Should anyone ever find themselves in such a situation, Massad Ayoob has done research showing that the way the brain works, it takes a set amount of time, once you enter “Act!” mode, and decide on a course of action, to reassess new incoming data. He has, as a defense witness, freed men who shot other men in the back, based upon the principle that when they made a decision to act, there was still a threat ongoing, and while the perpetrator did cease the attack and begin to flee, the shooter’s brain did not have time to process that newly incoming data, creating a window after fleeing began in which he could still be legally shot in the back while fleeing by a defender who was still operating on the older information. It is something like the Tueller drill, only instead of initiating action, it has to do with deciding to stop action, and then implementing that decision.
You mentioned Massad Ayoob. In this article he indicates his thought son use:
Ayoob: The use of deadly physical force is only allowed in a situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or other innocent people. That situation is determined by three criteria, which have to be simultaneously present. Ability: the opponents possess the power to kill or cripple; Opportunity: they’re capable of immediately employing it and third, Jeopardy: their actions and/or words indicate to a reasonable and prudent person that their manifest intent is to kill or to cripple.
https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/our-journal/2011-journals/955-october-2011-network-journal
Concerning the three simultaneous needs:
He did possess the power to kill or cripple. However, the second and third criteria were not there as the perp was running away from the crime and was not indicating he was going to return to the victim and his action of running away did not display for a reasonable and prudent person that the perp’s manifest intent was to kill or to cripple. At the time he was shot, he was fleeing with his back to the victim. There was no immediate need for defence there.
wy69
You mentioned Massad Ayoob. In this article he indicates his thoughts on use:
Ayoob: The use of deadly physical force is only allowed in a situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or other innocent people. That situation is determined by three criteria, which have to be simultaneously present. Ability: the opponents possess the power to kill or cripple; Opportunity: they’re capable of immediately employing it and third, Jeopardy: their actions and/or words indicate to a reasonable and prudent person that their manifest intent is to kill or to cripple.
https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/our-journal/2011-journals/955-october-2011-network-journal
Concerning the three simultaneous needs:
He did possess the power to kill or cripple. However, the second and third criteria were not there as the perp was running away from the crime and was not indicating he was going to return to the victim and his action of running away did not display for a reasonable and prudent person that the perp’s manifest intent was to kill or to cripple. At the time he was shot, he was fleeing with his back to the victim.
wy69