Scenario For Review

[ClearSightTactical]

I've had this debate many times. If you are carrying in a store, and a person comes in with a mask and gun would you wait until the BG shot someone to take action?

"Maybe he'll just get $ and leave"?

My opinion is that as soon as a weapon is pointed at someone there is immanent danger of death or great bodily harm, and the use of deady force is justified.

In my opinion, if you engage the target after he/she has already shot someone you're just avenging the death/injury of the person who was shot, and until the BG points the weapon at another person there is no longer immanent danger.

Some will say that the BG (bad guy) demonstrated that he was willing to use deadly force by using the firearm (shooting). We all know that pointing a gun at any living thing demonstrates that you're willing to use deadly force.

What are your opinions of this?

 

[rksap]

In my opinion, if the BG has a gun drawn, deadly force defensive action is justified. That being said, such action may not be advisable, depending on the situation. Immediately confronting the BG without determining the risk factor to bystanders may cost more lives than waiting for a clear shot.
To me, the correct action (or inaction) is relative to more factors than can be gone into in a brief post. Every situation needs to be judged on the basis of those factors at the moment.
As far as engagement after the BG has already shot someone being merely vengeance, I disagree. As long as there are innocent bystanders (and yourself) still in danger, engagement seems a necessity to prevent further casualties.

 

[HK4U]

I don't know. Is someone else s money worth a deadly confrontation on my part. What if I do engage the BG and in the shoot out an innocent bystander is hit and killed. What if it is a small child. What about all the money and time I may have to spend defending myself in a civil suit even if I do win. Some things to think about. Now if he starts taking customers and clerks to the back room or he begins shooting then of course all bets are off.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

So it would be a "maybe he'll just take the $ and leave?"

The post was not made to provoke other tactical factors such as bystanders and the possibility of hitting an innocent person.

Just the justification..

 

[AZSATT]

I'd have to agree with rksap in that all the undescribed unseen variables would have to be factored in and considered to make a call.

How far are you from the BG? Are you at the counter right next to him, or are you 35 feet away behind 6 rows of product shelving?

Are you alone in the store, or are family members present? Is anyone near the BG? Is your line of sight through the BG and into the clerk?

Tons of factors the brain whirls through in an instant (hopefully) but without 'em - we're just spit balling.

Without knowing all/any of those variables to make a qualified assessment of a scenario - my tool of last resort remains just that. IMHO.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

Thanks for the responses, but again without taking tactics into consideration such as distance, bystanders, etc. Merely the legal justification.

 

[Wolfling68]

I believe the above comments are part of the justification factor. On the one hand, I a person draws a weapon, it is justification for self defense, or defense of others.
On the other hand, what is the value of a human life? Under what conditions are you willing to take one? Legal and moral justifications are both valid and necessary. For me, moral justification is more important than legal, and they include weighing risk to others due to my action or inaction.

 

[tcox4freedom]

In my opinion, if the BG has a gun drawn, deadly force defensive action is justified. That being said, such action may not be advisable, depending on the situation. Immediately confronting the BG without determining the risk factor to bystanders may cost more lives than waiting for a clear shot.
To me, the correct action (or inaction) is relative to more factors than can be gone into in a brief post. Every situation needs to be judged on the basis of those factors at the moment.
As far as engagement after the BG has already shot someone being merely vengeance, I disagree. As long as there are innocent bystanders (and yourself) still in danger, engagement seems a necessity to prevent further casualties.

What he said.

 

[festus]

In Florida armed robbery is a forceable felony

Taht being said Drop the BG and call the law

 

[AZSATT]

AZ Law = Justification too

Thanks for the responses, but again without taking tactics into consideration such as distance, bystanders, etc. Merely the legal justification.

Pertaining to a question of justification - sure. Armed robbery fits the bill, so the CC citizen COULD be justified in engaging the BG with deadly force.

The law, however, says I'm able to do MANY things that I may or may not do at any given instant - immediate circumstances will always dictate.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

I completely agree, with many of the statements here. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but we all know that each scenarios outcome can be changed by a very slight variation. That is why I tried to make a very very general statement. I appreciate your responses, it opens me up to a different point of view.

 

[ggtgary]

<<< "In my opinion, if you engage the target after he/she has already shot someone you're just avenging the death/injury " >>>

Is the victim dead, how would you know? Is the bg done shooting, how would you know? Of course you know the bg is done shooting when you put one in his head.

"Some men learn by reading, a few learn from experience, the rest have to piss on the electric fence and found out for themselves" --- Will Rogers

 

[ggtgary]

<<< "but again without taking tactics into consideration such as distance, bystanders, etc. Merely the legal justification. " >>>

This is similar to the first and as far as I know only CCW shooting in the State of Kansas. It was an Okie, Kansas is reciprocal with Oklahoma, in a fast food place. Kansas CCW law was in effect but Kansas Licenses had yet to be issued. Anyway the Okie is in a fast food place when a guy comes into the place and pulls a gun and annouces a robbery. The Okie draws and actually tells the BG to drop his gun, BG fails to comply and is fatally shot. Okie is slapped on the back by all and told good job.

"Some men learn by reading, a few learn by observation, and the rest have to piss on the electric fence and find out for themselves" --- Will Rogers

 

[Springer M-14]

In my opinion, if you engage the target after he/she has already shot someone you're just avenging the death/injury of the person who was shot, and until the BG points the weapon at another person there is no longer immanent danger.

I will have to disagree with you on this aspect. One I am not comfortable or willing to put my life on the line on the whims of an armed criminal. Based on the scenario, with no innocent bystanders around I would engage. Why leave my life and the life of the cashier to chance? What would happen if I had let him walk out the door only to carjack my wife waiting for me in the parking lot?

We can analyze these situations til we're blue in the face, but the fact remains we don't know what the bad guy is thinking, thus we don't know his intentions.

 

[marionandjohn]

With out going into the what ifs but looking into it legaly I know that GA and TN have what some refer to as the "alter ego" law, meaning that if you were in someone elses shoes (the direct victim) and deadly force is justified then you are justified in deadly force. I was told and have read the laws that say you have the right to defend you your family and anyone else around you ie. the store clerk. With that being said there is always alot of what ifs in factor, what I do right or wrong, is play these what ifs in my head when I am out and about. When I see the chance I ask myself what if that person does this what would I do? I try and answer the question as quickly as possible and then sit back look around and see if I would have made the best choice possible or did I choose option B before A. But with that being said you also have to factor in the question the prosecuter (if pressed) will ask you, Why did you run in the store when you saw it was being rob, why did you not run when you had the chance (legally I didnt have to is not a good answer to them) why did you do this or that. I hope this helps but more so you should read the laws of your state or states you frequent and see what you are justified in defending with deadly force.

 

[kelcarry]

Hey Y'all: As marionandjohn said, alter ego rules exist in SC as well. They are, however, a double edged sword. On the one hand, using the golden rule via alter ego--"do onto others, as you expect them to do onto you" is the guiding force if someone else iis in imminent threat. On the other hand, when you come across any kind of "situation", you had better know ALL THE FACTS before you commit yourself and your weapon to the fray. If you think a minute, almost any situation on the face of it could be anything but what you think it is. Unless you are in the middle of something and see it from its intiation, IMO calling 911 is the ultimate in good choice. Certainly discharging a firearm AFTER the event as the perp is leaving (unless maybe in the frontier state of TX) is going to cost you, if nothing else, a lot of legal bills.

 

[Unfettered Might]

Simple;

!) Take a tactical position in perpetrator's blind spot, considering whats beyond your target.

2) Order perpetrator to freeze and disarm under threat of death. <--very important

3a) If perpetrator disarms, order to ground into prone position, fingers interlocked behind head and feet apart, instruct clerk to secure the firearm and call police, keeping weapon trained on perpetrator until police arrive.

3b) If perpetrator turns WITH THE WEAPON, end their miserable existence. If perpetrator refuses to disarm despite a repeated order, end their miserable existence.


As posted before, know your laws regarding SD, as these simple steps may not apply to you. Fortunately where I live, a justifiable homicide defense protects you from criminal or civil liability and we do not have a duty to retreat as a Kentuckian NEVER runs.

 

[kelcarry]

Just read Unfettered Might's post and I guess some of us, including myself will probably agree to disagree. Everything you said is correct, by the book, and makes perfect sense and is probably echoed in LEOs' manuals. It is just so totally unrelenting when it is written down. I guess what I am really saying is your first statement could or should have included a little more verbage about predetermining a lot more about the situation and its environment, with an option to calling 911. Statement 1 sounds like all hell will break loose the minute YOU see anything that YOU deem to be what it is. Many times what you see is not what is going on and there must be an "out" that does not include total conflict.

 

[stever1952]

Here in Utah armed robbery is considered one of many forcible felonies. We are allowed to shoot anyone engaging in a forcible felony even if it is not directed at us. However, the law is one thing and courts are another.

A simple robbery with no action taken to others and a clean get away would not cause me to draw and shoot. If the same robber shot threatened to shoot anyone than I "might" draw and shoot. If the robber actually shot anyone, I would draw and shoot if I could do so with a very low chance of collateral damage to others.

 

[2beararms]

From a legal standpoint in Florida you should have no problem. You have stopped a "Focible Felony" from occuring which is justification alone for use of deadly force, plus Florida does fully recognize the use of force in defense of another.