Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,147 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just a thought... When would you be justified to shoot a BG in the back? If someone breaks in your house and they are trying to leave when you confront them you would probaly be prosecuted if you shoot them. I guess a crime in a public place involving shooting of innocent people you would be justified to shoot the BG in the back. Would you ever shoot someone in the back?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,236 Posts
I'm not sure of the legality of this personally, but let me describe the only time I would. If I'm in my house and my wife or children were in another room while someone broke in....

If I saw them going into those rooms with a weapon...I don't care if he's facing me or not...I'd light him up.

This may or may not be legal, but if I was certain they were there to kill my family, I'd take the jail time to see their faces again.

But, that's just me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
or
If I was in a shoot out with them, if the MFBG turned, ran, bent over,
I would pop him.
if they had no gun,
noway
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
50,596 Posts
A BG can easily be leaving and and pointing a gun at you...happens all the time in robberies.
My house, my rules...:image035:...what might never apply anywhere else is much different in my home...my home is my last stand. OMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,177 Posts
In Texas if hes in the house,backshot,front shot,headshot it's all good
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
Or, IIANM, if doing criminal mischief at night. Also applies only in Texas.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,765 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,765 Posts
Or, IIANM, if doing criminal mischief at night. Also applies only in Texas.
Both Criminal mischief at night time and theft at night time...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
245 Posts
Let BG run. If BG running away from you - your life is not in danger.

Really? And if they come back or get someone else...then the liability of you failing to take action could bite you.

One excellent reason why a fleeing threat is still a threat.

You'll hear lawyers, LEOs, and some judges state that if the assailant was fleeing then you were no longer in danger. They would never make that statement if it were their own life in danger, especially if that same threat had a high potential of return.

That's why I still love the phrase: You can run, but you'll only die tired.
See your local law as to if it's even legal to shoot a fleeing assailant and when if it is allowed. Usually it will be an index offense (serious or violent crime) that obsolves the fleeing criminal aspect for a shooter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,177 Posts
He doesn't even have to be inside your house...
True, but the question asked if perp had broken into his house,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,426 Posts
The way I read things it says your are justified to use lethal force, but does not specify where or how you shoot. If you are justified then I'm not worried where the shot goes. I could see it in my house, defending my family, or public shooting. You better have your ducks in a row, you'll probably have some splaining to do. If they are actively leaving the scene and not an active threat, I'm letting LEO find him.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,046 Posts
Shooting someone in the back on it's surface ever since we've had firearms in society has always been looked upon as a cowardly act.

However, that doesn't always mean it isn't or can't be justified.

Obviously, circumstances and the dynamics of the situation is often the determining factor.

Certainly, it can also be very difficult and expensive proposition for the person to present the physical evidence which shows it was in fact justified to a jury.

However, if you truly were justified in shooting someone in the back and not just acting cowardly, you can get that across to a jury.

However, it is fraught with a lot of problems simply because of the notion that it has always been considered a cowardly act.

Here is a case in point. We all remember who US Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose' Compean are and what happened to them.

Now there are reams of documents surrounding that case... and the case blossomed into a legal quagmire of mammoth proportions for a variety of reasons. I will try to keep the pertinent parts relating to the "shooting in the back" issue as concise as possible.

The two of them always contended that they were alone on patrol in a remote part of the desert and encountered an Illegal who resisted arrest and or detainment for questioning. The suspect got into a physical fight with one of them in which the illegal and one of the agents tumbled down into a drainage ditch. (This is called, in most jurisdictions, "aggravated assault on a peace officer" and contrary to what a lot of people might say, is a crime!)

The suspect got away from the agent and attempted to flee back across the border.

The two agents contend that as the suspect was fleeing, at one point he turned back towards them as he was running, and pointed what they believe was a handgun at them.

We have all seen this exact same thing thousands of times in the movies and on TV shows, so we all know what this action looks like. Right? We all believe what is going to happen next if we see someone running away perform this movement too.

A personal friend of mine (LEO) in Missouri had this exact thing happen to him while chasing a 14 year old, who was approximately 50 feet ahead of him and was shot twice by the kids .22 cal revolver. He was wearing body armor and was able catch and arrest the kid.

He said the kid never stopped running... he just turned back towards him as he was running away and popped off a couple rounds at him to try and discourage him from continuing the chase. He also said, he has no idea what kept him from shooting the kid in the back and he did not know he had been hit twice until after everything was over. Both hits were solidly in his chest area. Body armor saved his ass that night!


Now, Compean and Ramos said they fired at the suspect who they believed had a firearm who was attempting to shoot at them. Since the suspect continued to flee across the border and fled in an awaiting car, they had no idea they had even hit the suspect with their shots.

My nephew who is a Border Patrol agent has told me, that it is not uncommon... especially over the last decade or so with all the massive border incursions, to have agents discharge their weapons at illegals who have threatened them or shot at them first. As a matter of fact, the supervisory agents get really tired of all the paperwork they have to do on the incidents and often times, some of the unprofessional types get down right belligerent about all the reports they must make.

Again, both the agents contend that they reported the incident according to SOP and no less than 3 supervisory agents responded to the scene. Compean and Ramos contend that because the suspect successfully fled across the border and they believed that they did not hit this suspect, they were told by a supervisor to police up the brass and the incident was just kind of chalked up to a close call in the desert.

Now, because of politics, back stabbing, people trying to CYA, and a whole lot of other bureaucratic nonsense... when it was discovered that they in fact did hit the suspect, all hell broke loose.

Enter U.S Attorney Johnny Sutton and all sorts of charges filed and things just took off from there.

(Ok, I'm trying to keep this concise and stay on point here, but it's rather difficult with this case in particular.)

The one document which would have essentially proven the case in which Ramos and Compean contended, and in essence exonerate them was successful suppressed as evidence in the court trial by U.S. Attorney Sutton.

That document was the medical report written by the US Army Surgeon who removed the bullet from the illegal smuggler at the governments expense.

That report was obtained via FOIA litigation and posted on the internet. Now I have to go on the assumption that World Net Daily who posted it on the internet did not alter the document and that it was in fact the true and correct document.

Anyways, I read it and it stated in part. (Not an exact quote here, but I am paraphrasing as best I can remember) The surgeon stated that the bullet entered the patient in the left lateral aspect of the patients gluteus and traversed in a direction from left to right lodging in the right pelvis area.

In essence, he was shot in the left hip area and it traveled across his pelvis to the right side of his pelvic cavity.

The surgeon even went so far as to say... The wound was consistent with the patient having his body "bladed" towards the source of the gunshot with his arm in an outstretched position.

What I find amazing... and which is exactly why the Prosecutor had to have this document suppressed if he wanted a conviction is that the surgeon made this report only a day or two after the incident when he performed the surgery. He had no idea who the Border Agents involved were, or what their version of the event even was! He did not read their version of the story and then write his report in such a way to totally corroborate their story!

Also, contrary to the Prosecutor, he was NOT SHOT IN THE BACK! He was shot in the Left Side of the Left Butt Cheek and the bullet went from the left rear side of the guys body and lodged in the right front hip area. It also damaged his bladder and other tissue and the government paid for some reconstructive surgery from the damage.

Now that is consistent with someone running away, but then who turns back towards you with his arm out to shoot at you. The body will be somewhat bladed back towards the source of the gun fire if you are being shot at by the police as he ran kind of in a diagonal line during the time the shots were fired at him.

And yet every time Johnny Sutton opened his mouth on TV and every other place, he kept saying "They Shot an Unarmed Man in the Back!" Kind of disingenuous at best if you ask me.

Now my personal opinion is that these two agents were railroaded and it was a trial which was successfully controlled by the prosecutor.

In the heat of the moment, alone in a remote area of the desert, after being assaulted by an illegal alien, who got into a physical fight with officers and as he was fleeing, turns and sticks his arm out at you... I don't know... to me, I think they were justified in shooting. But that's just me.

In any event... to get back to the original post.... If you shoot someone in the back... Even if it is justified.... It could go very bad for you! At the very least, be an expensive trial.

Now, Ayoob has also written several articles and has successfully testified and demonstrated in court, of how shooting someone in the back can be justified which has resulted in the acquittal of people who were wrongfully accused.

So, it can go either way... Just know going in that throughout the history of modern firearms, there's always been a bad stigma placed on shooting someone in the back, so be careful out there.

Do what you have to do... but know the consequences.

I hope I didn't bore you all to death with this post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
388 Posts
Bark'N

no bore here. Thanks for the detailed account of the Army surgeon. I remember feeling disgusted each of the few times I saw Sutton on the tube discussing the subject. To my perception he had a certain air of arrogance about him. Off topic, but it also tourqued me off that 'W' took so long to commute the sentences of officers Compean and Ramos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
I'm not sure of the legality of this personally, but let me describe the only time I would. If I'm in my house and my wife or children were in another room while someone broke in....

If I saw them going into those rooms with a weapon...I don't care if he's facing me or not...I'd light him up.

This may or may not be legal, but if I was certain they were there to kill my family, I'd take the jail time to see their faces again.

But, that's just me.
Im with you on that one...

Its because of this that i am considering an AR15 for home defense actually. If someone breaks in, honestly i have to be extremely careful regarding shot placement with a 9MM because i have 2 kids under 3 all around me. My ccp instructor said hit the floor and shoot up at them so the trajectory of the bullet is through the roof. Good idea, but in the heat of a moment that's kind of scary to me.

The instability of the AR (i think its 223? im sure someone will make sure to let me know) round after an impact with a wall is a little better...

If they are running away from me no matter where in my house im probably not shooting unless they are in one particular spot at the very end of my hallway. Because of the location of my kids, not because of anything else. If hes running to the door... let him run. Its not worth jail to stop him from breaking into another persons house tomorrow - and that's what you would get in NYS more than likely. Especially if he didn't end up having a weapon. He has to commit two crimes to use deadly force... breaking in was his first crime. after that its going to be how well you can articulate what happened - assuming your shot placement was good and you're now the only witness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
I'm not sure of the legality of this personally, but let me describe the only time I would. If I'm in my house and my wife or children were in another room while someone broke in....

If I saw them going into those rooms with a weapon...I don't care if he's facing me or not...I'd light him up.

This may or may not be legal, but if I was certain they were there to kill my family, I'd take the jail time to see their faces again.

But, that's just me.
No kidding. My family is much more important than whether I'm in jail for protecting them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Well I live in a small town and know most of the LEO, I can truthfully say that if someone broke into my house it would be justified, head neck,- back no matter,

If they broke into your house then just what else will they do?????

I wouldnt and dont think about jail time when it comes to my wife and children.... I could care less about that, my only concern is and would be the safety and well-being of my family:comeandgetsome::comeandgetsome:BOOM BOOM
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top