Page 2 of 2
Re: Would it be legal to shoot this guy in the back?
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:29 pm
by boomerang
My answer would depend on if I was inside the bank, behind cover, and he was running away from me.
Or if I was outside the bank, exposed, and the armed felon was running toward me.
Re: Would it be legal to shoot this guy in the back?
Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 12:29 am
by ClarkLZeuss
If it's just the bank being robbed, even though part of me wants to play "hero," I don't know that it would be wise to intervene, for several reasons. One, if I'm laying on the ground with my hands above my head (as it seems the robber ordered everyone to do), I'm at a tactical disadvantage. Two, since it's the bank being robbed (not me personally) I might be at a legal disadvantage. Three, since there are likely many bystanders at many different angles to me and the robber, there is a greater risk of a firefight leading to their injury, so I am at an ethical disadvantage.
Now, if the robber turns to all of us customers and demand we hand over wallets, etc., then that changes things. Also, if he not only threatens force but actually uses it, that would extremely alter the rules and more than anything else would probably compel me to action.
Re: Would it be legal to shoot this guy in the back?
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:52 pm
by blackdog8200
ClarkLZeuss wrote:If it's just the bank being robbed, even though part of me wants to play "hero," I don't know that it would be wise to intervene, for several reasons. One, if I'm laying on the ground with my hands above my head (as it seems the robber ordered everyone to do), I'm at a tactical disadvantage. Two, since it's the bank being robbed (not me personally) I might be at a legal disadvantage. Three, since there are likely many bystanders at many different angles to me and the robber, there is a greater risk of a firefight leading to their injury, so I am at an ethical disadvantage.
Now, if the robber turns to all of us customers and demand we hand over wallets, etc., then that changes things. Also, if he not only threatens force but actually uses it, that would extremely alter the rules and more than anything else would probably compel me to action.
All great points!
Along with these: You and your gun drawn and shooting in the bank....Where is the security guard and do you have a "good guy sign" on you?
Do you have 50 grand for a retainer on the lawyer?
Clear line of fire?
Who else is in the bank ie one of his buddies is waiting just out of view?
He starts shooting....then do what you need to survive. In the meantime....don't get killed. The bank has insurance for the cash!
Re: Would it be legal to shoot this guy in the back?
Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 4:13 pm
by KD5NRH
blackdog8200 wrote:The bank has insurance for the cash!
Meaning that, ultimately, part of it will be coming from your pockets.
Re: Would it be legal to shoot this guy in the back?
Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:26 am
by CWOOD
One thing to point out is that IF the use of deadly force is justified, the law is silent on WHERE you shot placement should be focused. If you can legally shoot, you can aim anywhere, back, front, toe, groin, or head. Just wanted to mention that since it had not been addressed fully and it was in the title of the original post.
That having been said, of course, the BIG question is IF you are legally justified.
Many fine points have been made. I agree that this has been a good discussion and it is helpful to consider such things BEFORE the event occurs. The fact is that each situation must be judged in the moment with the facts at hand at the time...but the legal evaluation will take place at painful length as police, prosectors, judges, juries, press, etc., will discuss your split second decison over a period of perhaps months.
Personally, I would probably NOT have intervened unless or until the robber made a move that indicated a general threat to ME or an immediate threat to another.
Thanks to the interesting, thoughtful and courteous discussion.
Re: Would it be legal to shoot this guy in the back?
Posted: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
by Backwoods
If I'm not mistaken, You can legally shot the perp. and you would probably be no-billed.
That does not exempt you from a Civil judgement being filed against you.
Like stated above. The wise decision would be to observe and gather as much info as you can to relay to the LEO.
Re: Would it be legal to shoot this guy in the back?
Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 7:50 pm
by dicion
Backwoods wrote:If I'm not mistaken, You can legally shot the perp. and you would probably be no-billed.
That does not exempt you from a Civil judgement being filed against you.
Like stated above. The wise decision would be to observe and gather as much info as you can to relay to the LEO.
Actually, it does exempt you.
Code: Select all
CPRC g 83.001. ClVlL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the
defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.
Basically, if you are no-billed by a GJ, you can not be held civially liable.
Sorry, didn't mean to be a forum necromancer. Just reading through all of these threads for the lessons learned, and couldn't let this hang ;)