Here is a real life situation

[Mikul]

What if he does it again or looks like he will do it again?

Then you can shoot. You can shoot to prevent someone from causing serious bodily harm to yourself or another. That's the prevailing logic. A kidnapping is legally considered serious bodily harm in PA.

The officer of the court giving our class followed up by saying that this is true by the letter of the law. If you were wearing a video camera and some total nutcase walked by nonchalant and stuck a steak knife in your child's throat and walked away calmly while eating an apple, you would have no authority to use lethal force. In reality, if someone stabs your kid, you have reason to believe that you are next, and would be justified in shooting. If he ran away, it could be argued that he was running to stab another child and you would be justified in shooting.

As long as you are PREVENTING someone from receiving immediate and emminent serious bodily harm, you may use deadly force. Anything would be viewed as vengeance. So, shooting the apple-eating murderer with so much lead that he is legally considered a pencil would not be considered self-defence, although the jury may give you a pat on the back before sentencing you to 10 years.

 

[rock jock]

Yeah, when I bought my truck last year, the dealer didn't even ask me if I had any DUI's or reckless driving citations. How irresponsible of him.

 

[Seraph]

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, PA sounds like a wonderful place to live.
Legal or not, if someone were to harm/kill one of my children in such a way, I would empty into them my entire carry load, even if I had to shoot them in the back as they ran or crawled away. Damn the consequences. Don't mess with my family.

Anyway...Here in TN, you don't have to retreat when someone attacks you, and you are free (if not expected) to intervene on behalf of others nearby, who are under attack. BTW, here in TN, if someone has broken into your home, you can, whether you see a weapon or not, presume that they are there to commit crimes and are willing to hurt you. Of course, everything is litigable by the scumbag's nearest kin, and if your DA is a jackass (what are the odds?), he will still try to bolster his win record at your expense.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

The way they tend to phrase it, using deadly force to stop a forcible felony (such as robbery is) is allowable.

Now, at least here in Florida, you can't defend your property like you can in Texas... but...

What if you came upon a guy stealing your property (like about to make off in your car, or with the items from your pickup truck bed) and you confront him and say, "Hey, drop the stuff, that's mine and you're stealing it!"

Now it IS a ROBBERY, of you, and shouldn't you be justified in using force then? You have apprised the suspect that you own the property and let him know that he is stealing (as if he didn't know already). If he persists in taking the property, he is ROBBING you of it, right?

-Jeffrey

 

[bill2]

I heard years ago in a class from the instructor that in some states, not CA, that if you were not charged/or acquitted in criminal court for a self defense shooting, that you could not be sued in civil court. Is that true anywhere in the USA, or should you just assume you stand a very good chance of fighting a civil lawsuit if you do shoot someone while defending yourself?

 

[MikeIsaj]

RyanM

I was paraphrasing the law, not quoting it. The full text is long and confusing at first read. My point stands that surrender of property or retreat are required alternatives to force. Your fast and loose interpretation of "complete safety" in this law would not be accepted in a Commonwealth court.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Oregon law for CHL andapplication of lethal force

well, Oregon is pretty much like Cali.

If you were on the Rogue River fishing and some guy demanded your wallet...give it to him. There is no amount of money that justifies the taking of a life. Period.

The difference comes into play when you are confronted with the threat of physical harm, in this case, a gun to the head. You are quite justified in shooting the bastard for having a gun at your head. He has expressed his intention to inflict bodily harm and by all appearences is prepared to carry out that threat.

Oregon law allows you to remove the threat to your life and those under your immediate protection. Plain and simple. If your threat is running away, then they are no longer a threat. The law is pretty clear that if you can walk away, you must. This does NOT apply to a person's occupied home. That is slightly different.

Now,*I*wouldn't even be trying to quickdraw this bastard. I am not fast enough. So he would get away.

If the gun takes your wallet and runs away, bully on him. He just made off with my library card, my dl, my bank card and my CHL license. Maybe even 20$. I rarely carry more than 20$. I will cancel all the above faster than dumbo might think.

What I would do at that point would be to pull my .38, pull up the lines, and drive to the nearest PD. From there, I would file my police report and call my bank.

The thing about shooting someone in Oregon is that you *will* go to jail. Expect it and you will most assuredly NOT be disappointed.

hope this helps.

 

[bobby68]

Simple answer. After he starts running draw a bead and yell "Hey, you forgot this money" then drop him when he turns around.

sortof what i was wondering.. or "hey, did you want my gun too?"

Before i found this thread i was discussing this sort of thing with my wife.. who is tosay whether this person would continue to rob and endanger other people, until one day that he kills somebody. It easy to say, "it's not worth the money in your wallet?" but that is not the real price to be paid by just letting a "simple" robbery go. i really do not want to harm someone unnecessarily, but i also would hate to let someone go that eventually destroys another persons life.

 

[c_yeager]

By the letter of the law in WA you can MAYBE shoot him in that situation. He is a felon and he is fleeing with your property. Technically, in this state you can shoot any fleeing felon that is likely to endanger the lives of others. Now this only actually matters for the sake of an academic discussion. in the real world if you shoot a guy in the back when he is leaving with your wallet your goose is cooked, period.

Now you probably could draw your weapon and order the offender to return your property and await the arrival of the authorities, and if he were to threaten you in any way then you would be justified to use deadly force. However there is no prosecutor or jury in the world that is likely to buy this scenario without witnesses, and even if they did you would still have a hard time.

The fact is that it isnt worth shooting someone over a wallet. If he is already leaving then I say let him go. He'll get his eventually.