Engage or not

[samrothstein01]

Legally speaking, he'd be fair game pursuant to IC 35-41-3-2 (he has a gun so we assume imminent serious bodily injury, and he's committing a forceable felony).

So, the question is whether or not it would be wise or advantagous to engage. That, as said above, depends on the circumstances.

Here's a link to an interesting article for some perspective:

Commentary by Evan Marshall <= linky

That is really interesting read. I understand and completely agree that it is likely not to be portrayed as heroic and it will most likely result in years of legal and finacial burden, but I am not certain I can put a price on someones life. Obviously, and I think most of us would agree, avoiding this situation all together is the optimal end game.

The good news is that there are also many cases that the indivdual who did step up was noticed for having done such and was released from liability. I can't find the post right now, but there was a recent one, I think in Indy where a mother and her child (infant) were being held at gun point, and a bystander killed the assailant. No charges were filed, the lady was praising him for saving her and her child. Now, the assailant's family may have sued...but that is expected I suppose in this day and age.

 

[Joe Williams]

Good question, and another hard one to answer.

I believe my answer is no. If you pull, you fire. If you try to verbally de-escalate the situation, that only gives him time flip out and fire first and hurt or kill you or someone else. If you have reason enough to pull the firearm, you best use it, and you best not hesitate. For me, it's kind of like the "shooting them in the leg to injur them" scenario. If the stakes were high enough for you to brandish the weapon, then you best keep pulling the trigger until the threat is nuetralized.


Interested to hear other's thoughts on this.....

That's pretty much my thoughts on this. Trying to issue verbal challenges to a guy in this situation is more likely to result in danger to other bystanders, and a gunfight. To be blunt, if a guy sticks a gun in a teller's face, I would have no qualms about shooting him in the back without warning to save the teller, and minimize danger to other bystanders.

 

[gretschdrummer]

2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
..
forcilbe felony..... Bank robbery, amred anything right... that is alot of gray area. Say a perp had a knife and was attempting to rob a speedway gas station. That is a "forcible felony" right... I agree as most every situation is different and no matter how many times you play the scenarios through you head. You never know exactly what you are going to do until the moment arrives. Unfortunately with todays economic condition it may become a reality check that we don't want but may have to engage in very soon.. Trained hard and Be safe!!!!
Scott

 

[ML ll THUMBHOLE]

This is good stuff, and I believe if you pull, you shoot to kill. You should not let the perp see you pull, you know where the bullet is going after impact. Any questions should be addressed after the pert is down or dead.
But, what if the perp has grabbed several people, and put his gun to their heads, but now has his money and is walking to the door, you have a clean shop op. Do you take it, or let him walk with no one including the pert getting hurt?

 

[samrothstein01]

But, what if the perp has grabbed several people, and put his gun to their heads, but now has his money and is walking to the door, you have a clean shop op. Do you take it, or let him walk with no one including the pert getting hurt?

Personally, I don't think it gets this far (if possible). If he is holding a gun to someones head, the window of time to act is short. If I am in a position to do something about it and didn't just walk in, and assuming there is a clean shot, ample backstop, all the other circumstances align, then I would assume you have to strike quickly before anyone gets hurt. Again, there is a lot one can read in a situation about what the actual level of threat is.

However, if he has already managed to get the money and is headed out the door with no danger to anyone....let him walk and leave it to the authorities to track him down later. No sense in escalating the situation yourself if unnecessary and everyone is out of harms way.

 

[SilentWarrior1]

Do you draw down, then attempt to verbally disarm him, and fire if threat escalates or continues?

I, personally, am not trained in verbal de-escalation. I'm trained in threat neutralization.

I would say shoot, but only if you can do so and do so quickly. As stated before, be sure of your backstop, as injury to others would be a detriment to your case.

 

[Bubba]

This is good stuff, and I believe if you pull, you shoot to kill...

Shoot to stop, never to kill. Lethal force is appropriate if and only if it is used to defend oneself or another against the reasonable threat of Grave Bodily Injury. A reasonable threat is one where the aggressor has expressed or implied an Intent to cause Grave Injury, possesses a Delivery System (including hands, sticks, small furniture, etcetera if applicable. See also, the 21-foot-rule and its variants.), and gives reason to believe the attack is Imminent.

The instant I can check those three boxes the Bad Guy is no longer a person but a valid target. A single surrender command may or may not be appropriate, but never a lengthy dialog. Shoot to stop the threat. It really isn't my concern what happens to him after he's no longer a threat. If he lives, fine. If not, fine. If he pisses himself and curls up into a fetal ball before I actually land a round, fine. Threat neutralized, finger off the trigger.

 

[Fishersjohn48]

Again, never point a gun at someone unless you plan to kill him will ALWAYS be my rule. What is shoot to stop? Where does one aim to shoot to stop? If you are pulling the trigger it is lethal force, I am not shooting rubber bullets or a tazer at the person.

 

[Bubba]

Shooting to stop isn't a question of tactics. Shoot to land an effective hit on your target. Shooting to stop is a question of intent. Shooting to kill is an intent to kill. Why do you care if the aggressor dies? It is not any one person's right to impose a punishment on a Bad Guy.

Shooting to stop is simply protecting yourself or another from a threat. If the threat stops, why keep shooting? If the threat stops because the aggressor dies, well, that's just too bad. If the threat stops because the perp is incapacitated or surrenders, why waste the bullets?

 

[turnandshoot4]

I, personally, am not trained in verbal de-escalation. I'm trained in threat neutralization.

Great comment.

Heck yes I shoot. Does anyone remember the pregnant bank tell that got shot in the stomach? How they never caught the guy? That changed my look on it forever. When the robber/who ever threatens to take a life they lose the right to their own. I would hope you would do the same for my wife/mother/aunt/father/brother/uncle.

 

[Josh Ward]

Each and every situation is very very different....one MUST be prepared mentally to think fast, and take what action is necessary and safe to the innocent to eliminate the threat at hand. IMO this type situation is no time for talking, IF you are to engage, do it swifty, decisively, and quietly. There will be more than enough talking when the smoke clears...

 

[samrothstein01]

Shooting to stop isn't a question of tactics. Shoot to land an effective hit on your target. Shooting to stop is a question of intent. Shooting to kill is an intent to kill. Why do you care if the aggressor dies? It is not any one person's right to impose a punishment on a Bad Guy.

Shooting to stop is simply protecting yourself or another from a threat. If the threat stops, why keep shooting? If the threat stops because the aggressor dies, well, that's just too bad. If the threat stops because the perp is incapacitated or surrenders, why waste the bullets?

So riddle me this....if you are shooting to stop, once he goes to the ground do you quit? Who is to say he can't still lift an arm and shoot back? Who's judgement is it that he is "incapacitated or surrendered"? Perhaps he is just playing dead like a possum until you let your guard down so he can fire back.

This isn't a judgement, or established reason of of punishment. Neither does it imply we care if he lives or dies. This is about the safety of my own person, and those around me, especially my family. And, according to the law, as pointed out earlier in the thread (see below IC 35-41-3-2), lethal force is justified (based on the previous circumstances acknowledged by the thread) i.e., the person is preventing serious bodily injury to the person or third person, etc: i.e., he held a gun to someones head.

Why, or further more how, could you leave your life to chance and and be okay with that decision? If the situation is dire, and the cause of action is life threatening, be certain that that person does not ever have the chance to take yours before his own.

Therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge. (Machiavelli, The Prince)


IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadlyforce; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary

 

[Bubba]

...is justified in using deadly force is not the same as shall kill the aggressor.

Why, or further more how, could you leave your life to chance and and be okay with that decision? If the situation is dire, and the cause of action is life threatening, be certain that that person does not ever have the chance to take yours before his own.

You've made my argument for me. If the person poses a threat, stop it. This is not a Liberal "OMG criminals are ppl too think of the kittens" type of argument. This is a "if the threat is over stop shooting" argument. Furthermore, since we have the luxury of thinking about liability now and won't when we're shooting, let me point out that the law is applied dynamically - i.e. just because a person is threatening serious injury at one time does not mean you can shoot at him forever. Once the situation is changed to the point at which it would be reasonable to believe that the bad guy, alive or dead, no longer poses the threat of serious injury or a forcible felony deadly force is no longer justified under the same statute you quoted.

So riddle me this....if you are shooting to stop, once he goes to the ground do you quit? Who is to say he can't still lift an arm and shoot back? Who's judgement is it that he is "incapacitated or surrendered"? Perhaps he is just playing dead like a possum until you let your guard down so he can fire back.

This is one of those fiddly details that can only be determined by the man on the ground. In most single aggressor situations I would say yes, when the perp hits the ground it's ok to stop shooting him. Don't put your gun away, but I would personally feel a bit awkward explaning to the cops why I felt compelled to empty two mags into the guy after he dropped.

I think we're talking about essentially the same thing here. I would agree that in the situation outlined in the original post deadly force would be justified. The point I was originally trying to raise was that it is dangerous, immoral and legally unsound to plan to kill someone. It is instead more proper to plan to engage a threat and stop it in the safest and most expeditious manner possible. I will shoot for the center of mass of the available target, I will maintain situational awareness both in the combat area and downrange. I will stop my attacker and, once stopped, I will not stand down until he is handed over to the police.

 

[samrothstein01]

Okay, so now we are having a healthy debate over semantics.....in which case we are both correct. My intention wasn't to indicate you should reload and dump additional mags into someone who is lying helplessly on the ground....it was simply that you shoot, and continue to do so until the threat is over. (I believe this is your point as well.) If that means he lives or dies, makes no difference, just that he can no longer impose serious injury, etc. "Shoot to Kill", IMHO, isn't necessarily that we wish he dies, but rather that you don't aim for a leg hoping to disable them which gives them the ability to retaliate, but you aim for the quickest most absolute resolution possible.

I don't think anyone on the post was trying to insinuate pre-meditation, but rather "what would you do if...." which is to your point of "plan to engage".

So, that being said, what other of the worlds problems can we solve??

 

[mconley]

remeber you are responsible for every round that leaves your gun, if your life is threatened ( CALIFORNIA SHOOTING ). You have to make your choise. If no gun is brandished and the robbery is a quiet note passing, I would not. But Im not a lawer and I am not in your shoes.

 

[Bubba]

Okay, so now we are having a healthy debate over semantics.....in which case we are both correct. My intention wasn't to indicate you should reload and dump additional mags into someone who is lying helplessly on the ground....it was simply that you shoot, and continue to do so until the threat is over. (I believe this is your point as well.) If that means he lives or dies, makes no difference, just that he can no longer impose serious injury, etc. "Shoot to Kill", IMHO, isn't necessarily that we wish he dies, but rather that you don't aim for a leg hoping to disable them which gives them the ability to retaliate, but you aim for the quickest most absolute resolution possible.

I don't think anyone on the post was trying to insinuate pre-meditation, but rather "what would you do if...." which is to your point of "plan to engage".

I accept this. I didn't mean to imply I considered you a bloodthirsty vigilante. My first firearms instructor felt the semantics of kill vs. stop were important enough to drill into us continually, and apparently the lesson stuck.

 

[Fishersjohn48]

And understand that my point is that when you do raise your weapon that 1) you fully understand that your actions are in all probablity going to take a human life, 2) shooting at center of mass with some sort of personel protection ammo is lethal force, 3) trying to injure someone to the point that they no longer pose a threat is at best naive and at worst going to get you killed.

I also agree that in no way is it justified to unload a mag on someone when he is down. That is not what I am talking about.

 

[IndyBeerman]

So a bank I frequent just got robbed at gunpoint. The Herald Bulletin - Gunman robs National City bank

If you're there when this happens, and are carrying, at what point do you, if at all, engage the bad guy? The rumor is that he did, in fact, put the gun to the teller's head at one point. Is that enough? He was in the bank alone, his accomplice was still outside in the vehicle according to preliminary reports.

I've been going back and forth on this in my head. On one side, giving him the money will just get him out of there, no harm done. However, if he does flip out and shoots the teller and I didn't do anything, I'd feel awful. On the other side, engaging him may cause said flipout. Or it may cause him to **** down his leg and surrender.

Thoughts?

My first thought on this if the BG has a gun to the head of a person, is to not draw and fire until the weapon is not pointed at the head. All it would take is a reactionary twitch from being shot and he tosses a round accidentally into the victim.
I'll wait for a appropriate chance then react. Last thing I want it is an innocent person suffering a hasty choice on my part.

 

[JPY]

My first thought on this if the BG has a gun to the head of a person, is to not draw and fire until the weapon is not pointed at the head. All it would take is a reactionary twitch from being shot and he tosses a round accidentally into the victim.
I'll wait for a appropriate chance then react. Last thing I want it is an innocent person suffering a hasty choice on my part.

At the point when the BG is lowering the gun, isn't that sort of a retreat motion and the threat of injury/death is heading towards neutral?

 

[IndyBeerman]

At the point when the BG is lowering the gun, isn't that sort of a retreat motion and the threat of injury/death is heading towards neutral?

Most BG's are not going to lower the gun but I feel that they will rather swing it around in a fashion to try and intimidate people around them. As long as they're in possession of the weapon in any way other than laying it down and backing away, he is a threat. No different that someone having a trigger switch in his hand for a bomb, just because he lowers it, does not mean he is any less of a threat.

I'm not concerned about my shot placement, I believe that I will hit what I aim at, it is my concern of a gun placed to the head of someone, with the shear impact of being shot will result in in a muscle contraction/twitch that results in a fatal shot to someone you are trying to save.

That's not the result I want to happen.