When do you draw? What's worth (gun)fighting for?

[Cannonball888]

I wouldn't draw in scenario one unless

1) I sensed he was going to shoot me anyway after forfeiting the car

OR

2) I could buy time with either a distraction, his muzzle swept off line, or establishing cover between me and him

 

[Th3_M4d_1r1shm4n]

So, here's a question that's itching in the back of my mind: duty to retreat.

I know here in CO, you have a duty to retreat unless you're in your own dwelling (18-1-704.5). Then again, in Scenario 1 the guy is already leveling a sidearm at you, so he's obviously not out collecting for UNICEF. So, in this sort of scenario, which law trumps which: do you have to oblige the duty-to-retreat, or would you be justified in shooting your assailant in self-defense, since there is an obvious threat to your own life (18-1-704)? Additionally, in 18-1-706, it says:

<quote># Use of physical force in defense of property.
A person is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the other person to commit theft, criminal mischief, or criminal tampering involving property, but he may use deadly physical force under these circumstances only in defense of himself or another as described in section 18-1-704.</quote>.

Reading that, it seems like if you shoot someone trying to violently car-jack you, you'd be justified...except for the fact that in CO, you have a duty to retreat unless you're in your home.

Sooo... tl;dr - does duty-to-retreat extend to your car, I guess is what I'm really wondering about. Yeah, the guy has a gun, but legally, wouldn't you also be required to retreat if at all possible (which could be argued as getting out of the car and handing it over). The legal stuff is such a headache...

 

[rainbowbob]

...wouldn't you also be required to retreat if at all possible (which could be argued as getting out of the car and handing it over)?

There is a BIG difference between "retreat" and "surrender".

Retreat is only feasible and advisable if it effectively allows you to avoid surrender.

Surrender means you allow the violent psychopath to decide what happens next.

 

[scottgun]

Reading that, it seems like if you shoot someone trying to violently car-jack you, you'd be justified...except for the fact that in CO, you have a duty to retreat unless you're in your home.

Any citations for duty to retreat in Colorado? I don't believe that there is any language in the law requiring a duty to retreat.

I will do anything in my power to remove myself from the situation before deploying lethal force. But that doesn't necessarily mean giving up my car or wallet.

Sooo... tl;dr - does duty-to-retreat extend to your car, I guess is what I'm really wondering about. Yeah, the guy has a gun, but legally, wouldn't you also be required to retreat if at all possible (which could be argued as getting out of the car and handing it over). The legal stuff is such a headache...

The reasonable person would believe that they are secure in their property and possessions, so any person attempting to take my possessions with the threat of force would get a defense of deadly force in return.

 

[Seattleimport]

However, what makes you think the carjacker won't kill you?

The fact that he hasn't killed me yet. It's a lot quicker and easier to shoot the victim and grab his keys. The fact that he's taking the time to present himself and ask for the keys tells me "shoot the victim" is not at the top of his priority list. His reason for that--whether he doesn't want to kill, doesn't want immediate attention, or doesn't want the heat from a murder--isn't important.

I realize that's assigning rational thought to a potentially irrational entity. So, potentially very false conclusion. After all, the first rule of game theory is to assume all actors will act rationally in the furtherance of their own self-interests.

Anyway, here's how I see it:
Criminal -- wants the car. Doesn't want attention, or trouble from the cops.
Me -- wants to survive. Doesn't care about the car, at all (that's what insurance is for).

If I give up the keys, the criminal gets what he wants (the car) and doesn't get what he doesn't want (attention from loud BANG!, and heat from a murder investigation). I've got evidence that the criminal doesn't want to kill me because he's pointing a gun at me, and I'm not already dead.

So the rational decision is to give up what I don't value (the car) to preserve what I do value (my life), in the hopes that when the criminal gets what he wants (the car) he'll drive away without getting what he doesn't want (attention, heat).

It is an irrational decision to pull a gun, because it starts a gunfight and therefore jeopardizes what I do value (my life) in order to defend what I don't value (the car).

Make sense? Again, the fact that this guy is taking something from me is irrelevant. I don't have an ego, and I don't care about the car at all. All that matters is my life.

-SI

PS: yes, if the car wasn't covered by insurance or if I needed it for some purpose, the story might change. But it *is* covered by insurance, and I don't need it for work/family. All it is is a fancy object--which can be replaced by filling out a few forms.

 

[Gordon]

I'll manuever, present and fire if I see a weapon brandished and fear for my life-condition red.
I won't brandish in condition orange unless I fear for my life, unless in a place where I won't be penalized for brandishing, in which case I will present in low ready.I will take defensive actions other than brandishing .
At 63 YO I really am not concerned about "losing" the gunfight if I gave it a good go and "looked good" on the way out!

 

[indoorsoccerfrea]

The fact that he hasn't killed me yet. It's a lot quicker and easier to shoot the victim and grab his keys. The fact that he's taking the time to present himself and ask for the keys tells me "shoot the victim" is not at the top of his priority list. His reason for that--whether he doesn't want to kill, doesn't want immediate attention, or doesn't want the heat from a murder--isn't important.

or maybe he doesnt want to get your blood all over your, i mean his, new leather interior

not to mention that trying to apply rational thought to psychopaths is...well...psycho

 

[Kleanbore]

The reasonable person would believe that they are secure in their property and possessions, so any person attempting to take my possessions with the threat of force would get a defense of deadly force in return.

Scottgun, I see you are from Colorado. Check the law there. You may use force to protect property, but not deadly force.

Exceptions include your home when you are in it (better check the prerequisites for using deadly force) and, I think, other occupied structures when it is necessary to prevent arson.

You may defend yourself against imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm when you are not in your home. However, the Colorado statutes do not include a specific "no duty to retreat" provision except within the home.

Do not take any of the above as legal advice, and consult a trial attorney knowledgeable of the law and case law.

 

[danprkr]

I had never believed in shooting to protect property, but then I heard a radio talk show put it thus (paraphrased):

Everything you own costs you money for which you exchanged A PIECE OF YOUR LIFE! Now the line becomes how much of your life are you willing to give away to avoid the hassle of a shooting? A .79 pen that cost you 3 seconds of your life, "No." A $30,000.00 car that costs you (or sadly at least me) 2 years of your life, "Yes."

I of course am also the type of person who gets morally outraged over the theft of the .79 pen, but also having been in 3 shoot/no shoot situations - one of which tactically I should have pulled the trigger but didn't. I can say you never know until you've been there. It happens very fast, and afterwords you'll have 83 people 2nd guessing you. If you've pulled the trigger some of those people will have the power to incarcerate you so make certain you're either within the law of your jurisdiction, or willing to pay the price (both mentally and physically) for your moral outrage.

Just some things to ponder.

 

[Mags]

You draw when you have made the decision to take someone's life I would never make my gun visible if I was not prepared to use it. So the question you have to ask yourself is not when to draw but when are you ready to take another living human's life. What is life worth to you. Who cares about legality if you are in a life threatening situation when you draw the two possible outcomes are you kill the bad guy and you go to jail or you don't. If your life is threatened and you do not draw there is normally one outcome you die.

 

[rainbowbob]

seattleimport wrote:I realize that's assigning rational thought to a potentially irrational entity.

Yes, but you continue to do so in your analysis.

I realize you are trying to work the odds here, and you've decided the odds are good he will behave rationally and in his best interests as you perceive them.

Maybe...but I have no confidence in the rationality of someone who is so depraved he would threaten me with lethal force to obtain my possessions.

Nevertheless, you've decided the you like your chances better with that approach.

Each to his own devices I guess.

If I'm in the car with the engine running, I prefer the odds of hitting the gas and using the car as a weapon and escape.

If I'm not in the car yet, I prefer the odds of moving off the X while drawing and firing.

Have you ever tried to hit a moving target that you didn't expect to move and that is shooting back?

Me either...but I hear it aint easy! So I think I'll take my chances with that. I'll only know for sure if it happens.

All of the above will be greatly enhanced by sharp observation of everything around you before you focus on keys, door locks, ignition, etc. Starting the engine and being ready to put it in gear immediately upon entering the vehicle (some cars also lock automatically when you do) is also a very good a habit to get into. I learned those things recently.

 

[TravisB]

Immorality and irrationality are not the same thing.

There's no reason to believe that a car thief is a "psychopath" or is otherwise out of touch with reality. He's not a mass murderer on a doomed rampage -- he's a guy with future plans. He wants your car and as little legal trouble as possible in that future.

Give it to him.

 

[rainbowbob]

There's no reason to believe that a car thief is a "psychopath" ...

The term "psychopath" doesn't refer to a person who is "psychotic" (i.e., out of touch with reality).

The following is a pretty good definition:

A person with a personality disorder indicated by a pattern of lying, exploitiveness, heedlessness, arrogance, sexual promiscuity, low self-control, and lack of empathy and remorse. Such an individual may be especially prone to violent and criminal offenses. A person who has no moral conscience.

Anything in there give you confidence you won't be casually injured or killed if it happens to suit your assailant's whim?

...he's a guy with future plans. He wants your car and as little legal trouble as possible in that future.

Give it to him.

Well, sure. I wouldn't want to interfere with his future plans.

 

[Oyeboten]

Armed Robbery, or Robbery with threat to Life however so, is not a crime against 'property', it is a crime against persons.

 

[moooose102]

1st case, given that he already has the drop on you, and if you do something stupid, you will be laying in the morgue in a few hours, you are limited to a point where he is distracted long enough to not notice what you are doing. you should have been more attentive in the first place, but sometimes, stuff happens. you just have to wait for him/her to make a mistake, and capitolize on it. unless, you can find a way to get him distracted.

2nd case, if your "radar" is going off, you need to get ready to defend yourself NOW! draw when you have no options left. if you can find a way to get out of the situation, DO IT! if you are between a rock and a hard place, and your life (or your loved ones) is threatened, you simply have no choice. do what you have to do to stay alive. just remember, you will be judged on your actions, and may have to defend your actions in a court. so be certain that you have to use deadly force. or you could be in jail with his brother!

 

[23Glock]

If it’s not worth dieing for, it’s not worth killing for. If I could give up my car knowing it would save my life, here’s the keys, have fun. A car, even if uninsured, costs way less to replace than the cost of the criminal and civil liabilities associated with the use of deadly force. If you don’t understand those implications, take a class or read a book.
Now, scenario #1 – gun in the face. This is a problem, mostly because you were obviously driving around in Condition White, totally unaware of what was going on. That was your first mistake (could be your last). However, this happens, so now how do you respond if you find yourself in this situation? Deescalate if possible and extricate yourself from the car – give it to him if you can and move to cover. He’s already inside your decision cycle so all you can do is react. You simple can’t draw fast enough if he’s at bad breath distance. If you feel the threat of violence is imminent, well, you have to find an out…now. This situation is highly dynamic and this is no one right way to respond. However, with a gun in your face you have a reasonable fear of immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury – you would be universally justified in responding with deadly force. That doesn’t mean you do not still have an expensive legal battle ahead, but at least you have an argument. If you can’t retreat, and the threat to you (not your car) is immediate, pump yourself up for the fight and get it on. Total violence of action is your only hope.
Scenario #2. Retreat! You were obviously in Condition yellow, spotted him and ramped up to Condition Orange. You have not let him into your decision cycle yet – get out of there, Now! If that’s not possible, get to a position of advantage – get out of the car and yell STOP and put your hand up. If he’s within 25 feet he can close on you before you have a chance to draw – you need to consider his distance. Any normal person not bent on hurting you will stop when you tell them to. They may be indignant, they may think you’re weird, but they will stop. If they keep coming, now the situation has changed – you’re in Condition Red and have identified a specific threat. NOW you present followed immediately by STOP OR I’LL SHOOT. Set your mental trigger, whatever that may be. “If he comes 5 feet closer, I’m dropping him” or “If he reaches in his pocket, I’m dropping him” Basically, if he does almost anything other than stop, I’m dropping him because he has not responded to my verbal and visual commands to stop. If he crosses your mental trigger, down he goes. You had a reasonable fear of immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury. Witnesses will testify that they heard “STOP” followed by “Stop or I’ll shoot” before they heard two quick pops in succession (and possibly followed by a single pop a few seconds later). Again, you may have a legal battle, but you have formulated your legal argument well in advance of the actual shots being fired.
Again, both scenarios are dynamic, with no one right answer, but when presented with the threat of deadly force you should be prepared to respond with total violence of action with complete disregard for the wellbeing of your adversary. You may get hit, you may get seriously hurt, you may die, but you must be a dedicated opponent who fights to win.
But in gunfight remember, in the best case scenario, winning simply means you get to keep what you already have. You don’t “win” anything.
Again, every situation is highly dynamic and no can tell you exactly how to respond, but you need to understand your morals and society’s ethical standards well in advance of a gunfight so you can maintain the mantle of innocence when the smoke clears.

 

[Kleanbore]

The original question was whether one is willing to kill for his car. There have been answers pro and con, as if it were a matter of moral judgment. Some of the "yes" answers have come from people in states in which the law would most certainly seem to proscribe that course of action unless self-defense is also involved. Whether or no one might "feel" justified in killing over a car or any other property is irrelevant. Lee Lapin put it very well:

The ONLY thing that matters in this event is LEGAL principle. A person can take their morals to prison with them, if the law in their jurisdiction disagrees with their moral principles. Each armed citizen's Job One is to know the law in their jurisdiction, and to abide by it. ...

It is vitally important that everyone here establish a clear individual understanding of the circumstances under which self defense using deadly force is legal in their particular jurisdiction. Circumstances vary so much from jurisdiction to jurisdiction that it is impossible to generalize about what is and is not legal. Every individual must know what both black-letter and case law has established as legal and legitimate use of deadly force in their jurisdiction. That education is far better obtained in advance of need than after the fact...

Lee added that in NC, one is not legally justified in using deadly force in defense of property except in certain cases involving occupied dwellings.

Laws vary somewhat, but in general, the use of deadly force solely to protect property outside the home is proscribed. There are exceptions in Texas and Georgia that I am aware of, but even in those states, there are conditions that must be met.

In many states, including Lee's North Carolina, if an intruder breaks into one's house while he or she is in it, the use of deadly force is justified. In my state as in some others, that provision extends to one's automobile.

So, if I were in my car and someone were to attempt to break in, the "castle law" here applies. Not so, if I am not in my car.

I have been told that the intent of that law here (MO) is not to permit me to protect property per se, but (1) to establish the fact of an unlawful break-in as evidence of imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, and (2) to obviate the requirement to attempt retreat from my automobile (or dwelling) before employing deadly force in the event of an invasion or attempted invasion.

The discussion has also touched on the duty to retreat. That also varies by state. Castle laws often, but not always, remove the requirement to retreat from an occupied dwelling, and some extend to the place of business and/or automobile. In some states, the laws specifically state that a citizen has no duty to retreat from a place where can legally be. And in at least one state, the requirement to retreat has been removed by legal precedent. One should not assume that the apparent absence of mention in the code that retreat is required means that it is not.

Pardon the length of this, but the consequences of illegal acts here extend far beyond anything anyone would want to experience. I strongly recommend that everyone heed 23Glock's input: "A car, even if uninsured, costs way less to replace than the cost of the criminal and civil liabilities associated with the use of deadly force. If you don’t understand those implications, take a class or read a book."

Nothing wrong with doing both.

 

[rainbowbob]

From many of the posts here, it would seem that some are not carefully reading the simple scenarios presented.

Let's review...

1. Bad guy has the drop on me, and the first time I notice him is when he's got the gun pointed at me.

This is not a property crime, it is menacing with a deadly weapon. You're not in danger of loosing your car...you're in danger of losing your life. I don't understand how the question of "duty to retreat" even applies in this case.

2. I spot the bad guy as he's approaching, with his hand in his pocket, and my "something's not right!" radar goes off.

This man has his hand in his pocket and is identified as "the bad guy"...based on what? Based on his "something's not right! radar". While such intuition is not to be disregarded...it is not justification for anything more than heightened vigilance.

 

[Kleanbore]

This is not a property crime, it is menacing with a deadly weapon. You're not in danger of losing your car...you're in danger of losing your life.

That's absolutely correct, and as you properly pointed out in Post 5, the OP was asking the wrong question. However, many had expressed their views on that question ("would you kill for your car"), and I addressed some apparent misconceptions regarding that.

Good comment.

I don't understand how the question of "duty to retreat" even applies in this case.

It would apply in many if not most states. Goes back centuries to the common law in England, which formed the original foundation of much of the law in our states. One must retreat if one can safely do so before employing deadly force, or the use of said force is not justified as an act of self preservation. That concept originated in the era of blade weapons and has evolved over time.

Here's something on it. It cannot be copied and pasted:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aNuGAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA401&lpg=RA1-PA401&dq=blackstone+on+duty+to+retreat&source=bl&ots=22nP3IUHX_&sig=LbjWEV6EBIppkHKMH1xh9o17auk&hl=en&ei=uRr3SYOEAaWmNYP9ha4P&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7

As I mentioned above, some states have eliminated that requirement, and in at least the State of Washington, the requirement has, as I understand it, been obviated by case law.

So, "in this case" in Washington, it's probably not a consideration (lay opinion). However, not all of the comments came from people there.

Whether one is discussing defense of property or defense of persons, however, it is essential to understand the law before even considering the use of deadly force.

I hope this helps. Again, that's a good put, and it helps to round out the discussion.

 

[Seattleimport]

Thanks for all the replies and ongoing discussion, everyone. This is all good food for thought.

 

[rainbowbob]

So, "in this case" in Washington, it's probably not a consideration (lay opinion). However, not all of the comments came from people there.

Thanks, KB. You are correct in pointing out that "duty to retreat" applies in some cases and in some states.

I still question that it would apply in this case in any jurisdiction.

My understanding is that where the threat is imminent and the option to retreat safely is no longer available to the victim - that "duty" no longer applies.

I find it difficult to grasp that responding with lethal force to a gun pointed at you from point-blank range would not qualify as justifiable force in any corner of the land - regardless of "duty to retreat" statutes.

Again, my understanding is that the "duty" is based on the assumption that a reasonable person woud believe you could have retreated safely if you chose to.

Could any reasonable person believe such is the case with a gun pointed at your head?

 

[Kleanbore]

Excellent questions and comments. Understand that these are lay opinions.

My understanding is that where the threat is imminent and the option to retreat safely is no longer available to the victim - that "duty" no longer applies.

That is mine also.

I find it difficult to grasp that responding with lethal force to a gun pointed at you from point-blank range would not qualify as justifiable force in any corner of the land - regardless of "duty to retreat" statutes.

So do I. For the sake of complete discussion, however, I think that the attacker's ability to harm and the victim's necessity to shoot may often involve more than one dimension. The link below covers that.

One would think the presence of the gun is hard evidence that the aggressor has the ability to injure or kill--part of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.

And as you say, it also most probably makes safe retreat impossible.

The presence of a gun will undoubtedly go a long way toward a defense of justifiability should the shooter be charged, but the outcome is likely going to depend on the circumstances and the totality of the evidence. For example, were the shots really necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm, or had the danger effectively dissipated by the time he fired at what then effectively amounted to a fleeing felon (perhaps involving "shooting to defend his car")?

The question will likely come down to one of whether a jury, deliberating under specific instructions, will decide that a reasonable person knowing what the shooter knew at the time (as documented by the evidence presented) would have fired. One should consult a local, experienced, criminal trial lawyer who knows how all of the laws fit together in context and knows the case law.

See this for a pretty good description of what happens after the shot(s):

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

It's lengthy and not locale-specific so I won't paste but it is worth reading.

 

[rainbowbob]

...had the danger effectively dissipated by the time he fired at what then effectively amounted to a fleeing felon (perhaps involving "shooting to defend his car")?

At that point it is likely the duty to retreat may apply.

It is also the point - and only at that point - when perhaps the OP's original question would be the correct question. It is only then that we are finally talking about a property crime rather than a lethal threat.

Are you willing to kill / die for your car?

If the lethal threat no longer exists, my answer would be "No" - even if he was fleeing in my brand-new Cadillac XLR convertible roadster with the top down.

[Note: I don't actually own one, but I got to drive one to Deadwood S.D.and back a couple years ago. ]

 

[GhostRider66]

This man has his hand in his pocket and is identified as "the bad guy"...based on what? Based on his "something's not right! radar". While such intuition is not to be disregarded...it is not justification for anything more than heightened vigilance.

And based on this I would never draw my weapon. I would, however, quickly remove it from its holster (as I always do) in order to place it into the locking center console for the drive home. Of course, I'm a bit slow in doing so and therefore it will remain in my hand until the random (although presumably friendly) stranger is well away.

 

[Kleanbore]

At that point [when the danger has effectively dissipated] when it is likely the duty to retreat may apply.

I'm afraid you have lost me. When "it's over" you cannot shoot, but I do not see why you would have to retreat.

It is also the point - and only at that point - when perhaps the OP's original question would be the correct question. It is only then that we are finally talking about a property crime rather than a lethal threat.

EXACTLY! You nailed it.

It is important that no one else get the impression that, simply because a confrontation may have started out as an armed robbery, that they necessarily have carte blanche to shoot to recover the property. One may be able to argue successfully that the imminent danger still existed, say, after the robber got the keys, but then again, one may not. What witnesses recall, what any security cameras show, what the perps accomplice says may not help at all.

Just to go over retreat again--we have that requirement (outside) in Missouri. The way it was explained to me, if an assailant is approaching me and I can get away, I must do so. If he has a gun one me and I can drop behind a car and slip away safely, I must do so. If he has followed me into a blind alley, however...