Right To Shoot?? - Page 3

Right To Shoot??

This is a discussion on Right To Shoot?? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; While I might generally agree with the above comments assuming he is the BG; what if he is a GG and the lady is the ...

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 61
Like Tree40Likes

Thread: Right To Shoot??

  1. #31
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,977
    While I might generally agree with the above comments assuming he is the BG; what if he is a GG and the lady is the BG? That changes all of the calculus, and based on your short scenario, I got the discomforting impression that alternative was never considered? Some of the responses might have resulted in a very sad answer.

    A woman is being attacked in a public parking lot. You pull your gun to stop the attack.
    What if she was the Perp? What if he was defending himself? What if he was undercover LEO? What if she was a LEO?

    What if it is a domestic dispute, and you are walking into a wall of whooping trouble?

    What precipitated the attack? Did you see what started it? What are the facts? Is he loss prevention and she's a shoplifter? Maybe she's a half-crazed sister that wants to go out with some trashy boy?

    How can you make any decision on what level of force to use based on assumptions that appear to have been made?


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,179
    That's why you should always carry a harpoon,stick em in the leg and tie em off to a post,they will run in circles until the cops show up
    Secret Spuk, ruso and Spade115 like this.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post
    While I might generally agree with the above comments assuming he is the BG; what if he is a GG and the lady is the BG? That changes all of the calculus ...
    Yup. That's something we must all keep in mind whenever we come upon a situation in progress. Often, it's hard to tell who's who in an altercation, who's the assailant and who's the true victim.

    It comes to this: are you willing to bet your life on that decision?

    Of course, if a situation is so unambiguous about who the assailant is, that's something else. (ie, shop, with a robber who comes in and then attacks the staff to get the cash).
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #34
    Member Array BamaAlum97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Tulsa, OK
    Posts
    48

    Right To Shoot??

    According to my CCW class, OK law only allows for use of deadly force (drawing your weapon) in defense of yourself, immediate family (spouse, children, parents), employee, or employer. NOT a random 3rd party stranger. Of course, determining if you feel you yourself is in immediate danger is hard to pin down, but in this case, call 911 and be a good witness.

  5. #35
    Distinguished Member Array kelcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    charleston, SC
    Posts
    1,907
    Methinks the real answer and not everyones' "thoughts" on this is----State Law, State Law, State Law. If state law says you can shoot underthis scenario, then you can shoot--whether you do or not is up to you. As I said in previous reply, SC law allows you to shoot anyone who has been placed under citizen's arrest and tries to evade your arrest--this is only true, though, at night--I repeat only at night. Why? Beats me, but it is in Code of Laws of the State of SC.

  6. #36
    Distinguished Member Array lchamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Florida's Space Coast.
    Posts
    1,604
    Quote Originally Posted by SCXDm9 View Post
    No... but might have shot him before he was up enough to run. If he is getting to his feet I am now in fear for my or the womans life. If he makes it to his feet and is running away, I have nothing to fear.
    yep. Please take action while you still fear for your life, and quickly. Don't let the lawyers get him.

  7. #37
    Member Array WarMachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    OH
    Posts
    364
    It's not my problem so I'm not getting involved.
    I don't know the whole story so I wouldn't react.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Array dripster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    619
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Short answer: in the situation you've described, IMO it's probably best to let the fleeing perp flee.

    You've stopped an apparent felony assault and battery, but the alleged perp gets up and runs away. Well, at that point, it's hard to state the guy is a threat to you or the victim. At most, it can be claimed he's a potential threat to others. But particularly in a situation in which no actual physical harm (beyond a bit of roughing up) was witnessed, and no deadly weapon has been seen, then it's also tough to claim he'd be such a violent threat to the point that the only way to stop that threat would be to shoot. That's the sort of situation where forcible citizens' arrest situations get ugly, fast. Caution, if you want to go there.

    For my money, given the risks when there isn't blood and/or a body as proof of manifest intent to kill, I find it hard to kill a fleeing person who's only crime was to have been witnessed assaulting another. If that person opts to flee at that moment, then I'm pretty sure I am going to let him do so. Daring the county DA and GJ to charge me doesn't seem like a good bet, in such circumstances, at least not until we get a whole lot further down the path to sane and rational support of citizens who are armed and act on behalf of others ... reliably so. Until then, if he chooses to flee, he gets a temporary pass ... at least until the 911 call brings police down around his ears in a few minutes; during which time, I might well tail him in my car (depending).

    Now, if the perp was actually witnessed by me committing some egregious violence that couldn't be easily ignored (to the point there was a clear attempt to kill/rob/rape and either blood or a body), then everything changes quickly. That's when the choice of evils argument begins to hold much more water, in the case of deciding to put the guy down as he strives to rise (given the extreme risk he's manifesting intent to continue the fight/threat). Thin ice, in such situations, and you'd best be damned sure you're right. Else you could be spending some time in the clink wondering how you're going to pay for the charges being leveled against you, at least if you're in a county where you're in the least doubt about how it would play out.

    Your call. All things considered, it's probably best in all but the most-violent and first-hand-witnessed cases to let a fleeing perp go.

    Generally speaking, the A.O.J. principles guide me. Specifically, the state statutes where I am do so as well. If there's no real Ability of the person to harm me, and no real Opportunity for him to do so (since he's fleeing, back to me, and apparently without a weapon), it gets hard to claim there's any actual Jeopardy to me at that moment. Hard, as in hugely expensive to me if I judge incorrectly. Those "reasonable man" elements in the statutes have teeth, all things considered, and here's a good situation where those teeth can be very sharp.

    That being said, you're in Texas. Things tend to be a bit different there with respect to accepting the concept of stopping crime. Particularly if at night, you're going to have a whole truckload of support behind you, even though any shooting's going to go through the GJ. (ie, the case involving Joe Horn, a couple years ago.)
    In NY if the perp penetrates her vag you can shoot him.
    One more step and it's on!

  9. #39
    Distinguished Member Array airslot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,619
    You stopped him and he is down. After the 911 call, shoot him with your cell phone. If he runs, the cops still have something tangible to work with.
    The situation will NEVER BE THE WAY YOU WANT, it WILL BE THE WAY IT IS. You must be FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO ADAPT and just "DEAL WITH IT".

  10. #40
    Member Array caddisman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    61
    Reading this scenario it sticks in my head that in many podcast ive heard and in "The Gravest Extreme" book ive read that it is strongly discouraged to draw your firearm to stop such attacks explained here. Like many have stated already in these type of encounters you never know is the true victim. Correct my reasoning here but until there is a deadly or bodily threat to someone Im not drawing a firearm Im calling police and being a witness. Also have heard some say that if no weapon is seen in the attack and you produce one the suspect could view you as a deadly threat and could be justified in using deadly force on you...

    Just my .02

  11. #41
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...not accurate info...remember TEXAS...and Texas law:
    Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - Article 14.01. Offense Within View - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws


    Quote Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
    Consider that for a moment. You have no legal authority to do anything to him. He's not your prisoner and you have no lawful ability to detain him. You're going to take his wallet at gunpoint... If his attorney is better than yours, you'll be facing armed robbery charges.

    I guess the definition of "attack" leads to some circumstantial differences too. If the "attack" just killed someone, then yeah, you could tie his butt up and sit on him if need be. If the "attack" was a purse snatch, then it may not be such a good idea legally to try anything beyond getting the guy to flee.

  12. #42
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...who said it's a felony? that would change EVERYTHING...but he didn't say felony attack...

    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Short answer: in the situation you've described, IMO it's probably best to let the fleeing perp flee.

    You've stopped an apparent felony assault and battery, but the alleged perp gets up and runs away. Well, at that point, it's hard to state the guy is a threat to you or the victim. At most, it can be claimed he's a potential threat to others. But particularly in a situation in which no actual physical harm (beyond a bit of roughing up) was witnessed, and no deadly weapon has been seen, then it's also tough to claim he'd be such a violent threat to the point that the only way to stop that threat would be to shoot. That's the sort of situation where forcible citizens' arrest situations get ugly, fast. Caution, if you want to go there.

    For my money, given the risks when there isn't blood and/or a body as proof of manifest intent to kill, I find it hard to kill a fleeing person who's only crime was to have been witnessed assaulting another. If that person opts to flee at that moment, then I'm pretty sure I am going to let him do so. Daring the county DA and GJ to charge me doesn't seem like a good bet, in such circumstances, at least not until we get a whole lot further down the path to sane and rational support of citizens who are armed and act on behalf of others ... reliably so. Until then, if he chooses to flee, he gets a temporary pass ... at least until the 911 call brings police down around his ears in a few minutes; during which time, I might well tail him in my car (depending).

    Now, if the perp was actually witnessed by me committing some egregious violence that couldn't be easily ignored (to the point there was a clear attempt to kill/rob/rape and either blood or a body), then everything changes quickly. That's when the choice of evils argument begins to hold much more water, in the case of deciding to put the guy down as he strives to rise (given the extreme risk he's manifesting intent to continue the fight/threat). Thin ice, in such situations, and you'd best be damned sure you're right. Else you could be spending some time in the clink wondering how you're going to pay for the charges being leveled against you, at least if you're in a county where you're in the least doubt about how it would play out.

    Your call. All things considered, it's probably best in all but the most-violent and first-hand-witnessed cases to let a fleeing perp go.

    Generally speaking, the A.O.J. principles guide me. Specifically, the state statutes where I am do so as well. If there's no real Ability of the person to harm me, and no real Opportunity for him to do so (since he's fleeing, back to me, and apparently without a weapon), it gets hard to claim there's any actual Jeopardy to me at that moment. Hard, as in hugely expensive to me if I judge incorrectly. Those "reasonable man" elements in the statutes have teeth, all things considered, and here's a good situation where those teeth can be very sharp.

    That being said, you're in Texas. Things tend to be a bit different there with respect to accepting the concept of stopping crime. Particularly if at night, you're going to have a whole truckload of support behind you, even though any shooting's going to go through the GJ. (ie, the case involving Joe Horn, a couple years ago.)

  13. #43
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Snub44 View Post
    who said it's a felony? that would change EVERYTHING...but he didn't say felony attack...
    The OP did.

    In a scenario where a weaker person is clearly being attacked by a stronger person sufficiently harshly to justify threatening the use of deadly force to stop it ... well, by all the statutes I've read, that pretty much means a violent felony level threat. It all comes down to what that "woman being attacked" is seen to be, at the time.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #44
    VIP Member Array Snub44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,575
    ...absolutely nope...the OP said nothing about a felony...you evidently haven't read Texas statutes on assault...and "pretty much" can get you prison time...it all comes down to what the LAW SAYS...not anything that's "seen to be" except the facts and how they measure up against the law...this isn't TV...it's real life...and the judge will tell you "Well, Mr. X, I can see what you thought...but the LAW SAYS..."...it's critical that we measure what we might decide to do against what the law is where we are and THEN decide...nobody on this forum will do my time if I blow it with good intentions...

    ...kinda like flying a jet plane...you do it right or you face the consequences...meaning well doesn't get it...PLEASE know the law where you are...
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    The OP did.

    In a scenario where a weaker person is clearly being attacked by a stronger person sufficiently harshly to justify threatening the use of deadly force to stop it ... well, by all the statutes I've read, that pretty much means a violent felony level threat. It all comes down to what that "woman being attacked" is seen to be, at the time.

  15. #45
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Snub44 View Post
    ...absolutely nope...the OP said nothing about a felony...you evidently haven't read ...
    Semantics. You're correct, the OP didn't use the word "felony" in the scenario. It was inferred, it seems to me. In a generic what-if scenario involving the beating of a weaker person by a stronger person (assumed, sure, but implied in the scenario), a situation in which the witness deems it's sufficiently violent to justify drawing a weapon to stop, it's easy to presume that the law-abiding witness believed on the instant that the situation fully justified the response. We're seeing the same words, and the OP didn't say "felony" outright, sure. But it's all implied directly in that scenario.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Sponsored 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

defensive carry when to shoot
,

i carry a glock27 in a lcp for back up ? can i shoot a person if he tries to take my gun from me

Click on a term to search for related topics.