Shooting someone in the back

[Firefighterchen]

It has come up twice this week. One view point claimed it is morally wrong to shoot someone in the back.

Walt629 (sorry if you were going to post this thread) asked, "is it ok to shoot a bg in the back?"

I googled and read through some other forums what their consensus was, and like everything, it's split between members and between state's laws.

What do you guys think?

This might help guide the discussion.

Situation:
1. The bad guy is killing people.
2. The bad guy just busted into the store waving a shotgun.
3. The bad guy just broke through the door into your home.

 

[Black Dragon]

Lets think of it this way.
An attacker gets past you and is about to beat your child with a baseball bat. Will you ask him to turn around so you can shoot him in the front?
Or is it morally right to let him beat your child with a baseball bat instead of shooting him in the back?

Yes it's ok to shot an attacker in the back IF he is going to continue attacking others. IF he is turning to end his attack and run away then no it is not ok to shoot him in the back.

Of course YMMV depending on your state laws but if my family is about to get attacked I don't care about state law I'm going to protect my family.

 

[Phillip Gain]

OBVIOUSLY if the bad guy is displaying a weapon with the intention of committing an act of violence, you are justified in using deadly force, no matter which way he happens to be facing.

You're really asking this? After being a member here almost a year? Either you're trying to stir up an argument...or you really need to sign up for a course that covers when deadly force is and is not justified.

 

[Danmc]

I guess I jumped to conclusions with my "no it's morally wrong" vote. If the BG is retreating after robbing you, then let him run. But if shooting the BG in the back is what is needed to stop the threat, then by all means do what is necessary.

 

[Deserteagle]

Depends on if he is retreating and his back is turned to me which equals murder.
Or if he is actively killing people and his back is turned to me, then maybe.

 

[localgirl]

Yeah, actually, if I have the time and ability, I would frankly prefer to be able to approach from behind and get close enough so I could be sure I wouldn't miss, then shoot someone in the back. It's not wrong if he's actively shooting or threatening people. It's wrong if he's fleeing the scene. To stop a serious, active threat, it doesn't matter where and how you shoot.

 

[Firefighterchen]

OBVIOUSLY if the bad guy is displaying a weapon with the intention of committing an act of violence, you are justified in using deadly force, no matter which way he happens to be facing.

You're really asking this? After being a member here almost a year? Either you're trying to stir up an argument...or you really need to sign up for a course that covers when deadly force is and is not justified.

OBVIOUSLY if the answer was so OBVIOUS other members wouldn't ask such an OBVIOUSLY stupid question?

I answered, what my mindset is, in the other posts, but like Walt posted, the topic is worth its own thread. If you don't want to be helpful, I'm sure navy has posted somewhere you can go argue about.

For the rest of the members, new and old, speak your mind, hopefully others won't be as rude, and we can all learn something new.

 

[Wyldekard]

1. Yes

2. Within the strict confines of the information given for the scenerio, No.

3. Under the current law in my state of residence I have to officially say no. Would I recommend a BG do it as a way of maintaining his good health? No I would not.

 

[kelcarry]

No imminent threat to you (or others under alter ego rule), you can shoot anyone in the back as long as you understand that you will be committing a felony. I am sure there are states where imminent threat goes so far as to include stealing your valuables and running away--don't understand it but it is what it is. In SC, based on an old law, if you are affecting a citizens arrest (only at night), you can use deadly force to stop the BG from evading your arrest command--ie: you can shoot him in the back. Outside of the above, I would appreciate it if someone could tell me how they can actually defend legally shooting someone in the back.

 

[Bighouse Doc]

Old cowboy macho bs!

If you can justify pulling the trigger, it doesn't matter where you hit!

-Doc

 

[ingodwetrust1975]

Self defence and the defence of others. If meets that requirment then it doesn't matter what part of him you see. Just watch your background. Children hide in the weirdest places.

 

[FN1910]

In SC there is the "Alter Ego" principle where you can place yourself in the shoes of someone being attacked. In our CWP class we went over this and yes you can legally and morally shoot someone in the back under certain situations. Suppose you are in a 7-11 type store and a BG is holding a gun on the clerk threatening to shoot. You are behind the BG. In SC you can assume the same role as the clerk and decide to shoot or not. You will be protecting the clerk just as if the clerk was protecting himself, just from the back instead of the front. It will be your decision to shoot or not but you will have to decide if the BG is going to shoot or just run away. Either way you are covered both from a legal and moral standpoint.

 

[S&W645]

There are state laws concerning "Forcible Felonies" and even though the BG may be leaving, if the manner of the attack would lead you to believe that the BG is about to commit another ( I.E., running away but shooting at people ) you can shoot the BG.

 

[nogods]

If shooting the BG was justified, then where you shot him is of no importance.

The problem is that where you shot the BG might be a factor in determining whether or not the shooting was justified.

 

[S&W645]

If shooting the BG was justified, then where you shot him is of no importance.

The problem is that where you shot the BG might be a factor in determining whether or not the shooting was justified.

Where as in location of the shooting and not where the BG is hit? If you can stand in another's shoes to be justified, it would make little difference where the shot(s) hit the BG.

 

[cgiven1]

Yes, to stop an active threat. No, to stop a retreat after a threat has been carried out.

 

[BIGJOHN621]

Second only to shooting someone in the front.

 

[willy b]

If Tha perp. Is retreating then no, but if they are still advancing to harm someone then yes. But you have to also think about where Tha bullets path is heading. If they are close to attack someone else would and could Tha bullet exit Tha bp body then strike a gp. To me if they got there back turned you have Tha upper hand in hth combat if you've been trained. And also to me if you have the right to deadly force you should atleast have Tha basic hth combat knowledge first so you have other options before df is needed.

 

[50SR9]

Seems to be an easy answer; if the threat is gone and the BG is leaving, retreating or whatever term you want to use, no. If the threat is still there to another family member or someone else, then yes. Legally? I am not an attorney, but I will survive if possible and so will my family. I did not get my permit to be a gun toting, wanna be LEO, vigilante. I got my permit to protect me, my family and possibly YOU if the situation warrants it. When it comes to surviving against the criminality in this country, morals go out the window. They (BG's) don't use them, I will return the favor. I am not going to hunt a situation to be a "hero". I will be a "hero" if put in one. I hope I never shoot anything but targets or wild game. One important point tho, do not put me in a position of "me or you", if at all able........"you" are gone.

 

[nogods]

Where as in location of the shooting and not where the BG is hit? If you can stand in another's shoes to be justified, it would make little difference where the shot(s) hit the BG.

Exactly

But, when the police find the shooter and the BG alone in the room, and the BG has an entry hole in his back and an exit hole in his chest, there's going to be an investigation. IF the DA decides to prosecute the shooter, you can bet the entry hole in the BG's back is going to be a factor.

It would be a big mistake to talk to the police in such a situation. Not just to protect your 5th, but also to protect against mis-stated statements.

For example, imagine a shooter who is overwhelmed with the events of the evening, almost in shock. The police ask "why did you shoot him" and the shooter responds "I wanted to kill him before he killed me with that knife he said he was going to use to slit my throat..."

The report states "Asked suspect why he shot the victim. Suspect replied "I wanted to kill him.""