Back Shooting. Why not?

I have read numerous scenarios where a person who is legally carrying a weapon is present during an attack or robbery. I am referring to cases where the bad guys have their backs to you. Many people say they would be a good witness and keep their weapon holstered. I fully understand that logic.
There is another group who say they would get the attackers attention by whatever means and once they turn around take a shot. This I do not understand. Seems to me a a surprise shot would be the safer way to take them out.

Is there some legal reasoning behind this? A moral one about not being a back shooter? Why would you do anything that increases the bad guys chance of success?

Michael

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

One little trick of mine... if caught off guard by a mugger, I usually have a fake empty wallet in my right pocket when I go downtown. When asked politely by the young gentlemen, I grab the fake wallet, throw it over his shoulder. Draw as he turns to go fetch, warn him to keep walking and if turns around, then pop him. he demonstrated his intent to continue the attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mlr1m

I have read numerous scenarios where a person who is legally carrying a weapon is present during an attack or robbery. I am referring to cases where the bad guys have their backs to you. Many people say they would be a good witness and keep their weapon holstered. I fully understand that logic.
There is another group who say they would get the attackers attention by whatever means and once they turn around take a shot. This I do not understand. Seems to me a a surprise shot would be the safer way to take them out.

Is there some legal reasoning behind this? A moral one about not being a back shooter? Why would you do anything that increases the bad guys chance of success?

Michael

---

You present one of the few scenarios that you may be able to come out in the clear after shooting someone in the back. Lot's of people to testify for you, especially if the bank robber has harmed anyone. In general though, what a DA is going to argue is that since the person you shot had their back turned, they were no threat to you, and thus you should not have shot them in the back. This is why most folks advocate to be a good witness, stay prepared, and be ready if the situation changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAm_Not_Lost

You present one of the few scenarios that you may be able to come out in the clear after shooting someone in the back. Lot's of people to testify for you, especially if the bank robber has harmed anyone. In general though, what a DA is going to argue is that since the person you shot had their back turned, they were no threat to you, and thus you should not have shot them in the back. This is why most folks advocate to be a good witness, stay prepared, and be ready if the situation changes.

---

It would seem to me that anyone in close proximity to me brandishing a weapon is a threat.

Michael

A lot depends on your specific state law but in general a person who is not a direct, immediate threat to you, (not the clerk, another person, or the family pet) but to you, would not be a legitimate target of opprotunity.

One of the reasonable man standards is a car is speeding towards you, you have no where to go, you draw and fire killing the driver, he was a threat using the car as a weapon, good shoot. Same situation car is speeding towards you, you jump out of the way, as the car passes you you fire into the back window killing the driver, bad shoot, he is/was no longer a direct, immediate threat. You can not base the shoot on he woulda, coulda, shoulda or he might have done whatever.

Note: A lot depends on state law and individual circumstance, there is always a "well what if this happened" scenario.

There is also the question of whether or not your state allows use of deadly force in the defense of another. In the places that do, it typically requires that the defendant have the same rights and claims to self defense that you would have had, with a specific example being they could not have been an aggressor to the situation. Now, in a store with a goon wearing a hoodie, pointing a gun at a cashier who is wearing a store uniform and yelling for them to empty the cash drawer, it is probably pretty obvious and this would probably be classified as a good shoot, but are you absolutely certain? Once the BG turns the threat towards you, the situation has changed and the defense of other criteria becomes irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsigma40cal

One little trick of mine... if caught off guard by a mugger, I usually have a fake empty wallet in my right pocket when I go downtown. When asked politely by the young gentlemen, I grab the fake wallet, throw it over his shoulder. Draw as he turns to go fetch, warn him to keep walking and if turns around, then pop him. he demonstrated his intent to continue the attack.

---

You're new to this robbery kind of stuff, eh?
I hope you get a copy of the kind-hearted, soft-spoken dirtbag robbery perp schedule.

I know I didn't spell his name correctly, but Massoob just had an article about the many reasons a BG might be shot in the back--legimately. No doubt it will be hard to explain to the authorities, but if you gotta--you gotta.

If someone is holding a gun, and threatening people, and I was behind them then I would shoot.

If they are holding anything else, I have to hesitate and see what happens. I will probably unholster my weapon because the situation could change in one second and I don't want to be hurt/killed. I would also move to keep the gun hidden from the BG as well so as to not escalate the situation.

Good answer noway in reply #7. Alter Ego rule is on the books in SC and, as noway says, it allows you to act as if the person who is in immediate danger, is indeed, you. If someone else has a loaded firearm pointed at them they have a presumption of immediate death or great bodily injury--in alter ego, that person is now you and you have every right under SC law to draw your firearm and discharge same. In SC, we also have an old law on the books that has been validated in many cases concerning citizens arrest AT NIGHT AND ONLY AT NIGHT. If someone is presumed to be committing a felony (ie have their head in the back of your pickup truck looking around) you can draw your firearm, tell them to stand still, and call LEOs. If that perp decides to run, you CAN USE ANY MEANS INCLUDING DEATH TO STOP HIS EVASION FROM YOUR CITIZENS ARREST---That, plain and simple, means you can shoot him in the back and it has been validated in SC courts. Jusy sayin--it just is not me but it is there in black and white.

This one has been linked before. This Ohio CCW permit holder and instructor firmly planted three rounds in the BG as he ran away, in close proximity to innocent bystanders, and was not charged. The BG survived and is currently serving his sentence for armed robbery. Motel Robbery Thwarted - YouTube

In the scenarios I have presented as RE: Shooting in the back, without distraction, I would take the shot only with angle.

brief scenario: Bank robber who shot the last teller as seen on tv, you recognize him, he is at the teller window at your bank, and you see him begin to draw his "shiny revolver." I would shoot "with angle*" before he raised his gun. I would not shoot if he had his gun on the teller. I would draw his attention to toward me. When the muzzle is between teller and me, then the shot.

*with angle= from below and the side to avoid a miss or through and through hitting teller or others.

If the BG(s) has gun drawn on victims, I will not take the shot, without drawing their attention and the muzzle of their weapon toward me. If you have the time to draw, set up your shot or sequence, aim at the back of his head, you also have the time to call his attention away from his "task at hand," as soon as that attention is drawn away from the victims and towards you. take the shot.

This is certainly no more ridiculous a scenario than taking a handgun shot at a moving head target at 50-100 yards, as promulgated by some "warriors."

A lot of people in this thread who need to go read "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad Ayoob...

Remember the post several months ago where the BG walked into a convenience store and aimed his pistol at the female clerk. He pulled the trigger and fortunately for the lady it misfired. Also fortunate for the lady was the fact that her husband was there visiting her. He pulled his own pistol and shot the BG. I can't remember if the perp died or not but in any case the husband was able to defend his wife.

I would take the same attitude if I witnessed a robbery. You never know when a BG is going to shoot an innocent so go ahead and take the POS out if you have a clear shoot. I don't care what angle he happens to be at.