Shooting someone in the back

[FN1910]

Um, that first sentence was a run-on, you need to paragraph, and Nazi should be capitalized.

Hahahahaha!

I disagree with whatever grammer/grammar rules apply in this case as nazi should never be capitalized.

[Rich_S]

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.

We had a case a while back where a mental patient was stabbing his therapist and an off duty security guard happened on the scene and shot him. I don't recall where the BG was hit but if he shot him in the back in that scenario he's good to go all day long. If the BG is fleeing then the threat is over so if you shoot him in the back at that point (depending on state law) it's unlikely to end well for you. I know here you'd be toast if you shot a fleeing BG in the back anyway.....

[sgtbill]

Well in the case of the attacker going after someone with a baseball bat or say a knife, yes I would shoot him or her in the back. In the case of someone running away from a theft from a person or a holdup with or without a weapon No I would not shoot them in the back. If I observed a person shoot or kill another person in any other way and then take off without me seeing their face yes I would bust a cap in their back to stop them. If I saw their face and could I.D. them at a later date then under New Jersey Law that I worked under for 25 year's then no I could not shoot them.
Bill

[smokeeatr211]

i personally would say this is something based on scenario and what is happening. if someone busts into your home and then notices your presence and starts to flee shooting them in the back would more than likely be illegal as well as morally wrong. however i would say if someone were to come into your home and be advancing or threatening someone in your home (for example moving towards your chilrens room or the room where your wife is washing dishes) and your only shot is to shoot them in the back then this may be considered self defense as you are protecting your family. I am not a police officer or lawyer so this is strictly my opinion. And i would recommend anyone who is unsure about this seek advice or answers from someone qualified to answer these questions.

[wooddoctor]

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.

Scrub your toilets.... Better use of your time! If a pig had wings..could it fly? These kind of questions reall concern me...like when I see a female farding in the mirror and talking on the cell phone at the same time while driving in traffic. Did you just turn 21?

[Firefighterchen]

Scrub your toilets.... Better use of your time! If a pig had wings..could it fly? These kind of questions reall concern me...like when I see a female farding in the mirror and talking on the cell phone at the same time while driving in traffic. Did you just turn 21?

Toilets are clean. Yes they could fly. You kind of concern me. I did not just turn 21. Thanks for your input...I'm sure it will help many...maybe...nevermind probably not.

[Looksbetterinred]

I voted no on the assumption that it was in retreat. However, going through some of the other scenarios listed, I would say YES, but not if retreating.

[hobbick8462]

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.

My thought exactly, this is just another obscene post. If he supposedly has already read states laws as said, the firefighterchen should have a clear understanding that if there is an imminent threat of death or serious/great bodily injury to you or another you are justified in use or deadly force. Lets use a little common sense when asking ?s.

[Arc Angel]

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

I look at things like this: What would you do if you were at war? Could you perform a military specialty such as being a sniper? Would you allow your fellow soldiers to remain at risk from a certain enemy's (continued) violent behavior by passing on the shot - Would you?

Personally, I have no trouble with items #1 or #2. I do, however, hold a moral reservation on item #3: I'm a Christian. Judeo-Christian Holy Scripture does NOT allow the life of a non-violent thief to be summarily taken. Consequently, I differentiate in my mind between violent and non-violent thieves - Especially if I've got one, either, in my home or on the property. (We have.)



Ref: Exodus 22:2-3, 'If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him ....... ' (Yeah, I know, I'm old fashioned!)

[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.

My thought exactly, this is just another obscene post. If he supposedly has already read states laws as said, the firefighterchen should have a clear understanding that if there is an imminent threat of death or serious/great bodily injury to you or another you are justified in use or deadly force. Lets use a little common sense when asking ?s.

I think you completely misunderstood the intent of this thread. Doesn't surprise me though...

I voted no on the assumption that it was in retreat. However, going through some of the other scenarios listed, I would say YES, but not if retreating.

You can assume that, that's fair. But the poll said, if its a good shoot, its a good shoot. In my mind, and by law, shooting a retreating party is not a good shoot, that's why that wasn't the option I posted.