The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 30, 2008, 10:32 AM   #26
easyG
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 30, 2004
Location: Right here!
Posts: 972
If someone has gun pointing at you or anyone else, then it would be extremely foolish to think that they don't intend to use it.

Having said that, you certainly don't want to make a bad situation even worse.

There are too many variables to say that there is only one correct answer.
easyG is offline  
Old October 30, 2008, 09:32 PM   #27
Stevie-Ray
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: The shores of Lake Huron
Posts: 4,502
Quote:
Unless he turns and throws a shot at me. I can always be ready to shoot, then I have the option not to. Read my other post where I said the BG has to have opportunity, ability, and intent. I also have to be in imminent fear of my life.
"peetzakilla" understood it.
But I don't think you quite understood Hokie.

Flipping off the safety; that's great!
__________________
Stevie-Ray
Join the NRA/ILA
I am the weapon; my gun is a tool. It's regrettable that with some people those descriptors are reversed.
Stevie-Ray is offline  
Old October 31, 2008, 03:47 PM   #28
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,509
Perhaps I'm making this too complicated.

I'm in a convenience store, getting my usual 'Dew out of the cooler in the back. In walks a perp, flashes a gun and demands money. No other accomplice is apparent, at least not *in* the store.

Do I unholster, conceal and sit ready for what comes next? Or keep it holstered/hidden and hide.

I agree, when/if the time comes my instincts will kick in and monday quarterbacking will all be moot. But at least I can have some idea of what to do.
chris in va is offline  
Old October 31, 2008, 04:02 PM   #29
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,950
From BuckHammer:
Quote:
I have a right to my property. If and when someone tries to deprive me of my property, i will protect it by any means necessary. If it comes to killing the BG, I will do so unflinchingly.
BuckHammer, I strongly suggest that you become familiar with the laws involving the use of deadly force in Indiana.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/cod.../ar41/ch3.html

The gist is that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else, and you may use deadly force to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry of your dwelling or automobile if you are in it.

Using deadly force to protect property under other circumstances is not permitted under the Indiana Code would get you in a world of trouble.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old October 31, 2008, 04:50 PM   #30
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
But at least I can have some idea of what to do.
My advice? Stay back, sit tight, be a good witness, stay out of the way. If BG leaves without further problem, great. BG notices you? I won't give up a position where I think I'm better off for one that increases my danger, but I'm not going to start a shootout unless I can see no other viable option. BG notices you and wants your money, toss him your throwaway pack (you do have one, right??). Remember, you can always increase the violence, but once you start shooting there isn't any going back.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old October 31, 2008, 05:06 PM   #31
Chuck Dye
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2002
Location: Oregon-The wet side.
Posts: 834
Feets don't fail me now!

Why participate in any crime if there is an exit available? And yes, you may ignore the "Employees Only" sign on the door to the storeroom and the back door.
__________________
Gee, I'd love to see your data!
Chuck Dye is offline  
Old November 1, 2008, 07:44 AM   #32
heyduke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2000
Location: Tarheel
Posts: 199
Quote:
Unless the BG is a direct, immediate threat to you or some other innocent person, do nothing. Don't draw, don't let on you are armed. You are NOT a police officer, you are NOT sworn to uphold the law and make an arrest. Even if you are, starting a gun fight where innocent people may be killed is NOT a good idea. (In fact, LEOs are told basically the same thing - don't try to make an arrest or begin shooting where there is a high risk to innocent people. The BG will be caught later.)
Very well said.

Flame away, however I've noticed that some who CC think of themselves as some sort of "police force" empowered by carrying.

Why, I don't know.
__________________
slow is fast
heyduke is offline  
Old November 1, 2008, 02:47 PM   #33
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMarksman
The gist is that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else, and you may use deadly force to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry of your dwelling or automobile if you are in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer
However, this will not be my first response, unless, of course, I feel that my life or well-being is being threatened (such as being robbed at gunpoint).
Armed robberies would seem to create a situation in which I would need to defend myself or someone else. Also, the quote was about ARMED ROBBERIES, which it would seem, based on your take of Indiana law, to justify the use of deadly force. My take is almost identical to yours. That is why I made my post about the use of that "deadly force". Also, the second half of my post (which I quoted in this post) justified the first half, so please don't take the first half out of context. I stated that deadly force would not be my first response, which I hoped (without merit, apparently) would indicate my reluctance to use it or advocate it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is don't automatically assume the worst about me and my post. Also, don't demonize me based on what you perceive my opinion to be.
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!
BuckHammer is offline  
Old November 1, 2008, 06:22 PM   #34
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,950
From BuckHammer:
Quote:
Also, the second half of my post...["However, this will not be my first response, unless, of course, I feel that my life or well-being is being threatened (such as being robbed at gunpoint"] justified the first half, so please don't take the first half out of context. I stated that deadly force would not be my first response, which I hoped (without merit, apparently) would indicate my reluctance to use it or advocate it.
I apparently misunderstood you to say that while deadly force would "not be your first response", you were in fact willing to use deadly force to protect property. The intent of my response was to point you to the fact that you cannot do so. If you were saying that you would use deadly force only for protecting yourself, that's another matter.

Quote:
I guess what I'm trying to say is don't automatically assume the worst about me and my post.
I assure you that I haven't done that.

Quote:
Also, don't demonize me based on what you perceive my opinion to be.
Nor that.

I have seen a lot of posts on this and another net forum from people who say that they would not hesitate to use deadly force to protect or retrieve their trucks, wallets, or other unspecified property. I see two risks here: (1) that those who post such things or others influenced by them may actually do that and become felons and (2), antigun people will react either to such tragedies or to the posts themselves and limit the rights of people to keep, carry, and use firearms.

When I read your post I interpreted it to be along such lines, and evidently, so did David Armstrong. If I missed the point, that's great.

Now, if you are the victim of an armed robbery, and under the circumstances at hand you reasonably fear for yourself, you have to decide what to do, taking into account that later, when your fate is not in your hands, you will likely have to convince others that your fear was in fact justified.

If you merely happen to be present at an armed robbery, it might be a lot harder to convince people afterwards that you had reason to fear for yourself. The fact that the police are advised against intervention during the event would probably work against you.

In any event, you are not permitted to protect your property by "any means necessary," and if your take is almost identical to mine, wonderful.

I hope you find this helpful.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 1, 2008, 07:17 PM   #35
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMarksman
you were in fact willing to use deadly force to protect property. The intent of my response was to point you to the fact that you cannot do so.
In the case of an ARMED robbery (which is the scenario that is relevant in this thread), it is true that I might use deadly force. Also, the law, as interpreted by you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldMarksman
The gist is that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else, and you may use deadly force to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry of your dwelling or automobile if you are in it.
assures me that I CAN, in fact, do so, since the fact that the robber in question is ARMED (which is the relevant case) would lead me, like I believe it would lead most people, to fear for my life. The fear of my life makes the property irrelevant really, which makes me realize that my original post was very deceiving.

A little case for clarification, I would NOT kill someone who I know pickpocketed me or was pickpocketing me just because I would be defending my right to property. However, if the guy was mugging me with a deadly weapon, that might be another story.
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!
BuckHammer is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 12:04 AM   #36
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
My advice? Stay back, sit tight, be a good witness, stay out of the way. If BG leaves without further problem, great. BG notices you? I won't give up a position where I think I'm better off for one that increases my danger, but I'm not going to start a shootout unless I can see no other viable option. BG notices you and wants your money, toss him your throwaway pack (you do have one, right??). Remember, you can always increase the violence, but once you start shooting there isn't any going back.
I'm in 100% agreement with Dave on this one.

If you can "ride it out" without firing a shot, that's probably the best course of action. It causes you the least grief legally and in liability. Be a good witness.

You might be able to use the "Employees only" door, but the two places I most frequent, doing so would put me right in the line of sight of the BG. So that's out. On the other hand, in one location I might be able to enter the cooler to keep out of sight. (Brrr)

If the BG(s) start shaking down and/or assaulting the customers, I've ideally positioned myself away from the register with some concealment. In which case I may slide the gun behind my thigh and toss my decoy wallet. If he bypasses the wallet or comes past that point for any reason, the fight's on.

Remember, no law requires you to take action or to risk your life and limb. Morality and ethics are another matter, but legally you're not required to engage.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 09:04 AM   #37
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,950
From BuckHammer:
Quote:
In the case of an ARMED robbery (which is the scenario that is relevant in this thread), it is true that I might use deadly force. Also, the law, as interpreted by you: ["the gist is that you may use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else, and you may use deadly force to prevent or terminate the unlawful entry of your dwelling or automobile if you are in it"] assures me that I CAN, in fact, do so, since the fact that the robber in question is ARMED (which is the relevant case) would lead me, like I believe it would lead most people, to fear for my life.
Too bad I oversimplified. The law starts out with the phrase "imminent danger". I wouldn't want to be the person trying to convince a jury that someone robbing an establishment in which I happened to be posed an imminent danger to me unless he had actually raised his gun and pointed his gun at me as if to fire, and I would then be relying on the hope that there are witnesses who could testify to that effect.

Now, that's my thought, but it's worth nothing to you. You really ought to invest in an hour's consultation time with a good, experienced criminal trial attorney before deciding for yourself what the law allows. An alternative is to avoid any course of action that would put you at legal risk.

The other factor to consider is the danger that your firing would pose to others. Should you kill or maim one or two others in the store the authorities would have to consider charges for that also, and there would be the civil exposure.

Do not take this post as argumentative. I worked directly for the general counsel of a major corporate enterprise for about two years, and closely with the company lawyers for another dozen, and if there are three things I learned that are worth sharing here, they were (1) do not try to interpret the law without competent legal advice of attorneys familiar with the specific area of the law, (2) avoid legal risks like the plague, and (3) always remember (1) and (2).

Fiddletown does have a backgound in the law, and I refer you back to two things he posted on this:

Quote:
The question then becomes, if you use lethal force, can you articulate, based on the totality of the circumstances, why a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances and knowing what you know would have concluded that lethal force was necessary to prevent immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to the innocent?

So you must observe and be prepared to exercise your best judgment. But absent one or more specific factors that you can identify as indicating that the assailant was manifesting an intent to escalate the level of violence, I think you'd have a very hard time justifying the use of lethal force.
I think that's pretty consistent with my lay discussion above.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 09:20 AM   #38
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Relevant Indiana Law:
Quote:
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
Okay, this is not an argument, but a legitimate question:
If the armed robbery situation arises, and I do feel that the store clerk or whoever is the subject of the armed robbery is in danger of "serious bodily injury", am I allowed to respond with deadly force? Let me just say that I would hate to kill another person, especially when I am not the actual subject of the robbery. I have consulted a few retired officers about this issue, but I wanted to get feedback from someone here who has a background in law (as many here have said that they do).
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!
BuckHammer is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 10:41 AM   #39
OldMarksman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 1,950
Quote:
If the armed robbery situation arises, and I do feel that the store clerk or whoever is the subject of the armed robbery is in danger of "serious bodily injury", am I allowed to respond with deadly force? Let me just say that I would hate to kill another person, especially when I am not the actual subject of the robbery. I have consulted a few retired officers about this issue, but I wanted to get feedback from someone here who has a background in law (as many here have said that they do).
BuckHammer, if you do not receive a useful response from your quite reasonable query, please consider this: I have learned in my experience that attorneys are usually quite reluctant to put specific advice in writing. This was often extremely frustrating to management, who wanted something to define the boundaries of what they could do and remain compliant.

There are, I believe, two main reasons for that reluctance. The first is that, as both easyG and Fiddletown have mentioned regarding the case at hand, there are always far too many variables to be able to lay out a useful hypothetical example. The second, which I think derives from the first, is that they do not want to create something that may be used against their clients in a real situation later. A face to face consultation is always more fruitful. Both you and I would, I think, benefit from one.

One other thing: you use the phrase, "I feel." Realize that, as has been said before, you will have to later convince others that your "feeling" was reasonable. Your conclusion will be judged against the "reasonable person" standard, and you will have to convince others later that a reasonable person would have come to the same conclusion, based on what you knew at the time.

The related experience that I have has to do with persons making informed judgments with which they were quite comfortable, and having auditors, regulators, and investigators look back at a later time at the facts and competing judgments that existed at the time and come to different conclusions. Sometimes this led to allegations, findings, and so forth that became very unpleasant indeed.

I do hope you find this constructive and helpful.

Your question is good one, but it is difficult to address in the abstract.

One other thing. In my CCW class, I was told that it is permissible in Missouri to protect a third party, but that one was only required to do so if the third party were a policeman. I was also told that attorneys recommend against intervention in a situation involving a third party. That's second hand information.

Good luck!
OldMarksman is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 11:43 AM   #40
David Armstrong
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: SW Louisiana
Posts: 2,289
Quote:
(1) do not try to interpret the law without competent legal advice of attorneys familiar with the specific area of the law, (2) avoid legal risks like the plague, and (3) always remember (1) and (2).
+1 over and over! Way too many folks way to concerned about if they CAN shoot. That's almost irrelevant, IMO. Do you NEED to shoot is far more important. If you don't need to shoot, don't shoot even if you can. See #2 above.
David Armstrong is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 11:54 AM   #41
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,647
The problem is that the legal standard is not a subjective one, i. e., you feel something. It's an objective standard. This is sometimes stated as : A reasonable and prudent person, in the same situation and knowing what you know, would conclude that the use of lethal force was necessary to prevent immediate and otherwise unavoidable death or grave bodily harm to an innocent. Whether the the test is satisfied will be determined from the totality fo the circumstances. For example, did the gunman look crazed and unstable? Was he waiving the gun around wildly and in an overtly threatening manner? Or did he seem to be a cool, professional criminal.

In any case, it would be very helpful, if you decide that you must shoot, to be able to articulate the reasons you concluded that lethal force was necessary in that particular situation. Why did you conclude that you had no choice but to shoot?

That's one reason I think that training and practice are important. One wants to have decent mastery of the mechanics of using his weapon and confidence in his marksmanship and ability to use his weapon. That way he can focus on the decision.

And this is also why you can only take a hypothetical so far. There is no one magic characteristic that can give you the "green light." You have to be there and make a reasonable judgment, based on the whole picture, that lethal force is necessary to save innocent life.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 2, 2008, 03:18 PM   #42
rampage841512
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 16, 2007
Location: Gardendale, Alabama
Posts: 665
Quote:
Seeing as most robberies around here don't involve anyone getting shot, what should I be doing if I get caught behind one of these winners?
You should do whatever you think is best. Trust your own reasoning.
__________________
"What is play to the fool and the idiot is deadly serious to the man with the gun."
Walt Rauch,Combat Handguns, May '08
rampage841512 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11482 seconds with 7 queries