Use of Deadly Force - When? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Use of Deadly Force - When?


Car 2217
01-12-2013, 11:02
There’s a story in the news today (1/12/2013) about two citizens in Houston who observed a man being robbed at gunpoint by a miscreant who fled the scene but he did not physically harm the victim.

The good Samaritans gave chase, exchanged gunfire with the criminal and wounded him. The bad guy then jumped over a fence whereupon a dog attacked him and held him at bay until the police arrived. (It just wasn’t his day apparently).

The story only identifies the two men who went after the bad guy as “strangers” leaving the reader to assume their identity is unknown - at least right now.

This story reminded me about when you can and cannot use deadly force. I’m hopeful that these two guys are never identified because if they are, depending on what kind of day the local district attorney is having, they could be in a whole lot of trouble.

The deadly force statutes in even the most permissive of states say something like the following:

“….in the event that an individual, or a person under protection of the individual, is in immediate danger of loss of life or immediate danger of grave bodily injury, it shall be an affirmative defense that the use of deadly force by the individual is justified.”

To that (in some states) is added that the individual must attempt to flee (disengage) unless that action would place the individual or the person under protection of the individual in even greater danger.

And somewhere in the statutes it will say something like “…once the threat has ended, the affirmative defense has also ended”.

Note that the statute speaks of 'Affirmative Defense', not the 'Right' to use Deadly Force. There is a world of difference.

Anyway, in the case of the two good guys who popped the crook, what they did was illegal because they were in no danger of immediate loss of life or grave bodily injury and, since the crook fled the scene without harming the victim, the victim wasn’t either. (Still, I hope that if a LEO discovers their identity he has the good sense to ‘misplace the paperwork’.)

There are always other things mentioned in the statutes like the individual must be legally able to possess a firearm, must have a right to be where the event took place, must have done nothing to cause or inflame the situation and so on.

And then there is the “reasonable person” test. This is the one that district attorneys love. In his opening remarks (if you find yourself charged) he will ask the jury to determine if they think a “reasonable person”, in possession of the facts that you had, would have done what you did. Now, you had about 6/10th of a second to decide if you have to pull the trigger but the D.A. has months to second guess you as he prepares his case and the jury has hours, days or weeks to do the same thing.

Add to that the probability that a jury made up of 12 liberals from the Upper East Side are going to have a different vision of what is reasonable than 12 jurors in rural Alabama and you can see that nothing is cut and dried when you use Deadly Force - even when you do everything right.

Meanwhile, your life savings are disappearing at a rapid rate to pay for your attorney.

The point of this post is to remind that the use of deadly force is almost always going to result in lengthy meetings with people in authority and when your adrenalin is pumping is not the time to give the LEO a statement. (A LEO who discharges his weapon in the line of duty is normally advised to not give a formal statement for 24-48 hours after the incident and to speak to an FOP or PBA attorney before he does so. Private Citizens should do the same thing although their attorney cost is going to come out of their pocket.)

Please post your own thoughts on the subject and if you have first hand knowledge of the aftermath of using deadly force, please share it will us.

dosei
01-12-2013, 11:12
My thoughts...
Know the laws of the state you are in.

(You may want to actually look into the Texas laws.)

Sam Spade
01-12-2013, 11:26
In what state is a citizen forbidden to chase a known felon?

In what state is a citizen forbidden to shoot back after being fired upon?

As above, know your laws. To which I'll add: stop inventing things to worry about.

Car 2217
01-12-2013, 11:30
My thoughts...
Know the laws of the state you are in.

(You may want to actually look into the Texas laws.)

Here is Texas Penal Code 9.32, Deadly Force in Defense of Person. Don't see anything allowing for pursuit (which is not to say there isn't something somewhere else.):

9.32:

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

WT
01-12-2013, 12:11
TEXAS CODE CHAP. 14
Art. 14.01. [212] [259] [247] OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A
peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

Sounds like the 2 Good Samaritans witnessed a felony and tried to arrest the miscreant which is permissible under Texas law.


Actually, the real learning lesson from this incident is to not stick around after shooting a bad guy.

FireForged
01-12-2013, 12:41
I am not going to pursue or capture anyone, period. I am not going to "exchage gunfire" with someone trying to flee from me. I will use deadly force when my failure to use it will likely get me killed or grieviously maimed

Sam Spade
01-12-2013, 12:51
Here is Texas Penal Code 9.32, Deadly Force in Defense of Person. Don't see anything allowing for pursuit (which is not to say there isn't something...)


I know that tone doesn't carry on the boards. So I assure you that I mean this as nicely as possible:

Aside from the fact that the cite supporting pursuit of felons was provided by another, your quote above shows that you really don't understand how things work, and for some reason are adopting an attitude that is distinctly un-American.

Here, as opposed to portions of Europe, the default is liberty. The citizen is not required to find a statute where the state allows his act before proceeding. Rather, he may proceed as he sees fit in his life until the state prohibits an action.

It is not on us (in this case and for an example) to show where the citizen has been allowed to pursue a known felon. It's on you to show that such an action is specifically prohibited.

So again, I ask: in what state is a citizen prohibited from chasing a known felon? Certainally not TX, where this occurred, and I'll wager not in your state either.

Know your law and stop inventing things to worry about.

Car 2217
01-12-2013, 13:35
Aside from the fact that the cite supporting pursuit of felons was provided by another, your quote above shows that you really don't understand how things work, and for some reason are adopting an attitude that is distinctly un-American.


Where I live, when you train for a CCDW, state prosecutors specifically tell the applicant via videotape that when using deadly force, the instant the threat is ended, so to does the ability to use deadly force. This comes from statutes regulating the use of deadly force which are made a part of the CCDW training by reference but are not part of the actual CCDW laws. In other words, they apply to any citizen, not just CCDW holders.

My post did not say that you weren't allowed to pursue a criminal nor did I say a person could not make a citizen's arrest. Please do not say that I made comments that I didn't make. I posted about the use of Deadly Force - when you can use it and when you can't. I used the Houston incident in that reference, not to start a discussion of when you can pursue a fleeing felon.

As for me being UN-American, how exactly am I supposed to take that if not as an insult?

We all have a right to defend ourselves in all states but we do not have a "right" to use deadly force once the threat has ended. Even shooting a person trying to kill you is a homicide which means literally killing another. Self Defense use of Deadly Force is an Affirmative Defense that can be used to counter a charge of murder or manslaughter. That is all it is.

The guys in Texas were employing deadly force once the threat had ended. They certainly were entitled to pursue but not to employ deadly force where there was no longer a threat.

As for me "making things up to be concerned about", I wonder what George Zimmerman would have to say about that?

Sam Spade
01-12-2013, 13:41
Except that the guys in the scenario didn't use deadly force absent a threat. The very fact that there was an "exchange" of gunfire shows that.

Show me a case where two guys shot a running robber who threw down his gun and we'll talk. *Your* case has two citizens being fired on by a known felon. I'm doubting that even your prosecutors would have a problem with self-defense in that situation.

Car 2217
01-12-2013, 14:19
Except that the guys in the scenario didn't use deadly force absent a threat. The very fact that there was an "exchange" of gunfire shows that.

Show me a case where two guys shot a running robber who threw down his gun and we'll talk. *Your* case has two citizens being fired on by a known felon. I'm doubting that even your prosecutors would have a problem with self-defense in that situation.


Nope wrong again. The two citizens fired first, the robber returned fire.

WT
01-12-2013, 14:27
Looks like one continous act to me - armed robber, running down the street, gun in hand. Sounds like a deadly threat.

Heck, even the German Shepherd dog knew what to do.

Car 2217
01-12-2013, 14:42
Looks like one continous act to me - armed robber, running down the street, gun in hand. Sounds like a deadly threat.

Heck, even the German Shepherd dog knew what to do.

The dog is my hero, WT. He is the only one that the DA won't go after (but the dog catcher might :=).

I guess I will stop responding. Somehow this got off into a thread on an isolated incident in Houston. (And again, I hope those guys are never found and if an LEO discovers their identity I hope he loses the paperwork. I would.)

Before I go however, once again all I was trying to do is talk about how once the lawyers get involved, you had better have done each and every thing that the permissible use of deadly force requires and I went over them as they apply in virtually all the states.

Everything else that happened on this thread belongs in a post about permissible law enforcement by private citizens.

dosei
01-12-2013, 15:14
If you want to have an "event-centric" discussion, post a link to the event. If you want to talk about "what the law says you can do", first understand that the law is there to tell us what we cannot do. Hence the absence of a "law" saying pursuit of a known felon is legal does not make it illegal, quite the opposite is the case.

Is this is the incident you are referring to:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/HPD-Witnesses-shoot-robbery-suspect/-/1735978/18093108/-/cdmob7/-/index.html
http://www.khou.com/home/Robbery-victim-wants-to-thank-Good-Samaritans-who-came-to-his-rescue--186572461.html
If so, then it is possible that the line of legal action may have been crossed. We were not there, and we do not have the "strangers" side of the story. Did they see the known felon point a gun at them? Bottom line is we do not have the whole story.

Sam Spade
01-12-2013, 15:58
Nope wrong again. The two citizens fired first, the robber returned fire.

You might have said so. What else have you left out?

I'M Glockamolie
01-12-2013, 18:01
I'll eat my hat if they don't get no-billed by a grand jury, if it even makes it that far. Welcome to Houston!

Just_plinking
01-12-2013, 22:19
I'd like to preface my opinion by saying nobody does what they know is right all the time. People are people, and we chose to do what we want, even if we know it's not right. Whether it's big or small, we go against our conscience regularly, it's human nature.

However, I think it's important to try to do what is right. Whether it's big or small.

If I'm ever in a grave situation, I'll do my best to do what I feel is right, and go from there with my head high. If you act out your conscience, I think it will all work out for the good in the end even if it hurts you personally.

But i'm sort of religious, so ymmv.

Gunnut 45/454
01-12-2013, 23:01
Car 2217
So where do you live? Sounds like it must be a very liberal state! NY, Conn, NJ, CA, Mass ? Those states have revoked the everydays citizens right to selfdefense and good citizenship laws! They stress you must be a victim. They've trained you to be a victim. Every American has the right to defend themselves and others from harm and criminal acts. Time to wake up and stop being a victim! Are you a slave or a free man?:whistling:

ChiefWPD
01-12-2013, 23:15
In what state is a citizen forbidden to chase a known felon?

In what state is a citizen forbidden to shoot back after being fired upon?

As above, know your laws. To which I'll add: stop inventing things to worry about.

+1 You guys can come up with more hypothetical situations to worry about!

willy1094
01-13-2013, 00:46
So an average CCW holder should now be chasing suspects down AFTER the crime/threat is over? Stepping away from OP's original story, what if what you know you saw is not really what happened? I see that happen all the time. Then you could find yourself chasing and shooting at a GG because you thought you saw them as the perp. It is not always a question of can or can't but should or shouldn't. Just you legally do something does not always make it a smart decision. If you want to be a cop go get hired and sworn in.

Grand jury also has a very low standard for indictment, so even if you are 100% in the right, you could also find yourself paying to prove it. Best to know the area you are in, down to the particular county since things can change from county to county.

Sam Spade
01-13-2013, 07:37
So an average CCW holder should now be chasing suspects down AFTER the crime/threat is over?

The OP was framed entirely in legalities. Tactics is a whole nother question.

SouthernBoyVA
01-13-2013, 08:45
In my state, you may use deadly force if at the time of its use, you held a good faith belief based on objective facts, that you were in imminent fear [danger] of serious bodily harm [or worse]. The threat does not have to be real, only that you believed it to be so.

There are a few exceptions like those mentioned above. For example, you must have a legal right to be where you are. If you are party to the confrontation/escalation, you must retreat until you can no long do so safely while telling your assailant that you do not wish to fight.. to leave you alone. When you can no longer retreat safely, you regain the veil of innocence and may use deadly force if necessary.

I'M Glockamolie
01-13-2013, 10:43
Grand jury also has a very low standard for indictment, so even if you are 100% in the right, you could also find yourself paying to prove it. Best to know the area you are in, down to the particular county since things can change from county to county.

I've lived in or adjacent to Harris County my entire life, and have been in the Criminal Justice system (on the right side of the grey bars) for a portion of it. My previous statement stands, whether or not these guys SHOULD have pursued the criminal. They'll sooner get a key to the city than a grand jury indictment. There's an overall dim view of violent criminals around here.

Car 2217
01-13-2013, 21:28
<Snippet>
So where do you live? Are you a slave or a free man?:whistling:<End Snippet>

I said I wasn't going to keep responding but since this post was directed to me personally, I have to make an exception.

I live in a very conservative state with probably the most permissive deadly force laws in the nation. I am slightly to the right of Attila the Hun politically. I do not believe in the victim philosophy nor do I believe in coddling criminals. I am a retired LEO. I've been shot at and I've discharged my weapon in the line of duty so this is not an intellectual exercise for me.

If you employ deadly force, even when justified, you may have to defend yourself in court depending on the circumstances and the district attorney's mindset (even if you are a LEO). If you are a private citizen, the odds go up that you will need an attorney. If you are pursuing a bad guy as a private citizen and you kill him, you are almost certainly going to need an attorney and that costs money. And one more thing: until you get an attorney, STFU.

Don't let some gang banger harm you or yours but don't go looking for trouble. Be a good witness and allow the LEOs to do their job.

That was what I was trying to get across when I told the story of the guys in Texas as a set up for citing how the core deadly force statues tend to read in virtually all the states.

I see now that I should have left off the story and just cited the core statutes and ask for comments but I didn't do that. My bad.

Now, unless someone directs something to me personally again that requires a reply, I really am going to stop responding.

mortpes
01-13-2013, 22:13
Florida-The case law and court case rules and jury slant in Florida is very different from the written law that can be printed from the website. Now in Florida you should not use deadly force unless your own life is at risk, you did not start or engage in the fight and there was no other option. The physical evidence must back you up. Your actions prior and after the shooting will be closely examined.

G26AZ
01-13-2013, 22:26
I am not going to pursue or capture anyone, period. I am not going to "exchage gunfire" with someone trying to flee from me. I will use deadly force when my failure to use it will likely get me killed or grieviously maimed


+1 couldn't say it any better myself!

Bashful
01-13-2013, 22:50
This specific case may very well fall under "Protection of Property"... and not "Defense of a Person" If the media report is to be believed, the victim was robbed at gunpoint, and gave up personal property (wallet, phone, bracelet).

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:


(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

SgtScott31
01-14-2013, 00:47
In my state, you may use deadly force if at the time of its use, you held a good faith belief based on objective facts, that you were in imminent fear [danger] of serious bodily harm [or worse]. The threat does not have to be real, only that you believed it to be so.

There are a few exceptions like those mentioned above. For example, you must have a legal right to be where you are. If you are party to the confrontation/escalation, you must retreat until you can no long do so safely while telling your assailant that you do not wish to fight.. to leave you alone. When you can no longer retreat safely, you regain the veil of innocence and may use deadly force if necessary.

I wanted to add this involving my state law(s):


39-11-621. Use of deadly force by private citizen.

A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes, §§ 39-11-611 and 39-11-612.





TCA 39-11-611 - Self Defense (applicable part of it)


(b) (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.




39-11-612. Defense of third person.

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another to protect a third person, if:

(1) Under the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be, the person would be justified under § 39-11-611 in threatening or using force to protect against the use or attempted use of unlawful force reasonably believed to be threatening the third person sought to be protected; and

(2) The person reasonably believes that the intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.


Now I only mention those above statutes because I believe an argument can be made that if the citizens were effecting an arrest they can use the degree of force necessary to effect an arrest, up to and including deadly force. Obviously this hardly ever happens becaue of the huge amount of liability involved if said citizen who did the shooting was wrong. Given the limited facts by the OP, I think the argument could be made that they were chasing the guy to effect an arrest and obviously if he had a firearm a reasonble person could assume that while effecting the arrest it's likely deadly force might be warranted.

What's the difference in his scenario versus LEOs who chase an armed felon (aside from the fact we get paid to catch him)? It's pretty likely that when the LEOs catch up to the armed individual and he refuses to drop the weapon deadly force is likely justifiable.

Glockrunner
01-14-2013, 04:44
After the robber fled he was shot at by the good Samartians. Sounds like the writer wanted to make the Felon out to be a victum at that point in the story.

Not being there I could assume the robber pointed the gun at them as they chased him, thus causing them to protect themselves.

The robber was captured by LE so I can assume they the LEO's that arrived know who the good guys are.

One point for the good guys for coming to the aid of a citizen in distress!

Gallium
01-14-2013, 04:56
I said I wasn't going to keep responding but since this post was directed to me personally, I have to make an exception.

I live in a very conservative state with probably the most permissive deadly force laws in the nation. I am slightly to the right of Attila the Hun politically. I do not believe in the victim philosophy nor do I believe in coddling criminals. I am a retired LEO. I've been shot at and I've discharged my weapon in the line of duty so this is not an intellectual exercise for me.

If you employ deadly force, even when justified, you may have to defend yourself in court depending on the circumstances and the district attorney's mindset (even if you are a LEO). If you are a private citizen, the odds go up that you will need an attorney. If you are pursuing a bad guy as a private citizen and you kill him, you are almost certainly going to need an attorney and that costs money. And one more thing: until you get an attorney, STFU.

Don't let some gang banger harm you or yours but don't go looking for trouble. Be a good witness and allow the LEOs to do their job.

That was what I was trying to get across when I told the story of the guys in Texas as a set up for citing how the core deadly force statues tend to read in virtually all the states.

I see now that I should have left off the story and just cited the core statutes and ask for comments but I didn't do that. My bad.

Now, unless someone directs something to me personally again that requires a reply, I really am going to stop responding.

Here is my opinion:



Don't start threads lacking in facts, with a shallow understanding of the law as it applies to deadly force for where the issue has taken place, soliciting a discussion and then turn tail to say you are done playing when your REAL education begins.
All of #1 above was meant in a respectful tone as if you were sitting across a desk from me.



- G

Gallium
01-14-2013, 04:58
Nope wrong again. The two citizens fired first, the robber returned fire.

You might have said so. What else have you left out?


Nothing important....

"As soon as they pass me, they see the guy has a gun to me," he said.

SCmasterblaster
01-14-2013, 11:27
Vermont is pretty lenient. Just about anyone can CCW. Those convicted of felonies or certain misdemeanors cannot own firearms.

Lord
01-14-2013, 16:11
Chasing is more a bad idea than good. But there are several things that TX allows for that I didn't see covered in any of these posts. First, from what I read, this occurred at night. That alone allows for the use of deadly force in TX during a robbery. Further, we also have something called "fresh pursuit". If you are robbed, you have the right to pursue the individual(s)/bad guy(s) (however bad an idea it might be) and what is called the defense of a third person. During this fresh pursuit, if the need arises to use deadly force, then it is authorized. All of this came from one of the Bexar County district attorneys who taught part of one of my classes.

So the breakdown is this. you have two good samaritans who, in defense of a third party, engaged in the fresh pursuit of a BG who had just committed an aggravated felony at night against a victim. that's all legal and what they call " a defense to prosecution".

Now they did shoot first and the BG returned fire, but a further defense to prosecution would be that if they saw him brandish their weapon and were of the belief that he was about to fire and cause them great bodily harm or even death, and so preemptively fired upon him.

Once again, while pursuing may not be the best idea, under TX law they did not break any law. Lucky for them, it turned out for the best.. for them. Bad guy shoulda stayed home that night. Shot and attacked by a dog... damn. Kind of lacking in the brains department too since he had a freaking gun! He could have shot the dog too!

in either case, as I read it, bad guy was the only law breaker in this situation.

Bashful
01-14-2013, 21:34
Chasing is more a bad idea than good. But there are several things that TX allows for that I didn't see covered in any of these posts. First, from what I read, this occurred at night. That alone allows for the use of deadly force in TX during a robbery. Further, we also have something called "fresh pursuit". If you are robbed, you have the right to pursue the individual(s)/bad guy(s) (however bad an idea it might be) and what is called the defense of a third person. During this fresh pursuit, if the need arises to use deadly force, then it is authorized. All of this came from one of the Bexar County district attorneys who taught part of one of my classes.

So the breakdown is this. you have two good samaritans who, in defense of a third party, engaged in the fresh pursuit of a BG who had just committed an aggravated felony at night against a victim. that's all legal and what they call " a defense to prosecution".

Now they did shoot first and the BG returned fire, but a further defense to prosecution would be that if they saw him brandish their weapon and were of the belief that he was about to fire and cause them great bodily harm or even death, and so preemptively fired upon him.

Once again, while pursuing may not be the best idea, under TX law they did not break any law. Lucky for them, it turned out for the best.. for them. Bad guy shoulda stayed home that night. Shot and attacked by a dog... damn. Kind of lacking in the brains department too since he had a freaking gun! He could have shot the dog too!

in either case, as I read it, bad guy was the only law breaker in this situation.

Look at the way the law is written.... the only limitations to night time is

"imminent commission....theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime"; or

"to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing... theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property"

Everything else listed is not limited by day vs night.

Lord
01-16-2013, 07:52
Look at the way the law is written.... the only limitations to night time is

"imminent commission....theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime"; or

"to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing... theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property"

Everything else listed is not limited by day vs night.

I see your point, but they did commit during night time, so I'll ask the Asst DA his take on it.

Car 2217
01-17-2013, 10:33
Duplicate - Deleted

Car 2217
01-17-2013, 10:35
Quote From a Sam Spade Response above:

.....your quote above shows that you really don't understand how things work, and for some reason are adopting an attitude that is distinctly un-American.

(Snip of quote - see full post above)

Quotes from Gallium Responses above:

Here is my opinion:

Don't start threads lacking in facts, with a shallow understanding of the law as it applies to deadly force for where the issue has taken place, soliciting a discussion and then turn tail to say you are done playing when your REAL education begins.
All of #1 above was meant in a respectful tone as if you were sitting across a desk from me.

And...

Statement by Sam Spade and Response by Gallium from posts above:

Spade:

You might have said so. What else have you left out?

Gallium:

Nothing important....

(Snips of quotes - see full posts above for clarity)

--------------------------

As you will see if you read the entire thread, I said there may be other things in the Texas law other than just the Deadly Force statute I cited that do allow for pursuit.

Both of these members focused on the Texas incident in their responses when I said numerous times that the point of the post was to generate a discussion of when you can use Deadly Force, not to discuss the Texas Incident.

I contributed to the misunderstanding by quoting Texas Penal Code on Deadly Force and pursuit of a fleeing felon, (but I also said there may be other points of local law that allowed pursuit.)

Later, after previously trying to disconnect the Texas incident from the reason for the post, I said that I regretted having ever used the Texas case as a lead-in for the discussion and said to have done so was my bad.

None of this seems to have made any difference to these two members.

So, since this thread has degenerated into an uncivil, personalized discussion, here is my response.

Sam Spade and Gallium are Lifetime Member and Charter Lifetime Member of this board respectively.

I am a newbie. But being a newbie means I have read the rules of this board recently and all members are supposed to treat one another with respect.

You can't disparage someone, intentionally phrasing a response in a way that does not disguise your contempt for them, and then say you "mean it in the nicest possible way" (Sam Spade) or you "mean it as respectfully as if you were sitting across the desk from me" (Gallium).

Both of them crossed the line and disregarded the spirit and rules of the board.

Refute errors so all of us can learn. But do it without sarcasm and personal attack.

SCmasterblaster
01-17-2013, 10:39
I am not going to pursue or capture anyone, period. I am not going to "exchage gunfire" with someone trying to flee from me. I will use deadly force when my failure to use it will likely get me killed or grieviously maimed

You got that right, brother.

Gallium
01-17-2013, 11:44
Car2217,

Without any condescending attitude, what I said before still holds true, and I would have said it exactly the same way, and possibly even more forceful, if you had been sitting across from me. It is those forum rules that you cite which got you the muted, toned down response you did.
Until and unless a moderator tells me my conduct is out of line, I'll keep whistling and riding.

If you feel you are being treated below that threshold required by the owners and mods for the site, you are always free, and encouraged to report posts that offend you.

Gallium
01-17-2013, 11:52
...For starters, the article says the two observed the victim being held at gunpoint. There is already enough justification for deadly force in ANY state of the union. But you said they chased the dude, then exchanged gunfire with the dude. You also said the robber did not physically harm the victim. Guess what? The law does not mandate someone 1st inflict physical harm before you can use deadly force - that gun pointed at the victim was enough justification to immediately shoot the robber if the situation called for it.

We don't know if the robber pointed the gun at the other two, but it does not matter.

I am not sure what (else) you would like to discuss...

and hey, I am out of this thread.

SCmasterblaster
01-17-2013, 13:21
Car 2217
So where do you live? Sounds like it must be a very liberal state! NY, Conn, NJ, CA, Mass ? Those states have revoked the everydays citizens right to selfdefense and good citizenship laws! They stress you must be a victim. They've trained you to be a victim. Every American has the right to defend themselves and others from harm and criminal acts. Time to wake up and stop being a victim! Are you a slave or a free man?:whistling:

He may even live in VT(!)

Bren
01-17-2013, 13:36
exchanged gunfire

“….in the event that an individual, or a person under protection of the individual, is in immediate danger of loss of life or immediate danger of grave bodily injury, it shall be an affirmative defense that the use of deadly force by the individual is justified.”


There you go.


To that (in some states) is added that the individual must attempt to flee (disengage) unless that action would place the individual or the person under protection of the individual in even greater danger.

Not in Texas (or Kentucky, or Florida, etc.).


And somewhere in the statutes it will say something like “…once the threat has ended, the affirmative defense has also ended”.

Note that the statute speaks of 'Affirmative Defense', not the 'Right' to use Deadly Force. There is a world of difference.

Anyway, in the case of the two good guys who popped the crook, what they did was illegal because they were in no danger of immediate loss of life or grave bodily injury and, since the crook fled the scene without harming the victim, the victim wasn’t either. (Still, I hope that if a LEO discovers their identity he has the good sense to ‘misplace the paperwork’.)

Without going into a Texas law research project - many states allow deadly force to prevent any felony involving the use of force - here, for example, you can kill a purse snatcher who is unarmed. Same goes for a person who punches a school volunteer or bus driver. All felonies involving the use of force. In addition, our courts say that "robbery" includes the escape with the goods, so that deadly force could still be used to stop the robbery even where the robber was fleeing.

Next, the justification is usually decided at the point force is used. For example, in many places you can use non-deadly force to take back your property or someone else's (as here in KY). If you try to lawfully take back your property and the thief or robber then threatens you with deadly force ("exchanged gunfire") you can use deadly force in self-defense.

Then, of course, texas is the one state that allows you to kill a thief, under some conditions, while he is fleeing.

I think there is a pretty good chance these guys would be justified.

SgtScott31
01-18-2013, 22:40
Without going into a Texas law research project - many states allow deadly force to prevent any felony involving the use of force - here, for example, you can kill a purse snatcher who is unarmed.


I don't necessarily agree with this. While I don't research every use of force statute from every state, I find it hard to believe that many states allow you to use deadly force involving a felony where force is used by the suspect. A purse snatcher is normally not going to subject someone to serious bodily injury or death. So how can you justify using deadly force against him?

If I'm pursuing a purse snatching suspect and fire on him I'd be looking for a new job and possibly a lien on my home. And I have greater protection as a LEO.

Gallium
01-19-2013, 02:40
I don't necessarily agree with this. While I don't research every use of force statute from every state, I find it hard to believe that many states allow you to use deadly force involving a felony where force is used by the suspect. ...


In most states, statutes/laws allow for use of deadly force to terminate/thwart a kidnapping, rape or sodomy of a minor.

In many states deadly force is permissible to thwart a robbery subsequent to a break in of a domicile.

In some states, the disparity of force is a consideration, and in some other states, so long as the VICTIM can conclusively ("reasonableness standard") express that he or she was in grave fear of his/her life, deadly force is permissible.

What is so hard to believe about those things I've outlined?

I find it hard to believe that you're approaching the subject in such a narrow, focused way.

- G

Now I'm done. :cool:

SgtScott31
01-22-2013, 12:52
In many states deadly force is permissible to thwart a robbery subsequent to a break in of a domicile

I'm aware of the "castle" doctrines. With regards to these statutes, there's normally an automatic presumption of serious bodily injury or death when the person is in your home. That doctrine has been extended to your car & business in my state (TN).

In some states, the disparity of force is a consideration, and in some other states, so long as the VICTIM can conclusively ("reasonableness standard") express that he or she was in grave fear of his/her life, deadly force is permissible.

What is so hard to believe about those things I've outlined?

Exactly what I mentioned. There normally needs to be a reasonable belief of serious bodily injury or death.

To me a purse snatcher doesn't meet the criteria unless he displays or emphasizes he has a weapon during the strong armed robbery attempt.

We're talking about a purse snatcher and you introduced several other examples where the use of deadly force would more likely be justified. Such examples as forcible rape or kidnapping of a minor, home invasion, and any time a person is in fear of serious bodily injury or death are fine with me when it comes to the use of deadly force.

Like I mentioned in my first post, I don't see the same with a purse snatcher. Although it's a robbery by definition in most states, if I was to shoot a purse snatcher as a LEO with no threat of a weapon or serious bodily harm I'd likely lose my job and a wrongful death action. Many courts follow the TN v. Garner standard when it comes to felonies & deadly force.

SouthernBoyVA
01-22-2013, 15:26
So, since this thread has degenerated into an uncivil, personalized discussion, here is my response...

Trust me, these forums have a lot of this going on. All you need do is follow a thread a few pages and you're bound to run into a health measure of incivility. Many times, it's the same crew doing this.

I just ignore it for the most part. Think of it this way...

Except for those whom you choose to care about, what others think and say about you means absolutely nothing.

Bren
01-23-2013, 05:21
I don't necessarily agree with this. While I don't research every use of force statute from every state, I find it hard to believe that many states allow you to use deadly force involving a felony where force is used by the suspect. A purse snatcher is normally not going to subject someone to serious bodily injury or death. So how can you justify using deadly force against him?

If I'm pursuing a purse snatching suspect and fire on him I'd be looking for a new job and possibly a lien on my home. And I have greater protection as a LEO.

Well, I do research use of force laws of others states. I reviewed this bill for the executive branch before the governor signed it. We borrowed it from Florida's castle doctrine elgislation, as did several others states. In Kentucky, it is KRS 503.050 and 503.070:

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055.

(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055; and
(b) Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.

In Kentucky, purse snatching is Robbery 2nd - a felony involvibng the use of force. So is slapping a school bus driver or a teacher (Assault 3rd).

In Florida it is Fl. St. 776.012 

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

In New Hampshire it is § 627:4, but is limited to being on your own property:

II. A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when he reasonably believes that such other person:
(a) Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a third person;
(b) Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
(c) Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex offense; or
(d) Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.

Those are some examples from the top of a quick google search. When I teach the class to law enforcement, I point out that a private citizen can use deadly force in KY in situations that would be a criminal civil rights violation if the police did it.

Bren
01-23-2013, 05:32
I'm aware of the "castle" doctrines. With regards to these statutes, there's normally an automatic presumption of serious bodily injury or death when the person is in your home. That doctrine has been extended to your car & business in my state (TN).



Kentucky requires no danger to justify deadly force against a burglar or arsonist. One example I use in class is, if you invite your buddy over to a superbowl party and you get in an argument and tell him to leave your house and he says, "I'm not leaving because I'm going to smash your TV" he is then committing a burglary and deadly force is perfectly legal to stop it. The supreme court has mentioned that Kentucky law allows deadly force against anyone who enters or remains unlawfully in your home for5 the purpose of committing ANY crime (felony or misdemeanor). KRS 503.080.

In Colorado
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

So Colorado's law is, in some ways, less strict than Kentucky. In Kentucky, it has to be your own home to use deadly force against a person who comes in uninvited to steal a loaf of bread, but in Colorado, anybody in the house can do it.

SgtScott31
01-23-2013, 13:31
I have no issues with broader legislation involving use of force as you guys have pointed out in KY. I would just not want to be the attorney for a defendant if the plaintiff was the family member of the decedent (the D shot) who wouldn't leave his buddy's house during a superbowl game or the purse snatching suspect who was shot multiple times and had no weapon or failed to display/advise of a weapon during the snatching. It appears the CO statute only outlines deadly force when the person made any unlawful entry to the house or remains in the house after an unlawful entry. That seems to be on point with the castle doctrine.

We all know that every case is very fact-specific when a court/jury comes to the conclusion that it does. I just would not want those specific scenarios in a wrongful death action. It appears in those limited circumstances that citizens have more latitude when it comes to deadly force than LEOs do.

Bren
01-23-2013, 15:34
I have no issues with broader legislation involving use of force as you guys have pointed out in KY. I would just not want to be the attorney for a defendant if the plaintiff was the family member of the decedent (the D shot) who wouldn't leave his buddy's house during a superbowl game or the purse snatching suspect who was shot multiple times and had no weapon or failed to display/advise of a weapon during the snatching. It appears the CO statute only outlines deadly force when the person made any unlawful entry to the house or remains in the house after an unlawful entry. That seems to be on point with the castle doctrine.

We all know that every case is very fact-specific when a court/jury comes to the conclusion that it does. I just would not want those specific scenarios in a wrongful death action. It appears in those limited circumstances that citizens have more latitude when it comes to deadly force than LEOs do.

Could be tricky, but we also have immunity from suit for shooting burglars in KY and the plaintiff has to pay for our attorney and all costs, lost pay, etc., if they sue and the court rules that the shooting was justified.

SgtScott31
01-23-2013, 20:03
Could be tricky, but we also have immunity from suit for shooting burglars in KY and the plaintiff has to pay for our attorney and all costs, lost pay, etc., if they sue and the court rules that the shooting was justified.

I think we have a similar standard in TN for the same thing.