Good Tactics vs Ethical Dilemma Gets CHL Killed

[Lohman446]

The ethical dilemma only exists for civilian concealed carriers if one prescribes a positive moral duty to intervene in criminal acts committed against another person. This dilemma should really be considered ahead of time. For me it’s my wife, my kids, young children in general, employees and customers in my business, and guests in my home. My duty is limited to the threat of imminent severe physical harm, rape, or kidnapping. It limits heavily the situations I am going to respond with violence. We discussed earlier these things are best decided ahead of time.

[MTT TL]

The fact that robbery is a serious crime and not a simple property crime is the finger.

Whether the use of deadly force is not only justified, but also reasonable and appropriate for the specific circumstances, is the moon.

Deadly force is nearly always justifiable in the middle of an armed robbery when all the elements of the crime are present. The times when it is not justified are rare and great exceptions that are more one-offs more than anything else.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

Deadly force is nearly always justifiable in the middle of an armed robbery when all the elements of the crime are present. The times when it is not justified are rare and great exceptions that are more one-offs more than anything else.

Wasn't arguing about it being justified and excusable.

Was talking about situations where starting the shooting might not be particularly reasonable or appropriate for the circumstances.

Just because someone may be lawfully armed and could justify shooting, doesn't mean it may be the best idea for the moment.

[MTT TL]

Wasn't arguing about it being justified

It's what you wrote.

Just because someone may be lawfully armed and could justify shooting, doesn't mean it may be the best idea for the moment.

Correct. That is the whole point of this discussion.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

It's what you wrote.

What I wrote was ...

However, while the use of deadly force may be justified, it's arguably still prudent to consider whether the specific totality of the circumstances (as known to the person at the moment, etc) also make it reasonably necessary and appropriate at any moment in time.

While the use of deadly force may be justified, circumstances may present themselves which might argue against it being appropriate if using it presents a clear risk to other innocents.

None of us wants to attempt to use justifiable deadly force in a way that might mistakenly cause the death of another innocent person, meaning a person who wasn't the "threat" we intended to shoot, right? Innocents in close proximity to, or crowded behind, the armed robbery suspect? You can't call a bullet back.

As far as being justified, consider a part of the CA's 192 PC subsection on Manslaughter, subsection (b), for Involuntary manslaughter, which states (in part, italics mine) "; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection".

Think about if the use of deadly force which could be said to be justified against the "threat", but its use results in shooting someone we didn't intend to shoot, and that unlawful death is argued to have been "without due caution or circumspection", even though the initial reason for our use of deadly force was justified? That's how any of us might find ourselves on the wrong end of a criminal manslaughter case.

This is where private persons, and even cops, may find themselves in trouble for an act that causes the death of someone who ought not have died.

Originally Posted by MTT TL

Correct. That is the whole point of this discussion.

Yep, I rather suspect that we're not disagreeing on some particular points. Perhaps I'm not explaining my thoughts clearly, or I'm thinking of other aspects of situations that I've seen occur during my career that aren't something that would ordinarily occur to private persons?

I'm not an attorney, so I'm not qualified nor licensed to give legal advice. (You can go buy some if you feel the need.)

Nor am I an instructor to anyone on this forum and responsible for training them. Just my thoughts.

[Aguila Blanca]

fastbolt, you also wrote:

Originally Posted by fastbolt

One of the things learned by some off-duty cops is that it can easily become counter productive to act and escalate a situation from a property crime to a situation where now bullets are flying and innocents become at risk.

And that statement was a non sequitur, because an armed robbery is not a property crime. In the case under discussion, the bad guys were committing an armed robbery, not a property crime.

Burglary is a property crime.
Automobile theft (other than carjacking) is a property crime.
Shoplifting is a property crime.
Vandalism is a property crime.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

fastbolt, you also wrote:


And that statement was a non sequitur, because an armed robbery is not a property crime. In the case under discussion, the bad guys were committing an armed robbery, not a property crime.

Burglary is a property crime.
Automobile theft (other than carjacking) is a property crime.
Shoplifting is a property crime.
Vandalism is a property crime.

Yes, I did. I did so, however, thinking of instances where robberies occur where victims aren't shot (or stabbed) but only their property is taken. Still a Part 1 serious crime, granted, and reported as such, but it's still one in which nobody has been seriously injured or killed. Just threats of force and fear (sufficient to meet the statutory requirements).

How about instances where the suspects haven't shot anyone ... right up to a point where someone may decide to draw down on the suspect, or start shooting at him while he is still in close proximity to the innocent victims.

I'm not thinking of incidents where a suspect has already shot someone, or is threatening and reasonably appears to be about to shoot someone.

What if the suspect hasn't shot someone, though? What if trying to immediately shoot at him in the midst of the victims results in the suspect reacting and now deciding to start shooting?

Also, I wasn't able to speak to the specific instance of the barber shop, since I didn't know how that incident unfolded regarding when & why the suspect fired. Instead, I was speaking in regard to the examples of a couple of tragic instances of armed robberies which I mentioned having learned of as a young cop.

In both of those incidents the armed off-duty cops decided to intervene before the suspects had shot anyone, and a gunfight in the midst of victims ensued. In both of those reported cases family members of the off-duty cops were shot and killed by the suspects. I imagine both of the cops have repeatedly asked themselves if their loved ones might still be alive if perhaps they'd used a different tactic.

Yes, decisively acting to protect the public safety when an immediate risk to the public presents itself is expected of LE (unsurprisingly often written into GO's and policies), but so is thinking to attempt to use tactics that might mitigate introducing the increased risk of starting a gunfight in the midst of innocent victims. Never an easy judgment.

Just because we may lawfully be carrying a gun, that doesn't mean that starting shooting at a suspect is necessarily going to be the best response or answer to the situation, even if the use of deadly force would otherwise be considered justifiable.

People with the best of intentions can make the wrong decisions about when to use deadly force and thinking that it's justifiable, and sometimes good people who make the wrong decisions face criminal charges for it. (Even LE, given the advantage of initial and recurrent training and legal updates, can make mistakes regarding when & how to use deadly force, as some recent tragic incidents have demonstrated.)

[MTT TL]

What I wrote was ...

You also wrote:

Whether the use of deadly force is not only justified, but also reasonable and appropriate for the specific circumstances, is the moon.

Thus my confusion.

None of us wants to attempt to use justifiable deadly force in a way that might mistakenly cause the death of another innocent person, meaning a person who wasn't the "threat" we intended to shoot, right? Innocents in close proximity to, or crowded behind, the armed robbery suspect? You can't call a bullet back.

Appears to be asked and answered since he didn't hit anyone else while killing one of the assailants.

Also he was not in California. In my state for example if anyone dies while offenders are committing armed robbery the robbers are charged with their deaths as Capital Murder, as though they had done it themselves. Not sure how the law addresses this in Illinois but I don't think we can ever stress enough the importance of knowing your local laws.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by fastbotl

Yes, I did. I did so, however, thinking of instances where robberies occur where victims aren't shot (or stabbed) but only their property is taken. Still a Part 1 serious crime, granted, and reported as such, but it's still one in which nobody has been seriously injured or killed. Just threats of force and fear (sufficient to meet the statutory requirements).

How about instances where the suspects haven't shot anyone ... right up to a point where someone may decide to draw down on the suspect, or start shooting at him while he is still in close proximity to the innocent victims.

I'm not thinking of incidents where a suspect has already shot someone, or is threatening and reasonably appears to be about to shoot someone.

What if the suspect hasn't shot someone, though? What if trying to immediately shoot at him in the midst of the victims results in the suspect reacting and now deciding to start shooting?

I respectfully submit that you are moving the goalposts. The statement that I and others took exception to was your post about the use of a firearm in response to "property crimes." As I posted previously, whether the robbers are actively shooting or only showing guns and perhaps threatening to shoot, armed robbery is not a property crime.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I respectfully submit that you are moving the goalposts. The statement that I and others took exception to was your post about the use of a firearm in response to "property crimes." As I posted previously, whether the robbers are actively shooting or only showing guns and perhaps threatening to shoot, armed robbery is not a property crime.

Fine. Cool. Mea culpa.

I was going more for substance over form when I talked about robberies where property was taken but nobody was injured, or at least not yet injured. I didn't intend to move goalposts. My abject apologies.

Notwithstanding the classification of serious criminal acts, though, I still look at things from the perspective of just because deadly force may be justified, that doesn't necessarily mean it may also be appropriate, or the best response for the particular circumstances at that moment in time.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by MTT TL

You also wrote:
"Whether the use of deadly force is not only justified, but also reasonable and appropriate for the specific circumstances, is the moon."

Thus my confusion.

You want to talk about the potential for confusion ...

Imagine how LE can be further constrained in their actions by having their use of deadly force not only be justified and excusable under law, as well as be determined to be reasonable and appropriate for the particular circumstances, but it must also conform to policy.

Policy may be intentionally stricter on the conduct of cops than statutory law, at times.

Violating policy - especially willfully violating policy - can expose an individual cop to not only disciplinary procedures, but might reduce some degree of the protections afforded by normally acting within scope and duty. This could become problematic in civil claims and suits against the individual.

[MTT TL]

Well again, Gholston was not a LEO. It is doubtful he cared about whatever the local LEA policy was as it had nothing to do with him or the incident under discussion.

[fastbolt]

Originally Posted by MTN TL

Well again, Gholston was not a LEO. It is doubtful he cared about whatever the local LEA policy was as it had nothing to do with him or the incident under discussion.

I was responding to you comment about being confused, and in the interest of casual conversation mentioned that if you think my other post touched on a confusing topic, imagine how being constrained by policy can add another layer of confusion.

Never mind.

I mistakenly thought the subject had become more generalized than the specific incident. Oh well.

I can't speak to the deceased victim's motivations and actions, including whether he had any "tactics" in mind beyond to rush in and use his gun (presumably to save someone else?), because there may be additional facts not reported.

So, no "lessons" to be gained by what's been stated of his actions. It was what it was, and it was tragic for him.

FWIW, when I read or hear about this sort of thing, as an instructor I think about the talking and discussion points I could raise in a classroom of cops, or in a CCW class. Sadly, perhaps an example of how bad judgment on the part of someone else may help us learn to develop good judgment for ourselves.

[fastbolt]

Considering the discussion of the OP thread topic, here's an incident from last year involving a father and his 2 sons who present at a McDonald's in AL when a suspect entered the restaurant and started shooting. The father and one of his minor sons were also wounded.

https://www.al.com/news/birmingham/2...-year-old.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/birming...ma-restaurant/

Follow up article from earlier this year with interview of father:

“The first shot hit me in my back and I hit the ground. And he came over me and shot me again from behind,” Cooper said. “I just sprung back up thinking about my kids. The kids was in the building and he was running in the building behind me.”

As he was running, police say Sanders was now firing inside the restaurant.

Cooper ran inside too, pulled his own gun and shot Sanders dead.

https://www.wbrc.com/2019/01/08/fath...ks-first-time/

[USNRet93]

After watching a fair number of 'Active Self Protection' videos, often from South America...
You walk into a bank and see a guy with gun out pointing at teller...he doesn't notice you...do you take out your handgun, put it behind his ear and kill him?

[dyl]

I've seen a number of those videos. It is TOO easy to just let the next one play. It's a wild world out there.

You walk into a bank and see a guy with gun out pointing at teller...he doesn't notice you...do you take out your handgun, put it behind his ear and kill him?

Now that's tricky situation. I don't think one would be legally in trouble either way. Surprise is a great asset. On one hand there's the old fashioned notion that shooting someone anywhere except the front is dishonorable or dishonest. As if someone needs to have their gun pointed at you or charging you with a knife before you would be justified. Perhaps state law will say whether one may use their CHL or CWP in defense of others in close proximity or just for themselves.

[Lohman446]

Bank robberies in particular are likely the idea of the instruction to off duty officers to be a good witness came from. Stories from training tell of officers who would attempt to intervene in armed robberies only to be killed by the accomplice hidden in the rest of the civilians in the bank.

Now the McDonalds story? Know what you are willing to die for. Present an imminent threat of physical harm against my children and I will do everything in my power to stop you as effectively and efficiently as possible. Violence is a tool. Know when you are willing to use it and when you are do not blunt that tool by “holding back”. If I am killed in the process I will count myself as having done the right thing. What if I didn’t? Wait a few decades to die of cancer and wonder if I could have stopped it? Why put myself through that agony? No. Weapon or not there are some situations that going out swinging is better than not swinging and surviving.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by dyl

Perhaps state law will say whether one may use their CHL or CWP in defense of others in close proximity or just for themselves.

The laws of most (if not all) states already establish that you can use deadly force to protect yourself or an innocent third party.

Look up your own state's laws on the use of deadly ( or "lethal') force.

Example: Georgia

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia...cle-2/16-3-21/

TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS
ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE
§ 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution
O.C.G.A. 16-3-21 (2010)
16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution


(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

...

[langenc]

There are some things we don't know,and some things I must own as my own interpretation.
Right or wrong,my interpretation is he did not reach for deadly force over property,when he was being robbed. He let the property go.
Copied from #19

"he let the prop go" but he could have been next. No witnesses.
Just cause he complied dont mean he was safe.. Drugged up persons do dumb stuff. Most robberies are to support a habit.
A very tough situation for sure..

[OldMarksman]

The laws of most (if not all) states already establish that you can use deadly force to protect yourself or an innocent third party.

Yes, if one reasonably believes that said third party would have been justified in using deadly force in heir own defense. Or in alter ego states, the third party actually would have been justified under the law.

Not for me, unless I know the people really, really well. Two reasons:

1. The amount of cash I would have to come up with immediately for legal representation, which I would not get back, would, by my standards, be extremely large, ad
2. that third party just might side with the attacker afterwards and testify against me.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

Yes, if one reasonably believes that said third party would have been justified in using deadly force in heir own defense. Or in alter ego states, the third party actually would have been justified under the law.

Not for me, unless I know the people really, really well. Two reasons:

The amount of cash I would have to come up with immediately for legal representation, which I would not get back, would, by my standards, be extremely large, ad
that third party just might side with the attacker afterwards and testify against me.

I won't disagree with what you wrote, but that gets into the realm of personal decision. My statement was in response to a post that seemed to be suggesting that it's an open question whether or not defending a third party is even legal. It is legal, just about everywhere -- whether or not it's wise or advisable is another matter.

[FireForged]

What if the suspect hasn't shot someone, though? What if trying to immediately shoot at him in the midst of the victims results in the suspect reacting and now deciding to start shooting?

Fighting is risky business which is why I would limit a fighting response to only those circumstances which directly relate to me and mine.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FireForged

Fighting is risky business which is why I would limit a fighting response to only those circumstances which directly relate to me and mine.

As FireForged commented, fighting is risky business. The laws of most (maybe all) states allow you to employ deadly/lethal force in response to risk of imminent death or serious bodily harm to you or to an innocent third party. So, subject to verifying the laws of your state, you would probably be legal to open fire on a bad guy threatening people with a gun. Whether or not you would be smart to open fire on the aforementioned bad guy is a more difficult question that involves a rapid on-the-spot evaluation of the tactical situation.

• Do you have a clear shot?
• How far away is the bad guy?
• Can you make the shot at that distance?
• Are there innocents behind the bad guy who may be hit if you miss or your shot overpenetrates?
• How likely is it that the bad guy won't shoot if you don't shoot?

[OldMarksman]

Whether or not you would be smart to open fire on the aforementioned bad guy is a more difficult question that involves a rapid on-the-spot evaluation of the tactical situation.

• Do you have a clear shot?
• How far away is the bad guy?
• Can you make the shot at that distance?
• Are there innocents behind the bad guy who may be hit if you miss or your shot overpenetrates?
• How likely is it that the bad guy won't shoot if you don't shoot?

Well put.

I had occasion some years ago to try to dissuade an armed robber in a store, All of those things went through my mind. along wiith

• Is there anyone likely to move into my line of fire?
• Is there anyone likely to move behind the target?
• Do I have a backstop?

I had to move to create a defensible position.

The movement alarmed the man, and he dropped his stuff and ran out.

What I failed to do was try to look for an accomplice.

Bad mistake.

[Don Fischer]

I think the biggest problem shooting someone will have is not the shot guy but the law. law say's he or his family can sue you. That mean's a huge expense for a lawyer which you don't get back. The law allow's you to protect yourself in court,,,for a price most can't afford! If you got shot and some how stop the guy by shooting him, I suspect you can also sue him,,,for a price! So you lay out more money than you have, got to court and win your suit and the guy can't pay what you win! So your out the settlement, instead you get a piece of paper to hang on the wall that say's you won and you pay court cost's and your lawyer, pretty much you end up in the poor house and the other guy get's free room and board and health care for a number of year's in jail then get turned loose on parole for good behavior! It's not so much the bad guy to worry about as it is the system!