Would you have any qualms with shooting an armed assailant in the back?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correia
Verbal challenges are great, when they work. But see above, it might not be tactically sound. If there is a crazy guy shooting up my workplace, my first warning is going to be a 230 grain TTI .45 impacting his center of mass
Click to expand...
+1, except I don't think they are especially "great" in ANY case.

If you are justified to use lethal force legally and morally (in defense of life or grave bodily injury, opportunity, means, and intent) AND you decide to fight.. Talking to the BG just serves to communicate that you are about to fight. It should be over before he knows he IN a fight.
 
Would I shoot an assailant in the back? The key here is the word assailant, not which direction he is facing. If he is an assailant, I'm not going to run around to the other side before I shoot.
 
I have absolutely no qualms about shooting an obvious agressor in the back. I would do it in a second with out any thought other then what is in front of the guy and where my bullets might end up.

This guy in Tacoma made a serious mistake by issuing a verbal challenge. I think he got trapped by the classic hollywood movie armed standoff where someone shouts to the bad guy to freeze and the good guys takes care of the situation by disarming the bad guy. In real life I don't think it always works out that way.
 
NineseveN, I'm really more of a wookie kind of guy.

Zak, I'm mostly in agreement with you. I'm really hesitant about recommending a verbal challenge, but I know of a few instances where a challenge was issued, as the gun was coming into play, and it ended with the bad guy running away. (this actually happened to my wife) Now these are usually in robbery/assault kind of things, not an active shooter. When you've got an active shooter, shoot them in whatever is available, as fast as you can.
 
If the person poses a threat to the life or well being of myself or those nearby, absolutely. If he has proven that he would/has already killed, absolutely.
Once you prove yourself a danger to society there is no reason to keep you around.
 
If the guy opened up on people, the back would be just fine with
me. Even better than the front. Just make sure that he's not there to show a
new shotgun he got for his B Day to his co-workers first. Biker
Click to expand...

Hey Jim... look what the wife got me for my bir... BLAM BLAM BLAM. :neener:

If it's a good shoot it's a good shoot. Front to back or back to front, it's still
a good shoot.
 
Well the safest thing for no.1 is to leave. However, I carry to protect those around me just as much as I do to protect myself. In my state I have the duty to retreat if possible but I may defend others if they do not have the opportunity to retreat. So in this case I would tell him to put the gun down and shoot him if he tries to turn it on me. Now if he had already opened fire I would shoot him in the back for sure.

Yeah its stupid to get involved when I can escape unscathed but it's better than the alternative. If I ran out when those people needed help and let them die then it would haunt me. I couldn't live with myself unless I tried. I'd rather fail and be dead or crippled than to live with their blood on my hands. Now I never go looking for trouble and I realize how truly horrible it is to shoot someone. My gun is one tool I hope I never have to use. So don't think I'm trying to be a superheromallninja. Could you live with yourself if you just let innocent people die?
 
Imas, Thanks for your words. My sentiments exactly.

I say Bravo without the bravado! You can be in my foxhole anytime.
 
Let's say that a person is threatening a family member with firearm and you approach from his rear. If the situation warranted the immediate use of deadly force then shooting the person in the back would definitely be acceptable.

If you were the only person being attacked, then it's a bit harder to justify shooting someone in the back. I guess it would depend on the situation. Let's say that it was obvious to you that the person was simply retreating to cover to continue the attack and that for some reason you couldn't retreat. Then the situation would probably warrant you doing your best to prevent him from reaching cover where he could mount a more effective attack. It would probably be good to scream for him to drop his gun before shooting. If he retains it, that could be seen as evidence that he was not vacating the scene but merely trying for a better position to continue the attack.
 
This thread shows something else, too.

In the Tacoma mall shooting, the bad guy was bent on murder and mayhem.

The citizen with the gun, the good guy, wasn't bent on murder and mayhem, and as a result, hesitated and issued a verbal challenge when he should have fired instead.

Note the news story where the good guy says he just couldn't shoot the kid in the head.

Well, "the kid" was randomly shooting people in a mall.

It highlights another thing to always keep in mind.

"Good guys" quibble over things such as "is it fair and moral for me to shoot this guy in the head, or in the back?"

And while "good guys" ponder these weighty moral questions, the bad guys are busy shooting and killing or robbing or raping or doing whatever bad thing they've set out to do.

In a way, that's the real downside of being "the good guy" in a situation.

Instead of thinking of ourselves as a " the good guys" would we be better served as figuring out how we are going to come home alive in such a situation, and be willing to do whatever it takes to come home alive?

Come out alive, and worry about that other stuff when you have time to do so.

hillbilly
 
Good point.
Note the news story where the good guy says he just couldn't shoot the kid in the head.
Click to expand...
That kind of thinking has no place in the world of self-defense.

Anyone who can stop in the middle of a massacre and "humanize" a threat is not equipped for self-defense and should run or hide when things get dangerous.

A 16 year old shooting shoppers with a rifle is NOT a "kid", he is a threat and must be dealt with exactly like any other deadly threat.
 
No I would not shoot a assiliant in the back. Mostly because It would be hard to convince a District Attorney that you acted in self defence when the bullets are in the BG back. Maybe in some jursdiction in Flordia you could get away with that but not in Massachusetts. In Mass you can only shoot if attacked by an assiliant in owns own home. Anyway, I really want the criminal to see me plug him. ;)
 
I would have more qualms about this dumb SOB making me shoot his a$$ than actually pulling the trigger on him. Every time I've been in an engagement where I had to hurt someone I keep asking them, "What you go and make me do that for? What were you thinking?"

Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )
 
I'd have qualms about shooting someone in the back. I'd worry a shot in the back wouldn't put them down, that's why I'd shoot them in the head.............
 
If a person needs shooting, you shoot 'em. Back, front, top, bottom... doesn't matter. Make holes in 'em 'til they don't need shooting anymore.
The tricky part is figuring out what constitutes "needs shooting". After that it's all easy.

Here in TN, any person that is trying to cause death or serious bodily harm to yourself or others, or has forceably entered your home pretty much needs shooting. However, if you live elsewhere you may be working with an entirely different standard.


J.C.
 
would depend on situation

If he was shooting others, had already shot someone, was threatning someone else, was on his way twoards someone else and I had a good idea he was going to shoot someone....then absoloutly I'd shoot him in the back.

If he thought he was a big shot with a gun and I pulled a gun back on him and he about crapped his pants turned whitter then casper and ran for the hills....then can't say I likly would shoot him.
 
I might feel bad about it, but I would feel worse if
by inaction I allowed an assailant to kill an innocent
third party.

The problem with defending a third party involving strangers,
the "victim" could be the original attacker and the "assailant"
be acting in self defense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Good shoot/Bad shoot???
Replies
14
Views
644
tetleyb
T
I
  • Locked
Multiple assailant crime on the rise...
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
vanilla_gorilla
V
M
  • Locked
A Valuable Life Lesson: "Denial" Can Kill, Part 1
Replies
0
Views
440
mlandman
M
H
  • Locked
Stay or search?
Replies
15
Views
641
Arc-Lite
A
B
  • Locked
Is it appropriate to tell an assailant you're armed?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
1911Tuner
1
Back
Top