How would you have reacted to this??? - Page 4
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 59

Thread: How would you have reacted to this???

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Real World
    Posts
    7,967
    Quote Originally Posted by ecocks View Post
    Again, I caution against believing absolute statements. If you are in fear of your life, you are at least morally justified in stopping the threat. Yes, proving it may be difficult but that is the source of the cliche, "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". Certainly, as many are pointing out and others are ignoring, there are cases where a crime is still in progress or reasonable expectations of danger to others exists and it will not be deemed "murder". Equally ignored are the actual laws in some states which have explicitly authorized this reaction in specific situations involving your home and property.
    And again, I say that if a person turns and walks away or is running away, my life is not in danger. No need for further explanation.
    AMERICA'S EPITAPH
    Since They Did Not See Fit To Acknowledge God, He Gave Them Up To A Depraved Mind, To Do What Should Not Be Done

  2.   
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    And again, I say that if a person turns and walks away or is running away, my life is not in danger. No need for further explanation.
    I agree. I might pull my piece as the BG walks away and should he turn around, especially with his gat in his hand, well then...

    Shoot 'em in the back? Nah...

    I don't want lead leaving my piece unless it's absolutely necessary. There's always the potential of a) missing, and now you got a gunfight on your hands or b) hitting an innocent bystander, in which case you got a lot of issues on your hands. You're out of immediate danger so why risk it?
    Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sunny South Florida
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    And again, I say that if a person turns and walks away or is running away, my life is not in danger. No need for further explanation.
    And again an absolute statement and I don't buy it.

    If a BG had his weapon trained on you, turned and is walking AWAY from you but toward a loved one of yours, raises his weapon toward their head you ARE NOT GOING TO FIRE because you won't shoot him in the back? Bull --- your bangstick will be going bang. What if it is just a stranger ... I still bet there will be a bang. What if it is just a nameless victim in the next car that he is running to (the possible scenerio here) ... YOU WILL NOT FIRE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SHOOTING HIM IN THE BACK ???

    Pretty selfish thought isn't it.

    Self defense is not defense soley of yourself. It is defense of your and all innocent life as possible, anything less is simply self righteousness.

  5. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by 2beararms View Post
    And again an absolute statement and I don't buy it.

    If a BG had his weapon trained on you, turned and is walking AWAY from you but toward a loved one of yours, raises his weapon toward their head you ARE NOT GOING TO FIRE because you won't shoot him in the back? Bull --- your bangstick will be going bang. What if it is just a stranger ... I still bet there will be a bang. What if it is just a nameless victim in the next car that he is running to (the possible scenerio here) ... YOU WILL NOT FIRE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SHOOTING HIM IN THE BACK ???

    Pretty selfish thought isn't it.

    Self defense is not defense soley of yourself. It is defense of your and all innocent life as possible, anything less is simply self righteousness.

    As far as I am concerned if the situation was serious enough for me to shoot him from the front it is serious enough to shot him from the back. I will not pull my gun for jut any reason but if I pull it I will pull it with the intent on winning period. The notion of a fair fight when it comes to my life or a family member is a myth I am not willing to follow.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Real World
    Posts
    7,967
    Quote Originally Posted by 2beararms View Post
    And again an absolute statement and I don't buy it.

    If a BG had his weapon trained on you, turned and is walking AWAY from you but toward a loved one of yours, raises his weapon toward their head you ARE NOT GOING TO FIRE because you won't shoot him in the back? Bull --- your bangstick will be going bang. What if it is just a stranger ... I still bet there will be a bang. What if it is just a nameless victim in the next car that he is running to (the possible scenerio here) ... YOU WILL NOT FIRE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SHOOTING HIM IN THE BACK ???

    Pretty selfish thought isn't it.

    Self defense is not defense soley of yourself. It is defense of your and all innocent life as possible, anything less is simply self righteousness.
    The situation you present is totally different than the situation I was referring too. Of course I would shoot the BG in the back under those conditions, anyone would. As for the nameless victim in the next car, the answer is NO. I have a CCW solely for my personal protection and the protection of my family, regardless of your egotistic definition of self righteousness. Shoot anybody you want if it makes you feel better,that's your choice and your responsibility, good luck with it.
    AMERICA'S EPITAPH
    Since They Did Not See Fit To Acknowledge God, He Gave Them Up To A Depraved Mind, To Do What Should Not Be Done

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    I have to agree, anytime you shoot anyone in the back it will be considered murder. If your house is being robbed and you catch the BG, and the BG turns and runs away, and you shoot him in the back while running away, it is murder. No one is considered a threat to you if they are running away or leaving the scene. I doubt very much that you will find a jury that will determine that your life was in danger under those circumstances. My vote on that option is an absolute NO also.
    If he/she turned away from me and was heading toward another room in my house and was armed (knife or gun etc) I would still consider that a threat. Others are in the house and I have to err on the side of caution. I do not know what his/her intentions are. He/she could be running to find cover from behind which he/she could engage me? Yea I know it's hard to hash out all of the details and the what ifs. So many variables.
    It comes down to the judgment call at the time of the event. Trying to convince the jury that what you have done was for the well being of you and your family, Yea I know scary.

    In the case of the car jacking, the element of surprise was in the BGs favor. Kinda hard to plan for that one. Shooting him in the back as a civilian could be an issue for you as far as legal issues. LEO would be less an issue as law precedent allows for that.
    I have to agree, that shooting through the back comes across as retaliation in the car jacking scenario. In the home invasion one it depends on many factors like others in the home, was the BG running away from you or toward another in the home to use as a hostage or human shield?

    Really good what if here.. Perhaps a question for an attorney. I think I'll call my Uncle this week. I'll get back to ya'll...

    Just my 2 pennies presented for public ridicule...

    Peace...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

  8. I think that the scenario is evolving outside of the original situation presented. Going back to a car jacker leaving and then shooting, if it is construed that the felony had ended and he was fleeing, LEO may be in trouble, CCW is in trouble. Take a look at a link I was looking at:

    This was demonstrated in the Michigan case of People v. Couch, 436 Mich. 414, 461 N.W.2d 683 (1990), where the defendant shot and killed a suspected felon who was fleeing the scene of the crime. The Michigan supreme court ruled that Archie L. Couch did not have the right to use deadly force against the suspected felon because the suspect did not pose a threat of injury or death to Couch.

    Deadly Force - Further Readings

    CCW holders use deadly force for self defense only when a felon has the ability, and opportunity to place you or others in jeopardy of grave bodily harm or death. LEOs may be able to shoot a fleeing suspect if they believe he is still a danger to other LEOs or the public. I just don't see any where that I have come across that CCW holders have that same obligation and duty. If someone has objective case evidence to the contrary, that would be something that we should know.

  9. I looked up another link on Florida Deadly Force and they specifically state you cannot shoot a fleeing felon in self defense, only in the very act of committing the crime:

    Q. What if I see a crime being committed?

    A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.


    Lawful Self-Defense - Weapons - Division of Licensing, FDACS

    It appears that the FL definition of deadly force is exactly what I have seen for ID, UT and NV.

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Real World
    Posts
    7,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska444 View Post
    I looked up another link on Florida Deadly Force and they specifically state you cannot shoot a fleeing felon in self defense, only in the very act of committing the crime:

    Q. What if I see a crime being committed?

    A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman
    . But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.


    Lawful Self-Defense - Weapons - Division of Licensing, FDACS

    It appears that the FL definition of deadly force is exactly what I have seen for ID, UT and NV.
    Same in Arizona.
    AMERICA'S EPITAPH
    Since They Did Not See Fit To Acknowledge God, He Gave Them Up To A Depraved Mind, To Do What Should Not Be Done

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sunny South Florida
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by Alaska444 View Post
    I looked up another link on Florida Deadly Force and they specifically state you cannot shoot a fleeing felon in self defense, only in the very act of committing the crime:

    Q. What if I see a crime being committed?

    A. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime.* If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.

    Lawful Self-Defense - Weapons - Division of Licensing, FDACS

    It appears that the FL definition of deadly force is exactly what I have seen for ID, UT and NV.

    *NOTE: This discussion STATES that it is assumed the perpetrator is moving away from you toward a second carjacking.
    Your quote says you may use deadly force to PREVENT a forcible felony which is what you are doing if he is about to carjack a second car (which is when in this discusion I said you would be justified in shooting him in the back)

    Here is the actual Florida law:

    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.

    776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast