Here is a real life situation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Warren

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
2,454
Location
Northern California
that happened in Shasta County which is just north of where I am.

A father and son where fishing, obvioulsy in Condition White, when a man came up behind the dad, stuck a gun to the back of his head and demanded the dad's wallet.

The dad gave up the wallet and the gunman fled.




What I want to ask is what if the victim is CCW and when the BG moves away with the wallet can the CCW then shoot? At what point can the CCW no longer legally use his weapon?

What if the CCW tosses his wallet to one side, the BG moves to get it and is distracted enough for the CCW to draw. Can the CCW shoot at that point. Remember the BG does have a gun.

What if, instead of a child the fishing companion was another CCW, could he draw and shoot even though he is not being directly threatened with the gun?


I know what I am describing are not the soundest tactics but I am more interested in the legal side of the issue.


thanks,

H2L
 
I'm pretty sure it depends on the state but I don't think that would fly in California.
 
What I want to ask is what if the victim is CCW and when the BG moves away with the wallet can the CCW then shoot?

If he is running away, no. If he is backing away with the gun on you, yes (though it would be difficult to hit him first, obviously).

What if the CCW tosses his wallet to one side, the BG moves to get it and is distracted enough for the CCW to draw. Can the CCW shoot at that point. Remember the BG does have a gun.

I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes". You have no way of knowing whether the BG will just execute you and your child right there (can't leave a witness, after all), or maybe even abduct your child. The BG is choosing to use lethal force (the gun), so you can meet it. Just because he's momentarily distracted doesn't mean the threat is gone.

Actually, I'm pretty sure even if the BG threatened you with the display of a gun, and then put the gun away (perhaps some hikers were jogging by and he didn't want to draw attention), you could still draw.

What if, instead of a child the fishing companion was another CCW, could he draw and shoot even though he is not being directly threatened with the gun?

This varies from state to state, I think, but here in Florida, for example, you put yourself in the shoes of the person being attacked and can defend him/her if necessary.
 
Here in the Republic of TX you can smoke him if he uses deadly force to take your property and you have no other way to get it back.
 
In Pa. No, No, Maybe...

In Pennsylvania, no you cannot shoot BG that is fleeing with your wallet. The law requires that you surrender property or retreat if possible before deadly forcr is justified. Force must be immediatly necessary. The aggressor must have the ability and opportunity, must be taking a significant step, and all other defenses must be exhausted. Since he is running away, he is no longer an immediate threat to you.

No again, if you throw your wallet away and the BG goes after it, he is no longer a threat to you. This is a general statement responding to a specific question asked where the direct threat has passed. here are many possible actions on the BG's part that could change this to a yes.

Quick Draw McGraw was a cartoon character. Unless you have invested a lot of time in practice, quick draw rarely works in a real situation.

Maybe. If I witness a threat of death or serious bodily injury to another person I am permitted and bound by the same justifications in protecting myself. If the BG has drawn a weapon and stuck it in someones back, he has in my mind satisfied the requirements of ability, opportunity and a significant step. It's the demand for the wallet that complicates things. If he demands the wallet he has stated his desire is to rob you, not kill you. This gives me a possible non-lethal defense, giving him the wallet. From there it depends on his next move. That said, if I'm the only living witness, then there will only be one statement of fact. In Pa. it's about if I felt threatened, not what a reasonable person would feel.
 
In California you can use deadly force to protect the life and safety of others. The second CCW can shoot.

If the BG is running away, has back toward the victim, cannot shoot since there is no clear danger to the life or safety of the victims.
 
The way it was put to me in my Personal Protection class is that is that if you are walking down the street with your daughter and someone pulls a knife, stabs her in the throat, and continues to walk away, there is nothing that you can legally do.
 
Long

Taken directly from the CA Penal Code:

THE USE OF FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF LIFE AND PROPERTY--->>> The question of whether use of a firearm is justified for self-defense cannot be reduced to a simple list of factors. This section is based on the instructions generally given to the jury in a criminal case where self-defense is claimed and illustrates the general rules regarding use of firearms in self-defense. Use of a Firearm or Other Deadly Force in Defense of Life and Body The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes. Self-Defense Against Assault It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend himself or herself from attack if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer bodily injury. In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury. It is lawful for a person who has grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that great bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon another to protect the victim from attack. In so doing, the person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent the injury. Deadly force is only considered reasonable to prevent great bodily injury or death. NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal penalties. Protecting One’s Home A person may defend his or her home against anyone who attempts to enter in a violent manner intending violence to any person in the home. The amount of force that may be used in resisting such entry is limited to that which would appear necessary to a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances to resist the violent entry. One is not bound to retreat, even though a retreat might safely be made. One may resist force with force, increasing it in proportion to the intruder’s persistence and violence, if the circumstances apparent to the occupant would cause a reasonable person in the same or similar situation to fear for his or her safety. The occupant may use a firearm when resisting the intruder’s attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime against anyone in the home provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the intruder intends to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there is imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the occupant acts under the belief that use of a firearm is necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or great bodily injury. Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry had occurred. Great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury. (Penal Code § 198.5.) NOTE: If the presumption is rebutted by contrary evidence, the occupant may be criminally liable for an unlawful assault or homicide. Defense of Property The lawful occupant of real property has the right to request a trespasser to leave the premises. If the trespasser does not do so within a reasonable time, the occupant may use force to eject the trespasser. The amount of force that may be used to eject a trespasser is limited to that which a reasonable person would believe to be necessary under the same or similar circumstances.Limitations on the Use of Force in Self-Defense The right of self-defense ceases when there is no further danger from an assailant. Thus, where a person attacked under circumstances initially justifying self-defense renders the attacker incapable of inflicting further injuries, the law of self-defense ceases and no further force may be used. The right of self-defense is not initially available to a person who assaults another. However, if such person attempts to stop further combat and clearly informs the adversary of his or her desire for peace but the opponent nevertheless continues the fight, the right of self-defense returns and is the same as the right of any other person being assaulted.
 
My Reading of Above:

No, Probably, Yes

Please let me know if someone else has a different read. I also asked a couple CHP and Sheriff friends and they said as long as you or the one you are with is in imminent danger, it's likely to be a good shoot.

However, if the BG is running away, gun or not, there could be real problems proving the imminent danger part. I know of one case where a guy shot a kid who was robbing him. Problem was, kid was running away. Kids parents sued, guy lost everything and barely avoided jail.
 
in WA, the criminal is still considered to be in the commision of a crime while he/she is still on the premisis and you can legally shoot him in the back as he is running away. this happened to a quiky-mart type store owner several years ago and the owner was cleared. personally, i wouldn't advise it and i truly don't think i would shoot. i'd file a police report and cancel my cards and such. the legal battle that will ensue is not, in my opinion, worth my wallet, even if i'm legal. and don't forget about civil court. even if you are cleared of charges in criminal court, the family can come after you in civil court for wrongful death or some other such BS, which i think is, in and of itself BS. kinda like OJ. he was found not guilty, but still got nailed for wrongful death in civil court. i just don't get that, but thats a whole 'nother topic.

Bobby
 
In California you can use deadly force to protect the life and safety of others. The second CCW can shoot.

If the BG is running away, has back toward the victim, cannot shoot since there is no clear danger to the life or safety of the victims.

"Officer, this was an armed, dangerous felon who was running in the same direction where I thought I had heard a family with kids earlier. Maybe it was just an animal, but I couldn't take that chance"

Bah, in California, they'd still lock you up for violating the poor robbers civil rights.
 
H2L ~

I highly recommend you look into taking an LFI class if Massad Ayoob ever comes to your area. Those questions are exactly the sort of material that class covers, and would really help you figure out scenarios like that.

Meanwhile, here are some basic principles.

Lethal force is generally permitted when the elements of Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy (A, O, J) are all present.

Ability answers the question: does this person possess the power to kill me (or another innocent person) or to cripple me (or another innocent person) for life?

Opportunity answers the question: are the circumstances such that this person can use that power immediately?

Jeopardy answers the question: is this person acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person, knowing what I know right now, would conclude that this person intends to kill or cripple me (or another innocent person)?

In the scenario you presented, it is reasonable to conclude, based on the presence of the gun and the immediate threat, that the BG intends to kill you or cripple you. Deadly force would be justified ... but tactically, it may not be possible.

Generally speaking, if you would be justified in using deadly force, another person is justified in using deadly force on your behalf. In other words, your fishing buddy could come to your defense using deadly force, and it would be justified. Of course it depends upon the totality of the circumstances, but generally speaking if you see the life of another person threatened -- especially the life of someone under your immediate care, such as a family member -- you're as justified using deadly force as they would be themselves.

In the scenario you presented, if the bad guy turns away to get the wallet, Jeopardy may no longer be present. That is, a reasonable and prudent person might conclude that his action means he intends to depart rather than to maim or kill you. So deadly force may no longer be justified. It is all in the jury's perception of what a reasonable and prudent person would do, knowing what you knew at the time. The catch is, we on this board aren't your standard. Your standard is 12 random strangers pulled off the voter rolls and culled very carefully to be sure they don't have any kind of a bias one way or the other. They won't be gun owners, they won't be shooters, and they won't have learned any of this stuff until you and your lawyer teach it to them.

Again, I cannot recommend LFI-1 highly enough. It's an excellent class and covers all of this in a great deal more depth. You'll walk out of there with a very thorough understanding of the entire process of self defense and a completely new appreciation for how the legal system works.

pax
 
Thanks all,

I'm not looking for an excuse to pop someone in this situation but I would like my wallet back and I would like to prevent a felon from getting away.

If I can get the advantage on him somehow, say through a distraction or he turns to run and I draw, and I tell him to stop and he 1. runs or 2. resists by moving his gun towards me then what are my rights?

What if I know his is just a pellet gun or a cap gun or even if it is carved out of soap? Am I ethically bound to not shoot in that instance? I'm leaning towards a yes on that question though I am interested in hearing other views.


The way it was put to me in my Personal Protection class is that is that if you are walking down the street with your daughter and someone pulls a knife, stabs her in the throat, and continues to walk away, there is nothing that you can legally do.

Wow. So you can't draw and hold him for the cops? You have to let him go? What if he does it again or looks like he will do it again?
 
In Pennsylvania, no you cannot shoot BG that is fleeing with your wallet. The law requires that you surrender property or retreat if possible before deadly forcr is justified

Correction: PA state law says you must retreat or comply if you can do so in complete safety. It explicitly says "complete safety." To me, that means if you're being mugged by an unarmed 2 year old. In any other circumstance, it is impossible to be guaranteed "complete safety" by compliance. It's not that uncommon at all for someone to shoot you after taking the wallet.
 
NO, no, Yes and see you in Court

First: no you may not shoot someone who is simply running away from you. It does not matter what they previously did. (California's Penal Code states fleeing Felons maybe shot. Do not beleave it. The courts have ruled that is illegal and you will be charged.)

In a training class I had a DA ask us if we can we shoot someone who is 15 feet away and is holding a throwing knife. The answer is: ONLY DURING THE TIME FROM WHEN THE HAND GOES BACK TO WHEN HE RELEASES THE KNIFE. Before that he is not a threat, after the release he has no control over it and again is not a threat.

You can not shoot someone once they cease to be a threat to yourself or someone else.

If you threw your wallet to one side and then shot him, you would probley be in trouble and would be in court for all long time. Civil Court would probley eat you up.

If your fishing buddy shot while the BG had a gun point at your back, the shooting would/should be ruled legal. Always expect to go to jail and court on any shooting, but you should be cleared.

We just had a case in Humbodlt County of a homeowner killing the person living next door to him. The neighbor had yelled he was going to kill the homeowner and charged him at the front door. The homeowner, standing ready at his front door, killed the neighbor outside the home with blast from a 12 gage shotgun. He was arrested spent two days in jail, and then was released. It was ruled a legal shooting under California's home protection laws.
 
Well from a legal perspective, unless you have more than $10k in the wallet, it is probably cheaper just to let him have it; because even a justified shooting is going to incur a lot of legal expenses and the closer to the "edge" it is, the more you will spend.

In my CHL class (circa 1999) we were told that in the 52 cases involving CHLs in defensive shootings, the total legal expenses ranged from $10k-$55k. Every one of the CHL holders went through a civil suit as well, even after the grand jury declined to indict on criminal charges.
 
Here in the Republic of TX you can smoke him if he uses deadly force to take your property and you have no other way to get it back.

That is correct, more or less. However, Texas law makes no reference to whether the actor used any level of force in the theft.

For example, if you arrived at your home and observed an actor departing with items of your property; you may use deadly force to stop the theft if you believe you will not recover your property by any other means.
 
Wow. So you can't draw and hold him for the cops? You have to let him go? What if he does it again or looks like he will do it again?

According to California law, you can place the perpetrator under arrest. He committed a felony in your presence, and you know he did it. The only Penal Code section I could quickly find that refers to fleeing arrest specifically mentioned peace officers, so I'm not sure of what your options are if you lawfully arrest someone and they flee.

Also, you have to keep in mind where you are... in some counties, drawing on the robber after he runs is going to be good, common sense, and you'll be fine. In the Bay Area, I'm sure you would be arrested, and possibly even charged.
 
What I want to ask is what if the victim is CCW and when the BG moves away with the wallet can the CCW then shoot? At what point can the CCW no longer legally use his weapon?

Depends on who is there to witness what happens. If there was only one side of the story to be told who is to say that there could not be a plausible explaination for killing the BG? Your state may have rabid out of control DA's who want to protect the right of criminals to kill, rob and rape but that is not the case in Colorado.

What if the CCW tosses his wallet to one side, the BG moves to get it and is distracted enough for the CCW to draw. Can the CCW shoot at that point. Remember the BG does have a gun.

In Colorado, the BG can be killed with impunity to the CCW holder under the circumstances described.

What if, instead of a child the fishing companion was another CCW, could he draw and shoot even though he is not being directly threatened with the gun?

In Colorado, the BG may be killed with impunity to the CCW holder if the BG presents an imminent lethal threat to the CCW holder. If you are with a person who is being robbed at gunpoint you are threatened too.

But the simple truth and most practical side of what you describe is this, the fisherman should thank his lucky stars he was not killed and let the wallet go.

In Colorado the law, surprisingly, errs on the side of the law abiding citizen. I would not live in California or Pennsylvania or many other states that protect the right of criminals to kill, rape and rob law abiding citizens.
 
I'm pretty sure that open carry is legal while hunting or fishing according to California Fish and Game. There is no need to ccw in this instance.

Scott
trying to remember my hunter safety coarse
 
Simple answer. After he starts running draw a bead and yell "Hey, you forgot this money" then drop him when he turns around.
 
If I can get the advantage on him somehow, say through a distraction or he turns to run and I draw, and I tell him to stop and he 1. runs or 2. resists by moving his gun towards me then what are my rights?

What if I know his is just a pellet gun or a cap gun or even if it is carved out of soap? Am I ethically bound to not shoot in that instance? I'm leaning towards a yes on that question though I am interested in hearing other views.

You must be able to articulate how your life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger.

If you can do that, you'll probably be okay, legally speaking.

If you cannot, you probably won't.

pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top