Shooting of theft suspects may test self-defense law

[natty bumppo 297]

It's going to depend on the state. Most states say it's okay to shoot to kill (while I agree with Scott & Lai that it's definitely happier if it's 'shoot to incapacitate', once you draw the gun, you are committed to at least the possibility of taking someone's life. Drawing a weapon is crossing the Rubicon.) if a reasonable person would have believed their life (or person, or someone else's person) was in immediate danger.

I didn't say "shoot to incapicitate," it's "shoot to stop." The point being that the purpose of shooting an attacker is not to kill them, but to stop the attack. It may be necessary to kill them, but that is not the goal. Merely incapacitating them would be fine if it can be achieved, but as was pointed out, life isn't Hollywood... In handgun defense training we are taught to first order an attacker to freeze and drop their weapon. If they don't obey and continue their attack, we fire two shots to the center of body mass, then assess the situation. If the attacker is still a threat, then it's one shot to the head.

Sorry … shoot to stop or incapacitate?

If you use a weapon (firearm) ... it is not called "shoot to stop" in court.

Please follow me for moment. ... shoot to stop means ... shoot/stop with extreme prejudice … meaning shoot to kill … because that is really what you are doing when you pull the trigger. You are shooting at center mass of the perp. You must expect them to die when you pull the trigger (sorry ... that is harsh ... yet this is what you should expect when pulling the trigger).

So ... when someone reaches the point to invoke deadly force (pull the trigger) it is called deadly force … not “shoot to stop” force.

[Caladan 19]

It's going to depend on the state. Most states say it's okay to shoot to kill (while I agree with Scott & Lai that it's definitely happier if it's 'shoot to incapacitate', once you draw the gun, you are committed to at least the possibility of taking someone's life. Drawing a weapon is crossing the Rubicon.) if a reasonable person would have believed their life (or person, or someone else's person) was in immediate danger.

I didn't say "shoot to incapicitate," it's "shoot to stop." The point being that the purpose of shooting an attacker is not to kill them, but to stop the attack. It may be necessary to kill them, but that is not the goal. Merely incapacitating them would be fine if it can be achieved, but as was pointed out, life isn't Hollywood... In handgun defense training we are taught to first order an attacker to freeze and drop their weapon. If they don't obey and continue their attack, we fire two shots to the center of body mass, then assess the situation. If the attacker is still a threat, then it's one shot to the head.

Sorry if I was unclear.

I didn't see myself as disagreeing with you, just making an additional point. "Shoot to stop" is indeed the principle, or "you have the right to use as much force as is necessary to neutralize the threat", but one shouldn't draw the gun if one isn't prepared to accept that shooting to stop may end up being '"shot and killed" not "shot and incapitated" because life indeed is not like Hollywood where you skillfully shoot off kneecaps and everyone ends up safe.

I.e., you don't draw the weapon just for show, or to threaten, but because you're mentally prepared to use it and mentally okay with the possible consequences, including the possible death of the other person. If the situation doesn't warrant taking the risk of killing another human being, it's not a self-defense situation and a responsible gun owner will put the gun down.

[natty bumppo 297]

It's going to depend on the state. Most states say it's okay to shoot to kill (while I agree with Scott & Lai that it's definitely happier if it's 'shoot to incapacitate', once you draw the gun, you are committed to at least the possibility of taking someone's life. Drawing a weapon is crossing the Rubicon.) if a reasonable person would have believed their life (or person, or someone else's person) was in immediate danger.

I didn't say "shoot to incapicitate," it's "shoot to stop." The point being that the purpose of shooting an attacker is not to kill them, but to stop the attack. It may be necessary to kill them, but that is not the goal. Merely incapacitating them would be fine if it can be achieved, but as was pointed out, life isn't Hollywood... In handgun defense training we are taught to first order an attacker to freeze and drop their weapon. If they don't obey and continue their attack, we fire two shots to the center of body mass, then assess the situation. If the attacker is still a threat, then it's one shot to the head.

Sorry if I was unclear.

I didn't see myself as disagreeing with you, just making an additional point. "Shoot to stop" is indeed the principle, or "you have the right to use as much force as is necessary to neutralize the threat", but one shouldn't draw the gun if one isn't prepared to accept that shooting to stop may end up being '"shot and killed" not "shot and incapitated" because life indeed is not like Hollywood where you skillfully shoot off kneecaps and everyone ends up safe.

I.e., you don't draw the weapon just for show, or to threaten, but because you're mentally prepared to use it and mentally okay with the possible consequences, including the possible death of the other person. If the situation doesn't warrant taking the risk of killing another human being, it's not a self-defense situation and a responsible gun owner will put the gun down.

Not a problem … just trying to help and share info.

Brandishing, is showing the firearm with threatening intent of use. It’s also illegal.

To use a firearm is to use deadly force … not “stopping” force. When using a firearm, the intent is to use the ultimate force to stop something bad … or deadly force. This means, all other means of stopping the threat have been exhausted.

In some States … property is also considered to be inviolate … or Castle Law (English Law) and deadly force can be used to protect property. Think back 100 years … to the US & Canada growing days. If someone tried to steal a horse or molest a woman. What would happen to the perp.? I believe for the perp … it was called in todays terms a CLM (career limiting move).

Sorry if I ramble ... just sharing info for others.

We're ok.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So if I have a concealed weapons permit and I'm carrying....somebody approaches me with a knife in their hand, but they're say 10 feet away, I can't draw my gun, aim at them and warn them to stop or I'll shoot?

[peejay 327]

Just out of interest, why is this kind of call allowed to be broadcast before a trial? Doesn't the US court system feel that it can prejudice a case?

I've been on many jury selection panels. One of the first things attorneys ask perspective jurors is if they are familiar with the case through the media. It doesn't mean they will or won't get selected to serve on the jury whether they have familiarity with the case or not. The defense and the prosecution both get to strike a certain number people off the list for any reason.

Most likely the 911 tape will get played at trial by either the prosecution or defense anyway.

That is...if this guy gets indicted at all. The grand jury might even "no bill" (not indict) in this case. I'm sure the police are consulting with the district attorney to see if any charges will even be filed.

Do you think there is no case to answer then?

Seriously, I don't get that. The guy wasn't in any danger in terms of his personal safety, he was repeatedly told not go out and shoot. The police handled the situation really well, trying to keep the guy calm, trying to persuade him this wasn't worth getting into danger for. He didn't listen. Of course, the police know a lot more from what happened on the scene as well as this tape, but it just seems wrong to me when the police where on their way.

...Does it say anywhere why the police didn't get to the scene before the guy started shooting? I know 6 minutes isn't that long of a time though.

I really don't know what will eventually happen with this guy. The cops have an audio tape and 2 dead criminals at the scene. What do we know about the shooter? What's his history? What do we know about the 2 dead criminals? What's their history? There doesn't appear to be any witnesses except for the shooter. And as the old saying goes, "Dead men tell no tales."

I'm just a spectator. I have no idea how this will play out as it winds its way through "the system". At this point it is a killing. Its up to the law to determine if it's murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, self defense, etc.

My own personal opinion is that the guy should have followed the instructions of the cop on the phone, but that doesn't necessarily mean the guy committed a crime by taking action. Gee wiz...this guy got thrust into this situation not of his making.

[Peikko 1,575]

I know you don't know the complete picture, nor do I and I thought I made that fairly clear? I was asking for your/anyone's opinion though because for me this could set a potentially dangerous precedent that goes beyond the intent of the law as I understand it.

I agree he didn't choose to be in the vicinity of a crime or to be clear, what he perceived to be a crime.

However, two points make it a very questionable situation as I perceive it from listening to the taped conversation.

One, he chose to put himself into the path of the alleged criminals. He could have remained on the phone with the police and continue to give them information as to their activities. I didn't hear any evidence that these two guys intended to go anywhere near where he was. If anything it seems as though they were preparing to leave the area when they were shot. Second, I didn't hear any indication that he gave them the opportunity to 'surrender'.

This brings me to my question on Texan law, do people in fact have the right to shoot people who they perceive to be taking someone else's property regardless as to whether there is any personal danger to the shooter, or anyone else? This appears to me a step in the direction of taking the law into one's own hands.

For example, I know wildly speculative in this case, but what would happen if it turned out that the guys had permission to take things from the house? Is the perception that a crime is taking place enough to make these potentially lethal decisions?

[slim 1,533]

I think one key issue is being missed here.....

This guy was a 70-year-old Texan.

What does that mean? That means he was brought up in the time when it was PC to shoot people who are stealing your neighbors stuff and to "stop a crime in progess." It was also a time when "the bad guy got what he deserved."

Texas is, and always has been probably the most "pro-shooter" state in terms of defense laws. Granted, a lot of things have changed since then and it's not really acceptable to shoot anyone anymore, for any reason, even if you're a cop. There's always going to be someone out there weeping for "the victim" but in Texas, the "victim" usually doesn't have as many people crying for them as they would in some of the more "caring" states like Kalifornia or New York.

The only real issue here is simply whether or not he had a legal right to shoot the guys. Nobody (law enforcement, DA, public) seems really upset over the fact that he shot them, only whether they must now cover their @$$es and charge the man or not.

I got on this topic a little late, but those out there bringing up other shooting "scenarios" need to consider only the instances of this scenario. There are unique aspects to this incident, concentrate on those.

My own personal opinion is that the guy should have followed the instructions of the cop on the phone, but that doesn't necessarily mean the guy committed a crime by taking action. Gee wiz...this guy got thrust into this situation not of his making.

It said he was talking to a "dispatcher" on the phone. A dispatcher is (usually) not a cop. (Nor are they legal counsel.)

So if I have a concealed weapons permit and I'm carrying....somebody approaches me with a knife in their hand, but they're say 10 feet away, I can't draw my gun, aim at them and warn them to stop or I'll shoot?

Did you see the post before about the 21' rule?

Someone wielding a knife (or 13" screwdriver) can cover a distance of 21' in half a second. Can you pull your concealed weapon, issue a command to stop, and then take responsive action in less than that time?

[Alt name 1]

Welcome to Texas.......hope I get jury duty that day.

Alaska has great self / property defense laws also. But not much crime that I could tell. EVERYBODY's packing up there, no concealed carry laws or permits required. Its very polite.

[yogib37 3]

If you shoot someone in California, and he runs outside, make sure that you drag him back inside.

Are some of you that trigger happy that you wouldn't flinch over the idea of shooting someone dead for robbing you?

Robbing and burglarizing are different. I would shoot anyone in a second for robbing me with a weapon, since you can easily articulate a fear for your life if someone has a gun, or even a screwdriver to your head.

If someone burglarized my house and I saw him running out with my TV I might chase him and arrest him, but I wouldn't be at all justified in shooting him in the back.

I'm sure you meant burglarize though, people tell me that all the time "My house just got robbed!" You can't rob a house or store, only a person. Like if someone breaks into a bank at night and steals the safe, it's a burglary. If they put a gun to the teller's face and demand the safe, it's a robbery. Law 101

Ah, ok...

So if a transient, for example, approached me with a screwdriver and demanded money from me - if I'm packing, I could shoot him in self defense?

If you have no other option, such as running, and you have reason to believe that you will suffer harm if you don't shoot him, then yes.

I don't know if you remember that a similar incident happened with two bicycle police officers in LA years ago. A homeless woman came at the officers with a screwdriver. They shot her and killed her. The woman was in her 50's. To me that's using excessive force. I suppose one could say there was a potential threat of harm, but seriously, a homeless old woman with mental problems isn't going to be able to do much to a well trained officer.

Dont forget Steve, that sometimes homeless people are mental issues, maybe she did that on purpose maybe she wanted to die and she was scared so do did that to the police and they did it for her, Maybe that she wanted.. I dont think killing people for the sake of it, but Some people do that get in a stand off in hopes the cops will kill them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you shoot someone in California, and he runs outside, make sure that you drag him back inside.

Are some of you that trigger happy that you wouldn't flinch over the idea of shooting someone dead for robbing you?

Robbing and burglarizing are different. I would shoot anyone in a second for robbing me with a weapon, since you can easily articulate a fear for your life if someone has a gun, or even a screwdriver to your head.

If someone burglarized my house and I saw him running out with my TV I might chase him and arrest him, but I wouldn't be at all justified in shooting him in the back.

I'm sure you meant burglarize though, people tell me that all the time "My house just got robbed!" You can't rob a house or store, only a person. Like if someone breaks into a bank at night and steals the safe, it's a burglary. If they put a gun to the teller's face and demand the safe, it's a robbery. Law 101

Ah, ok...

So if a transient, for example, approached me with a screwdriver and demanded money from me - if I'm packing, I could shoot him in self defense?

If you have no other option, such as running, and you have reason to believe that you will suffer harm if you don't shoot him, then yes.

I don't know if you remember that a similar incident happened with two bicycle police officers in LA years ago. A homeless woman came at the officers with a screwdriver. They shot her and killed her. The woman was in her 50's. To me that's using excessive force. I suppose one could say there was a potential threat of harm, but seriously, a homeless old woman with mental problems isn't going to be able to do much to a well trained officer.

Dont forget Steve, that sometimes homeless people are mental issues, maybe she did that on purpose maybe she wanted to die and she was scared so do did that to the police and they did it for her, Maybe that she wanted.. I dont think killing people for the sake of it, but Some people do that get in a stand off in hopes the cops will kill them.

God help those with mental illness...I wish we would get them off the street and institutionalized for their well being and everyone's safety.

[bgreed 0]

IT's true there have been a number of cases where people who where mentally or emotionally unstable have intentionally provoked the police into shooting them. I believe the term is suicide by police. I remeber watching the show cops once when they pulled over someone who was driving crazy she jumps out of the car pointing her cellphone at the police like it was a gun. Being that is was a night it could be very easy to think it was a weapon and shoot her.

[Jasman0717 9]

Inside my house he is trespassing.....bang bang