A guy, thug, whatever approaches you and with a hand in his pocket says, "give me your wallet or I'll kill you". You can see a bulge like a barrel poking inside the pocket.

You fire.

It turns out it is just his finger, are you in trouble? I’m in FL, the “castle doctrine” state.

Any opinions, or comments in general?

__________________
Criminals don't register guns.

Don't bring a finger to a gun fight.

With luck the "thug" will have priors for thuggish behavior which will tend to back up your story. If he is the local youth pastor and has zero criminal record it might be a longer reach. However, that being said, it is typically better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

The 2015 Florida Statutes


Title XLVI
CRIMESChapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCEView Entire Chapter776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

__________________
Science plus Art

Are you in fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

To understand this law, you must understand the concept of the "reasonable person" standard.

This is how the jury will determine if what you did is reasonable. Not what you thought was reasonable, but what the average person thinks is reasonable.

In your scenario, I believe, most people will think shooting this guy is reasonable. The defender has no reason to believe that there isn't a gun in his pocket.

Where it gets sketchy is what I underlined. Like it or not, because a person has a license to carry, they will put them in the "higher standard of care" category. It's not fair, it's not reasonable, but it is how people think. The average concealed carrier will be looked at as a person who is supposed to be better with their gun. We know it isn't true, but the 95% who don't carry don't know that.

All that sounds like gloom and doom, it's not. Do what you think is reasonable and necessary to defend yourself and family. If you do, the shoot will be righteous.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I answered on the other forum.

I was wondering what happened to my reply.
I answered on the other forum too.

How many forums did you post this to???

I'd give him my wallet.

__________________
Hook686

I am with you on that one and also the pin number to my ATM card if he ask for it. Would also offer my phone number in case he forgets the pin. Don

__________________
USN Retired/VN VET
M&P X5

That would probably be the smart thing to do but depending on the exact circumstances you might not do that. If he gave you some reason to think so and you were reasonably certain the man intended to harm you, you would have no choice but to respond.

To me, that's an interesting question. Not being a police officer and not involved in such matters, I'd not thought of it. I do know I would hate to kill someone over the very small amount of valuables I carry.

I think a lot of people would. It comes down to what you will kill a person for. If I am alone I would probably but up more of a fight than if I was with my family. There is nothing in my wallet that I can't have replaced and I don't know that I can draw a concealed weapon before a guy with his finger on the trigger can shoot me or a loved one. I learned along time ago that you can never question someone's reaction in a situation like this because it was THEIR reaction in a situation and it was what they thought they could do at the time. If it will get you home at the end of the day and the only thing that gets bruised is your ego, it was a good end to the scenario.

I would based on the facts given. As far as I know he's holding a gun. It's far faster for him to shoot me then it is for me to react by drawing my gun. We all know the 21ft rule. A bad guy closer than 21ft will be on you before you're able to draw and in most cases fire. So now here he is in your face and holding a gun (as far as you know). The only way you win in this situation is A. he doesn't have a gun or B. You call his bluff by drawing your own gun and he chickens out

It could be a toy or a stick or a finger in that pocket but as far as I know it's a gun. There is nothing in my wallet that can't be replaced and I'm not dying for $3, two credit cards, a drivers license and a movie ticket stub to the last Terminator movie.

1. Always carry and use a voice recorder when carrying.
2. You need to be in reasonable, and immediate fear of death or great bodily harm in order to use deadly force. Clearly, he put you in that fear.

People who don't want to get shot should avoid putting others in reasonable and immediate fear of life and limb... but hey, I'm addicted to "linear, patriarchal, Western" thinking...

...because if you can't trust in the honesty, judgment and basic decency of a SELF-DESCRIBED armed robber, what CAN you trust in?

Stealing your wallet from your unattended car is a property crime.

Robbing you at APPARENT gunpoint, is NOT.

It's a crime against a PERSON, YOU.

I think everyone understands that.

It's a tough scenario for all the reasons that have been mentioned, and a few more. No one wants to get shot, and no one wants to kill someone over less than $20 and a little inconvenience. No sane person, anyway.

One thing that wasn't mentioned was being disarmed as a result of something like this. That is a scenario I have considered, and I don't care for the logical conclusion, but it is what it is.

My continued existence, on this Earth, is my primary objective. If I am confident that I can escape, I will.

If I can't escape and I perceive the thug is stable enough to refrain from perforating me, I'll cough up the dough.

If I can't escape, the thug looks crazy or irrational, it's time to "clear leather".

THAT is the only real standard that matters. Rastoff is correct in what he says about the statute that he posted but the bottom line for the use of deadly force is that you have to be in fear of bodily injury or death. As a reasonable person.

The scenario written was this:

Then this:

There are facts omitted here. One salient one, anyway - you can't just fire - you have to draw and fire. "Clear leather", to use the Old West term used above. Seeing that that is true, and seeing that the scenario painted is a gun in the perpetrator's pocket, it is NOT unreasonable to react by reaching for a gun even though the perp thinks you're reaching for your wallet. If you're able to reach your gun whilst the perp thinks you're reaching for a wallet you have evened the odds considerably.

This would be different if the perp's gun was pointed at your face or body. I'm going to be exceedingly cooperative facing a drawn weapon. Polite, too. That's not what the OP asked. If I am faced with a threat to draw a weapon I'll be far less likely to be nice. Jus' sayin'.......

^that.

And personally, I'd shoot. In Philly there have been several cases where even when the victim complies with the robber's demands, the robber still shoots them. I will admit, every situation is unique though.

This actually happened to me. I gave the guy my wallet, then he shot me in the head.
There was three dollars in the wallet. I have no kind feelings for armed robbers, they will kill you just to see whats in your pocket.

It wont happen again!

Gary

This is why we all need a decoy wallet........

__________________
- The Federalist #46 -

Until those 12 Really do send you to prison for the rest of your life

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

How are firing? Are you pocket carrying and already have your pistol pointed at him? Is it already out? If he approaches suddenly at close quarters/face and to face and you then try to draw, he would either shoot you before you access your weapon if he actually has a gun or withdraw/run once your weapon is out if he's bluffing, so I'm not really seeing why you would be shooting unless you are shooting him when he's fleeing or he actually attacks you unarmed and possibly trying to disarm you after you've drawn your weapon.

None of these scenarios would likely bode well for the shooter, but whether charged or not would depend on a lot of variables such as whether there's witnesses and what they say they saw happen, where it happens,the guys and your history and criminal record(or lack of) etc. Probably best to just give the guy the wallet irregardless.

Again, the amount of money in your wallet is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

It doesn't matter if it's $20 or $20,000. Once a credible and immediate threat of death or great bodily harm comes into play, the amount of money makes no more difference than the price of ramen in Pyongtaek.

I won't shoot somebody for stealing something from my unoccupied car, or the car itself for that matter.

Put me in immediate and credible fear of life and limb and you've got nobody to blame for the consequences but yourself.

Play stupid games, when stupid prizes that can't be traded in for something else.

Yes, as a matter of fact.

And I ALWAYS carry some kind of voice recorder... RUNNING when I'm carrying.

There's likely to be just ONE story... and that one recorded as it happened.

Yeah, everybody knows that armed robbers NEVER hurt anybody after they get the money...

I don't carry much cash and only one credit card. Nothing worth shooting someone over, justified or not.
The issue with handing over my wallet is that once they have my drivers license they will have my name and address. If you capitulate once who's to say that they won't see you as an easy mark and pay you a visit sometime at home.

I hear this a lot and it's not necessarily true. There is such a thing as reaction time and action almost always beats reaction.

It takes time for your brain to process information and react to it especially when it's unexpected. One of the biggest mistakes that people make when it comes to firearms is assuming that the mere presence of one is going to ensure compliance. When it doesn't it takes the brain time to adjust and react to the changing scenario, especially if the unexpected is presented as the expected. IE presenting your gun from the same place most people keep their wallet

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

Ok so same situation I'm pointing a gun at you and demanding your wallet. I'm holding the gun, finger on the trigger. Do you really think you can draw and fire faster than it takes me to pull the trigger?

Yes if you give me the money your chances are 50/50 but if you draw you have no chance.

Now if I put myself in that situation I'd that the 50/50 over flat our getting shot.

Please see my post 29

__________________
Retired Career Security Guard

True. But for him to process and just shoot me is faster than me to process and then draw, point and shoot. He's already there

Something I heard on the radio yesterday prompted this thread, oddly it eludes me why now.

Thanks for all the replies, I did post this in a few forums as each has its own "personality" so to speak. I am just looking for the most common answer(s) to check my thought process. Thanks for the FL statute, I do read them regularly, the word "reasonable" is the tipping point, isn't it?

Brilliant thoughts, some I have had already, some new to me. Hence the thread. One never knows what will happen or when, how you might or might not react. I like to think I'm prepared, but if/until that times comes?

Of course my 1st reaction is to back out of the situation, or try to keep my SA up enough to not have to make the choice.

gwpercle makes a good point, hopefully it never gets that far.

I am also considering the insurance option, just as a safeguard.

__________________
Criminals don't register guns.

You toss your wallet on the ground towards the robber. When he bends over to pick it up, you draw your pistol, and neutralize the threat.

Again, I hear about victims all the time still getting shot after they comply with the robber. If somebody robs me, I automatically fear for my life.

So, you literally walk around with your hands in your pockets with a firing grip on a gun 100% of the time you're in public with a voice recorder running? Do you wear a jacket year round?

If they wanted to physically assault you, they would likely do it from the get go rather than verbally issuing demands and threatening they have a concealed weapon. Compliance generally does resolve these type of situations even if there are rare exceptions.

I'm not giving him squat! Be my luck that the next time he chooses to rob someone it would be my wife or daughter. Or someone else I know. And they might get hurt.

Nope. Lateral movement followed by a quick smooth draw and we'll see if he's truly armed.

I know how that sounds. But I ain't layin down for anyone unless I see a gun.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

How many of you reach for your wallet with your right hand? Or am I the only guy that carrys mine wallet on the left side?

__________________
USN Retired/VN VET
M&P X5

I pocket carry. You're going to have a very bad, and very short day.

Even if I didn't, I'd rather bet on your reaction time than your character and sanity.

I may get shot, but it won't be in the back, execution style.

You've obviously convinced yourself that you have little to fear from armed robbers. Fine by me.

Personally, NO plan I have ever had, have now, or will EVER have involves trusting in the better nature of self-proclaimed armed robbers. As I said, I may get shot, but it won't be in the back execution style.

Same here. There's much more too this that isn't being discussed.

I NEVER approach or let someone approach me head on with their hands where I can't see them. I side step or step completely out of their way.

And even though I'm getting older, I'm still extremely quick. And my thinking and situational awareness hasn't slowed any either.

I read body language well and depend on it heavily.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

The two most valuable things I learned in the Army (besides the fact that nobody can outrun a bullet) were the definitions of "cover" and "concealment" and the difference between them.

I'm not interested in a "High Noon" shootout in the open.

Getting to cover and concealment can buy you more than enough time to draw and fire, and probably from a supported position.

You guys remember the flick "A Clockwork Orange?" A future society filled with drugs, gratuitous violence and carnality. Well, we're here. People are now beaten (the knock down game) for recreation. People are shot for the pleasure of watching them die: the Steinle woman in San Fran. And this will continue to get worse.

An assailant is threatening your life, he's likely on drugs, and accustomed to violence. Twenty years ago I'd just give him my wallet, today however... you will have to put up a fight - even if you're unarmed!

In the past, giving up what they were asking for was the common wisdom given out. It usually worked. You lost a few dollars and lived through the situation. We no longer teach that.

Giving up the wallet is only a distraction to get your gun out. Modern criminals are increasingly going toward violence. Sure they ask for a wallet, but only because they don't want to dig through your pockets once you're dead. Now they take the wallet/watch/ring and shoot you anyways.

Always resist.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Out drawing the drawn gun....is a tricky thing.

The first time the bandit blinks, draw and fire in one smooth motion.

If yur not ready or caught with ur britches down, just take what comes.

It be willingness that will carry the day.


.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

I am willing to bet that if he has the gun in the pocket I can sidestep while drawing and being in his pocket he is going to have a hard time aiming and tracking my movement. I can only hope if he does get a shot off it will miss of not be fatal. At that point I know he has a gun and was going to use it and he is going down as I have my gun out. If he don't fire I have him covered and ready to pull the trigger. The next move is his. At this point he can either pull the gun out of the pocket and try to aim or pull his finger out and run. He may be willing to kill me but I am not willing to kill him if I don't have to. Don

__________________
USN Retired/VN VET
M&P X5

I actually read about a guy that did this. I don't remember where the story was or I would search for it but, as I remember it, the guy acted really scared and fumbled his wallet causing it to drop on the ground. The suspect bent over to pick up the wallet to see the guy pulling his revolver out of his front pocket. The suspect pulled his hand out of his pocket, handed him his wallet, apologized and ran off. I believe he was caught hiding with a group of his friends in the mall food court where he had just tried to rob the guy. The whole thing was on a security camera.

Sorry for inserting a story with no backing proof but I remembered this story only after reading your post and I don't know how many years ago this was or where I read/saw this.

The appropriate response is completely dependent on the specific situation. There is no one size fits all response, so be careful about generalizing what's the best course of action. Participate in so do contact FoF/Force on Force scenario training and you'll quickly how many variables there are and how quickly your planned tactic can go south. If the only training you do is range work, you won't have a clue of the dynamics involved.

In general, a police officer faced with what appears to be, or what he perceives to be a weapon would be justified in using deadly force.

Then again that may not cut much ice.

Consider a recent shoot where the officer responded to a call at a convenience store where a suspect was brandishing a pistol. The officer responds and asks a suspect to stop. Suspect refuses, walks away then turns around with his right hand in the waist band of his pants. The officer, presuming the presence of a gun and an imminent threat shoots the suspect, who drops and bleeds out right there.

It's clearly a justified shoot, even though the suspect did not in fact have a weapon. The media however had a field day with it, at least until some people pointed out the subtle details, such as the suspect, turning around, having his hand in his waistband appearing to be drawing a weapon, and the circumstances and the nature of the 911 call that led to the incident in the first place.

----

For a concealed carry permit holder, the situation will be even worse. You won't have the same degree of latitude the court gives to a police officer as you are not expected to respond to calls or protect others, and you won't have the department's legal resources to back you up. You will however also be held to higher standard than the average citizen, and you'll be dealing with potential prosecutors and/or grand jury members who have a bad taste in their mouth from past incidents such as the George Zimmerman case. As such, they may be predisposed to assuming because you choose to carry a gun you are in some way looking for trouble and/or are looking for an excuse to use it.

What that means in your particular example is that you'll be facing an uphill struggle to "prove" that the individual you shot was posing a potentially lethal threat to you - in the absence of a weapon, and quite possibly in the absence of any supporting evidence or witnesses. It may just be your word that his hand was in his pocket, that he said he had a gun, and that he threatened to use lethal force to kill you.

Assuming you shoot and kill the mugger in that situation you will have committed a homicide and the legal issue in any state is not whether you are "guilty" or "innocent" of killing someone, but rather demonstrating that you had a legal justification for the homicide in the form of self defense.

In a castle defense state, it's much easier to demonstrate that justification if the incident happens in your home or car as the burden of proof for the justification for lethal force is much more assumed and much less of an issue (but it's not absolute - shooting the girl scouts selling cookies for trespassing on your property will still get you 20 to life). However, if you are just out and about in public under circumstances where the castle defense does not apply, that burden can be significant, particularly with the lack of any supporting evidence.

It can be further complicated by the deceased's attempted commission of what is regarded as a property crime, and the use of a threat that could be viewed as conditional. Someone saying "Give me your wallet or I will kill you" is conditional, but on the other hand, you can assume the results of refusing will be delivered immediately. In a similar manner a father of a 13 year old girl confronting her would-be 21 year old boyfriend and telling him "if you touch my daughter, I will kill you" is also conditional. However, it's a conditional threat the fathers of many 13 year old girls might be inclined to make, and it's a threat predicated on the 21 year old's actions in the distant future - not here and now in this interaction.

That results in a significant contextual difference between the two conditional threats but it's likely that someone on a grand jury may think that the homicide could have been avoided had you just given up the wallet.

Still, based on the conditional nature of the threat, the lack of a weapon, and the attempted crime being a property crime, a prosecutor may well choose to charge you, or a grand jury member may well vote for an indictment, feeling the case should go to trial - particularly in a state where lethal force is not permissible to prevent property crimes. Almost certainly the responding officer is going to arrest you and let the court sort it out.

That is in fact how it often works - the officer, fully believing your account of the facts, but knowing that it's not his job to determine guilt or innocence, and assuming he does not have the discretion to let you go home until someone else makes a decision, will arrest you. The prosecutor, not wanting to set a precedent for what the public or the elected officials over him may regard as "vigilante justice" is unwilling to not charge you and or may forward it to a grand jury. The grand jurors, who in most cases would indict a rock just for being present at the scene of the crime, will indict you, in large part because they will think in the back of their little sheeple brains that the officer would not have arrested you if you were innocent. The prosecutor then will then accept nothing less than a plea bargain to a serious felony, and in the absence of that make you go to trial, as if he drops the charge(s) he will look like he is soft on crime as the grand jury voted for an indictment. There's some real irony there when you think about it.

-----

Consequently, in that type of scenario, you will almost certainly go to jail pending charges, and you'd have a high likely hood of being charged. You may also have a reasonable likelihood of being acquitted if it goes to trial, but it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and it'll take years off your life. However you also need to bear in mind that often the same logic applies in the minds of jurors - you would not have been arrested if you weren't guilty, and there is a body of research out there that suggests that about 10% of juries will convict someone even in the total absence of sufficient evidence to convict the individual beyond a reasonable doubt (but that's another thread all on it's own).

------

In the end, the ONLY question that really matters is whether, in that time and place, in that exact set of circumstances, based on your read of the situation and of the assailant, you feel that your life is truly in danger and that shooting is absolutely necessary to prevent serious injury or loss of life. Then if you are charged, and even convicted, the resulting legal headaches and time in jail will (probably) be better than the alternative, and it'll just be one of those unfair things that happen in life.

If on the other hand, you look at this as an opportunity to finally shoot someone after years of carrying, training, considering options and scenarios, etc, and shoot based on the reasoning that you have met some sort of minimum legal justification (consciously or unconsciously), you're pretty well screwed. Even if you avoid going to prison, you'll be stressed out for months, you'll be about five figures poorer in legal fees, and you'll always be wondering in the back of your mind if you could have avoided the whole mess. You won't be happy.

Before you get your underwear in a knot over the concept that you can shoot someone when you've met a minimum legal justification and still be in the wrong, consider that this is in fact the very situation in the some of law enforcement officer shoots that garner so much bad press for officers as a whole.

It's one thing to meet the legal minimum and reach a point where the officer CAN shoot, but that's not the same as the officer reaching the point where he or she HAS to shoot. Just meeting that legal minimum does not preclude other, better options.

Consider the three officers responding to the residence of a mother and her non compliant schizophrenic son. She called the police as he was not compliant in taking his meds and asked for some assistance in getting him to comply. She walked out the front door in front of her son telling him he'd have to deal with the police now. The son followed her out calmly twirling a screwdriver between his thumbs and forefingers, keeping his hands busy. One of the officers massively over reacted, drew his service pistol and told him to drop the weapon. I'm pretty sure the victim's last thought as he took another step following his mother were along the lines of "what weapon?" or "who is he talking to?". The officer could have backed off to create distance and gotten the mom to get the message across to the son, the officer could have tazed him, or the officer could have manned up and strained him - like pretty much any psychiatric ward attendant in the country is trained to do. Instead he shot him 3 times. Bad call. It may have met some broad definition of an imminent threat, but it was incredibly poor police work, and the mark of an officer who totally fails to understand what his job really entails and when lethal force is or is not required.

It's a massive failure when the officer reaches that legal minimum only after a series of bad decisions, bad choices, and rejected alternatives that would have de-escalated or resolved the situation without using deadly force. The same applies to a citizen with a concealed carry permit - however the wiggle room is far less, and consequences are far worse as the court grants you far less latitude in making those kinds of mistakes.

This thread makes for great reading. I would like to ask this question. How many licensed concealed carriers would pull their weapon and fire after they relinquished their wallet and the bad guy was leaving the immediate area? We all know that would be totally wrong and illegal, but in the heat of the moment, I can see a high probability of that occurring.

We had an almost identical case here the other day, except this illegal alien killed one girl, wounded a woman, and tried to rape another girl.

Trusting violent criminals to "do the right thing" just isn't on my radar. If they were amenable to the "right thing", they wouldn't be violent criminals in the first place.

This happens often in bank robberies. The BG goes to the teller and says he has a gun, but does not show it. The teller gives the money because she believes she will be shot, as the BG threatens. What crime has the BG committed if he does not really show the gun and no one hears his conversation to the teller. He could say "Hey I just walked up to the counter and she just gave me this money, and told me I was lucky customer # 20!"

If a BG did this to a Police Officer, what would the cop do. What would the Police supervisors do to the Officer if he did not take fast and decisive action against the BG?

__________________
A Snider squibbed n the Jungle