Quote:
Originally Posted by RGVshooter
What if you walk out of Walmart, you're going thru the parking lot just in time to catch some bum with your car door open ransacking thru your vehicle. You left your loaded Ruger P89 in the glovebox. Would it be reasonable in that situation to assume the bum is armed and would that be reason to shoot?
(Disclaimer: I do not own a Ruger p89 and I would never leave a firearm loaded or unloaded in a vehicle unless it was secured inside a lockbox such as a NanoVault 200 or similar.)
|
RGV, I like you and respect you, but this is what we call "looking for an excuse". I'm not trying to put you down, I only want to point out that I hear this
all the time in classes, frequently from otherwise normal individuals, and it always elicits an eye-roll from me.
The correct question is never "can I shoot?"--rather, it's "
must I shoot?".
So--must I shoot?
Well, the subject doesn't have the gun yet, and they haven't shown any aggression towards me. I could simply walk away. Since walking away is a safe option, there's no imperative to use lethal force. If there's no imperative to use lethal force, then lethal force is not justified.
Now, the obvious objection is that the subject is in imminent possession of my deadly weapon. There are three problems with that objection:
(1) There's no visible sign of aggression.
(2) The subject may not even be aware the weapon is present.
(3) There's no intent to use the weapon, should it be acquired.
This is in contrast to, say, using lethal force to prevent being disarmed in a fight. In such a situation, the subject has already shown aggression. He's also shown that he's aware a weapon is present, and is actively trying to acquire it. It's reasonable to assume that he won't suddenly turn into Mother Teresa once he has a pistol.