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]

Originally Posted by 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.

What he said.

[festus]

Taht being said Drop the BG and call the law

[AZSATT]

Originally Posted by ClearSightTactical

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.