Posted by
NoVA Shooter:
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?
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.