Would you shoot at a fleeing bank robber like this guy? - Page 4
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 54

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

  1. #31
    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

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Georgetown, Texas
    Posts
    403
    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??

  4. #33
    I wouldn't have fired either. He's lucky he didn't hit the guy. Jail time for him...

  5. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by JrFreak View Post
    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.

  6. #35
    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.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by mpohio View Post
    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:

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

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by JrFreak View Post
    I wouldn't have fired either. He's lucky he didn't hit the guy. Jail time for him...
    For what?!?

  8. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by mpohio View Post
    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?

  9. #38
    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
    AL
    Proverbs 25:28 - A man without self control is like a city broken into and left without walls.

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Butner, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    362
    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...
    MSgt, USAF (ret), Life Member - NRA, Life Member - NAHC,
    Life Member - NCOA, Member - USCCA, Member - NCGR,
    Member - Oathkeepers

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Hamberger View Post
    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...
    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.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bank teller stops alleged robber, loses job
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-04-2011, 11:32 AM
  2. How Long Before You CC With a Bullet In the Chamber?
    By H3lpADing08MyBaby in forum Concealed Carry Discussion
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 11-01-2010, 11:20 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-12-2009, 12:57 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-22-2009, 02:36 AM
  5. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 02:44 AM

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