Robber w/ AK47 shot by Waffle House customer....

[JohnKSa]

He gave the reason of 'that because his wife was on her way, he followed the BG into the parking lot.

He's claiming the BG pointed the rifle at him and he shot the BG.

That's a self defense claim of one's self with out question.

The problem is that you can't initiate an armed confrontation, and then shoot the person when things get dicey for you and then claim self-defense. The OTHER person in a case like that actually has a stronger claim than you for self-defense because YOU are the one who accosted them with a gun.

Think about how screwed up things would be if you could go up to someone with a gun, initiate a confrontation and then shoot them and claim self-defense if they responded by pulling their own gun.

The defense of third party explanation is what made it possible for him to initiate the confrontation without that action basically turning him into the guilty party.

This is Texas not the media he is innocent until proven guilty...

That is incorrect. If he claimed that he didn't shoot the guy then he would be innocent until proven guilty. As it is, he ADMITTED shooting the guy which, in the absence of evidence to prove justification, is an admission of guilt. Now, the burden of proving justification is on the shooter.

If you want to be innocent until proven guilty in a self-defense shooting, you would have to claim you didn't shoot the person. You can't simultaneously claim that you didn't shoot the person and that it was self-defense. In order to claim self-defense, you must admit that you did the shooting which eliminates the need for the state to prove that you are guilty. Now, it's up to YOU to prove that what you did was justifiable under the laws relating to justifiable deadly force.

And decides to go back in, and take revenge? Does any one here, not think this person is NUTS! 2am, armed with really lethal weapon. He has to be stopped, period.

IF he had decided to go back in, as soon as that was clear to the defenders, they would have been justified in shooting him. Otherwise, it's not really up to the defenders to follow him and stop him.

In general, chasing down a criminal after they have left the scene and shooting them is murder. Look at the TX deadly force laws and tell me where it says that an armed citizen has the right to shoot someone merely because they think he needs to be stopped or brought to justice.

Deadly force is about stopping crimes in progress or preventing crimes that are imminent (just about to start), it's not about getting criminals off the street, or bringing people to justice, or letting armed citizens make a call about stopping someone because they think they will commit another crime in the indefinite future.

 

[Red Wind]

IF the initial media reports are in any way accurate as to what the guy did and how he went about it when he left the Waffle House after the bad guy, I wouldn't put up even a token bet for him not getting a recommendation for a trial.

I suppose a Palmetto plant is a token bet. Time will be the final arbiter. It always is.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Well, the criminal had not left the scene. The criminal was still at the Waffle House. The only difference was he was no longer inside. So the criminal was still very much "on scene." He was shot on scene in the parking lot.

The Erlsand case was brought up and had an interesting parallel aspect, specifically the aspect of running down the street after the other robber and shooting at him by Ersland. Check out the following video from about 10:50...

http://www.news9.com/Global/categor...art=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3804065

This is OK law, of course, but here is the DA saying that even if Ersland had shot the guy in the back who was running, who had literally left the premises and was no longer on scene, that he didn't think they would be there (interview on the case), because it could be argued that Ersland was protecting others. Interesting. It is only because Ersland shot the incapacitated robber that he was charged.

As far as predictions on the case in regard to the grand jury, a no bill seems likely. The cops have had time to deal with the medical personnel. They know how the shot(s) entered the bad guy. They have interviewed witnesses. They have looked at the crime scene information. Still, no arrest has been forthcoming. This is no longer about an on scene decision, but one about after facts have been gathered and analyzed and still no action taken. If the cops and DA thought they needed to arrest the shooter because he committed a crime, I have no doubt they would have done so already. I can't recall too many shootings where the arrest came only after the GJ met.

 

[danez71]

The problem is that you can't initiate an armed confrontation, and then shoot the person when things get dicey for you and then claim self-defense. The OTHER person in a case like that actually has a stronger claim than you for self-defense because YOU are the one who accosted them with a gun.

I agree and didn't say otherwise.

If you had quoted my whole post.... or read my other posts, it'd be apparent.

IMO, merely 'calling out' is not initiating an armed confrontation whether or not the other has a gun.

Calling out with your gun drawn/pointing at the BG after you followed him out of the restaurant is quite a bit different.


That's what I've said a couple times.

 

[barnbwt]

Waffle House + After Dark = *sigh*

As if everyone doesn't already know the answer . Like moths to a flame, are these late night patrons... (or rather like roaches to waffles )

TCB

 

[Kleanbore]

Well, the criminal had not left the scene. The criminal was still at the Waffle House. The only difference was he was no longer inside. So the criminal was still very much "on scene." He was shot on scene in the parking lot.

That's far more than a stretch.

The cops have had time to deal with the medical personnel. They know how the shot(s) entered the bad guy.

Do you know the status of the medical examiner's report, and what it said?

They have interviewed witnesses.Really? There were witnesses? Was all of the witness testimony consistent? What was said?

They have looked at the crime scene information. Still, no arrest has been forthcoming. This is no longer about an on scene decision, but one about after facts have been gathered and analyzed and still no action taken. If the cops and DA thought they needed to arrest the shooter because he committed a crime, I have no doubt they would have done so already.

How long do you think these things usually take, unless all of the evidence is clear cut?

 

[alsaqr]

It looks like its going to the grand jury.

All homicide cases in Texas must go to the grand jury. Not so in Oklahoma.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

There are a whole lot of assumptions being used to base the possible outcome of this on. Assumptions about information we're not privy to and assumptions about scanty information put out by the media, a dubious source at best when it comes to reliability.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yep!

 

[Old Guy]

All homicide cases in Texas must go to the grand jury.

Does anyone know the "calling out content?"

Maybe "Drop the gun" "I have called 911" a stretch... "Police, Don't move"

Who heard these words? And this is Texas, Mr. AK had just committed an armed robbery, and was still armed.

I grew up in the Capital of betting Shops, Liverpool, I do not gamble. But if I did I would take that bet, our Oranges are great!

 

[jrdolall]

As has been said 399 times in this thread, following the guy into the parking lot is not the wisest course of action.
What would I do if I knew a deranged man with a rifle was in the parking lot and my loved one was either already there or about to be there? If this goes to court then I would guess that will be his main defense. We basically know nothing about what happened. It's like getting our information from Twitter and then deciding we have all the info.

 

[Sam1911]

Does anyone know the "calling out content?"

Somebody does. Just no-one here. If it is deemed relevant, exactly what he said, it will undoubtedly be brought up before the Grand Jury.


But we need to speculate?

Maybe "Drop the gun"

Ok, maybe. But so what? I'd expect the next thing that would happen is that the armed robber would shoot me. And my lawful authority to issue that command (or enforce it with lethal force) is questionable.

"I have called 911"

Why would anybody yell that to someone LEAVING a robbery scene? What possible good would that do?

"Police, Don't move"

And now the crime of impersonating a law enforcement officer? Oy.

Who heard these words?

We don't know. Why do you ask?

And this is Texas

Seems pretty irrelevant.

Mr. AK had just committed an armed robbery, and was still armed.

HAD committed.

So far nobody has suggested any credible information that would indicate he was still an immediate threat to anyone or that he was in the act of perpetrating any other crimes -- until the good guy confronted/shouted/threatened(?) him.


Again, kudos that (as far as we know, now) the CCW guy prevailed and hasn't been charged with a crime. We're all happy about that.

But we need to understand the tactics issues and the legal factors that apply. They're more complicated than the "guy on the white horse" picture we all want to paint because a "hero" just took down a "villain."

 

[Kleanbore]

Does anyone know the "calling out content?"

It hasn't been made public.

Who heard these words?

That hasn't been made public.

And this is Texas, Mr. AK had just committed an armed robbery, and was still armed.

But he had left.

And what someone has "just" done does not, by itself, justify the use of deadly force--anywhere.

 

[MIL-DOT]

Just curious about something. There's been alot of talk about there being no justification for shooting the badguy based on what he might later do (and fair enough), but say the guy with the AK had shot nearly everyone in the restaurant, but for our armed citizen, and then the armed citizen follows him outside and everything plays out the same ?
Is there now a reasonable assumption of further lethal crimes ? Or would the armed citizen (arguably) still be legally in the wrong (as has been stated here, based on what we know)?
Or would the fact that mass murder has just taken place change all this ? (I would think, at the very least, it would make the DA even less inclined to prosecute, regardless of the letter of the law here, but that's beside the point, and not what I'm wondering).

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

The problem, MIL-DOT, starts with "...but say the guy with the AK..."

Starting this out as a hypothetical scenario for the purpose of discussion on the appropriate and legal way to comport oneself with respect to the use of deadly force in defense is one thing. Which, I think, is what you're doing here.

However, starting out this way with respect to THIS reported scenario is creating circumstances which play towards a particular (biased) end, with no regard to whatever the actual reality happened to have been. And this is where people are getting tripped up in this thread.


IF the shooter went outside and was still actively engaged in shooting, or threatening to shoot, people, then that is one possible scenario in which a private citizen MAY legitimately use deadly force in defense of another.

IF the shooter went outside and was NOT actively engaged in shooting, or threatening to shoot, people, then that is one possible scenario in which a private citizen may NOT legitimately use deadly force against another.


And, regardless of the scenario, if it goes to court then a jury gets to decide if the use of deadly force was REASONABLE under the circumstances as THEY see it, having had everything put forth to them by both trial and defense attorneys in court.


Despite what was reported in the media, we all have very little actual factual and accurate data from which to make a reasonable call in this particular instance. The media is notoriously lax with accuracy and perspective, for one, and we simply do not have access to all the witness statements, any security footage which may exist, forensic evidence, etc.

 

[Sam1911]

Yeah, basically if you change the entire scenario to a mass murder then you would have an entirely different set of perceptions going on and the reasonableness of those perceptions, and actions someone took based on them, would be evaluated by investigators, prosecutors, and juries.


But that strays miles away from what actually happened, which is this ROBBER (not mass murderer) shot NOBODY, and then tried to leave. Heck, for all we know the reason he didn't even shoot the guy who confronted him was that he didn't have a single cartridge in the rifle!

 

[MIL-DOT]

I was just asking for some legal clarification on basically the same question that's being discussed. Just like with the robbery as it took place, there's still no guarantee the AK guy, had he killed a bunch of people, was going to go kill any one else. He could've been going to kill himself behind the dumpster, or turn himself in, or dissappear forever and go lead a productive, law-abiding life, for all anyone knows.
So what's really the difference? If the crime (either version) is now over, and the threat to those present is gone, is the armed citizen still under obligation not to engage?

 

[Sam1911]

There's not a hard and fast answer. The reasonableness of someone's perceptions and actions are going to be judged by others. They're going to have to look at what the bad guy did, was doing, and gave indications that he was going to do next, and from that will decide if the actions of someone confronting them with lethal force was in the right to do so.

If someone is simply process-killing a mass of people, it might be reasonable for someone responding to assume that when he walks out of the door, he's just looking for another set of victims. If someone just held up a store, stole money, and left without firing a shot, it's probably NOT reasonable to assume he's a lethal threat to anybody at that point, so a lethal force response might be considered unlawful.



In the case we have at hand, we don't have any indication that the bad guy was doing anything further to threaten anyone until the guy who shot him yelled out to him. The exact details of who did what right then would matter massively.

 

[danez71]

Maybe "Drop the gun"

Ok, maybe. But so what? I'd expect the next thing that would happen is that the armed robber would shoot me. And my lawful authority to issue that command (or enforce it with lethal force) is questionable.

This seems a bit far out there, IMO.

Is there any thing that you can point to that suggests "Drop the gun" prompts or is the catalyst for the BG's to shoot? That has never been the case in any video footage Ive seen. Ive never even heard of that theory before.

Has ANY one even been charged with saying "Drop the gun"?

Heck, is there anything you can point to that telling someone to "drop the gun" is a questionable lawfully?

"I have called 911"

Why would anybody yell that to someone LEAVING a robbery scene? What possible good would that do?

To inform the BG that he will be facing more than just me if he hangs around.

Think about it... BG left the building. And he may have appeared to be leaving the property. But you don't know that's what he's going to continue to go.


Your questions seem to indicate that you would suggest to people to not do that.

That it'd be better to let a midnight intruder possibly stumble upon you hiding in a closet waiting for 911 to arrive than to yell out 'Ive got a gun and Ive called 911' before the intruder finds you and before 911 actually gets there.

That if said intruder merely appears to be walking down the stairs or towards an exterior door, the resident should just continue to hide and hopes the BG doesn't turn around to look for more io whatever they've come for


It seems that this basic scenario has been discussed in ST&T here and its been suggested to 'yell out that 911 has been called'.

 

[Kleanbore]

Just curious about something. There's been alot of talk about there being no justification for shooting the badguy based on what he might later do (and fair enough), but say the guy with the AK had shot nearly everyone in the restaurant, but for our armed citizen, and then the armed citizen follows him outside and everything plays out the same ?
Is there now a reasonable assumption of further lethal crimes ? Or would the armed citizen (arguably) still be legally in the wrong (as has been stated here, based on what we know)?
Or would the fact that mass murder has just taken place change all this ?

That's obviously an entirely different scenario.

Yes, a mass murder just having taken place would influence things. In my opinion, a "reasonable assumption of further lethal crimes" would not by itself change anything.

It might be enlightening to look at when police would be allowed fire at a fleeing felon. Generally speaking, deadly force may be lawfully used by police officers if and only if the officers have probable cause to believe that an escaping felon poses an immediate danger to themselves or others and that deadly force is the only way to safely mitigate that danger.

That is a layman's summarization of what came out of Garner v. Tennessee (SCOTUS, 1985).

Laws vary by jurisdiction, but in general, if a person has just witnessed a particularly heinous crime and the fleeing felon is armed, and if there is reason to believe that the felon poses an immediate threat to that person or to others, deadly once might be justified.

For a little historical perspective, it was justified at common law for police to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon until the Garner v. Tennessee decision. But think about it: in early days, felonies were punishable by the death penalty, and once the felon had reached the edge of the forest, he was as good as gone.

An armed robbery in a Waffle House would not be punishable by the death penalty in Texas. And today, the robber would almost certainly have been captured.

In Texas, as I understand it, a citizen may only use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon if he is assisting and acting under the direction of a law enforcement officer.

 

[danez71]

I'd like to flip the conversation a bit.


So far we have comments that convey a message of:

• Don't leave the building to try to get a better look at the guy to be a good witness because the BG may think you're following him and shoot you. And the cops may accuse you of initiating an armed confrontation.
  
• Don't say anything to the BG, that also may warn others, because that might upset the bad guy and he may shoot you or others. And the cops may accuse you of initiating an armed confrontation.
  
• If BG starts shooting because you said anything or left the building, you may be liable because you initiated an armed confrontation.
  
• Don't tell anyone to do anything because the lawful authority is questionable. (I guess barricading the door is off limits too as you don't have the lawful authority to deny the BG from entering again and you likely don't have legal permission from the property owner to do it.

It seems that some people are stretching things so much to say that anything and everything to convey a message that other than calling 911, you should do nothing but sit there, don't try to prevent anything more from happening, and continue to be target because you might get in trouble.


The direction the thread is being steered towards,,,, THR might as well just shut down the ST&T section because it can be summed up as: Cant do anything because you could provoke the BG's to shoot you & you'll be blamed for causing the shooting, & incurr liability if the BG shoots someone else.




So I'd like to hear from those on what they suggest to do beside sit there and do nothing after calling 911.

I'm pretty sure that almost all, or maybe all, of the suggestions presented I'll be able to use quotes from this thread as to why you shouldn't.

 

[Sam1911]

Maybe "Drop the gun"

Ok, maybe. But so what? I'd expect the next thing that would happen is that the armed robber would shoot me. And my lawful authority to issue that command (or enforce it with lethal force) is questionable.

This seems a bit far out there, IMO.

Is there any thing that you can point to that suggests "Drop the gun" prompts or is the catalyst for the BG's to shoot? That has never been the case in any video footage Ive seen. Ive never even heard of that theory before.

Hold on. So the picture is an armed criminal leaving the scene of a robbery, and someone appears in the parking lot (it seems, with his own gun drawn, though we don't know for sure) and yells "drop the gun," and you're suggesting that it is unheard of -- not even to say EXPECTED -- that he's going to respond with his own weapon? What are you watching where the bad guy usually says, "Oh, ok, sure. No problem. I'll just drop my gun now. Thanks for the suggestion?"

Has ANY one even been charged with saying "Drop the gun"?

Heck, is there anything you can point to that telling someone to "drop the gun" is a questionable lawfully?

What? Charged with?
You can say anything you want. You can YELL anything you want. What you cannot, generally, do is force someone to comply with your order at gunpoint.

Can he do so as part of a "citizens' arrest" sort of covering under TX law? That's really up to the DA to decide.

"I have called 911"

Why would anybody yell that to someone LEAVING a robbery scene? What possible good would that do?

To inform the BG that he will be facing more than just me if he hangs around.

Think about it... BG left the building. And he may have appeared to be leaving the property. But you don't know that's what he's going to continue to go.

Ok. So I guess if you felt that he didn't have enough incentive to take the money and run, and it wasn't a pure given that if he just held up a restaurant with a rifle that a half dozen calls were already made to 911 about it, I guess you could go ahead and yell that at him to make SURE he knew someone had called the cops. Seems like kind of a "well, DUH!" thing to yell, though.

[Robber]"WHAT? Called the cops? Ho-lee-cow! I never thought anyone would do THAT! Man, they've done called the cops on me! I'd better get my butt outta here! Huh, called the dang cops! I guess I'm in a heap o' trouble now! Man, the nerve of some people!..."[/Robber]

Your questions seem to indicate that you would suggest to people to not do that.

I don't really see any compelling reason to call out to someone who's leaving an armed robbery, still carrying a rifle, no. Tactically horrible and legally either unnecessary or unsound.

That it'd be better to let a midnight intruder possibly stumble upon you hiding in a closet waiting for 911 to arrive than to yell out 'Ive got a gun and Ive called 911' before the intruder finds you and before 911 actually gets there.

Are you reading the same account that I read? That doesn't sound anything like the scenario we're discussing.

Please go back and make sure you understand what (we know of) that happened so we're on the same page.

I did not say that it NEVER makes sense to yell something at a potential attacker in SOME situations. Just not in this actual one that we're talking about right now.

That if said intruder merely appears to be walking down the stairs or towards an exterior door, the resident should just continue to hide and hopes the BG doesn't turn around to look for more io whatever they've come for

Ditto. Check the actual event and modify your line of argument so it applies to this case, please.

It seems that this basic scenario has been discussed in ST&T here and its been suggested to 'yell out that 911 has been called'.

Only if you didn't read the account of this actual event, would that argument make sense.

Nobody in the history of ST&T has ever said, "Follow an armed robber outside after he's leaving and yell at him ... anything at all."

 

[Old Dog]

Danez71, I find myself somewhat in agreement with you. Some here apparently feel that the sole reason to arm themselves is self-defense, and perhaps defense of family.

At some point beyond this, though, there are those who seem to feel responsible for also taking back their communities. As our lead actor's actions demonstrated, this is a big risk, both physically and legally -- he's prevailed in the physical risk component though the legal aspect's conclusion remains to be seen.

But, life is about risks.

I said before:

We see that the moderators are taking over this thread in an attempt to display that those on this board are constantly pondering the responsibilities and tactics required of lawfully armed citizens ... We get that the moderators want this forum to present itself as composed of intelligent, cautious and duly law-abiding citizens ... We get that none of us (presumably) want to portray ourselves as possessed of a Rambo complex, wannabe cops or reckless vigilantes ...

I think the point was made long ago, yet some keep on truckin' ... We understand the need to portray this firearms forum as composed of responsible, thoughtful law-abiding citizens and I see no one here who's engaged in the Rambo-ish chest-thumping, so can the discussions continue without the need to dissect and respond to every single statement? It's not as though the discussion has not been civil or gotten out of hand, and no one expects agreement across the board, but geez, it's starting to appear as though Danez71 is correct in his assessment of the major thesis points so far ...

I submit that every citizen has the absolute right to do everything within the law to counter the actions of those who violate the law -- and I'm not advocating vigilantism no matter how Sam1911 wants to interpret my comments, but sometimes, someone has to step up and go above and beyond, rather than cowering in a bathroom dialing 911 or texting family members that "a man has a gun" -- that worked out so well in Pulse.

 

[Sam1911]

So far we have comments that convey a message of:

[*]Don't leave the building to try to get a better look at the guy to be a good witness because the BG may think you're following him and shoot you. And the cops may accuse you of initiating an armed confrontation.

Nobody said that. In fact, Kleanbore gave an exact and clear description of how one might do just that, sensibly and with an eye toward not being shot.

But yeah, avoiding getting into a gunfight with someone is FANTASTIC advice.

[*]Don't say anything to the BG, that also may warn others, because that might upset the bad guy and he may shoot you or others. And the cops may accuse you of initiating an armed confrontation.

You're conflating some things here. If you force a confrontation and you or someone else ends up shot and/or killed, that was not a good choice. Nobody has provided any evidence he was yelling to warn others, at all. In fact, that's not even what the original report said. It said he yelled out to the departing robber, prompting him to raise his rifle and (one assumes) attempt to kill the CCW guy.

Maybe the CCW guy suffers from deep depression and wanted to "go out" a hero. Otherwise, I'm not sure what one would expect to earn for themselves by yelling at a real bad guy, with a rifle, who's just committed a felony.

[*]If BG starts shooting because you said anything or left the building, you may be liable because you initiated an armed confrontation.

If you instigate a gunfight where one was not forced upon you, your own legal defense may be questionable.

[*]Don't tell anyone to do anything because the lawful authority is questionable.

Seems like a silly reach to try and paint good advice as absurd by stretching it completely out of proportion.

But answer this: What lawful authority does someone have to order someone else to do anything, including "drop the gun?" And, while you can indeed SAY that to someone, what lawful authority do you have to threaten them with a weapon or shoot them if they do not comply with your order?

If you are a police officer you do have certain authority to give lawful orders of that sort. If you are a citizen making a citizen's arrest, you may. Otherwise, none.

(I guess barricading the door is off limits too as you don't have the lawful authority to deny the BG from entering again and you likely don't have legal permission from the property owner to do it.

If you want your questions to be taken seriously, please don't use absurd hyperbole to back up your points. Barricading a door is not using lethal force against someone. There is a big difference.

It seems that some people are stretching things so much to say that anything and everything to convey a message that other than calling 911, you should do nothing but sit there, don't try to prevent anything more from happening, and continue to be target because you might get in trouble.

That's not really a sentence, but I'll try to answer.

We're trying to discuss the law and how it works. And to discuss tactical decisions made in the actual situation as it really happened (so far as we know). You're bringing up things that DIDN'T happen, and making exaggerated statement because apparently you don't like the suggestions we've made, but that doesn't really support any counterpoint at all.

The direction the thread is being steered towards,,,, THR might as well just shut down the ST&T section because it can be summed up as: Cant do anything because you could provoke the BG's to shoot you & you'll be blamed for causing the shooting, & incurr liability if the BG shoots someone else.

If that's all you can comprehend out of all the words written here in this thread, I am very sorry. We have failed you.

So I'd like to hear from those on what they suggest to do beside sit there and do nothing after calling 911.

If the bad man with the rifle has left the restaurant, why would you do ANYTHING but dial 911? You aren't facing a threat anymore. No-one else in the room is facing a lethal threat. Make sure the cops are on the way and say prayers of thanks that nobody died. That's QUITE enough.



(There's some window there to wonder about the guy's motives regarding his wife who was somewhere or soon to be somewhere, but since we don't really know anything concrete about that, speculation is pointless.)

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I'd like to flip the conversation a bit.


So far we have comments that convey a message of:

• Don't leave the building to try to get a better look at the guy to be a good witness because the BG may think you're following him and shoot you. And the cops may accuse you of initiating an armed confrontation.
  
• Don't say anything to the BG, that also may warn others, because that might upset the bad guy and he may shoot you or others. And the cops may accuse you of initiating an armed confrontation.
  
• If BG starts shooting because you said anything or left the building, you may be liable because you initiated an armed confrontation.
  
• Don't tell anyone to do anything because the lawful authority is questionable. (I guess barricading the door is off limits too as you don't have the lawful authority to deny the BG from entering again and you likely don't have legal permission from the property owner to do it.

It seems that some people are stretching things so much to say that anything and everything to convey a message that other than calling 911, you should do nothing but sit there, don't try to prevent anything more from happening, and continue to be target because you might get in trouble.


The direction the thread is being steered towards,,,, THR might as well just shut down the ST&T section because it can be summed up as: Cant do anything because you could provoke the BG's to shoot you & you'll be blamed for causing the shooting, & incurr liability if the BG shoots someone else.




So I'd like to hear from those on what they suggest to do beside sit there and do nothing after calling 911.

I'm pretty sure that almost all, or maybe all, of the suggestions presented I'll be able to use quotes from this thread as to why you shouldn't.

Hmmm...back the truck up here.

What I (and some other people) are saying isn't "don't do this" or "don't do that".

What we're really saying is "don't do this WITHOUT understanding what you're getting into legally". (Or what danger you may be placing yourself or others in.)


There are plenty of people who will, I'm sure, say "I'm NOT going to debate the legal merits of every possible act when my life, or the life of my family, is in danger!"

Actually...you'd better. The law REQUIRES that each of us understand what deadly force is and when it may or may not be used. Whether we choose to understand this or not, the law WILL hold us accountable for it. Nobody is saying that you have to have some kind of committee debate on this...but we each need to be able to make that intelligent decision in a timely fashion.


We can make general statements all the time...but we all need to evaluate such circumstances on the fly, with the real-life information at hand, and make the best decision we can based on the law and our training.

THAT is what each and every one of us MUST do whenever we consider using deadly force of any kind, at any time.


A huge part of this is education and training. Knowing not only what the law SAYS, but also what it MEANS. Being able to work our way though various scenarios BEFORE life throws us something we have to use our education and training on.


In general, it can be said that when the bad guy disengages and leaves, the need to utilize deadly force has legally ended. In real life, however, some circumstances may dictate that deadly force may still be legally authorized IF certain wickets exist.

Use your brain and don't lock yourself into one loop or another. THAT is what's important.