This is a discussion on Good or Bad to Shoot? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The individual is leaving and the danger has passed. You should have opted to get to a safe, well lit, public place, promptly call 911 ...
The individual is leaving and the danger has passed. You should have opted to get to a safe, well lit, public place, promptly call 911 with your location the incident took place and a description of the criminal. In court a jury of your peers would not look favorably on shooting someone when they are no longer a threat. I would say you would be looking at serious charges and serious jail time to boot.
AgreeShooting someone in the back while leaving/ fleeing isn't gonna fly in court. If your life is no longer in imminent danger how is it self defense?
You've lost a real opportunity to get a BG off the streets. You'll have to live with that decision.Here is the scenario: You are being robbed at gun point. You have your derringer in your hand which the BG can’t see. You just handed the BG YOUR wallet and he turns to leave. He has just turn his back to you and is taking his first step away.
If he puts a bullet in you, a good hey you! May turn him back at you! Then the hole would go in the front and your case would have alot more legs!
GUN CONTROL= I WANT TO BE THE ONE IN CONTROL OF THE GUN
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Since the BG in this scenario "turns to leave", he's no longer a threat, and shooting him in the back of the head will most likely result in a long prison term.
Battle Plan (n) - a list of things that aren't going to happen if you are attacked.
Blame it on Sixto - now that is a viable plan.
Lot of times, if you have some doubt about it, probably a bad idea.
As soon as that threat turned away, I'm pretty sure you would've been hard pressed to use self-defense as a defense, particularly with an entrance wound in the BACK of BG's head.
And after reading the account of a retired veteran shooting a burglar dead-bang in the forehead w/ a .22, and the bullet bouncing off, the shot with the Derringer (provided it's a little pipsqueak round) may just end up royalling ticking off the BG.
Don't wanna hijack this into a caliber discussion, though, so I'll just reiterate:
if you're unsure, it probably ain't right.
I am really only comfortable talking about a good kill within a military setting. why? a "good kill" does not sit well with a lot of civvies justified or not.
I always abide by the rule of shooting to stop a threat. if this BG really is turning to leave, is he still a threat? I would be hesitant to call that a continuing threat. although I have always struggled if the BG verbalized that he will go to my home and kill me if I ever went to the police. Because he does have my wallet with license and my CCW permit, then he does have the means to do so. then he maybe still a threat... the situation changes.
in your scenario, I don't think it is a justifiable shoot at least in my neck of the woods.
"embrace the suck" - our warriors in the sandbox... it implies that do the best you can in impossible conditions.
"no plan survives intact upon contact with the enemy" - wisdom of the Grunts.
This brings me back to a shooting that took place a few years ago where I live. A BG went into a shop and robbed the place and also took the shop owner’s wallet. The BG also shot the man with a small Cal weapon. The victim pulled HIS LARGER CAL weapon and shot back hitting the BG.
The BG ran outside where a main street was located and because there was a traffic light, cars was stopped. The BG jumped into a VAN driven by a woman (the woman did not know the BG. Can you said ‘Car Jack?’). The Victim (who was shot) later told the POPO (police) that because the BG had his wallet, he was REALLY afraid that the BG would look for his address in his wallet and go to his house and kill his wife and kids to get back at him for shooting him.
So the victim ran outside as he bled and shot all his bullets into the VAN! Hitting the woman!
The woman lived from her wounds but SUED the victim for shooting her!
The jury found the victim innocent and he was not charge with anything! YES!!!!!!!
The jury also felt that this was a fair shooting because the BG did SHOOT the victim just for the hell of it and may have went to the victims house for a payback!
What you can beat from a legal standpoint and from a civil standpoint are going to be way different in this scenario. In Texas you are authorized to use lethal force when the criminal is fleeing any typical crimes that would allow you to use lethal force in the act of those crimes. However, a shoot in the back of the head is probably going to get you a wrongful death court case.
Having said that...who knows if the dood is really leaving the scene or is done posing a threat to you. He might have dropped something on the ground and after he picks it up is going to leave no witnesses. He might be getting in your car only to roll down the window and shoot you a couple times before he leaves. I just don't think that because his back is turned that he is "no longer a threat". Someone that has recently pointed a gun at you, presumably with the intent to kill if you don't cooperate, is very much a threat in my book.
If you add the scenario that he has actually shot you, this is a no brainer in my book.
XD-40 SubCompact with OD Green frame
i would not feel that the threat was gone just because the guy turned his back. however, the court would probably see it that way. in fact, there's a video out there of a BG that comes back in to shoot the cashier of a gas station for no apparent reason after he's robbed them and gone outside.I just can’t get over the fact that the threat is no longer there.
War is not the ugliest of things. Worse is the decayed state of moral feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which he cares for more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free. -J.S. Mill
Well, some states allow lethal force in defense of property. Usually this means one's home or business (what is generally refered to as the 'Castle Doctrine'), but I suppose it might be legal in some states to employ lethal force in defense of personal property. If so, the situation you describe could be a legally justified shoot.
I wouldn't do it, though. As described, it sounds like an execution, not defense. Once the guy makes to leave, it doesn't seem worth it to start a gunfight. What if your gun jams and now the guy who was about to leave you alone is going to kill you instead?
For my own moral satisfaction, the only thing I could see doing here is drawing and demanding he stop---I would be attempting to apprehend a felon in the commision of a crime, and thus performing a citizen's arrest. (Some people on the board have stated their state laws don't have a citizen's arrest provision, so be careful with that one.) If he then tries to confront me with a weapon, it's back to a self-defense situation and shooting would be appropriate. If he keeps running, then I'd just call 9-1-1 and give a good description...
Mind you, I probably wouldn't even do that for the reasons given above---that's a little late in the deal to be thinking about starting a gunfight.
“What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?” —Justice Antonin Scalia
SIG: P220R SS Elite SAO, P220R SAO, P220R Carry, P226R Navy, P226, P239/.40S&W, P2022/.40S&W; GSR 5", P6.
North Carolina is the only state that does not have a citizens arrest provision.
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.
Who is John Galt?
Off the cuff I would say if you have to ask, you probably shouldn't. But, as others have said, just because he has turned doesn't mean the threat is gone. He could just be doing a quick check for witnesses before deciding if he is going to kill you or not.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
First senerio I would call a bad shooting. As the BG has turned and is leaving the threat is no longer present. Would be hard pressed to convince the DA or 12 jurors that you still feared for your life.
In senerio 2 the BG has shot you, yes he has turned to leave, BUT what is to say that since he has shown the willingness to use deadly force he will not return to finish what he started. Much easier to convine the DA or 12 jurors that you acted in a way that a resonable person would act in a live threatening situation.
As the OP stated in the scenario, I think it would be a bad shoot likely resulting in jail time. However, there have been cases where the BG was shot in the back but it was demonstrated at trial that the BG either turned as he was leaving or turned in the time between the GG firing his gun and impact of the round. So not all cases where the entry wound is in the back of the BG are "bad" shoots, but you would still have the legal expense of proving that. To many people, getting shot in the back of the head=execution=premediation=long jail term/death sentence. . If you have been shot, like Archer said, easier to demonstrate fear when you have already been wounded and can say "I thought he was coming back to finish me off".OMO
You gain strength, courage, and confidence by every experience in which you really stop to look fear in the face. You are able to say to yourself, "I have lived through this horror. I can take the next thing that comes along." . . . You must do the thing you think you cannot do. Eleanor Roosevelt