Surprise - Surprise - Surprise

[NCIC105]

He was surprised on two levels! Sorry but i could not remove the Ad.

Link Removed

 

[sdprof]

I can't speak to the laws of the state this took place, but in some states you can use the threat of deadly force to halt a felony in process.

Would it be right to shoot the fleeing felon? I think not. But if he stops at your threat to do so, well and good!

 

[Warrior1256]

I'm a bit confused about your law. My understanding was that you could only shoot someone if you think they are about to harm you or someone else. Wouldn't holding someone at gunpoint until the police arrived indicate that you were prepared to shoot them if they retreated - in other words you would be shooting them while not in any way being in danger yourself? Surely if the offender just decided to run away you would have no choice but to let him go? Or be prepared to run after him and physically apprehend him in some sort of citizen's arrest? Wouldn't shooting him in the back put you up in front of the court yourself?

On another note, I've seen a couple of dash-cam videos which show police shooting at perpetrators running away. Wouldn't this also be illegal?

Cheers
Gregg

In my state if someone forcibly enters your dwelling deadly force can be used.

 

[warthog97]

My state has allowances for citizen's arrest. The arresting citizen MUST have personally seen the (felony?) crime to use force to arrest. A knowledgable attorney with dozens of successful cases of defending people for gun 'crimes' (usually self defense or concealed carry issues) essentially recommended not arresting in my state unless they broke into the home and were being held at gunpoint until police arrived. Basically, he said to expect criminal and/or civil lawsuits no matter what.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Perfectly legal according to Utah law:

76-2-407. Deadly force in defense of persons on real property.

(1) A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury against another in his defense of persons on real property other than his habitation if:
(a) he is in lawful possession of the real property;
(b) he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's trespass onto the real property;
(c) the trespass is made or attempted by use of force or in a violent and tumultuous manner; and
(d) (i) the person reasonably believes that the trespass is attempted or made for the purpose of committing violence against any person on the real property and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent personal violence; or
(ii) the person reasonably believes that the trespass is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a forcible felony as defined in Section Link Removed that poses imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to a person on the real property and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of that forcible felony.
(2) The person using deadly force in defense of persons on real property under Subsection (1) is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the trespass or attempted trespass is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or for the purpose of committing a forcible felony.

Assuming the use of force was used by the burglar to enter the dwelling. Sub-paragraph (2) is classic castle doctrine.

 

[dustoffuh1]

Not sure where this took place but I know it wasn't IL. If it was in IL the homeowner would have been charged and the criminal let go (being sarcastic). In WI we have the Castle Doctrine, so good to go here.

 

[S&W645]

Perfectly legal according to Utah law:


Assuming the use of force was used by the burglar to enter the dwelling. Sub-paragraph (2) is classic castle doctrine.

Which is about the same as Florida's.:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

 

[spdracr39]

Since you are the local expert Navy, If the perp was running away but swearing he was going to kill the neighbor next door and had the means knife gun or whatever to do so could you shoot him in the back to prevent a felonious assault on the said neighbor (Neighbor is not in immediate area). My instructor said that you could do this but I don't agree. I am pretty sure you would be in hot water. maybe 776.013 (3) would apply in Florida.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Since you are the local expert Navy, If the perp was running away but swearing he was going to kill the neighbor next door and had the means knife gun or whatever to do so could you shoot him in the back to prevent a felonious assault on the said neighbor (Neighbor is not in immediate area). My instructor said that you could do this but I don't agree. I am pretty sure you would be in hot water. maybe 776.013 (3) would apply in Florida.

Depends on state law. In Washington, NO. RCW 9A.16.050

Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished

Florida would be very questionable based upon the definition of imminent:

[SIZE=-1]776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.[/SIZE]

I would say you would have to wait until the perpetrator was actually attempting to enter the neighbor's house or was in close proximity to the person they were threatening.