# Under what conditions can you shoot an assailant in the back?



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Many discussions and arguments have arisen on a number of gun websites regarding the numerous facets of using deadly force in one's defense or the defense of another innocent party. One of these facets which is not touched upon very often, probably because most believe it to be cast in stone that one does not do this, is whether or not shooting someone in the back is defenseable in a court of law. I know of three scenarios where this would be defenseable but I am curious to hear what others have to say before I elaborate on what I have been taught.

So chime in at your whim and don't hold back. You just may bring to light some very interesting and worthwhile information for the rest of us.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Well it is an interesting issue no doubt, and one that I think is largely misunderstood. One situation I believe it is lawful to shoot someone in the back would be where you're behind a BG who has his weapon pointed at someone else and the behavior seems imminent that they intend to do bodily harm. Such was the case recently where a CCW holder shot a robber who was leading a store clerk from the back to the front of the store. The robber had his gun to the clerk's head threatening her life when the CCW holder shot and killed him. 

Another case in which I imagine shooting in the back is lawful is if a suspect is in your home. Once a would be criminal has entered your domain, there aren't many scenarios where the home owner can't be legal in defense of self, another, property. 

The last scenario I can think of would be if you somehow found yourself in a "fight" in public, in which the aggressor has proven that their intent was not to flee once confronted, then I would imagine to shoot in the back would be defensible. In such case, one would almost have to have eye witnesses, or circumstances that prove this was possibly the case. Mike Brown scenario comes to mind. If in a fight like, the aggressor makes several charges at you after you have fended them off, you could feasibly argue that you were in fear for your life and fought off multiple attempts to hurt/kill you, where an aggressor kept coming after you. 

Outside that, I really cannot imagine another scenario where as a civilian one can defend shooting an aggressor in the back. If they have turned away from you, in most cases, they are no longer aggressive, but in retreat. If you shoot then, I imagine it would be hard to defend in most cases, outside special circumstances.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

I do not no this to be fact, but I believe that if the bad guy is in the process of murdering an innocent and shooting the BG in the back is the only way to save a life then that should be legal.
Goldwing


----------



## MoMan (Dec 27, 2010)

GCBHM said:


> Well it is an interesting issue no doubt, and one that I think is largely misunderstood. One situation I believe it is lawful to shoot someone in the back would be where you're behind a BG who has his weapon pointed at someone else and the behavior seems imminent that they intend to do bodily harm. Such was the case recently where a CCW holder shot a robber who was leading a store clerk from the back to the front of the store. The robber had his gun to the clerk's head threatening her life when the CCW holder shot and killed him.
> 
> Another case in which I imagine shooting in the back is lawful is if a suspect is in your home. Once a would be criminal has entered your domain, there aren't many scenarios where the home owner can't be legal in defense of self, another, property.
> 
> ...


I think this about nails it!!

Well put!!!

MO


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Good points all so far.

GCBHM, you introduced one scenario I had not thought about... the first one in your first paragraph. Hard to imagine a way out of that one that would not compromise your own safety unless you fired on the BG.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Yeah, I mean how does one get the BG to stop by shouting at him "FREEZE". Now, not only have you jeopardized the life of the clerk b/c you just scared the crap out of the BG, potentially causing him to accidentally discharge his weapon, but you have also alerted him to your presence giving up your only real advantage, which is surprise, and possibly endangered lives of anyone close to you. 

Best thing to do, IMO, is to observe, be ready to act if it gets to a fever pitch, and if you do decide to act, hopefully you've done so with the knowledge that you're not endangering the lives of others who might be around. If you have a legitimate shot, knowing no one is in your possible line of fire (including the victim), and have the confidence to take it eliminating the BG, I think this could be lawful 3rd party defense where shooting the BG in the back may not put you in legal peril. Civil is a separate issue, of course.

God help you if it goes wrong, and someone else gets killed. Then you have become the one element that caused the death of innocent bystanders, where the BG could feasibly establish he was just trying to defend himself. If you shoot, you'd better kill him! I just hope I never find myself in this situation!


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

> Southernboy
> *Under what conditions can you shoot an assailant in the back? *


When the question is what conditions need to be than clearly you have to see the back of a person thatn you gonna shoot. If you ask when it is legal to shoot someone, - a lot of circumstantial issues like race of the shooter and the target, religion, gender and political correctness and the ruling of the residential street gang are very important to answer the question.


----------



## high pockets (Apr 25, 2011)

GCBHM said:


> ...
> Outside that, I really cannot imagine another scenario where as a civilian one can defend shooting an aggressor in the back. If they have turned away from you, in most cases, they are no longer aggressive, but in retreat. If you shoot then, I imagine it would be hard to defend in most cases, outside special circumstances.


I question you reasoning here, GC. Just because an aggressor has turned away from you, that does not necessarily mean they have broken off contact, and are departing. What if the aggressor reaches around and fires at you while turned away? What if the aggressor turns as you are shooting and your shot winds up in the aggressor's back, looking like a back shot? I agree that if the aggressor has truly broken off the attack and is, in fact, fleeing, it would be difficult to justify a shot to the back of the aggressor; but who determines the aggressor has truly decided to flee?

Another thing that troubles me is the assumption that one will automatically know who is the aggressor and who is the innocent party. While this would be fairly obvious in most situations within a business, or certainly within one's own home, how sure can you be, in an altercation between two people, in a public place, both dressed in civvies, which is the aggressor and which is the victim? Who do you shoot, in order to save a life? The person with the visible gun, or the person with the gun held below your line of sight?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

If I understand Massad Ayoob's commentaries as well as I think that I do, you may find that shooting an assailant in the back is inevitable.
Once your first bullet hits the BG's front, his natural instinct will be to turn away from the source of fire. Thus, at least a few of your subsequent shots will hit his side and his back.
He will complete his turn long before you can make your hand stop shooting.

If you are brought to trial, you may find yourself needing to explain lucidly, for the jury's benefit, why some of your shots hit him in the back.
You may also need to explain the same point to a jury in a civil trial for damages, brought by the BG's family.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

high pockets said:


> I question you reasoning here, GC. Just because an aggressor has turned away from you, that does not necessarily mean they have broken off contact, and are departing. What if the aggressor reaches around and fires at you while turned away? What if the aggressor turns as you are shooting and your shot winds up in the aggressor's back, looking like a back shot? I agree that if the aggressor has truly broken off the attack and is, in fact, fleeing, it would be difficult to justify a shot to the back of the aggressor; but who determines the aggressor has truly decided to flee?
> 
> Another thing that troubles me is the assumption that one will automatically know who is the aggressor and who is the innocent party. While this would be fairly obvious in most situations within a business, or certainly within one's own home, how sure can you be, in an altercation between two people, in a public place, both dressed in civvies, which is the aggressor and which is the victim? Who do you shoot, in order to save a life? The person with the visible gun, or the person with the gun held below your line of sight?


Did you read this part:The last scenario I can think of would be if you somehow found yourself in a "fight" in public, in which the aggressor has proven that their intent was not to flee once confronted, then I would imagine to shoot in the back would be defensible. In such case, one would almost have to have eye witnesses, or circumstances that prove this was possibly the case. Mike Brown scenario comes to mind. If in a fight like, the aggressor makes several charges at you after you have fended them off, you could feasibly argue that you were in fear for your life and fought off multiple attempts to hurt/kill you, where an aggressor kept coming after you.

WRT to the assuming who the aggressor is, in the last scenario I suggested, there was no "third party" defense. It was a one on one fight where you are fighting for your life. No outside involvement/defenders per se.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Once again, some good comments here. We really should do threads along this line more often... those that raise the question of deadly self defense; its reasons and its consequences, the legal ramifications in given states, and the after affect of a shooting.

Now I'll describe three scenarios where shooting someone in the back would not only be a prudent act but defenseable as well. These scenarios were discussed in a class on Virginia law and the use of deadly force taught by an attorney experienced in these matters.

*Scenario 1*
You awaken to the sounds of a break-in in progress and you and your wife put your predefined plan for such events into play. She gets in her protective place in the bedroom while dialing 911 and you arm yourself and position yourself in your spot. You elect to shout out that you are armed [optional, of course], the police have been called, and whomever is in the house should leave immediately. The perp does not leave.

Instead, he makes his way to the sound of your voice and up the stairs to your second floor where you, your wife, and your children sleep. He reaches the top of the stairs his back to you, you shout "Get on the floor" while training your gun on his upper torso. He pauses a moment, then takes off for the bedroom down the hall, opposite yours, where two of your children sleep. Your fire and he goes down.

This is a good shoot because you do not want him to get to your children. You must protect them and have to assume the worse case should he enter their bedroom.

*Scenario 2*
You are home alone when suddenly someone breaks into your home. You grab your gun, he sees you and fires and you return fire. He fires several more times then turns to run out of your house. As this is unfolding, lights appear in your driveway... it is your wife and daughter returning from a shopping outing. The perp exits your house and runs straight towards your wife's car. You shoot him just before he reaches it.

This is a good shoot because you must assume that your wife and daughter are in imminent danger of serious harm or worse, especially since this person has already demonstrated his desire to kill you.

*Scenario 3*
This scenario is nearly the same as that of scenario #2 except instead of your wife and daughter arriving and being put in jeopardy, the perp runs out to a waiting vehicle to retrieve another firearm being held for him by an accomplice. You see this and fire, hitting him in the back.

This is a good shoot because he is actively trying to get another firearm and you must assume that he is going to use it against you. You cannot wait until he has it in hand and does this.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

In your Scenario #3, things are not as cut-and-dried as you believe that they are. It may not be such a "good shoot" after all.

If the accomplice—the one with the "reserve" gun—leaves the scene, you may still face trial for having shot what will look to all and sundry as a fleeing felon who was no longer putting you or your family in jeopardy.
You may have the Devil's own time, convincing a jury that the unfound and undiscoverable accomplice was really there, that there was indeed a second gun, and that the felon was definitely going to return to do you further harm.

And, by the way, exactly how did you know that the fleeing felon was going to grab a "backup" gun from that accomplice?
Did the felon say to you, as he exited your home, "Excuse me for a second, muthaf--k-r, while I go get my second Hi-Point"?

Nope.
You should've waited 'till he turned back around and told you, "OK, suckah, here I come back again!"


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Removed by poster due to duplicate posting.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> In your Scenario #3, things are not as cut-and-dried as you believe that they are. It may not be such a "good shoot" after all.
> 
> If the accomplice-the one with the "reserve" gun-leaves the scene, you may still face trial for having shot what will look to all and sundry as a fleeing felon who was no longer putting you or your family in jeopardy.
> You may have the Devil's own time, convincing a jury that the unfound and undiscoverable accomplice was really there, that there was indeed a second gun, and that the felon was definitely going to return to do you further harm.
> ...


Only echoing what came up in a classroom/seminar on Virgnia law and the use of deadly force. Such details as you have described were not introduced, but are certainly worth considering. It was clear from the presenter that the perp was not returning to the vehicle to get a batch of Christmas cards to sell to the neighbors.

Do keep in mind that the perception of the victim is tantamount in these cases. By that I mean did he "..have a reasonably held good faith belief, based on objective fact" that he was still under imminent fear of serious bodily harm? The assumption was that the perp was handed the firearm by his accomplice, or about to be handed a firearm (as in immediately).

If the accomplice suddenly got cold feet and took off, the victim's right to the use of deadly force would almost certainly end at that point (the exception being that the perp decided to use another weapon, such as a knife, and started back towards the victim).

As for how would one know that the perp was about to be handed another firearm? He would see it unfold and take place, of course. If it didn't and the perp was no longer a threat, his actions end there. If not, a new set of circumstances arises.

In my state you don't have to wait until someone, who has already demonstrated that he wants to kill you, turns around and points a firearm at you before you can shoot them. Ability, opportunity, and jeopardy would have already been established. This all falls under the "reasonably held belief" concept. If the perp is till a threat, you fire until the threat has been neutralized. If he ceases to be a threat, you cease fire accordingly.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

1. You'd have to see him accept the backup Hi-Point from the accomplice.

2. The cops would have to find that backup Hi-Point in close association with the body of the deceased perp.

3. The deceased perp would need to have at least one of your bullet holes anterior to his front lateral plane, to show that he was turning to face you.


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

I suspect you would also find that any of these situations would be regarded differently in different parts of the country.
if the BG was black (armed, shooting and other aggressive acts) then Al Sharpton would be there calling you out.

In rural states/counties, might be more likely to be seen that the BG got what he/she deserved, so what's the big deal. (yeah, women can be BG's too)

If you have a 'personal protection plan', keep it to yourself. If you tell your friends that "If I ever find myself in this situation, I'll blow (them) away". A lawyer or prosecutor may try to claim that you were out looking for such an opportunity just to be able to blow some body away.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> 1. You'd have to see him accept the backup Hi-Point from the accomplice.
> 
> 2. The cops would have to find that backup Hi-Point in close association with the body of the deceased perp.
> 
> 3. The deceased perp would need to have at least one of your bullet holes anterior to his front lateral plane, to show that he was turning to face you.


Is that statute or case law in your state?

The thing is with these sorts of cases (scenarios in our examples) there are such a large number of variables with which to contend and a very limited amount of time for someone to take a decision under extreme duress and anxiety. For example, was the homeowner chasing the perp out of his house and down his driveway? That wouldn't look too good, with the exception of one scenario, loosely based upon a real case*, that I can remember.

For the record, I am going to go with what the attorney told the class based upon the scenario that was offered. He is well known in the gun culture here and has a track record of experience. He even carries on a regular basis and is steeped in the firearm's world.

* The case mentioned took place in Washington, DC some years ago (perhaps 15+ years) where a man came home to find that his young daughter had _just _been brutally raped by a man who was still in the neighborhood. The father grabbed a knife and went after the man who was identified by a neighbor as the perp, and stabbed him repeatedly (I think the perp died but I can't say this for certain). Anyway, the father was no billed, the reason being the time element. The crime had just taken place. I was really surprised with this one but had he been indicted, and had I been on the jury (hypothetical since I don't live in DC), I would have voted to acquit.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

There is not necessarily any easy answer to this, because it can be totally dependent on individual state law in certain cases - and then even up to individual prosecutors and politics....


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Shipwreck said:


> There is not necessarily any easy answer to this, because it can be totally dependent on individual state law in certain cases - and then even up to individual prosecutors and politics....


I agree, but then every shooting is going to be subject to that. I think any shooting should bear scrutiny, but the politics has no place in any realm of life. In my opinion, anyway.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

If I am the defense attorney for someone who has saved his life (or someone else's) with a gun, my case will try not to give any relevance to any statutes that the prosecution tries to use against him. I will try to inject doubt into the prosecution's claims as much as possible during cross-examination, but no lingering legal arguments for the jury to dwell on. I want them to remember the points that I present in my own case, with my own witnesses. That case would very simply be that my client was the victim in this event, and that he is a very average citizen who has exercised his right to defend his life, and was just barely lucky enough to have survived the traumatic experience.

Furthermore, the victim is not a highly trained professional who is charged with making critical judgments as to the attacker's intentions, but rather an assault victim who found himself involved in a life-threatening situation that was not of his own making. The small amount of training that the victim took before carrying a gun emphasized safe handling of firearms, hitting a target, and once engaged, shooting until the assault threat was eliminated.

The victim could have had no way of knowing for sure whether the assault threat had ended until his attacker stopped attacking him, by either submitting, being physically unable to attack, or by running out of handgun range. He also had no way of knowing whether his attacker was leaving the scene, or merely retreating to fire his own gun from cover. The victim had no choice but to use his meager abilities to try to stop him any way he could, and hopefully insure that he could no longer attack. He had no ability to judge what the attacker was capable of, from whatever position or location. In other words, he was the victim, and he was very lucky to have survived a violent attack from a determined and experienced criminal.

I'm no lawyer, but that is the logical way to defend it, and I honestly believe that most cases are won or lost by jury selection. The victim _should_ win every time, unless the prosecutor gets too many of his first picks on the jury, and is able to convince them that the attacker was the victim. My main point is that the first obligation is to _survive_. From that point forward, you get the best lawyer you can afford, if indicted, and hope that he can get an honest and intelligent jury empaneled.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

It's better if the backshot exits, so you can get him lined up and put a bullet on the return path. Confuses the scenario reconstruction.

^^---Sarcasm Alert---^^

The mf is shooting at you and/or yours, hit him anywhere you can. If the law sends you up for that, you are still ahead.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

A German lawyer said once to me: Being in the right means not that a liberal court rules in your favor. Law is surprisingly not rooted on common sense or on rightfulness. Law depends in a liberal nation on opinion and political correct interpretation of the facts. And fact is that a person with a black skin is innocent even when they commit mass murderers. A White, Asian, Red or Hispanic is guilty regardless what happen. The street mob will hunt everyone that is pointed out by El Sharpton and the liberal Media. Period – it’s now black and liberal country and they rule based on daydreams and wishful thinking. Questions? 

I would be very careful to shoot someone from the back or shoot anyone regardless from which angle. In the US not even a police can defend themselves, when he is attacked with a weapon by a black person. I would in this political correct climate not even look in the eye of black person, because I could be accused for something. Before you shot you have to be absolutely sure, that your criminal is Asian, Hispanic, Red or White.

The question here is very hypothetical.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

PT,
It is hard to agree with those who only speak in absolutes. There will always be exceptions. That is absolute.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> A German lawyer said once to me: Being in the right means not that a liberal court rules in your favor. Law is surprisingly not rooted on common sense or on rightfulness. Law depends in a liberal nation on opinion and political correct interpretation of the facts. And fact is that a person with a black skin is innocent even when they commit mass murderers. A White, Asian, Red or Hispanic is guilty regardless what happen. The street mob will hunt everyone that is pointed out by El Sharpton and the liberal Media. Period - it's now black and liberal country and they rule based on daydreams and wishful thinking. Questions?
> 
> I would be very careful to shoot someone from the back or shoot anyone regardless from which angle. In the US not even a police can defend themselves, when he is attacked with a weapon by a black person. I would in this political correct climate not even look in the eye of black person, because I could be accused for something. Before you shot you have to be absolutely sure, that your criminal is Asian, Hispanic, Red or White.
> 
> The question here is very hypothetical.


Actually, the question is very relevant. It happens more times than we're aware of. It's easy to say what one would do when one isn't faced with that actual situation, but I contend that before you shoot in a real life/death situation, one is going to shoot first and make sure later. It sounds like maybe you should not carry a gun at all based on your perceptions. If you do ever shoot someone, you have all but condemned yourself based on a misconception that you have no chance of winning in a court of law.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

@goldwing
I see your point. But sorry the world is absolute. You can shoot or you don't shoot. You are pregnant or you are not. You work for a living or you don't. All the other stuff is intellectual highly theoretical and belongs into a isolated classroom that can be disconnected from any given reality because the teachers and students don't make a living with that intellectual knowledge. If they would have to make a living on that isolated discussion, the discussion would end right than and there.
Thats liberalism since minimum 2000 years. The question what if, even if the question is childish and highly hypothetical becomes a weight that is insane. 

I just observe what happening right now in this moment. The liberals with their Media steering up trouble, Woopy Goldberg and the brainless giggle girls in TV 24/7 in 400 channels complaining about the injustice let the Wilson family alive. Last time when I watched "The View" and Whoopi hate speeches. I ask myself how much blood of innocent people have to be shed until it will satisfy a liberal woman or feminist-er and make them this spasm between the legs and belly. 
Do you see anything else?
I see a President of the US with his racist racial Adviser, running around and heat up the the hate between the races, dividing the people in the nation. When asked they refused to stop even during the funeral of the 2 policeman killed by hate speeches of the liberals with their media their hate campaigns. 
The white guy in the house is allowed to go to NJC and bring the President condolences to the widows and children. How hypocritical can that be. Is there a possibility to show more disrespect than this?
Do you something different than that was I observe?

I have seen live the same behavior of liberals before, in in former Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia the liberals under Clinton made a experiment by dividing the nation in Muslims and Christians. How the liberal experiment of free stuff and government handouts in Yugoslavia ended everyone knows. How will the liberals human experiment in the US end?
Liberalism costed the Lives of Billions of people since that was invented 4000 years ago.

And you tell me there are something different than what I said? Is there such a thing than a little tiny civilian war? Is there something like a litte bit death or is there something out there like a little bit liberal? Seeing different levels of this mess is only to justify why right is wrong and wrong is right.

A police officer defends himself because the criminal aims at him with his pistol and the liberals watch the video that captured the scene, argue and demonstrate against the police officer. Would a liberal be satisfied when the criminal had shot the white police bastard? I guess so otherwise they would not complain in TV and demonstrate on the streets. 

It is not absolute enough? What must happen that the people finally weak up? 10 police officers? 50? 500? How many have to die for a liberal agenda? How many until people have enough and call it absolute? Does a I, Me society really don't care as long it is not them?


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

> GCBHM
> Actually, the question is very relevant. It happens more times than we're aware of. It's easy to say what one would do when one isn't faced with that actual situation, but I contend that before you shoot in a real life/death situation, one is going to shoot first and make sure later. It sounds like maybe you should not carry a gun at all based on your perceptions. If you do ever shoot someone, you have all but condemned yourself based on a misconception that you have no chance of winning in a court of law.


Sure is the question relevant. It will become every day more relevant. The protected class in the nation will learn very fast.

Sure I would protect myself and my family regardless of the shooting angle, but I would be aware that afterwords depending if the predator belongs to the protected class or not, I have to face the death sentence on court of law to satisfy the liberals and if not, the liberals on the street and the media will kill me and if they want the entire family. They will find a psychopath that does the dirty work for them. Like NJC they found one here too, just a matter of time and how often they have to hate speech in TV. 
It is a choice that I would have. And may be my Grandchildren are in luck and the blood shed would be satisfied after me. How knows.

You ask for law? What about the law for the Wilson Family, what about the law for the 2 police officers in NYC? What about the Law of anyone that don't fit the liberal view of protected class regarding right or wrong? 
I would be careful to shot in any circumstances and if you do, only God can help you. The law in the hand of liberals is not worth the paper that the words are written on. 
But dangerous is it already to protect yourself. And everyone that really looks closer can see it already.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

GCBHM said:


> I agree, but then every shooting is going to be subject to that. I think any shooting should bear scrutiny, but the politics has no place in any realm of life. In my opinion, anyway.


Yes, but politics does play a part in certain areas. Go up to NY or other northern states. I've read stories of people prosecuted by super antigun prosecutors. Cases that never should have gone to trial... All because of a prosecutor who had it in for certain types of cases.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

While we can possibly point out some flaws with the whole Zimmerman deal - that case just shows you... If you get to be the next social cause picked out of the news by the powers that be - God help you. Same with this entire issue with the cop who defended himself... Only to now deal with riots and such...

A nearby cop/nearby city (to me) suffered local community uproar when he shot an African American, elderly woman he got called to the scene for. She was firing a gun (and pointing it around) and did not follow his commands to put it down he gave her a chance). He had to kill her, and he was white. Then the protests started, and the local city council voted to fire the guy. Guy DID have some questionable LEO history in his past, I will admit (which was just more fodder for the people acting upset). But he was not indicted, and the story seemed pretty cut and dry. Seemed like a good shoot once all the facts were out. But, facts don't matter anymore... However, he didn't get picked up on the national news, so he fared better than the Ferguson situation. He only had some local folks throwing a fit. He did have to leave town.

Get "picked" by the powers that be as the story of the week - and you could be screwed no matter what the facts are.

In the past, people could argue the facts about modified guns having no bearing on prosecution, or this or that not having an actual case to point to - so the train of thought on some gun forum threads was that people worried too much about such matters. A good shoot is a good shoot, or so the claim was....

That is NOT The case anymore.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

by Shipwreck: " A good shoot is a good shoot, or so the claim was....

That is NOT The case anymore. "

The parameters of 'good shoot' have changed in many jurisdictions, looks like. Folks nowadays don't even have the excuse that they were convinced by Roy Rogers that shooting the gun out of her hand was the way to go.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

PT111Pro said:


> Sure is the question relevant. It will become every day more relevant. The protected class in the nation will learn very fast.
> 
> Sure I would protect myself and my family regardless of the shooting angle, but I would be aware that afterwords depending if the predator belongs to the protected class or not, I have to face the death sentence on court of law to satisfy the liberals and if not, the liberals on the street and the media will kill me and if they want the entire family. They will find a psychopath that does the dirty work for them. Like NJC they found one here too, just a matter of time and how often they have to hate speech in TV.
> It is a choice that I would have. And may be my Grandchildren are in luck and the blood shed would be satisfied after me. How knows.
> ...


I think you watch a little too much TV b/c the land isn't quite as liberal as you seem to believe, and anyone who shoots in defense should be careful. Anyone who isn't is simply irresponsible, but the bigger issue is making good choices that don't put yourself in the position to have to defend yourself. As it has been said, the best fight is the one you avoid, so do your best to avoid conflict if at all possible. That means that sometimes one must exercise restraint and walk away from some loud mouth punk. It also means being aware of your surroundings and not going places where the propensity for trouble is high. It's just common sense.

There is a difference btwn protecting yourself and choosing to mix it up with someone b/c you know you have a gun and can "defend" yourself. THAT is when you get into trouble. Take a George Zimmerman, for example. Trayvon Martin did not have to die, and very likely would not have attacked Zimmerman had Zimmerman exercised restraint and stayed in his car until police arrived to investigate. Instead, Zimmerman (knowing he had a gun) decided to get out of his car against the advice of the 911 dispatcher and pursue Martin. Now, had Martin not attacked Zimmerman, he probably would not have been shot. All this is a perfect example of how two over zealous, immature people made bad choices that led to the death of a kid, and the outcry of a community.

Had Zimmerman stayed in his car, and Martin attacked him while he was in his car, THEN Zimmerman would very likely never been tried for murder. It isn't dangerous to protect yourself. It is dangerous to be stupid. Zimmerman and Martin were stupid. Martin was a kid being tracked down by a mad man with a gun. Zimmerman was an adult who made idiotic and illogical decisions b/c he knew he had a gun. That will lead you to trouble every time. Otherwise, we would have no clue who George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin are.


----------



## TheTourist (Dec 27, 2014)

I think that the defense of another is just about the only reasonable scenario I can think of to shooting someone in the back.

That is not an automatic "get out of jail free card." In today's climate there will be a civil rights investigation, and chances are the perp's family will smell money and sue in civil court, as they did with OJ Simpson.

The issue there is that the plaintiffs only need a "preponderance of evidence," a lower standard than in a criminal matter.

From my vantage point, I think shooting a drooling Nazi strangling a pregnant nun in Times Square at high noon during an NYPD funeral procession will still get you cuffed and stuffed. Thirty years ago Massad Ayoob wrote that even a righteous shooting costs 25,000 dollars. Adjust that for modern dollars for a truly scary figure.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Shipwreck said:


> Yes, but politics does play a part in certain areas. Go up to NY or other northern states. I've read stories of people prosecuted by super antigun prosecutors. Cases that never should have gone to trial... All because of a prosecutor who had it in for certain types of cases.


Unfortunately, I think politics plays a part in just about all situations.


----------



## TheTourist (Dec 27, 2014)

GCBHM said:


> Unfortunately, I think politics plays a part in just about all situations.


I agree. The discussion of race, violence and politics has popped up in every forum where I'm a member--except one sharpening board.

You have no idea on how much I'd just like to have some simple fun, if only for an hour. For example, I'm looking forward to the Packers/Lions game tomorrow. Bet you a chocolate chip cookie there's at least once commercial for domestic violence.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Unfortunately, you're right.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

TheTourist said:


> I think that the defense of another is just about the only reasonable scenario I can think of to shooting someone in the back.
> 
> That is not an automatic "get out of jail free card." In today's climate there will be a civil rights investigation, and chances are the perp's family will smell money and sue in civil court, as they did with OJ Simpson.
> 
> ...


*"I think that the defense of another is just about the only reasonable scenario I can think of to shooting someone in the back."*
I related three scenarios where shooting someone in the back would be a defensible action in court. No doubt there could be some others, but those are the ones that were told to me.

*"..and chances are the perp's family will smell money and sue in civil court.."*
This is very rare in my state.

*"Thirty years ago Massad Ayoob wrote that even a righteous shooting costs 25,000 dollars. Adjust that for modern dollars for a truly scary figure."*
And this is why you need to purchase a personal liability umbrella policy.


----------



## TheTourist (Dec 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> I related three scenarios where shooting someone in the back would be a defensible action in court. No doubt there could be some others, but those are the ones that were told to me.


In my "adult job" I worked along side attorneys. The one thing I learned is to put as much distance as I could between law enforcement and the court system.

It's like a dentist told me about OSHA. He related that every time they notified him of a consultation, he simply closed his practice for the day. No matter how squeaky clean he kept the place, they always found 5,000 dollars in fines and practices.

The idea of "justifiable" means you *migh*t win in court. But to gain that level of clearance you have to, duh, go to court. That means missing work, hiring your own attorney, perhaps risk getting the gun confiscated, in my area it also means being vilified by the liberal press.

There are lots of important Constitutional issues I would be happy to raise in court. But standing in front of judge after having shot a gang-banger in the back is not one of them.


----------



## Shipwreck (Jan 26, 2006)

Sho nuff!


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

TheTourist said:


> In my "adult job" I worked along side attorneys. The one thing I learned is to put as much distance as I could between law enforcement and the court system.
> 
> It's like a dentist told me about OSHA. He related that every time they notified him of a consultation, he simply closed his practice for the day. No matter how squeaky clean he kept the place, they always found 5,000 dollars in fines and practices.
> 
> ...


I would not want to shoot someone in the back either, mostly for the reasons you have inferred. However to save one of my loved ones (two of the scenarios I outlined) his whole body is a target rich item.


----------



## TheTourist (Dec 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> I would not want to shoot someone in the back either, mostly for the reasons you have inferred. However to save one of my loved ones (two of the scenarios I outlined) his whole body is a target rich item.


Yes, that's the weak link in our debate--our loved ones. My wife and I have a code word, and when she hears it (because she'll argue with me over nothing just for sport) she is to immediately get behind--no back-talk!

I look at it this way. A recently deceased elderly couple were ushered through the gates of Heaven, and shown paradise for the first time. The man broke down and wept.

Saint Peter remarked, _"It is beautiful, isn't it?"_

The elderly man responded, _"Oh, that isn't it. If it wasn't for that damn oat bran my wife made me eat I'd have been here ten years ago..."_

I'm a biker in my sixties who is alive only because I've outlived my enemies. For me, going out in a blaze of glory might be an easy choice.


----------

