Back Shooting. Why not?

Hey mlr: We are in total agreement. Alter Ego allows same in SC but being 100% certain is your responsibility before you shoot someone in the back and kill them. As I said, on paper we say it is a certainty, in real life very little is that certain, particularly in the context of a very dynamic and stress-filled situation involving firearms and felonies and imminent danger and being in the head of essentially two people--a person who might be in imminent danger and a potential BG who might be just that.

Hey aworld: Your scenario with a slightly different story. He comes into store and is a good friend with the clerk (you do not know this and conversations do not reveal freindship) and pridefully pulls out gun and is waving it as he shows it to clerk and is beginning to talk to clerk about the "great find" he found. If you are in the store at the time or walk in as he is waving it around talking up his "find" are you going to shoot him in the back? If yes--lots of luck. Tony D in reply #77 said if very succinctly.



---------------------

Ok lets break down your scenario..Pridefully pulls out gun...I assume this is a fast whip out of the weapon and then "Waving" it...How it is waved..Is he pointing the barrel at the clerk or is he holding it up sideways barrel away.. The clerks reaction would play a role does he look scared is he laughing..there are alot of things to process..Like i said in such a scenario id find myself better cover..within those seconds what changes... has the clerk now taken hold of the gun to examine it is the clerk saying wow cool find...can i now hear them talking about this "great find"..So alot of the situation is being looked at by me..i think as your scenario unfolded i would be able to tell that this is a non threatening situation however stupid by the friend.. Now you say to shoot this person based upon whipping the gun out and waving it around would not be legal i beg to differ. The law states that if a resonable person in this situation would feel threatened or another threatened it is legally justifiable to shoot.I say it is reasonable and your everyday person would sense a threat.So legally i believe it would be a justifiable shoot. Would it be a tragedy that this idiot got killed doing a very stupid thing..yes it would be..but whose fault..the idiot whipping out the gun is at fault. As for this scenario i just dont see it happening that way.You might as well place the scenario in a bank the friend comes in to show his good friend the teller his new gun..I just dont see it happening..I understand what your trying to suggest that we can stumble upon a situation and not know the full extent of whats going on..fair enough..i am not shooting half cocked with no forethought..im doing what anyone of us can do and thats to assess the situation and a situation that any reasonable person would sense a threat then it is justifiable to shoot..We have five senses and i would hope that i have used then well..by being aware of my surroundings and the goings on. If i was just walking into the store and not in the store i am retreating back out of the store i am not going in to confront..i am not the police and im not going to make some sort of arrest..in that case i would retreat and become that good witness..if i am in the store i am trapped along with everyone else..so i would seek some sort of better position for myself than standing in the open behind the guy..i am moving..i am listening..i am looking at reactions of the clerk and any nearby customers..i am looking at the gun holder..but to set up a scenario that "appears" to any reasonable person as a threat, i believe the law would find it a justifiable shoot and a jury of 12 i believe would find the same way..even if all it was was someone being very stupid and wreckless.

Sheesh, we've gone from a BG with his gun pointed at the cashier demanding money to now just a rube showing off his new bargain gun find.

For the OP, again. I have NO problem shooting this guy in the back. My goal is to try, before he pulls the trigger, to get the muzzle of his gun off the cashier. I choose to do it verbally, because I believe that's the best way to get him to turn toward me (wherever I am behind him) with less risk of his pulling the trigger by physically or neurologically caused means.

As soon as his muzzle is off the cashier, and hopefully before it's on me, Bang, bangity, bang, bang.

I merely insert a close relative in the position of cashier to make one think about how best to end the conflict with the BG down, and reduced or negligible damage to the cashier. For all I know, the rest of the world hates their own mothers/wives/cousins/what have you, and this is a golden opportunity for them... They eliminate a bad guy and fix another "problem" at the same time.

Not how I think or act... that cashier/teller is somebody's wife/mother/daughter/cousin... and my goal is to try to save that person first, myself second (since I've been brought into the fray by my own doing), and I give a rip about the perp... except that he has somebody else's life in his hand and I need to get that control away from him, not cause him to mistakenly end that life.

If he is pointing a gun at people I care about, and I have a clear shot, I will take it. The same happens if he has already shot someone.

Drawing attention to yourself will probably get you killed by the hidden accomplice.

In Texas it is legal to use deadly force to stop a felony in progress, especially if you OR others are in jeopardy.

Shot Shoot him.

In Texas it is legal to use deadly force to stop a felony in progress, especially if you OR others are in jeopardy.

Shoot him.

I can't believe that I'm going to make this my first post - I'm sure to get flamed. But what the heck!

I am new to CCW and am here to learn. And I know this is going to sound selfish, but I got my permit for self defense. Very few scenarios come to mind where I would shoot someone in the back, and this definitely isn't one of them. If the BG turned toward me, bad day for him. Otherwise, I hide, draw the firearm, and prepare for the case that he turns toward me.

Here in Colorado you would definitely not be criminally liable for shooting the BG - assuming a liberal jury didn't decide to make an example of you despite the law. But you would definitely expose yourself to a certain wrongful death suit from BG's family. And in the scenario where BG flinches and injures/kills the innocent clerk, innocent clerk and/or their family sues you and you definitely lose that one. Either way you're in for tens of thousands in legal defense fees. Not worth it to me.

Me, I'm not shooting someone unless I think I'm going to die, or someone close to me is going to die.

If I were interested in protecting others I would be a LEO.

Just because you would be off the hook for criminal charges doesn't mean that you wouldn't be on the hook for a civil suit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carverelli

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

---

Not if someone else's life is being threatened or in danger, and he's protecting them by stopping the threat.

I would not shoot someone in the back, if they are facing who they are attacking or threatening. ...... because I wouldn't want the bullet to happen to over penetrate and still hit the initial victim. I'ld watch my angle and back drop.

I was always told the worst place you can shoot a man is in the back, Shoot him in the shoulder so he spins and shoot him in the face. :P

Honestly, if they were running away I couldnt do it, if they were running to get another weapon I would think about it and running to get a victim or someone else I sure would.

I see so to hell with anyone else who isnt a "loved one". Helping to save another human being is not being a "super-hero" and its not trying to be an LEO. Its called being a caring citizen. So because you dont know the clerk you do nothing? If its someone you "love" then you act..So if while trying to defend yourself the perp shoots your gun out of your hands then i should just sit in the background while he comes up and finishes you off. I see..after all i dont know you nor are you my "loved one"..

so let me change the scenario a bit, and ask the same question.

Say you are in your house, in a place that has castle doctrine. someone comes in. you don't see a gun, but maybe they have one. you ask them to leave. they don't. they have their back to you at some point and you can draw. is that legal? how about if you know they have a knife or club, you believe they will harm you, but haven't yet. do you need to warn them, ask them to leave, etc. At what point can you protect yourself, and do you need to show confrontation do so , and can you shoot in the back?

Or one more. He asks you to get your money, you say it's in the drawer downstairs, he lets you go get it, you just happen to have your gun in that drawer. Can you use it? I know this isn't a legal forum, but hoping someone can comment.

lol, I dont see why you cant use your firearm to defend yourself if they have you going to get money its not likely that will happen though.

I'd like to hear from LEO's or Military guys who have close quarter combat experience because it seems to me that there are preciouse few seconds to react until someone is on you. My question is will any of you gamble those seconds or will you take the initiative and/or upper hand to come out alive? I mean i could pose this..the guy heard you acts like hes going to leave but now whips around and is on you before you can blink. The guy is in your house armed..according to the castle doctrine you are within all your rights to take him out. Nobody is a spuerhero no one is seeking fame and fortune for slaying a crook..just wanting to survive the encounter. I just dont understand this thinking that you need somehow make things "fair" like give him the opportunity to exchange blows or gunfire.For the record i hope i never ever have to draw on anyone let alone shoot someone. I will avoid it at all costs..except the cost of my own life and limb or that of another...The criminal has made the choice to be in this situation not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oakchas

Okay, we now have four possible courses of action:

1. Be a good witness
2. Take the shot
3. Take the shot AFTER verbally distracting the BG and hopefully getting the muzzle off the clerk BEFORE the muzzle covers you.
4. Try to knock the attacker off center (I assume physically?) before shooting him.

Of these, which has the better "odds" of successful outcome by any CCW carrier (including Nerdby).

Inferred by the posts; you have time and ability to draw, attain sight picture without BG's knowledge prior to any action.

My presumption is that if you have the time to do that, you also have the time to "draw" him off his target (even slightly) and assume a position which allows for not only a good shoot but a clean one.

Less risk to the clerk by involuntary action on the part of the BG, less risk of "friendly fire" to the clerk from my gun. We cannot eliminate all risk.

But, I maintain the odds for all involved are better if you draw his weapon off his target, even minutely.

It's only an opinion, but I hold on to it rather strongly... and since it is a public forum, it gives all the "Nerdbys" a more complete perspective.. than "just take the shot, you'll be in the right."

---

What if the perps gun is not directly pointed at anyone? Do you still consider him a threat and take a back shot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelcarry

Hey aworld: Your scenario with a slightly different story. He comes into store and is a good friend with the clerk (you do not know this and conversations do not reveal freindship) and pridefully pulls out gun and is waving it as he shows it to clerk and is beginning to talk to clerk about the "great find" he found. If you are in the store at the time or walk in as he is waving it around talking up his "find" are you going to shoot him in the back? If yes--lots of luck. Tony D in reply #77 said if very succinctly.

---

I think most people can tell the difference a threat and an idiot.