Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
HFCS, the problem with chasing and shooting in the back is that you are entitled to use deadly force only to neutralize an "immediate threat," which they were not as they were fleeing.
No state law (as written, not as might be interpreted by a jury) supports "self defense" in preemptive fashion, such as: "They might come right back next week." Once the "immediate threat" has been neutralized, you're done.
Colorado, for example, has one of the strongest castle doctrines in the US, and even in Colorado, once they were fleeing he had to stop shooting. In fact, the "line" of what counts as "immediate threat" is so fine-grained that you can go to prison for continuing to shoot an assailant who was dropped to his knees and therefor no longer moving toward you.
Obviously, in the stress of a shooting situation, and with the average person pulling the trigger repeatedly and as fast as possible, some of these "lines" are pretty hard to establish in court. But, technically, the SECOND the threat has been neutralized, you have to stop employing deadly force. The stated goal in self-defense doctrines is NOT to kill the threat nor preempt the threat from ever returning. It is solely and entirely to neutralize the "immediate threat."
Ergo: shooting a fleeing assailant in the back is never going to pass muster under any state's self-defense doctrine, including Colorado's.
And this "line" is one that should be well understood by every gun owner, particularly gun-carriers!
Of course, what a jury will do is wide open spaces!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
He was justified in responding to the initial threat in his home with deadly force. But chasing and shooting can't be justified under any state's self-defense doctrines (much less morally, imo).
Not exactly true...
CAL. PEN. CODE § 197 :
Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person,
The weird thing is that shooting someone after an assault would not fall under this clause because the felonious act is over, while shooting someone during a robbery might, as it could be argued that the felony is still in progress...
See, I can argue with you even when I agree with you!
TE
|
|
overwatch
climber
|
|
The final line I was taught in literally thousands of hours of tactical weapons training was that it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
I vowed years ago that I would never die on my knees at the hands of scum.
Please note my original post said the guy made a mistake by pursuing them.
Edit:
Not to quibble, madbolter, but it is carried by six as in carried by pallbearers...works either way though and it is the bottom line for me, whether armed or unarmed.
If someone has me under the gun I am trying for it the first chance I get. I won't assume they will let me live if I comply.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
See, I can argue with you even when I agree with you!
Indeed. Which is why I've learned that it's a waste of my time to argue with you. Even the clause you cite makes my point. The felony was over. The suspects were fleeing.
In most states (Colorado included) the guy could have used less than deadly force to apprehend and subdue the suspects while waiting for the police to arrive. Even cops must use less than deadly force to apprehend/subdue a fleeing suspect (unless, of course, the suspect is committing a felonious act that puts others in harm's way in the course of flight).
Again, no telling what a jury is going to do. But the guy pretty clearly crossed "the line" (in any state) by shooting a fleeing suspect.
"Tried by twelve rather than buried by six" is indeed a good line, and it will inform use-of-force choices in many situation! For gun carriers: Know your state! The way the laws gets parsed out and typically interpreted in trials makes all the difference and varies significantly state by state!
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
weird thing is that shooting someone after an assault That's not weird. That's our heritage of Anglo Saxon law. Use of force to defend your life and property might be allowed because you cannot predict the possible resulting harm to yourself, including possibly death. After someone has stolen your Twinkies and is running away you can't murder them. That is a disproportionate response to the original offense and your injury.
If they are close and coming towards you with a butcher knife, shoot away.
Unfortunately the NRA and ALEC have poisoned American beliefs to the point that many think shooting or killing someone who is fleeing is OK, even a Right.
We have police and courts to bring people to justice Under The Law when there's been a crime. The burglary defendant has a Constitutional right to trial by jury. Now taken away by the murderer.
This is what the Long Beach Police Chief said
"Basically, you can defend yourself if you're in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death," McDonnell said...
While the suspects continued to burglarize the home, [Greer] was able to retrieve a gun from another room in the house. He returned to confront the suspects and fired his gun at them while they were still inside his house," said Chief McDonnell. Police said Greer followed the suspects as they fled the house with what they had stolen and fatally shot Miller outside in an alley.
Whether the shooting victim was female, or pregnant or ugly are irrelevant. So is the shooter's age.
Although a Judge may consider shooter's age and previous events such as the previous burglaries in instructions to the jury and sentencing.
Yes, I said "shooting victim". Greer inverted justice when he followed them outside and then took it into his own hands.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
If you choose to keep a gun in your home for protection (I do) you have to be very clear, in your mind, what type of situation calls for the use of deadly force and what does not. Clearly, shooting someone in the back as they flee a crime scene does not.
Even if they injured you and even if you think they have robbed you previously, shooting someone in the back as they are trying to get away crosses the line between self defense and revenge. Any gun owner who cannot make this distinction might want to think twice about their reason for having a gun in he first place.
Perhaps a fair deal would be for the old guy to plead guilty to a felony charge in exchange for no hard time (losing his right to own a gun,) and the dirt-bag who got the young woman involved in the crime in the first place should have the book thrown at him.
I disagree that the old guy was necessarily acting out of a sense of "revenge."
More likely to me, he was acting according to his own, reasonable, view of "self defense." These guys had robbed him before, had just robbed him and beat the hell of him, and there's no reason for him to think that they wouldn't come back and rob and beat him at least as badly as they had already done, if not worse.
His ability to survive such repeated beatings seems questionable.
But the problem is that the law of self-defense doesn't really allow for that type of thinking, as rational as it may be.
Not saying the law is right or wrong, it is what it is and he was almost certainly outside the bounds of it.
Hopefully some sort of deal can be worked out where the guy doesn't do any jail time, turns in his guns, and maybe moves to a safer place.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Such a severe beating that he had to time go retrieve his gun, and then chase them down outside. Uh, huh.
Only cops can get away with shooting someone in the back.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Events seldom turn out well when citizens take the law into their own hands.
No matter how justified they feel.
Written laws have evolved for the past 3000 years. They exist much more to protect society and the victim than the culprit but even the culprit has rights. These fundamental beliefs span societies and religions.
Why?
Because any of us, at any time, can be misconstrued as a culprit.
Like Trayvon Martin.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Even the clause you cite makes my point. The felony was over. The suspects were fleeing.
I agree completely with your moral analysis, but a few years ago I read of a very similar case with a storekeeper where the defense was that a robbery remained "in progress" as the thief was fleeing, I think that could easily be enough to convince a jury who might feel that the dead scumbag had it coming. Obviously, unless the burglars in this case had actually stolen something, this would not apply here in any case. Also the wording of the CA code is "justifiable", not "justified".
I also agree with you completely about training and education, the difference is that your libertarian views mean that you believe everyone should be trusted to recognize the grave responsibility they are undertaking and voluntarily seek such training and education, while my cynical (not liberal) view is that few people will ever voluntarily do so and that lives would be saved by making responsible gun ownership a legal requirement, even if some of those saved would be scumbags.
As yet another example of absurd laws on the subject, in PA, to shoot rabbits with a .22 on my own property I am required to undertake a safety course, while to carry a loaded handgun in public with the implicit purpose of shooting another human being, no such training is required.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
As we've repeatedly noted, who knows what a jury will do with it? Still "in progress?" Who knows?!?
I also agree with you completely about training and education, the difference is that your libertarian views mean that you believe everyone should be trusted to recognize the grave responsibility they are undertaking and voluntarily seek such training and education, while my cynical (not liberal) view is that few people will ever voluntarily do so and that lives would be saved by making responsible gun ownership a legal requirement, even if some of those saved would be scumbags.
No, you are mistaken about my "libertarian" view. I have repeatedly said on the gun thread that I think the bar should be higher for both cops and citizens to qualify to be able to carry a gun in public. I've repeatedly said that I'm shocked and dismayed to see how LOW the bar is to get a CCW, with NO bar to open-carry. I've said that I think one should have to qualify for a CCW in order to carry at all, and then the decision to open or concealed carry becomes strictly a tactical/convenience one.
So, you've completely misstated my perspective.
As yet another example of absurd laws on the subject, in PA, to shoot rabbits with a .22 on my own property I am required to undertake a safety course, while to carry a loaded handgun in public with the implicit purpose of shooting another human being, no such training is required.
Agreed! It is absurd. See my above paragraph.
I do believe in a "shall issue" approach to CCWs, but to me that MEANS qualifying under the terms of a background check and rigorous training course including lots of live fire and tactical/legal scenario-parsing. Once a person has satisfied those criteria, the state "shall issue" the CCW. I don't like California's approach, which puts the burden of "demonstrating need" on the citizen.
A proper and responsible approach to carrying should not "infringe" on anybody's right to both keep and "bear" arms. And, again, I think the bar set for getting the CCW should be the same bar to carry at all.
At that point, the only people carrying guns (legally) will be committed, responsible, and probably better trained than the cops (which is a sham all in its own right).
I'll go one better. Like me, all gun carriers should be insured. If you have to be insured to drive your car, because the average citizen cannot "self-insure" by being independently wealthy enough to cover the costs and fallout of an accident, just so, the average carrying citizen cannot cover the costs and fallout from a shooting. So, along with your CCW, you should have to show proof of insurance to legally carry.
You can own a car and never register it to be on the street, and you never drive it. Just so, you can own a gun and never qualify for a CCW and thus be legal to carry it in public.
I'm all for the bar to be MUCH higher than it is!
Of course, this present case was a castle-defense scenario until the guy took it out to the street. And out on the street is where the whole thing gets all muddy.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Madbolter, I see your points.
Now if only we could agree on "free will", lol!
Have a good weekend!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Now if only we could agree on "free will", lol!
LOL... taint likely. Hehe
You have a good one also!
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
I'll agree with all of that, unfortunately our elected "representatives" are paid to vote otherwise. For now.
Based on the typical accuracy of reporting, I'm reluctant to comment on exactly what should happen to that guy, but some jail, and prohibition from ever owning guns is a minimum. Depending on provable facts of the case, much more may be appropriate.
TE
|
|
vlani
Trad climber
mountain view, ca
|
|
I'd argue the old guy tried to shoot into the air and missed. An accident that was a result of felony, so the felons are responsible for the consequences. The accomplice goes to jail for murder.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
all gun carriers should be insured. If you have to be insured to drive your car, because the average citizen cannot "self-insure" by being independently wealthy enough to cover the costs and fallout of an accident, just so, the average carrying citizen cannot cover the costs and fallout from a shooting. So, along with your CCW, you should have to show proof of insurance to legally carry. I've been saying that for over a year.
Plus licensing the firearm from Factory to Scrapyard
Just like autos but with higher penalties. You're found in possession of an unlicensed gun and it's prima facie a felony.
Unfortunately with nearly 300 firearms in private possession in the US, the grandfather clause would be unmanageable.
So start every time an un licensed gun leaves a dealer.
At least it's a start.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Cleanse the planet of stupid people...Begin by forcing couples to pass an inteligence test before reproducing..end of story...This would eliminate the Republican party and allow our country to progress...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Cleanse the planet of stupid people...Begin by forcing couples to pass an inteligence test before reproducing..end of story...This would eliminate the Republican party and allow our country to progress...
ROFL
Good one! (Although, I've gotta smile at your misspelling of "intelligence." Oh, the irony.)
I would make only one, minor modification: This would eliminate both republicans and democrats, leaving only libertarians, and allow our country to return to what it was designed to be.
I don't need no stinkin' "progress" or "change." I want to "regress" to what the founders designed.
John Wayne was brilliant: "Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Life is harder for Locker...rj
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
I dont know what he should be charged with but I am not losing any sleep over her death.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!