to articulate the reason you used deadly force because YOUR life was in danger at that very moment not the fact that someone else did A or B and he "could have" done the same thing.

    Again this is generally speaking I am sure there are state statutes that would expand your abilities
    "A first rate man with a third rate gun is far better than the other way around". The gun is a tool, you are the craftsman that makes it work. There are those who say "if I had to do it, I could" yet they never go out and train to do it. Don't let stupid be your mindset. Harryball 2013

  13. #57
    VIP Member Array gottabkiddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    6,986
    Quote Originally Posted by Gene83 View Post
    I never liked the Weaver stance, preferring instead practicing five paces to the right, turn sharply at a right angle and fire...

    Annoys the hell out of other folks at the range though.


    Got a chuckle outa that one... Thanks!
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." – Luke 22:36

    "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson

  14. #58
    VIP Member Array gottabkiddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    6,986
    Quote Originally Posted by CUMMINS View Post
    Doesn't our duty and legallity of carry allow us to use deadly force to prevent commission of a forcible felony
    In the state of Georgia yes, but I don't know if I would use the word "duty" in your statement.

    HG's said it all IMO...
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." – Luke 22:36

    "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson

  15. #59
    Distinguished Member Array kelcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    charleston, SC
    Posts
    1,855
    At least in SC, things are pretty well spelled out. Alter Ego rule, as stated before, lets you be the person in imminent danger and you can then act accordingly. If the slime has his back to you, that is irrelevant--under Alter Ego, the slime is pointing the firearm at you. All this sounds good on paper but you better be darn sure of what is going on and what is around you if you should decide to discharge your firearm ---ie: you are in line at the bank and the person in front of you pulls out a firearm, points it at the teller and demands money or he will shoot--obvious that Alter Ego will allow you to discharge your firearm being mindful of where your bullet will go; you walk into a bank and there is someone with a firearm and people seemed to be scared--you do not know what has gone on to that point nor do you really know who this person is with the firearm---pull out your firearm and shoot him in the back?--not so sure if you will not find yourself in trouble---imminent danger? where and to whom? Alter Ego?

  16. #60
    Member Array sd976's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by AOK View Post
    No rethinking necessary. Common sense tells you it could depend on the angle but we could what if this to death. Your idea of a distraction to throw of his OODA loop seems a little Hollywood to me that's all. All plans are great until it doesn't work and he turns around and immediately engages you. Now you lost your "tactical advantage" that you initially mention. How much more of a tactical advantage do you think you can get than having your gun drawn without the assailant even know you are there?
    May seem "Hollywood" to you, but it is how we train every time we go to the range to qualify.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

backshooting
,
can you shoot someone who has his back turned
,
conseal carry scenarios when to shoot
,
shoot a man with his back turned
,
shoot someone in their spine
,
shoot someone with back turned
,

shooting a man with his back turned

,

shooting someone in the back

,
shot someone in the back ohio
,
why can't you shoot a person at his back
,
why cant tou shoot a man in the back
,

why do they say never shoot a man with his back turned to you

Click on a term to search for related topics.