Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've been thinking about this recently and I'm a bit unsure of the better action. A friend of mine was knocked down and robbed of a hefty amount of money at gunpoint on the way out of his place of work a while back. Two "thugs" were responsible, one with a pistol, other with some sort of revolver. They literally took it and ran off. He wasn't CCing obviously, but by the time he would've been able to safely draw and shoot they would have been running to their getaway vehicle. By that point could they still be considered a threat since they're running through a parking lot, still with some people in it, brandishing weapons while in possession of stolen money? That isn't a justified shooting if he would've popped em both while they were "running away," is it? Trying to learn 360 degrees around CC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
Once their running away and the threat is gone bringing deadly force into play and innocent bystanders milling about would not be wise.

Sometimes you just don't have a winning solution and that is one of those times.

Maybe situational awareness BEFORE the robbery happened may have been able to change things but once the hand is dealt you're going to have to play that hand.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,511 Posts
Laws vary by state, but very few allow you to use deadly force once the threat is no longer there. If they are running from the scene, most jurisdictions will say the threat is no longer there. However if they stop and turn back towards you again, well that is another subject, they have again presented a threat and I would treat it as such.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,611 Posts
no its not ... they posed no threat running away. There are three ctitical elements to self defense 1) Ability 2) opportunity 3) Intent ( btheir are numerous variations of this but they all end the same.)
In your friends situation, by the time he would have been able to draw, he the ability and opportunity of the criminals to harm was gone because they were running away and physically unable to attack him while doing so. So no, he would not have been justified in shooting them.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Ok, well that settles that then...just sucks that once they've done the deed there isn't much else you can do, even if they were to have beaten the crap outta you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,157 Posts
The threat in your friends situation, once they are running away are no longer a threat. Shooting them in the back could be bad. Now if they are running away and shooting back at you, then they are still a threat.

My buddy told me once, that sometimes even the best get beat by the worst.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,637 Posts
...a lot of laws have been changed because the citizens of that state had had enough and impressed upon their Legislature to change things...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,304 Posts
So, under that statute, you would have to be positive that the BG's were being a threat to a thrid party....quite hard to do since they are running away and not pointing or aiming at anyone.
Well, I can assure you in Texas you could shoot the fleeing robbers....aggravated robbers at that ! Not going to get into a big deabate about it...here's the statute and further, I've seen and investigated such scenes with NO indictments. Now, am I advocating such...no...it's up to the individual...do what you feel best for yourself.

9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
Well, I can assure you in Texas you could shoot the fleeing robbers....aggravated robbers at that !

9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
I know the statute for TX. I was making a statement about the OP's scenario and the Georgia Statute...but thank you anyway:smile:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,411 Posts
Ok, well that settles that then...just sucks that once they've done the deed there isn't much else you can do, even if they were to have beaten the crap outta you.
Even if you could shoot why would you? They are fleeing. You start shooting and they take cover and start shooting back! Now you are in a gunfight and outnumbered two to one!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,304 Posts
Georgia Code - Crimes and Offenses - Title 16, Section 16-3-21

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


The way I interpret this statue in Georgia is when is the felony completed. Only during the actual commission of the robbery or is the fleeing still a portion of that crime ? Guess one would have to leave it up to the legal beagles...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,637 Posts
Georgia Code - Crimes and Offenses - Title 16, Section 16-3-21

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other´s imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


The way I interpret this statue in Georgia is when is the felony completed. Only during the acutall commission of the robgbery or is the fleeing still a potion of that crime ?
...there's the rub...I know what you're saying in TX law...but doesn't look like GA looks at it that way...I've posted the Texas scenario before and "folks" went spazmo on me...they watch too much TV and read too little law...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,411 Posts
Law notwithstanding, assuming it were legal, does anyone think it a smart move to start shooting at two armed thugs running away?

Seems like a foolhardy move. Very likely you will have lead returning in your direction. Kinda jumping back into the fire after getting a pass. Makes absolutely no sense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tdave
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top