# Shoot or Not Shoot?



## Wandering Man

Now that 3Reds has her CHL, she finds herself playing out various scenarios in her head about how she would handle an attacker. 

Last night as she was leaving the local greengrocer's she still had a wad of cash in her hand, and she began to think of another of these.

She came home and asked me: "if someone were to run by and grab the cash out of my hand, could I shoot him?"

I'm not sure. I recall an incident in the news recently when an elderly woman shot a man as he snatched her purse, but I'm not sure it would be legal for my wife to shoot the guy as he was running away.

Texas does now have the Castle Doctrine law in place, in which we are no longer required to retreat before we fire. But, I still think that once the guy has your cash and is retreating you can't fire, no matter how badly you want to.

On the other hand, you are protecting your property (part of the castle doctrine law).

What do you guys think? Should she shoot? Or Not Shoot?

WM


----------



## propellerhead

I am not a lawyer but I would say No Shoot. If the bad guy was leaving the store, then the chance of loss of life or limb is no longer there. The use of deadly force would not be justified. The stolen cash can be replaced. If the bad guy was inside the store and approaching her, it would be a clean shoot. If the bad guy was still inside but on the way out, it would be on the edge. At that point, I don't think I'd take the chance.


----------



## Mike Barham

What's he running off with, a couple hundred at most? A lawyer in a shooting case starts at like $40K. Let him go and call the cops.

And what happens if she misses? A bobbing, running person is a much, much harder shot than a piece of stationary cardboard at the range. Lead flying in a marketplace is a poor idea, and should only be considered if one's life/limb is in serious danger. Is hitting a kid worth a couple hundred dollars?

Analyzing it closely, the guy is probably going to hit her with a running start. Lets hypothesize she can execute a 1.5 second draw. If he is already at a run, he has probably traveled about seven to ten yards (based on the old Tueller Drill) before her gun is even out and ready to fire. Can she _guarantee_ a first-round hit on a fast moving target, when surprised and under stress, in a potentially crowded market, at thirty feet? Hell, I couldn't - and I have been shooting for over twenty years, including lots of competition, a bunch of upper-level training, and some military experience.


----------



## Old Padawan

only shoot when fear of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another is a great policy.

Put your money away at the register. Be aware of your surroundings.


----------



## Old goat

No Shoot.
I don't know the laws in other states but in Tn. you can't use lethal/deadly force to protect property (house, car, cash). If he grabbed and ran there's no longer threat to you.


----------



## jblaze725

While it seems you should not shoot at this point it's hard to say at anytime you are no longer in danger. Someone may be running away from you while grabbing for a gun to shoot at you or could possibly come back. How can you say at what point you are no longer in danger? Lawyers wouldn't agree with me, but i say once he robbed me he put me in danger and should I should be fully able to defend myself until i think im safe.


----------



## jblaze725

By the way I voted not shoot, but only because you would certainly be in a world of trouble if you did. I think at this point you should be allowed to.


----------



## James NM

Don't Shoot Me!...I mean him.


----------



## K Bob

I say no shoot. Grab your phone and try to give a good description.


----------



## PanaDP

I don't think that lawfulness or unlawfulness enters into this the way you have worded the question. I don't think it would be right (morally speaking) to shoot the guy. 

Personally, I reserve the act of inflicting severe bodily harm or death only for those who are or imminently intend to do the same to me.


----------



## JeffWard

Mike Barham said:


> What's he running off with, a couple hundred at most? A lawyer in a shooting case starts at like $40K. Let him go and call the cops.


I agree entirely... Let alone the weight of conscience if you kill the guy... over a few bucks? Get a good description, gather witnesses. Get phone numbers. Inform the store management. Then call the police.

9 timesout of 10, the store will get you your money to avoid the bad press!!!!


----------



## tgrogan

PanaDP said:


> I don't think that lawfulness or unlawfulness enters into this the way you have worded the question. I don't think it would be right (morally speaking) to shoot the guy.
> 
> Personally, I reserve the act of inflicting severe bodily harm or death only for those who are or imminently intend to do the same to me.


I can tell you that it is almost certainly illegal. Even if the guy beat the crap out of you and then ran off, you're screwed if you shoot him.

The entry wound is going to be in the back, and unless you have Johnny Cochran and pair of cheap gloves, you're going to go to jail, regardless of any moral justification.

Even if the perp has a record, the law by which you will be judged says that he is entitled to the same rights you are.


----------



## tony pasley

It is a no shoot, as much as you would want to shoot the s.o.b. it would not be legal( darn it).


----------



## Spartan

No way in hell would I shoot someone for stealing a few bills from me. I might yell and chase them a bit, but killing someone (or badly wounding them) would not even cross my mind.

Stories can be 'what if'ed' to death, but the first thing I thought of is what if it's some 17 year old kid or something who just wants some money to buy a new video game; they see a person walking around with cash in hand and decide - on a whim - to try and take it... Not only is the person dead for nothing, but that's something the shooter is going to have to live with the rest of their life.


----------



## Guest

I can't think of too many scenerios where shooting someone in the back would be legally justified. Possibily if they were attacking your wife or child, etc. with a weapon and you felt they were in imminent danger. If they steal money out of your hand and run away then call the police and learn not to walk around with a wad of money in your hand. I could envision an attorney painting a picture whereby you enticed the perp to steal the money so you could shoot him. You would face both criminal charges and civil suits.


----------



## OMSBH44

*Texas Laws Re: Shooting*

Texas used to have some weird laws. One of them said you could shoot a
thief if it was after dark. And it didn't have to be theft over any arbitrary
amount. Any theft at all was all that was required to make the shooting
justified as long as it was at night. Some guy in El Paso once shot and
killed a teenager he caught steeling a car battery after dark. The shooter
was not charged with anything.

However, since I live in New Mexico now, I haven't been keeping up with 
all the Texas statutes. That law might have been changed or set aside.
Best not to shoot unless the Bad Guy is using deadly force against
someone.

New Mexico has four criteria that must be met in order to make a shooting
justified. If a BG is running away from you, he doesn't meet any of the
four criteria. So you can't shoot.


----------



## Baldy

Old Padawan said:


> only shoot when fear of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another is a great policy.
> 
> Put your money away at the register. Be aware of your surroundings.


Mr.Bills got it right. I agree 100%.:smt023


----------



## PanaDP

I can't believe there is serious discussion about this! Even if it was legal, would you really chance having someone's death on your hands for a little money? I can't believe and am a bit outraged that three people here would actually do it.


----------



## SemoShooter

I think more people should be outraged that thieves run the streets unopposed, but you can't shoot a thief that is running away in the back without risk that you will be prosecuted, and most likely sued by a lawyer that thinks the thief should have more rights than you.


----------



## Wandering Man

I just think that it is a useful exercise to think through what actions we would take beforehand ...

... rather than go with an impulse or course of action that we could regret, possibly for the rest of our lives.

WM


----------



## Mike Barham

I don't really think a thief deserves much in the way of moral consideration, though one of the principles of Western justice (as opposed to say, Muslim justice) is the sense of proportionality, which would be somewhat lacking in shooting a mere thief in the back.

I understand frustration with brazen crime in the streets...but I have never agreed with the whole "I have a CCW and therefore I am a sheepdog protector of a society of sheep" thing. We have police and courts and prisons for a reason - and that is one of the things that sets us apart from (and well above) the savage nations like Afghanistan, for example.

Even if we don't respect the thief's life, and I don't really think we should, we should respect the cultural traditions that allow us to live in such relative peace.

That and fearing the lawyer that is attached to every bullet we fire! :mrgreen:


----------



## PanaDP

Every life should be respected. I would wonder about anyone with a CCW that doesn't believe the same. Would I like to this theoretical thief in jail? Absolutely. Would I like to see him dead because he nabbed a bit of cash? Certainly not.


----------



## mvslay

Wandering Man said:


> I just think that it is a useful exercise to think through what actions we would take beforehand ...
> 
> ... rather than go with an impulse or course of action that we could regret, possibly for the rest of our lives.
> 
> WM


You're absolutely right. Thinking through scenarios is a valuable exercise. You should not be ashamed or appologetic for taking the time to think through the consequences of hypothetical situations. It is not paranoid, fear mongoring, or anti-social.

Let me say not only would I not shoot, but I wouldn't even draw over such a trivial ammount of cash as my change would probably be.

I'm not deffending a snatch and grab thief. However a responsible citizen should make efforts to minimize a criminals oppurtunities. Like one poster said in this case put your cash away immiediately at the register.


----------



## john doe.

I saw chase 'em down and pistol whip 'em.


----------



## Mike Barham

tnoisaw said:


> I saw chase 'em down and pistol whip 'em.


I run three or four times a week and I don't think there's a way in the world I could outrun a 19-year-old street kid. Besides, once the guy is fleeing and you chase him, you have now initiated a second confrontation, which makes you the aggressor.

Pistol whipping is generally bad policy. Lots of people get negligently shot that way. Besides, have you seen what blood will do to a gun finish? :mrgreen:

As far as "respecting every life," well, I don't exactly shed tears when dope dealers kill each other, and I positively gloat with joy when guys in my unit kill Taliban. If our hypothetical punk took my money then ran into the street and got hit by a bus, I think I would somehow bear up. I guess I am immoral that way.


----------



## Bob Wright

*No threat/threat withdrawn*

In Tennessee legalese, you are justified in shooting when there is a threat of death or bodily harm, either to you or a third party. Your justification for shooting ends when the "threat is withdrawn." The movie situation shows a thug with a club raised to strike a blow. Upon seeing a gun, he backs down-threat is "withdrawn."

In this case, a money snatching with no implied threat, no shoot.

As was pointed out, street smarts prevail here. Put your money up prior to leaving the store, know who is nearby, and, possibably, a threat.

Bob Wright


----------



## spacedoggy

I think you should shoot. Think about it, if your that stupid to hold a wad of bills and watch a kid take it and run, then I would put the gun to my head and shoot. Write a will first and leave your gun to spacedoggy.


----------



## neophyte

*Don't*

Wandering Man: Sir; NC law states: only in preserving human life.
Threat of life or bodily harm; dispatch said bad guy
For the "3 REDs" ::erception/perceived threat takes precedents 
Property being taken, doesn't fall into this class. 
I believe both of you are doing the right thing in 'practicing/thinking/memorializing thinking. Continue practicing and say a prayer that it'll never happen.

Craig


----------



## stormbringerr

i would say don't shoot him while running away because of all the law problems. she would probably get away w/it if she did though, like that guy in Dallas that shot and killed two BGs that stole some of his guns. he followed them off his property and shot them.the da was thinking hard about not pressing charges when i last heard about it a few months ago.i also don't think he was charged w/anything.

maybe she could just shoot for the legs.i sure would be tempted to.but i wouldn't.


----------



## Mike Barham

stormbringerr said:


> maybe she could just shoot for the legs.i sure would be tempted to.


Anyone who can hit moving/running legs (maybe eight inches wide) at thirty feet with every single shot, without endangering bystanders, while under stress...well, that guy should be giving Leatham a run for his money.


----------



## Revolver

This why there are wallets and pockets and such, so as not to make money easily accessible to others. The solution is simple: put your cash away and it won't happen.


----------



## Wandering Man

neophyte said:


> Continue practicing and say a prayer that it'll never happen.
> 
> Craig


Excellent advice, consider it done.



Mike Barham said:


> Anyone who can hit moving/running legs (maybe eight inches wide) at thirty feet with every single shot, without endangering bystanders, while under stress...well, that guy should be giving Leatham a run for his money.


If anyone could hit that target, it would be her.

Just for the record, though, she voted "Don't Shoot Him."

WM


----------



## Devildog341

Mike Barham said:


> I run three or four times a week and I don't think there's a way in the world I could outrun a 19-year-old street kid. *Besides, once the guy is fleeing and you chase him, you have now initiated a second confrontation, which makes you the aggressor.*
> 
> The 19 year old has just committed a high misdemeanor or a felony depending on the jurisdiction. The victim or another citizen can pursue him in an attempt to make a lawful citizen's arrest and/or hold him for the police. You are not initiating a second confrontation. You are reacting to the commission of a crime he initiated. It is a further continuation of the incident. A person has the right to use appropriate force to defend themselves and their property. This may vary from state to state, but in general you can pursue someone who has just robbed you or someone else and use appropriate force to take that person into custody or detain them for the authorities. You must be prudent, however, and pistol whipping would not fall into that force continuum.


----------



## john doe.

Mike Barham said:


> I run three or four times a week and I don't think there's a way in the world I could outrun a 19-year-old street kid. Besides, once the guy is fleeing and you chase him, you have now initiated a second confrontation, which makes you the aggressor.
> 
> Pistol whipping is generally bad policy. Lots of people get negligently shot that way. Besides, have you seen what blood will do to a gun finish? :mrgreen:
> 
> As far as "respecting every life," well, I don't exactly shed tears when dope dealers kill each other, and I positively gloat with joy when guys in my unit kill Taliban. If our hypothetical punk took my money then ran into the street and got hit by a bus, I think I would somehow bear up. I guess I am immoral that way.


Hey Mike- the chasing part and pistol whipping was a joke- as in ha, ha. I have six screws in my left ankle, I ain't chasing no one.


----------



## hideit

use a gun in a life threatening situation - since he was running away - don't shoot - the money should be covered by insurance


----------



## wardog99s

not if hes running away, shooting someone in the back while running away is not Honorable, but if he comes back at you all bets are off


----------



## DarkCharisma

Follow police code; only fire if your life or another's is directly threatened. Property protection is never a good reason to shoot.


----------



## RightTurnClyde

*Practice Counter-Surveilance!*



Bob Wright said:


> As was pointed out, street smarts prevail here. Put your money up prior to leaving the store, know who is nearby, and, possibably, a threat.
> 
> Bob Wright


This is exactly right. I have a 15 minute walk as part of my commute to and from work everyday through San Francisco on my way to work. After reading Barry Eisler's "Rain" series, (great fiction reads by the way, that describe a lot of great "hit first and hit hard" defense tactics) I've started practicing counter surveillance while I walk. Always be aware of who is near you and who gives you a threatening vibe.

This alone will often stop a would-be mugger/attacker since they will be more likely to leave you alone if they realize you're aware of them.

I think it's even worked for me once. I had just gotten some cash out of the ATM and was putting it away when I sensed someone behind me. I thought it was just someone else waiting to use the machine. So I took a few steps out of the way before I completely put my wallet away. But then my alarms went off because he was mirroring my steps. He stopped when I stopped. So I quickly put my wallet away, got my hands free, and turned completely to him and gave him a scrutnizing frown. He took one more step toward me, stopped, and then backed off and went away.

Stay vigilant!


----------



## khellandros66

NEVER EVER SHOOT UNLESS YOU ARE IN MORTAL RISK! PERIOD

Until they come after you with a weapon, knife, screwdriver, broken bottle, blunt object, the court of law will not find that you were in peril of death.

This is why I would definitely say women should always carry mace and a gun, cause this works on muggers/rapists. If you mace them and they still continue, shooting them to death can be justified cause at that point you have no other means.

~Bobby


----------



## DarkCharisma

khellandros66 said:


> NEVER EVER SHOOT UNLESS YOU ARE IN MORTAL RISK! PERIOD
> 
> Until they come after you with a weapon, knife, screwdriver, broken bottle, blunt object, the court of law will not find that you were in peril of death.
> 
> This is why I would definitely say women should always carry mace and a gun, cause this works on muggers/rapists. If you mace them and they still continue, shooting them to death can be justified cause at that point you have no other means.
> 
> ~Bobby


The gun alone would probably be enough deterrent. Assuming the woman first verbally confronts the assailant and it doesn't stop the attacker, her life is in danger and drawing her weapon would be a viable. If looking down the barrel of a loaded gun isn't a big enough deterrent, you have a really horny rapist who knows exactly who he wants.


----------



## Hokkmike

Protection of property (money) is viable if you are IN YOUR HOME in my state. Obviously in this scenario that is NOT the case. And certainly life or limb is not threatened.

Now how about a leg shot?


----------



## kenn

*Yelling "Freeze!"*

I think that if someone takes like 20$ out of your hand and you shoot him down for it, you may be more of a threat to society than he was.

I voted to not shoot him, could you yell "Freeze!" to see if he would stop? And then maybe draw your weapon and kept it safely on him until a LEO arrived? What if he ran anyway?

It's in times like this you wish life were like a cartoon. You could drop a piano on him, then an anvil, and then hit him with a big wooden mallet. He would eventually just shake it off - but by the time he recovered the cops would show up and take him to jail.


----------



## Shipwreck

OMSBH44 said:


> Texas used to have some weird laws. One of them said you could shoot a
> thief if it was after dark. And it didn't have to be theft over any arbitrary
> amount. Any theft at all was all that was required to make the shooting
> justified as long as it was at night. Some guy in El Paso once shot and
> killed a teenager he caught steeling a car battery after dark. The shooter
> was not charged with anything.


Actually, I believe the law says that if someone is engaged in criminal mischief on your property after dark, you can use deadly force. So, the next guy that papers your house at night in Texas - you can get him :mrgreen::mrgreen:

Seriously - the above scenario would not be legal under the castle doctrine. And, I would imagine you would probably be prosecuted. Even if U were not - that, no one's life is in danger.... Don't shoot.


----------



## sam59

*Your cash running away*

I would never shoot in that scenario, too hard to justify deadly force.


----------



## glock27bill

PanaDP said:


> I don't think that lawfulness or unlawfulness enters into this the way you have worded the question. I don't think it would be right (morally speaking) to shoot the guy.
> 
> Personally, I reserve the act of inflicting severe bodily harm or death only for those who are or imminently intend to do the same to me.


I agree. I will only shoot in true self-defense. Material objects are not worth a life, even a scummy one.


----------



## glock27bill

Mike Barham said:


> I don't really think a thief deserves much in the way of moral consideration, though one of the principles of Western justice (as opposed to say, Muslim justice) is *the sense of proportionality*, which would be somewhat lacking in shooting a mere thief in the back.


This is also an oft-misquoted passage from the Bible.

People say "An eye for an eye" as though it's meant to substantiate revenge.

Actually, the Bible says "No more than an eye for an eye." A world of difference.


----------



## The Hillbilly

K Bob said:


> I say no shoot. Grab your phone and try to give a good description.


Exactly what KBob said. Go for the phone instead of the gun. Much wiser move to call the cops and arrest the scumbag then to risk hurting Joe Blow who's just buying a six pack.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

If you're not in an area where shooting a firearm is illegal, would it still be legal to fire a few rounds off in the air? I'm not sure where that falls into threatening someone with a deadly weapon, but I imagine under some jurisdictions it could be seen as a way of detaining the initial criminal. So, if you can get away with it, it might scare the kid into dropping the money and running away.

On a second note, if you really wanna keep your money under wraps, shove it down in your crotch. That way if someone somehow knows it's there and goes for it, you would be justified in shooting him/her because it would pass as sexual assault by force. I like the odds, but unfortunately I sweat a lot so I use a wallet like the typical male. And g-strings generally don't hold cash very well, so that's two reasons I use a wallet. :smt082

But yes, that's why they make wallets, purses, money clips, etc. Walking around anywhere in public with cash in your hand isn't very smart, especially at night. If you can draw and fire before they get the money, go for it. Point blank and legally justified.


----------



## niadhf

Old Padawan said:


> only shoot when fear of death or great bodily harm to yourself or another is a great policy.
> 
> Put your money away at the register. Be aware of your surroundings.


Dead on here. :smt023


----------



## vernpriest

The taking of human life is a very serious thing. It is something that often comes with a lifetime of physcological effects. I can't imagine killing someone over pocket money. Human life gets cheapened because of the state of our society. It is easy to say that we'd smoke the guy and not think twice but I would bet most people would not feel that way if it actually happened. By the way, in Michigan you would go to jail for murder in this scenario and we have the Castle Doctrine in place. Just my opinion!


----------



## vernpriest

fivehourfrenzy said:


> If you're not in an area where shooting a firearm is illegal, would it still be legal to fire a few rounds off in the air?
> 
> Normally I do not take on someone personally in a forum, but you cannot be serious about shooting randomly in the air are you? You do realize that what comes up does come down don't you? What if that happens to be on an innocent person? You are responsible for every shot you fire and it scares me to think that someone licensed to carry a gun would consider firing into the air in a public area over pocket money. Have you had any training? I carry a gun legally, and have the responsibility of providing concealed armed security for up to 1600 at a time for our church, which is just outside one of the worst big cities in the country and I pray I never have to fire shots around innocent people but practice and train diligently in case I do. Your scenario is extremely irresponsible!


----------



## Wyatt

:?:

Up to now, reading through the posts not one person would shoot (I took President Tnoisaw's comment "chase him down and pistol whip him" as a no-shoot :mrgreen. 

Yet 16 people (18%) voted to shoot? WTH? Must be those dang confusing voting machines.


----------



## niadhf

i figured instead of hanging chads it was trolls be wise a$$e$.


----------



## Mike Barham

vernpriest said:


> Normally I do not take on someone personally in a forum, but you cannot be serious about shooting randomly in the air are you? You do realize that what comes up does come down don't you? What if that happens to be on an innocent person? You are responsible for every shot you fire and it scares me to think that someone licensed to carry a gun would consider firing into the air in a public area over pocket money. Have you had any training? I carry a gun legally, and have the responsibility of providing concealed armed security for up to 1600 at a time for our church, which is just outside one of the worst big cities in the country and I pray I never have to fire shots around innocent people but practice and train diligently in case I do. Your scenario is extremely irresponsible!


What *vernpriest* said. "Warning shots" are dangerous and irresponsible practically anywhere.

Anyway, if someone was capping off rounds near me, it would just make me run _faster_.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

vernpriest said:


> Normally I do not take on someone personally in a forum, but you cannot be serious about shooting randomly in the air are you? You do realize that what comes up does come down don't you? What if that happens to be on an innocent person? You are responsible for every shot you fire and it scares me to think that someone licensed to carry a gun would consider firing into the air in a public area over pocket money. Have you had any training? I carry a gun legally, and have the responsibility of providing concealed armed security for up to 1600 at a time for our church, which is just outside one of the worst big cities in the country and I pray I never have to fire shots around innocent people but practice and train diligently in case I do. Your scenario is extremely irresponsible!


No I was not being serious. Not unless the bullet had enough velocity to carry it into orbit. And I'm not being serious with that either. It might hit a plane or the Hubble.


----------



## submoa

fivehourfrenzy said:


> No I was not being serious. Not unless the bullet had enough velocity to carry it into orbit. And I'm not being serious with that either. It might hit a plane or the Hubble.


If you hit a bird, you could be charged.

If he's close enough, throw a garbage can at him. We can say he tripped.


----------



## Spartan

Wyatt said:


> :?:
> 
> Up to now, reading through the posts not one person would shoot (I took President Tnoisaw's comment "chase him down and pistol whip him" as a no-shoot :mrgreen.
> 
> Yet 16 people (18%) voted to shoot? WTH? Must be those dang confusing voting machines.


I agree. I can't believe anyone voted that they'd shoot someone over stealing some cash that was being carried around irresponsibly in the first place. Give me a break.

Some of you scare me.


----------



## Todd

Spartan said:


> I agree. I can't believe anyone voted that they'd shoot someone over stealing some cash that was being carried around irresponsibly in the first place. Give me a break.
> 
> Some of you scare me.


I wouldn't panic too much about the people who said they'd shoot the BG. One, I think some people have a hard time differentiating between what they'd_ like_ to do and not what they'd _really_ do. Second, you know as well as I do that there are a lot of armchair commandos on any gun forum. If it was a real life situation, most of those people who said "shoot" would probably not even draw.


----------



## longbow

I would not shoot him. You would only cause more problems to yourself if you shoot him, then when you don't shoot him.


----------



## zhurdan

NO SHOOT

As has been said, it's just money, and it'd cost you everything you own even if you didn't hit the guy, and just discharged your weapon and hit air. 

One other small point, please make sure that your wife, if possible, carries somewhere other than her purse. Purse snatchers who snatch purses with guns in them = bad situation made worse! 

Someone else mentioned putting your money away inside the store... what about not carrying any money at all? Almost every place out there takes debit cards, why not carry plastic and avoid the whole cash problem to begin with. Often times, "random crimes" aren't so random. If a criminal sees money, he sees a target. No money means less of a target.

Also, keep a phone list of all your plastic with account numbers in a safe place so that you can cancel them all in a few minutes rather than have to go searching for the information. 

Sorry if this seems off topic but I think that having to shoot someone is as much a part of all this kind of prep work being missed, as it is the bad guy deciding to rob you. Be ahead of the situaiton.

Zhur


----------



## TOF

Wandering man, you have so much money you should be giving some of it away anyhow.

The poor perp probably hasn't had a fix for several hours and obviously needs it more than you.

The only thing I see wrong in this scenario is that you let poor 3Reds be the victim rather than stepping in front and handing over your fat wallet. You should be more protective of that young lady. :smt083

:smt1099


----------



## john doe.

Mike Barham said:


> I run three or four times a week and I don't think there's a way in the world I could outrun a 19-year-old street kid. Besides, once the guy is fleeing and you chase him, you have now initiated a second confrontation, which makes you the aggressor.
> 
> Pistol whipping is generally bad policy. Lots of people get negligently shot that way. Besides, have you seen what blood will do to a gun finish? :mrgreen:
> 
> As far as "respecting every life," well, I don't exactly shed tears when dope dealers kill each other, and I positively gloat with joy when guys in my unit kill Taliban. If our hypothetical punk took my money then ran into the street and got hit by a bus, I think I would somehow bear up. I guess I am immoral that way.


Just kidding Mike. I have six screws in my left ankle- I ain't chasing no one. The Air Force pounded the, "Use of Force" into me as a Security Policeman many years ago and if this happened to me, with what I've been taught, the guy just got away with my money sans bullet in the back.


----------



## Wandering Man

zhurdan said:


> One other small point, please make sure that your wife, if possible, carries somewhere other than her purse. Purse snatchers who snatch purses with guns in them = bad situation made worse!
> 
> Someone else mentioned putting your money away inside the store... what about not carrying any money at all? Almost every place out there takes debit cards, why not carry plastic and avoid the whole cash problem to begin with. Often times, "random crimes" aren't so random. If a criminal sees money, he sees a target. No money means less of a target.
> 
> Zhur


It was a lapse in judgement that started 3reds thinking through this whole scenario to begin with. She realized too late that she had left the store without making sure everything was secure. She really would not shoot at anyone unless her life or the life of one of her kids was in danger. The idea of shooting someone who stole her money was a fantasy, derived from the realization that she now has her CHL, and carries her gun with her.

I posted her little fantasy just to see what kinds of responses there would be. This has proved to be a really good (in my opinoin) thread, with a lot of well thought out responses.

It never hurts to take a passing fantasy and look at it in the full light of day, which you guys have done.



TOF said:


> The only thing I see wrong in this scenario is that you let poor 3Reds be the victim rather than stepping in front and handing over your fat wallet. You should be more protective of that young lady. :smt083


Yeah, but who's gonna protect me from her? :smt082

WM


----------



## TDIllini

Hell no I wouldn't shoot. That's what you get for carrying a purse anyways... I mean, what are pockets for? :smt023

I'd probably run after him to try to get my stuff back, and in the event he was faster I'd tell him PLEASE just drop my license and ID! PLEASE! Nobody likes to go to the DMV.


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

Todd said:


> Second, you know as well as I do that there are a lot of armchair commandos on any gun forum.


Lol, armchair commandos. That's worse than a mall ninja. At least a mall ninja makes the effort to leave the chair and go hang out in a public place! :anim_lol:


----------



## Kyle1337

I can't find the article, but there was an incident here in New Mexico, I think in Albuquerque where a man was working in his garage, a 19 year old man walked by, threated him, grabbed some tools and ran, the man chased down the robber confronted him a few houses down and shot him when the 19 year old charged at him, despite the 19 year old not having a firearm. The man/homeowner got a commendation for his actions and a letter of thanks from Bill Richardson or the mayor of Albuquerque not sure which one. 

However, once someone was off my property I wouldn't pursue them, unless they just murdered someone. I wouldn't pursue over property.


----------



## skyfire

DONT SHOOT. if you ever shoot someone, even if it was to save your life, all odds are against you.

think about it.

cops show up. you have a gun. there's a guy swimming in a pool of his own blood. he has no gun. he has your cash. how are you going to prove to the cops your life was threatened or were in for some severe bodily injury? you really can't prove it, and you could get some serious jailtime.

sad, but true. unless you have some serious evidence showing that you were "outnumbered, overpowered" etc, don't do it, it's not worth spending years in jail because you got trigger happy over a hundred bucks.

in MY mind i think any crooked low-life thief idiot should be shot with no questions asked, but we know that's not how life works lol


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

skyfire said:


> DONT SHOOT. if you ever shoot someone, even if it was to save your life, all odds are against you.


This could be true a lot of the time, but if there's any evidence that shows you were robbed, assaulted, your car was broken into while you were in it, someone broke into your home and there was evidence of a forced entry, etc., you've got some support to your side. And if I thought it was necessary to shoot someone to save my own life, I wouldn't be thinking about possible consequences, other than my own death if I didn't act by smoking the assailant.

But when it comes to getting cash yanked out of your hand as you're leaving the supermarket, you're not gonna get away with shooting the guy unless you can prove you were in fear of your life or serious injury, and given the original circumstances, someone running past doesn't qualify. The best argument I could come up with would be, "I knew my wife would kill me when she found out I got jacked, so I was in fear of my life." :anim_lol: But I'm not married so that doesn't work either. Damn.


----------



## skyfire

fivehourfrenzy said:


> This could be true a lot of the time, but if there's any evidence that shows you were robbed, assaulted, your car was broken into while you were in it, someone broke into your home and there was evidence of a forced entry, etc., you've got some support to your side. And if I thought it was necessary to shoot someone to save my own life, I wouldn't be thinking about possible consequences, other than my own death if I didn't act by smoking the assailant.
> 
> But when it comes to getting cash yanked out of your hand as you're leaving the supermarket, you're not gonna get away with shooting the guy unless you can prove you were in fear of your life or serious injury, and given the original circumstances, someone running past doesn't qualify. The best argument I could come up with would be, "I knew my wife would kill me when she found out I got jacked, so I was in fear of my life." :anim_lol: But I'm not married so that doesn't work either. Damn.


haha the wife thing is hilarious, but yea I'm just stating that you need some kind of proof there (like a gun/knife) or being outnumbered, or have a witness for proof that you shot the guy to save your life or prevent severe bodily harm, but for $100 I wouldn't do it, not worth the consequences, let the idiot run, because we all know every dog has it's day, and his will come sooner or later.:mrgreen:


----------



## fivehourfrenzy

skyfire said:


> haha the wife thing is hilarious, but yea I'm just stating that you need some kind of proof there (like a gun/knife) or being outnumbered, or have a witness for proof that you shot the guy to save your life or prevent severe bodily harm, but for $100 I wouldn't do it, not worth the consequences, let the idiot run, because we all know every dog has it's day, and his will come sooner or later.:mrgreen:


Yeah I mean you can't just shoot someone and not have proof that you were justified in doing so. But if the guy's got anything that can be considered a deadly weapon and drawing doesn't make him stop his advance, drill him. No need to wait until you're under full attack just so you have the cuts to prove you were justified.

Yeah $100 isn't worth even one trip to the courtroom. What goes around comes around, and if he yanks $100 out of your hand, he'll probably go spend it on some skank and catch $100 worth of STDs.


----------



## tekhead1219

PanaDP said:


> I don't think that lawfulness or unlawfulness enters into this the way you have worded the question. I don't think it would be right (morally speaking) to shoot the guy.
> 
> Personally, I reserve the act of inflicting severe bodily harm or death only for those who are or imminently intend to do the same to me.


Would I want to? Certainly. Would I? Given these circumstances, definitely NOT.


----------

