Thermactor, your OP was fine, but the tenor of some of the responses had become somewhat questionable. Sorry for the imprecision of my comment.
"When Can I Shoot"
- Thread starter Kleanbore
- Start date
- Status
"When can I shoot" is not a question I would let anyone else answer for me. I'm the only one that will have to live with my actions, or lack thereof.
Last edited:
The same as "when is is love." When the time comes, you just know. For me, I hope it remains an academic discussion only.
There is an old joke whereas a guy asks a lawyer why a person could not just read the law themselves and cutoff the middleman (lawyer). The lawyer tells the guy that you go through three years law school and take a bar exam so as to answer clients who have questions about the law with "It depends".
There is a fact pattern in every use of force that must be combined with statutory and case law to reach that hypothetical lawyer's answer. It is one of those questions that can endlessly be argued from either an ethical viewpoint or what might be deemed to meet the legal requirements.
Simply put, the results are indeterminate unless one has a specific fact pattern and a specific jurisdiction's laws.
There is a fact pattern in every use of force that must be combined with statutory and case law to reach that hypothetical lawyer's answer. It is one of those questions that can endlessly be argued from either an ethical viewpoint or what might be deemed to meet the legal requirements.
Simply put, the results are indeterminate unless one has a specific fact pattern and a specific jurisdiction's laws.
If one wants to read a serious but dense legal text (it is expensive):
Killing in Self-Defense by Leverick.
Bottom line is - to prevent grievous bodily harm.
I will opine outrageously (and after many classes), there are two groups asking this question:
1. Folks worried about the legal risks if one shoots and the moral implications.
2. Folks who want to shoot someone in fantasy and want to discuss what a good idea it is and how to skate if you do it.
Killing in Self-Defense by Leverick.
Bottom line is - to prevent grievous bodily harm.
I will opine outrageously (and after many classes), there are two groups asking this question:
1. Folks worried about the legal risks if one shoots and the moral implications.
2. Folks who want to shoot someone in fantasy and want to discuss what a good idea it is and how to skate if you do it.
mljdeckard
Member
I absolutely concur with the OP. I teach my concealed carry students that this is the wrong way to look at it.
Absolutely right. You only shoot when you HAVE to shoot -- that is, when failing to shoot would cost you your life.
If it ain't worth dying for it ain't worth fighting for is my simple determination. I do know some states allow property to be defended with lethal force. I wouldn't. I would rather let my insurance company take care of it.
Funny thing is, it needs to be asked for people to understand why it's a bad question, so in a round-about way, it's a good question to ask.
I concur with your sentiments that it's the wrong question and if you have to ask it, the answer is no, but asking it (here on a forum, with friends, anytime other than right when you may need to shoot, etc) does give the opportunity for people to understand and learn what the right questions are.
My CCW instructor made this very clear. NOBODY can give you advance permission to shoot. You WILL have to get retroactive permission after you have fired.
The simple fact is the exact same scenario could take place on a Monday or on a Tuesday, and you could have two different legal outcomes for yourself. There are no lists of circumstances under which you can shoot. It's a matter of asking yourself if you can get permission from the authorites after you've done it.
The simple fact is the exact same scenario could take place on a Monday or on a Tuesday, and you could have two different legal outcomes for yourself. There are no lists of circumstances under which you can shoot. It's a matter of asking yourself if you can get permission from the authorites after you've done it.
A couple of years ago, I went to a seminar put on by Rob Pincus. He said something that has really stuck with me. I don't remember the exact phrasing, but it went something like this: "You shouldn't be asking if you can shoot. You should be asking if you have to."
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Hmmm...I think I'll combine a few things here:
"You shouldn't be asking if you can shoot. You should be asking if you have to. Because this is what you will be judged on."
"You shouldn't be asking if you can shoot. You should be asking if you have to. Because this is what you will be judged on."
And yet it's one of the first things taught in CCW classes
There's no such thing as a "bad question" when a lot depends on knowing the answer
People aren't asking for permission to shoot, but rather when is it legal to shoot
Some are trying to determine when they can legally shoot, but too many are asking about when they can shoot as if they want a recipe for how to legally kill someone.
The point is that legal deadly force is a last-ditch option, something you do when there's really nothing else that can save a life. You don't really need to ask when it's ok to shoot, when you need to shoot, you'll have no doubt in your mind that it's the thing to do.
That doesn't mean we don't need to understand the laws. It's important to insure that our plans, tactics and training are based on a solid legal foundation and also to insure that what we say and do before and after a shooting doesn't create the appearance of guilt/culpability where none exists.
The point is that legal deadly force is a last-ditch option, something you do when there's really nothing else that can save a life. You don't really need to ask when it's ok to shoot, when you need to shoot, you'll have no doubt in your mind that it's the thing to do.
That doesn't mean we don't need to understand the laws. It's important to insure that our plans, tactics and training are based on a solid legal foundation and also to insure that what we say and do before and after a shooting doesn't create the appearance of guilt/culpability where none exists.
Posted by Snyper:
Should that not answer the question with sufficient clarity, the answer is "when there is a basis for a reasonable belief that shooing is immediately necessary (no other choice) to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm".
Yes, some states speak of prevention of felonies, but a little research shows that virtually all felonies in that context involve a very high risk of death or serous injury.
And there's Texas and property, but again, the answer is unless it is necessary, don't do it. Might be legal, but very rarely worth it.
John put it better:
To rephrase Rob Pincus' comment, if they have to ask, it is almost certainly not legal.
Should that not answer the question with sufficient clarity, the answer is "when there is a basis for a reasonable belief that shooing is immediately necessary (no other choice) to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm".
Yes, some states speak of prevention of felonies, but a little research shows that virtually all felonies in that context involve a very high risk of death or serous injury.
And there's Texas and property, but again, the answer is unless it is necessary, don't do it. Might be legal, but very rarely worth it.
John put it better:
I find it very interesting that for some people, the merit of this question is being clouded by their own wisdom. Did they not ever ask this question? Did they not learn anything from asking that question? We are all concern (or we should be) about the legality of our actions and the consequences they may lead to. When the average person asks this question, they simply want to know the ground rules. Can I shoot if they are retreating? Can I shoot if I can safely retreat? Can I shoot if I'm a third party? And the list goes on. Now, many of the scenarios cannot be simply answered with a yes or no, and many will differ depending on the locality, but they are legitimate and deserve consideration if only to reinforce a proper mindset. How many people haven't asked this question, only to end up in prison because "...when you need to shoot, you'll have no doubt in your mind that it's the thing to do." I'm sure Markus Kaarma and Byron Smith didn't have any doubt in their mind.
I agree, mostly. For those with little or no training or experience it is a valid question that should be addressed appropriately. Answering the question with some not really that clever catchphrase to sell books or training doesn't cut it.
Last edited:
+1
I get asked this question all the time by friends and family new to the world of guns, who simply want to know what the bounds are. Now, I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert in the field of self defense tactics or laws nor do I claim to have all the answers, but I am knowledgeable enough to give the basics (for my locality) and point them in the right direction. How did I get this knowledge? By asking those same questions when I didn't know.
This is huge. There are too many experts that believe they have the right answer because they read a book, or attended a class. To my knowledge, we have very few qualified instructors here, and even fewer attorneys. Even those individuals will likely, or should admit that they are not an expert on the laws of all 50 states. The question is a valid one, and one that should be asked, and answered appropriately by those that are new to this, and even those with experience.
Posted by NoVA Shooter:
Let's go back a bit. When I took a CCW class, those were the questions, and there were many more. I studied the subject extensively, and I mulled over an imaginary decision tree in my mind. Unfortunaately, the subject gets extremely complicated extremely quickly. And also unfortunately, it usually becomes a matter in which many people, certainly without malice, find themselves trying to map out the "safe lanes" of justification. Considering the seriousness of the issue and the split second timing of the related decisions, we really do need simplification.
Some time back, firearms instructor David Armstrong was a frequent contributor on another board. His sig line was something very much like "the question is not 'when can you shoot'; it is 'do you have to shoot?' ".
That takes us to my comment and that of Rob Pincus, or if you prefer, to the way JohnKSa put it: "The point is that legal deadly force is a last-ditch option, something you do when there's really nothing else that can save a life. You don't really need to ask when it's ok to shoot, when you need to shoot, you'll have no doubt in your mind that it's the thing to do."
Now, all of those slightly different ways are putting it are based on one simple underlying assumption: that the person withe the gun is without fault and did not in any way instigate the situation. I should hope that that would go without question.
Now, let's take your specific questions and put against that simple construct:
Let's look at that last one in detail.
I know a former police officer with too many years of courtroom experience in involving civil trials who, knowing that he is no longer indemnified by the community, says that the the only time his gun will come out is when he is about to die.
Let's first look at the legalities from the standpoint of criminal law.
In some states, one may use lawfully deadly force only to defend persons who are connected to the defender in certain specified ways.
In at least one state, one may lawfully use deadly force only if the third person had in fact been lawfully justified to use deadly force to defend himself, regardless of what the defender believed at the time. That was for years the general rule.
In most states today, one may lawfully use deadly force when there is reason to believe that it is immediately necessary to do so to defend a third person agents an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and the defender has reason to believe that the third person would be lawfully justified to use deadly force to defend himself.
That lawful justification would relate to questions about whether the third person had instigated the confrontation; had been committing a crime; or had been engaged in mutual combat.
It does get complicated, and there is also the civil side, with its much lower standard of proof.
My rule? if I know the apparent victim very well and am aware of what is going on, or if I know everything that led up to the situation, I'll do what I can.
Your points are very well taken. I hope I have done them justice.
Yes, of course we are. And those are indeed very good questions.
Let's go back a bit. When I took a CCW class, those were the questions, and there were many more. I studied the subject extensively, and I mulled over an imaginary decision tree in my mind. Unfortunaately, the subject gets extremely complicated extremely quickly. And also unfortunately, it usually becomes a matter in which many people, certainly without malice, find themselves trying to map out the "safe lanes" of justification. Considering the seriousness of the issue and the split second timing of the related decisions, we really do need simplification.
Some time back, firearms instructor David Armstrong was a frequent contributor on another board. His sig line was something very much like "the question is not 'when can you shoot'; it is 'do you have to shoot?' ".
That takes us to my comment and that of Rob Pincus, or if you prefer, to the way JohnKSa put it: "The point is that legal deadly force is a last-ditch option, something you do when there's really nothing else that can save a life. You don't really need to ask when it's ok to shoot, when you need to shoot, you'll have no doubt in your mind that it's the thing to do."
Now, all of those slightly different ways are putting it are based on one simple underlying assumption: that the person withe the gun is without fault and did not in any way instigate the situation. I should hope that that would go without question.
Now, let's take your specific questions and put against that simple construct:
- Can I shoot if they are retreating? Just ask yourself if it is necessary.
- Can I shoot if I can safely retreat? That's a little tougher; in some states you do not have to present evidence showing that you reasonably believed at the time that safe retreat had not been possible, and in some, you do. But unless you can present sufficient other evidence supporting justification, your having attempted retreat could be your only ticket to freedom. But of course, if retreat would have meant abandoning family, the answer goes right back to what John said.
- Can I shoot if I'm a third party? You got me!
Let's look at that last one in detail.
I know a former police officer with too many years of courtroom experience in involving civil trials who, knowing that he is no longer indemnified by the community, says that the the only time his gun will come out is when he is about to die.
Let's first look at the legalities from the standpoint of criminal law.
In some states, one may use lawfully deadly force only to defend persons who are connected to the defender in certain specified ways.
In at least one state, one may lawfully use deadly force only if the third person had in fact been lawfully justified to use deadly force to defend himself, regardless of what the defender believed at the time. That was for years the general rule.
In most states today, one may lawfully use deadly force when there is reason to believe that it is immediately necessary to do so to defend a third person agents an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and the defender has reason to believe that the third person would be lawfully justified to use deadly force to defend himself.
That lawful justification would relate to questions about whether the third person had instigated the confrontation; had been committing a crime; or had been engaged in mutual combat.
It does get complicated, and there is also the civil side, with its much lower standard of proof.
My rule? if I know the apparent victim very well and am aware of what is going on, or if I know everything that led up to the situation, I'll do what I can.
Your points are very well taken. I hope I have done them justice.
This discussion is raising a lot of questions in my mind.
California Penal Code Sec 198.5 says:
198.5. 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 occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.
So if someone broke into a house and the homeowner waited in the bedroom and shot the intruder when the bedroom door opened, are you saying the homeowner could still be considered to be in the wrong? Does physical disparity between the homeowner and the intruder count for anything?
California Penal Code Sec 198.5 says:
198.5. 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 occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant or substantial physical injury.
So if someone broke into a house and the homeowner waited in the bedroom and shot the intruder when the bedroom door opened, are you saying the homeowner could still be considered to be in the wrong? Does physical disparity between the homeowner and the intruder count for anything?
Sec. 198.5 is a form of a Castle Doctrine law. These laws make it easier for someone whose home has been broken into to establish a threshold requirement to justify the use of lethal force, fear of death. We discussed Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground laws here: Duty to Retreat, "Stand Your Ground", and Castle Doctrine.old lady new shooter said:
If you are relying on 198.5, you will need to put on evidence that you, "...knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
You want to do several things in the aftermath of a shooting:
1. Contact the police if you haven't already.
2. Take life-saving measures on the bad guy (Clear the airway, stop the bleeding, etc.)
3. Contact your lawyer.
4. Make sure the police know you were scared sh*tless.
5. Make no further statement until your lawyer arrives.
1. Contact the police if you haven't already.
2. Take life-saving measures on the bad guy (Clear the airway, stop the bleeding, etc.)
3. Contact your lawyer.
4. Make sure the police know you were scared sh*tless.
5. Make no further statement until your lawyer arrives.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
