When do you NOT shoot? - Page 2

When do you NOT shoot?

This is a discussion on When do you NOT shoot? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; If there's no threat, even if there had been one, then there's no reason to shoot. For me, there must be an immediate threat... but, ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 31

Thread: When do you NOT shoot?

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,837
    If there's no threat, even if there had been one, then there's no reason to shoot. For me, there must be an immediate threat... but, I may be telling the guy to get his ass on the ground.


  2. #17
    CDH
    CDH is offline
    Member Array CDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by Paco View Post
    The talk show host mentioned the TX Castle Doctrine as signed in 2007 by Gov. Perry stated that we no longer had to try to flee first (like I would anyway and get myself shot in the back) but that we can now, legally, shoot at the perception of danger.
    Paco, you're setting yourself up for some major problems due to your misunderstanding of the Castle Doctrine.

    The one and only purpose of the Castle Doctrine is to give a person legal protection against prosecution if they are involved in a legitimate self defense situation that involves the use of lethal force.
    It is not enough to shoot at the "perception" of danger. If the shooting involved ambigious circumstances, then you are still going to go to trial to determine whether you acted rationally or not.
    The Castle Doctrine will not save you from jail time if you shoot someone in the back while they are running away or if you shoot through a door, although the specific circumstances will have bearing in the case.

    The Castle Doctrine is not the same as being given the "00" designation in Her Majesty's Secret Service, but some people believe wrongly that it (almost) does.
    Both the "00" designations and a persons protection from prosecution in anything less than a clearly justifieable shooting are myths.

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,335
    It is not enough to shoot at the "perception" of danger.
    Ayoob distinguishes this as the differences between bare/naked (irrational, panic) fear, and reasonable fear. While "castle" type laws create an presumption of innocence for the resident, the "reasonable man" standards still apply and can blast that assumption to Hades if one takes it too far. Caution.

    Oregon supports the self-defense of a person, in the home or otherwise, when faced with a threat that one reasonably believes requires the degree of force to stop it. Though, there is no formal "castle" coverage of defense in the home and cloak against subsequent civil lawsuits.
    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. #19
    Senior Member Array Sarge43's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    851
    The scenario you give is not, in my personal view, anything near justifiable. As stated before in this thread (different words, same point) the "attacker" has to satisfy 3 elements for lethal self defense to be a legitimate option.
    1. They must have the opportunity to cause grave harm to you or others
    2. They must have the ability to cause grave harm to you or others
    3. They must have the intent to cause grave harm to you or others
    If all 3 of these are not met, then you are putting yourself in some pretty deep waters by pulling the trigger.
    If a guy yells that he is going to kill me, and pulls a knife, but is on the other side of a busy freeway, only two of the three are met, and it's only trouble.
    The good point brought up in this a few times is ALWAYS report instances like this to the police as they will have a paper trail of it if the person ever shows up again and DOES take it a step further. It's much more believable to someone who may be on a jury when you can say "the guy has shown up 3 times prior, each instance escalating in violence as shown in these police reports", than it is to just say "He'd done this before a bunch of times".
    As long as the person is on the other side of a door and can't get in, it's a definite "no shoot" in my book.
    My two cents.
    Sarge43
    Sarge's Grips - grips that fit
    www.thefinergrain.com

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array Paco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    McKinney, TX
    Posts
    3,507
    I was simply relaying the question I heard discussed on the radio. I have already stated I am not shooting unless a body part is forcibly coming in my door or I see a weapon coming through the door attached to someone who is not invited.

    I realize the Castle Doctrine doesn't give me a free shoot any time I want when someone is on my property, but covers my right to defend myself without having to prove I tried to run first.

    Maybe I simply worded the question wrong, but my main question (for me) was to simply hear what other states say about their Castle Doctrine and how they may differ from Texas'.
    "Don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt

    -Paco
    http://www.shieldsd.net

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array MilitaryPower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    976
    I agree with the consensus. BUT, say you came home and found your family brutally murdered with the killer walking away. Would you shoot him in the back? Darn tootin'! Or if you saw him just kill a LEO? These two examples are in "In the gravest extreme" by Mas Ayoob if I remember correctly.
    Gun control can be blamed in part for allowing 9/11 to happen.
    "Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum" (Latin)- "If you want peace, prepare for war".

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array TX-JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sugar Land, TX
    Posts
    5,739
    Quote Originally Posted by MilitaryPower View Post
    I agree with the consensus. BUT, say you came home and found your family brutally murdered with the killer walking away. Would you shoot him in the back? Darn tootin'! Or if you saw him just kill a LEO? These two examples are in "In the gravest extreme" by Mas Ayoob if I remember correctly.
    Under Texas law you would be jusified in shooting, under either of these situations, and no doubt I would.

    Texas' Castle Doctrine would protect you from criminal prosecution, but it does not protect you from a civil law suit.
    "Texas can make it without the United States, but the United States can't make it without Texas!".... Sam Houston

    Retired LEO
    Firearms Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,004
    Quote Originally Posted by TX-JB View Post
    Under Texas law you would be jusified in shooting, under either of these situations, and no doubt I would.

    Texas' Castle Doctrine would protect you from criminal prosecution, but it does not protect you from a civil law suit.
    TX-JB I don't know if you are familiar with this one, but it greatly limits our exposure here in Texas.
    CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE

    CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON


    83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
    deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is
    immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that
    results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as
    applicable.

    Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

    Amended by:
    Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, 4, eff. September 1,
    2007.
    Now there are parts of the Texas code that clearly say we are not protected from civil action regarding injuries to bystanders or damage to third parties property. So assuming all of our shootings would be justified under PC 9 the secret to not getting sued appears to be to not shoot anything or anyone except the bad guy!
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  9. #24
    VIP Member
    Array TX-JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Sugar Land, TX
    Posts
    5,739
    No I wasn't familiar with that. I was referring to the section in Chapter 9, that states no protection from civil remedies. It would make sense though that it would be covered under the civil statutes.

    Learn something new everyday.
    "Texas can make it without the United States, but the United States can't make it without Texas!".... Sam Houston

    Retired LEO
    Firearms Instructor
    NRA Life Member

  10. #25
    Senior Member Array JohnKelly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    554
    In KY I believe you can use lethal force against a fleeing felon.

  11. #26
    CDH
    CDH is offline
    Member Array CDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by Paco View Post
    I was simply relaying the question I heard discussed on the radio.
    I of course have no clue whatsoever what kind of show you were listening to, but I'll guess that the discussion was of an anti-gun tone.

    Anti-gunners always try to make us weapon carriers look like a bunch of out-of-control gun freaks, and many people like to characterize us as leaning toward being trigger-happy.

    Maybe that's what made you go off in the direction of your question that you did.

  12. #27
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    45,045
    Quote Originally Posted by GWRedDragon View Post
    Why would you ever want to shoot someone in the back? That's just wrong, legal or not. Unless they were making off with a hostage or something, or your property (in Texas only). But if they completely give up their criminal act and run away there is no reason to shoot them.
    Not always...
    Someone who has broken into my home and running around the corner of the kitchen wall may just get blasted. Being in my home, will present me with different threat considerations.
    There are no absolutes, but I do understand your intent. Once the threat is leaving the area, it's a different matter.

    Stay armed...my home is my last stand...stay safe!
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  13. #28
    VIP Member Array Tom G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,375
    There was a door between the musician and the homeowner.The fact that the homeowner opened the door and shot the musician while going away from him should earn the homeowner a charge of murder. There was no reason to shoot this guy unless he broke the door down. All the homeowner had to do was call 911. This was a case of common sense not being used and the homeowner just wanted to kill someone.

  14. #29
    Member Array flaboatbum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    105
    This is one of the best advice. intelligent threads I have read on this Forum.

  15. #30
    Senior Member Array Fast Cloud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Gulfstream
    Posts
    603
    I wouldn't shoot on this one. My door is still in tact and he's walking away. This is different from the knife to the throat of a loved one thread because he's only threatened my door. I'll leave him free do go and threaten as many doors as he likes. As far as I know...and I'm pretty sure on this...it's not a felony to beat on someones door late at night. I would call the cops however. There are times for shooting a bg in the back...but this isn't one of them.
    "Any rationally thinking person is armed" ---Hinds Co. constable John Lewis

    NRA member

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Road Rage Good Shoot / Bad Shoot
    By Hot Wing in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: July 13th, 2010, 06:54 PM
  2. Simple Shoot - No Shoot test Online
    By First Sgt in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 265
    Last Post: July 12th, 2010, 04:18 PM
  3. Interesting shoot no shoot at the local Wally World.
    By Riccur in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: January 27th, 2010, 12:47 PM
  4. Good Shoot/Bad shoot? Pastor Killed
    By Rustynuts in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2009, 09:50 PM
  5. To shoot or not to shoot...ammo shortage
    By wormy in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: June 15th, 2009, 04:51 AM

Search tags for this page

scenarios when you may shoot

,

shoot someone running away from you

Click on a term to search for related topics.