Getting back/even

[KCJeep]

You most likely would not be in a "retaliate" mindset anyway, but a continued "self defense" mindset at the time. How many crazy's wouldn't suddenly turn around and decide to shoot you again or finish you off?

This is still entirely a self defense scenario in my professional opinion, the dude has ALREADY shot you. No jury would doubt you were legitimately concerned he would shoot you again whether you happened to shoot him in the back or not.

JMO.

 

[FastGame]

Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
shooting him in the back is illegal but i could not resist and dead men tell no tales.


"dead men tell no tales" but a hole in the back tells a story you don't want told in a court of law

Run fast and get in front of them....

I know someone who lost everything he worked his whole life for because he didn't kill the person, the shot man who lived told wild "tales" in court and sued for $$$ and won even though he went to jail for the crime he committed when he was shot.

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted By: FastGame
I know someone who lost everything he worked his whole life for because he didn't kill the person, the shot man who lived told wild "tales" in court and sued for $$$ and won even though he went to jail for the crime he committed when he was shot.


I would sooner sell all my possessions for cash and go live under the nearest bridge in a cardboard box then to give even a shiny red cent to someone who I shot suing me.

 

[zerosoma]

Originally Posted By: hotwheels
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
I was just pondering scenarios in my mind and what if an assailant shot you en started to walk away? So, what do you do? Concentrate on getting rehabilitated or try to stop him to hold him liable? Im guessing shooting him in the back is a no-no.




In other words, are we only allowed to use force to prevent an attack OR is it fair game to retaliate?


Thank you


Having fallen on my face, my searching hand feels blood pouring profusely from a 1.5 inch exit wound in my lower abdomen. Adrenaline is surging and I decide to get even. Pushing myself with my left hand off the ground, I reach with my slippery from blood right hand for the concealed-carry inside pocket in my aromatic fine English leather jacket and pull out my Mark XIX .50 caliber Desert Eagle. Trailing blood I sprint after the perp who just tried to snuff me. Even though I have lost at least three pints of blood, and the hand cannon is weighing me down considerably, I catch up with the lowlife who is just about to jump into a curbside parked Honda Accord. I shoot the lowlife's kneecaps off. His legs get cleanly blown off. He sinks onto his bloody stumps and I push the dazed and gushing blood everywhere creep into the driver's seat of his poor assassin's car. I start the engine and jam one of the perp's legs between the gas pedal and the dashboard. The Accord with the now screaming lowlife speeds off and plunges off the convenient railroad overpass, crashes in front of an approaching AMTRAK train, which derails following an unrealistically large explosion. I pick up the one left behind leg and wisecrack, You forgot this" while I chuck the appendage into the burning inferno below. Satisfied, I wipe my bloody hands on my pants, put the Desert Eagle back in my concealed carry pocket. I stick my thumb in the exit wound and head for the next Walgreens for some alcohol wipes and a few BandAids. And this was just a typical Tuesday evening!

In other, more concise words, I like to get even.




hotwheels


I had something similar happen - minus the Honda accord.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: InhalingBullets
What if that person walking away was Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold or Adam Lanza? What if this person shot you in a school, theater or supermarket? Gentlemen, every case is different and you cannot know the mindset of a criminal intent on harming others.


In a case like that where you see him shooting other people, and if his back is towards you, it would be using deadly force to protect others from being murdered. You'd probably be a hero to society and not be prosecuted by the police at all. A cop would shoot someone in the back if that person was shooting at other people around him.

 

[Whitewolf]

This is a very interesting debate. Do we have a police officer or similarly qualified person on here that can give us their opinion of what would be considered to be justified or not?

 

[totegoat]

Homeowner here shot a guy through a window. Maybe he was looking at her? Ruled justifiable.

 

[KCJeep]

Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
This is a very interesting debate. Do we have a police officer or similarly qualified person on here that can give us their opinion of what would be considered to be justified or not?


I posted mine above. I will add...

Additionally prosecutors don't tend to be gung ho on going after victims of a crime, very poor PR and virtually an impossible case to win. Juries are typically very sympathetic to an otherwise law abiding citizen who suddenly find themselves in a violent encounter they did not initiate.

As a peace officer I am shooting the dude in the back if I am still in the fight. I am shot, his intentions are clear. I can recite countless examples of downed officers subsequently being executed. The world recently saw an example of this in Paris. For a law enforcement officer this is generally the rule, not the exception.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
This is a very interesting debate. Do we have a police officer or similarly qualified person on here that can give us their opinion of what would be considered to be justified or not?
It'a a jury question, if the AG involved is looking for firearm owner scalps and proceeds with an indictment. "The protection of life and property and the life and property of others through the use of deadly force" against someone committing a felony, especially a crime of violence, is permitted. Once the criminal act has ceased and the person involved is leaving the location, no longer posing an immediate threat, well, that's when a jury should decide based on the facts particular to the case.
Folks looking for a black and white, yes and no answer from the law are usually disappointed. There are issues of "citizen's arrest" vs the power of a LEO to detain based on probable cause, and what an officer can do if his reasonable order is not obeyed, but as to the armed citizen, the more immediate and direct the response to witnessing or being the subject of a felony the better in the eyes of a jury. In short, the armed citizen should best able to say he or she was "in fear" of harm to himself/herself or another, or had just witnessed that harm being done to be on safe ground. The question of protecting others from "future' harm would depend on the facts.
I know this might seem far too long an answer, but law school exams grades are not given on the basis of "right or wrong" but upon what issues are considered by the writer along the way TO the answer.

 

[jmb3675]

This very question was asked in my carry class. The instructor was a retired police officer. He said, if someone shoots you and still has a weapon in their hand they are still a threat, intent has already been proven. He said shoot back until the threat is stopped. The direction the assailant is facing does not matter. In the time you wait to see if they are turning back, they could already be planning to turn back and ready to shoot you again. You do not have the luxury of time in a situation like that. If the shooter drops the gun and then you shoot, that could be viewed different because now the assailant is unarmed but will still be viewed as a threat and it can get tricky if it goes to trial. Also keep in mind if he drops the gun after you shoot him, and there are no witnesses and he lives, you may find yourself trying to prove to a jury it was still in his hand when you took the shot. If he dies, your side of the story will be the only one heard.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: 3800Series
I would shoot back. He's already shot you once, you don't know if he's walking away or going to his car to get more ammo (or walking away because the gun jammed/reloading), all you do know is he's used deadly force against you and you shot back. You feared for your life and you used your firearm to protect you.

Let the police/court determine if your actions where justifiable.


Exactly. The perp could change his mind and decide to make sure you are dead after he starts walking away, so there is not a witness, so I would shoot him in the back and let justice prevail.

In any case once deadly force is used by an assailant you are justified in returning in kind to protect yourself from further harm.

 

[turtlevette]

Not shooting in the back is some old wild west bull. Kill them anyway you can. They may be heading to kill more people maybe kids?. Think about others.

Why assume you will survive the gunshot? They can't jail you if your dead.

 

[dlundblad]

Shooting him in the back is illegal?

Its self defense my friends..

 

[KD0AXS]

Here's a good example in a body cam video that was just released yesterday. Suspect was running away from the cop. Suspect dropped a gun, stopped, and picked it up. Hard to tell for sure, but it appears he may have pointed the gun at the cop even though he was facing away from him. Perfectly justified shoot IMO, even though the cop shot him in the back.

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: KD0AXS
Here's a good example in a body cam video that was just released yesterday. Suspect was running away from the cop. Suspect dropped a gun, stopped, and picked it up. Hard to tell for sure, but it appears he may have pointed the gun at the cop even though he was facing away from him. Perfectly justified shoot IMO, even though the cop shot him in the back.


They need to stop Al and Jesse should stop encouraging their people to resist arrest.
It is getting them justifiably killed in increasing numbers.