Would you shoot at a fleeing bank robber like this guy?

[ricardo900]

I believe most people who carry are probably not TRAINED to shoot at a fleeing suspect. Even though many take defensive pistol courses they mainly teach "DEFENSIVE" type situations. I remember taking a tactical blackwater course and their focus is on "OFFENSIVE" situation and plainly making it clear that "this is not a defensive pistol course" They will train you to shoot your handgun at 75yds, moving targets, and my favorite "The Roger's Range".

 

[rt48]

Is this really true? Am I the ONLY one that does NOT "know" this law??? IF it IS true, then NYS laws are even more DUMB than I thought!!

As a Federal officer I was always trained NOT to shoot a fleeing felon, unless they were endangering others or leaving a facility that had nuclear material.

IF an officer should not shoot a fleeing felon then I certainly would not..

Interestingly enough, last summer we had an incident in the Cleveland area where an FBI agent did shoot a fleeing robber after the agent and a companion were held up.

Cleveland Heights police explain why FBI agent who shot fleeing teen was justified in firing | cleveland.com

 

[mappow]

Per the OP, NO, I would not give pursuit. I would call 911, give as much details as possible and be done with it. NOW, if the BG's turned toward me with a weapon and or they started blazing away inside/outside the Bank the need to intervene has just been made.

 

[rt48]

A similar incident happened in Ohio a few months ago.

Authorities continued the investigation of a Friday bank heist in Cambridge that included an attempted, armed intervention by a citizen.

At about 3:25 p.m., a single suspect entered the U.S. Bank on East Wheeling Avenue and demanded money, Cambridge police said.

After receiving cash -- the amount of which was undisclosed -- the suspect fled to his getaway vehicle, a small, greenish colored, four-door car with rust on it and with the license plate covered.

As the car sped away, a bystander outside the bank fired at the vehicle twice in an effort to stop the suspect from getting away.

Link Removed

 

[NavyLCDR]

The reason I disagree w/ this guy’s actions is because I carry a handgun for self defense not to enforce the law and not to apprehend criminals. Chasing and/or detaining bad guys isn't w/in the scope of my practice. It’s not something I’m trained or qualified to do.

I absolutely agree with you, Treo, and feel exactly the same way. What I disagree with is the lowering of some people's level to the same level that the Brady Campaign is on by calling the subject of this discussion childish names.

 

[mpohio]

The way I see it you are not a cop, If you shoot a fleeing person in the back... you just commited murder(bitch about that for awhile you little whiners). As the Leos who have chimed in here said, they wouldn't even do it and they are trained for this crap. You took what? a 3 to 10 hour 1 day class and now you are judge jury and executioner. If you don't see the logic behind this, I seriously believe you should have all your gun rights revolked, cause you are more of a threat to society than the bank robber. He physically harmed no one, while you want to shoot the frickin place up. Your a vigilante / ticking time bomb :biggrin:

 

[NavyLCDR]

The way I see it you are not a cop, If you shoot a fleeing person in the back... you just commited murder(bitch about that for awhile you little whiners). As the Leos who have chimed in here said, they wouldn't even do it and they are trained for this crap. You took what? a 3 to 10 hour 1 day class and now you are judge jury and executioner. If you don't see the logic behind this, I seriously believe you should have all your gun rights revolked, cause you are more of a threat to society than the bank robber. He physically harmed no one, while you want to shoot the frickin place up. Your a vigilante / ticking time bomb :biggrin:

If you kill someone in self defense, even if they are about to shoot you first, you commit homicide. Read your statutes, buddy. :biggrin:

 

[Itstjs]

It depends, are they shooting at you first? Is any threat still lingering? Most I would do is draw my weapon, and check the door a few minutes after I assumed they left to "see if the coast is clear" I would not run out and shoot them unless I absolutley had to.

 

[Dragon]

If the BG is running away, and the threat of injury or death is gone, The decision to chase after them and invite danger is not a good decision. This is only my opinion ( which we all know what thats worth ), But It may not be the cpl holder that shoots someone accidently, but the criminals who choose to return fire, Which makes the role reversed and the cpl holder becomes the perpetrator. My fear would be because I started the gun fight, some lawyer would prosecute me if an innocent bystander was injured because if it were not for my decision to start a gun fight, the bad guys probably would not have to open fire. Just my thoughts!

 

[Nightmare45]

Bank has Insurance and FBI to track and nab BG, I have family and fleeing BG is no threat, when he came in he was a threat but running away, no way.

 

[nogods]

Here is something else I learned about New York Law.

The law that provides a defense to a citizen who uses deadly force against a fleeing robber applies even if the citizen fires recklessly and injures an innocent bystander.

However, that same law states that a police officer that uses deadly force against a fleeing robber is not protected by the law if he acts recklessly in discharging his weapon.

People v Pena (1996, Sup) 169 Misc 2d 75, 641 NYS2d 794.

"The initial question presented is whether a civilian who uses deadly physical force to effect the arrest of a person who has in fact just robbed that civilian and is in immediate flight from that robbery is liable for reckless homicide when the result of the use of that deadly force is to kill a person who was not the robber. The answer given by the law of New York is that there is no criminal liability for the homicide under those circumstances."

But that doesn't mean his permit can't be lifted if the issuing judge thinks he acted inappropriately, unless of course a court holds that the 2nd amendment prohibits the state from revoking a CC permit under those circumstances.

However, a police officer or peace officer using deadly force under the same circumstances could be charged with a crime if his conduct was determined to be "reckless":


NY PL section 35.30:

2. The fact that a police officer or a peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force under circumstances prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subdivision one does not constitute justification for reckless conduct by such police officer or peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he or she is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.

The court in Pena blamed this apparent anomaly in the law on the legislature:

While the Legislature did not explain why it drew a distinction between a police and peace officer and a citizen, there is one explanation to be found in part in the statute itself.

The officer need not be correct in his/her reasonable belief that the person the officer is seeking to arrest committed an enumerated felony; nor is the officer restricted to using the deadly physical force to effect the arrest of a person who is in immediate flight from the commission of the felony.

Before using deadly physical force, the citizen must be correct in his/her reasonable belief that the person he/she is seeking to arrest committed an enumerated felony and that such person is in immediate flight from the commission of the enumerated felony.

Given that the police and peace officer is specially trained, inter alia, in the responsible use of firearms under trying circumstances, and that he/she was being authorized to use that deadly physical force on a much broader scale than the citizen, the Legislature wanted some statutory incentive for the police to act responsibly in the use of their broad power to use deadly physical force by holding them responsible for reckless conduct.

In fact, those who opposed the legislation did so on the grounds that the legislation accorded too much authority to the police to use force. (See, 1968 Bill Jacket, Senate Bill S 4104-A.)

For the citizen who could not be presumed to have had training in the use of deadly physical force, and who would be acting often under stress, on the spur of the moment, in response to the commission of an enumerated felony and while the felon was in immediate flight from that felony, and who would often otherwise be a responsible member of the community, the Legislature chose not to hold that citizen accountable for an otherwise justifiable use of force that resulted in injury or death to the wrong person.

Reasonable people may disagree with that decision, but the Legislature made its choice among the options presented and whether we agree or disagree with the law across the board or in its application to a particular situation, we are bound to accept the legislative direction

 

[stingray2100]

NavyLT and MPohio are the same people??

why are you so hostile?? just give your opinion and be done with it.

You do not need to pass judgement on the other persons mistake.

You are just responsible for your actions and you are not the nobody to judge and bash the other guy.

Since you are quick to pass judgement youself. Right???

or Am I wrong??

 

[JrFreak]

I wouldn't have fired either. He's lucky he didn't hit the guy. Jail time for him...

 

[nogods]

I wouldn't have fired either. He's lucky he didn't hit the guy. Jail time for him...

See my post #31 above - whether he hit the robber or an innocent bystander he would be protected by NYS law.

I still would not have pursued the robber or fired my weapon in those circumstances.

 

[mpohio]

I have no idea who Ltnavy is, so no I don't double post on here. I am sure the moderators have Ip checking ability and can verify this( I know I do on my site).

Stingwray, you are wrong.
I wasn't trying to be hostile, I just don't like giving people the Idea of shooting a fleeing suspect in the back when there is no threat or killing an innocent bystander is legal. It isn't and it is idiotic. I have no idea what fairly tale land you live in, but in the real world, you would be screwed. I haven't fact checked the laws you are quoting, but if you for one minute think you can kill an innocent bystander without going to jail and or being sued, you are crazy. It won't happen. There isn't a jury that would side with you in a criminal or civil suit. You will go to jail and you will be sued. You have a permit to carry a gun and protect yourself. The danger has left and now you think your charles bronson? Get real.

If I was a moderator on here I would have closed this thread long ago as it is giving false and misleading information.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I have no idea who Ltnavy is, so no I don't double post on here. I am sure the moderators have Ip checking ability and can verify this( I know I do on my site).

I wasn't trying to be hostile, I just don't like giving people the Idea of shooting a fleeing suspect in the back, when there is no threat. It is idiotic. I haven't fact checked the laws you are quoting, but if you for one minute think you can kill an innocent bystander without going to jail and or being sued, you are crazy. It won't happen. If I was a moderator on here I would have closed this thread long ago as it is giving false and misleading information.

Funny how the "false and misleading" information is directly quoted from a Supreme Court, Bronx County court case:

Link Removed

It's obvious that mpohio and I are not the same person because we hold opposing views on the subject. Our shooter was completely justified in his actions and protected by NY state law. And this "misinformation" comes directly from the NY state court system. Whether some people want to admit it or not, this was a completely justified shooting, that's why not even New York's finest in blue, for once, did not put a person in jail or even charge the shooter for possessing or discharging a firearm. The cops must have actually known the law in this case.

I wouldn't have fired either. He's lucky he didn't hit the guy. Jail time for him...

For what?!?

 

[nogods]

I
If I was a moderator on here I would have closed this thread long ago as it is giving false and misleading information.

Is that how you control information you don't like on your website? By shutting off the information.

As several of us have shown by reference to the relevant case law and statutes, In New York State a civilian is authorized by law to use deadly force to stop a fleeing robber and even if that citizen acts recklessly and thereby kills an innocent bystander, that citizen cannot be convicted of homicide.]

Perhaps we can discuss whether or not that should be the law. but the fact is that it is the law.

BTW - what is your website? - I want to be certain I'm not participating on it - it sounds like it is a vast wasteland of misinformation based solely on what you'd like the law to be rather than what the law actually is.

do you ban people who post corrections to your false assertions to?

 

[asaling]

Once the BG's back is to me and he's make'in tracks the other way the threat is gone, no need to be John Wayne. Besides, I will never be as cool as "The Duke".

Peace

 

[Ed Hamberger]

Guys, after reading through all the comments to this thread I've came to several conclusions; 1.) some of you need to use "spell check" before posting a comment, 2.) how many of you making a comment currently live in New York? and if not,then why are you passing judgement on this guy? 3.) most of you agree that once the BG ran from the bank the danger element ceased to exist for those still inside and the GG was wrong for what he did then! Here in my home state the law reads differently than the New York statute on this subject, so I abide by NC Statutes... :yu:

 

[S&W645]

Guys, after reading through all the comments to this thread I've came to several conclusions; 1.) some of you need to use "spell check" before posting a comment, 2.) how many of you making a comment currently live in New York? and if not,then why are you passing judgement on this guy? 3.) most of you agree that once the BG ran from the bank the danger element ceased to exist for those still inside and the GG was wrong for what he did then! Here in my home state the law reads differently than the New York statute on this subject, so I abide by NC Statutes... :yu:

Justified in NY but sure not here in Florida. Once the person has fled the scene you no longer have the "appearance of danger". You as the shooter would face criminal charges unless the crook was a threat to others. Such as firing back towards you or others while fleeing.