Posted on 12/03/2007 1:52:49 PM PST by YCTHouston
You may have one at home right now: a gun.
Would you use it to stop someone who’s stealing from you or from your neighbor?
It’s what happened earlier this month in Pasadena, but using deadly force can have repercussions that could cost you far more than whatever it was the thieves were after.
(Excerpt) Read more at khou.com ...
Here’s a self-defense related question.
A young woman is walking to her car at night, in a dark parking lot. She sees someone breaking into her car. She is carrying a gun with her and draws it, ordering the criminal to put his hands up. Instead of surrendering, the criminal pulls out a knife and charges her. She shoots him.
Should she have retreated and called the police, knowing that the criminal might steal her car before the cops got there? Should she really be accused of escalating the situation when it was really the criminal who not only started the whole thing by breaking into the car, but escalated it when he pulled a knife and attacked?
I’m not asking the question from a perspective of what’s legally right - I can look up the law for any state. I’m curious as to what people think is the tactically/morally right thing.
A friend of my family was robbed a bunch of times some years ago, so he made a rule - every night he put his wallet, Rolex, and Mercedes car keys on the entrance hall table. He figured if thieves broke in, took the stuff on the hall table, and then started up the stairs, they were a clear danger to his family and he’d shoot the intruders, no questions asked.
Just have your hand on the gun, but don't expose it. If the clown fails to back down and walk away, and instead moves towards you, expose it and smile. If he continues to move forward, don't break the smile, just the silence.
“There’s an attorney attached to every bullet you fire.”
I like that idea too, as long as it attaches after passing through the attorney’s brain and spinal cord.
Sorry, but you never "think twice" before shooting. It will get you killed.
Always remember, t'is better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6.
5.56mm
5.56mm
Read the Texas State Law concerning this exact issue.
Before we look at the different use-of-deadly-force standards we must look to the overriding standard of Graham v. Conner(4). In Graham, the United States Supreme Court stated that the proper measure to determine whether a law enforcement officer's use of force is excessive, is the "objective reasonableness" test under the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that the Graham analysis applies to all alleged law enforcement excessive force claims - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen. Therefore, regardless of which use-of-deadly-force standard an agency adopts, the use of force must meet the Graham Fourth Amendment "objective reasonableness" requirement of seizures.
Now let's look at six major use-of-deadly-force standards. The lowest, least restrictive, use-of-deadly-force standard is the standard enumerated by the United States Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner. The Garner standard, which is also referred to as the "fleeing felon standard," allows for the limited use of deadly force against fleeing felons under three restrictive criteria. Under the Garner "fleeing felon standard," a law enforcement officer can use deadly force against a fleeing felon if: (1) the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the felon's escape, (2) the fleeing felon has threatened the officer with a weapon or the officer has probable cause to believe that the felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, AND (3) the officer gives the felon some warning of the imminent use of deadly force - if feasible.
Some jurisdictions which do allow the use of deadly force under the Garner standard do not include all three Garner requirements in their use-of-deadly-force statute. Remember, since a law enforcement officer's use of force is subject to the requirements of the United States Constitution, and because of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, a state, or lower government subdivision, cannot create a use-of-force standard that is less restrictive than the standard defined by U.S. Supreme Court and federal case law as it pertains to individual jurisdictions. A law enforcement agency which adopts the "fleeing felon" standard (assuming the agency is in a jurisdiction that allows the use of deadly force under the "fleeing felon standard") must be sure to include Garner's three requirements - even if these requirements are not enumerated in the state statutes. Therefore, if an agency is in a jurisdiction which allows the use of deadly force under the "fleeing felon standard", the lowest standard that could be adopted must meet the Garner and Graham requirements. It is important to note that some jurisdictions (such as Alaska) do not allow the use of deadly force against a "fleeing felon" as defined by Garner.
An interesting question that arises is whether today, or in the foreseeable future, the United States Supreme Court would uphold the "fleeing felon" standard as an "objectively reasonable" seizure under Graham? If Graham is the test for ALL law enforcement use of force (deadly or non- deadly), then today would the U.S. Supreme Court uphold the use of deadly force (against a fleeing felon) under Garner "objectively reasonable" under Graham?
If the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), many law enforcement agencies, and many law enforcement experts are stating that deadly force can only be "reasonably" used in deadly force confrontations, in defense of life or under the deadly-force-defense standard, then the use of deadly force (against a fleeing felon)) under Garner may be held to be unreasonable by future appellate courts. Additionally, with some law enforcement agencies and certain individual experts promulgating the "preservation of life" standard as the only reasonable standard, then the use of deadly force against a fleeing felon under Garner is definitely not a "reasonable" use of force.
A slightly higher standard (than the Garner "fleeing felon standard") is the Model Penal Code Standard(6). The Model Penal Code Standard provides, in relevant part, that a law enforcement officer may use deadly force against an individual, in the course of an arrest, if the officer believes that: (1) the arrest is for a felony; (2) the person effecting the arrest is authorized to act as a peace officer or is assisting a person whom he believes to be authorized as a peace officer; (3) the officer believes that the force employed creates no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; AND (4) the crime for which the arrest is made involved conduct including the use or threatened use of deadly force, or there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury if his apprehension is delayed.
The next, gradually becoming more restrictive, standard is the "Deadly-Force- Defense Standard." Under the "Deadly-Force-Defense Standard" a law enforcement officer may intentionally use deadly force against an individual only if the officer objectively reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the individual from inflicting imminent death or great bodily harm on the officer or others. The "deadly-force-defense standard" is the standard that most closely approximates most self-defense statutes.
Moving up the restrictiveness ladder, the next standard is the "defense of life standard." Often called the "CALEA(7) defense of life standard," the standard requires that, "an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer's own life, or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury."(8) CALEA expressly prohibits the use of deadly force under the Garner "fleeing felon standard" and the Model Penal Code Standard.(9)
You can’t, you can be prepared for the possibility though.
I’ve read that Texas has an “after sundown” kind of law, if someone is on your property in the dark, it’s assumed that they are there to do you deadly harm and you can start firing. Not sure if that’s true or not.
If one hasn't already done this then they are idiots to start with.
“Shoot, shovel and shuddup”.
If they are armed and running for cover, that's not fleeing; it's looking to gain tactical advantage.
Nah, you can get away with that easy enough. "The thug yelled that he would be back to kill my family so I shot, just as he turned to run away!"
That being said, keep in mind that even with the spread of Castle Doctrine laws the use of deadly force is still pretty tightly controlled.
Even if you are involved in a righteous shoot and you escape any criminal prosecution, you can still find yourself dragged into court in a civil wrongful death suit. You're now facing legal fees that could easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars, even if you win. If the judgement goes against you, you could lose everything you own.
I do not have the law in front of me to cite verbatim, but if the goblin has your property and you have no realistic options to regain possession and they have not left your sight then you can indeed shoot them in the back. I don’t think this is an “after dark” issue either.
Before using this information it would be wise to research it though.
A piece of advice I got once: “If you have time to think about whether to shoot, don’t.”
The idea being, that in a true self-defense situation, you’re probably not going to remember actually making any decision to shoot. It will suddenly just be over, presumably with some number of shots fired and a perp on the floor. You probably won’t know for sure how many times you fired.
Of course this doesn’t apply to every possible situation, but I think it is a useful thing to ponder and consider.
For example, depending on the situation, I may or may not give an intruder an opportunity to “GET DOWN ON THE FLOOR!”. Of course it depends how far away they are, what’s in between us, what he’s doing... There’s any number of variables. But lets just say that I’ve got him at some distance and his back to me. I might flick on the light and shout for him to stop and get down.
If he turns and lunges toward me, I doubt very much that I would even think about whether to pull the trigger. The gun would likely just go bang two or three times and suddenly I’m standing there with a dead guy in my living room.
But if instead the guy bolts for the door... I don’t know that I’d shoot him in the back on the way out. If I had time to consider it, I probably would not. Also, say he ~does~ hit the floor and put his hands up... I’m not going to just execute the guy, unless he moves or tries to get up.
She sees someone breaking into her car? He’s already proven he’s on the wrong side of the law. He knows he’s committing a felony. He’s probably equipped to deal with anyone who intervenes - and probably equipped to a degree compatable with the gravity of his chosen act. Drawing is the smart thing to do, as there is plainly a danger present; just being noticed may quickly lead to grave harm.
Backing away quietly is an option. Unfortunately, if noticed, this shows weakness and feeds his visceral nature to attack the weak. Whatever she does, if he notices then it probably won’t go well for her.
Taking verbally forceful control of the situation puts him off-guard, and makes him reconsider his fight-or-flight options.
The criminal pulls a knife and charges her? He’s trying to kill her. If she doesn’t stop him by any means possible, any reasonable person would expect she’ll end up dead. Despite her having the drop on him, he thinks he can eliminate her as a threat - showing confidence in his ability and confident doubt of hers.
Ability: the perp is lethally armed, and (being male with that occupation) is probably significantly faster & stronger than her.
Opportunity: a faster, stronger person, prepared and motivated, will probably outrun the surprised, ill-equipped, weaker party.
Jeopardy: he’s making a lethal threat and acting on it.
Condition White: no idea what’s going on. May very well walk right up to perp, be startled, and say “oh, that’s my car.”
Condition Yellow: know that something could happen. Was aware that parking lots attract perps, checked car well before arriving at it, was armed just in case.
Condition Orange: know that something is happening. Noticed perp committing felony at close range, drew, took command of the situation, ordered submission and compliance in light of felonious criminal activity, aware things could get much worse in a hurry.
Condition Red: know violent assault is underway. She should be moving sideways and pulling the trigger at this point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.