Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > >


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-28-2017, 10:29 PM
clampit clampit is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 8
Likes: 5
Liked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Default Good shoot or no?

Today on the news a bad guy goes into a fast food store to rob it. Bad guy racks the slide and has a FTF. Points the gun with finger on the trigger at clerks head. Knowing that the gun is inoperable at this point, you shoot the bad guy to protect the life of another would that be considered a good or bad shoot?
It looked like the slide hung up on the brass and could go into battery, but didn't.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-28-2017, 10:59 PM
Muss Muggins's Avatar
Muss Muggins Muss Muggins is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: southeast Missouri
Posts: 7,601
Likes: 2,678
Liked 9,213 Times in 3,302 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clampit View Post
Today on the news a bad guy goes into a fast food store to rob it. Bad guy racks the slide and has a FTF. Points the gun with finger on the trigger at clerks head. Knowing that the gun is inoperable at this point, you shoot the bad guy to protect the life of another would that be considered a good or bad shoot?
It looked like the slide hung up on the brass and could go into battery, but didn't.
If I'm not related to the clerk, at the moment it looks like a robbery, I'm out the door . . .
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #3  
Old 04-28-2017, 11:19 PM
R*E R*E is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 140
Likes: 40
Liked 73 Times in 42 Posts
Default

Good shoot. Bad guy can clear that very quickly. Why wait? Seriously, do you even think you'd notice the FTF in a situation like that?
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #4  
Old 04-29-2017, 10:22 AM
Papaw Papaw is offline
Member
Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Arkansas USA
Posts: 229
Likes: 310
Liked 207 Times in 69 Posts
Default

Don't know if the clerk noticed the FTF but he was very calm.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-29-2017, 10:51 AM
Double-O-Dave Double-O-Dave is online now
US Veteran
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,788
Likes: 259
Liked 2,985 Times in 1,209 Posts
Default

The bad guy is still a tangible threat, and has already demonstrated his desire to kill someone. If I were the clerk I'd either be running or gunning, or both.

Regards,

Dave
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #6  
Old 04-29-2017, 01:07 PM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,318
Likes: 894
Liked 1,591 Times in 695 Posts
Default

I'd already be leaving. Presuming an exit was impossible or undesirable, I don't care that he's had a stoppage. That pistol can be made to fire in less than a second.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #7  
Old 04-29-2017, 01:33 PM
oldiesradio1560 oldiesradio1560 is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Liked 50 Times in 35 Posts
Default

First off, I carry a M640 revolver. The reason is simple when I began with firearms back in the 70's automatics jammed back then and they jam now. It would be a good shoot since you have deadly force being used against you. The issue is that most companies don't want you to take action to elite the threat because they don't want to get sued by the bad guy or his family. It's all about profit and cover their ***. They figure they can always replace an employee.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-29-2017, 02:08 PM
keith44spl's Avatar
keith44spl keith44spl is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,486
Likes: 6,920
Liked 14,532 Times in 3,070 Posts
Default

I personally would not ask a bandit to do a press check before hand...






.
__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Like Post:
  #9  
Old 04-29-2017, 02:22 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 721
Likes: 467
Liked 717 Times in 298 Posts
Default

If you believed the guy's life or yours was in imminent danger, it would be good. If not, it wouldn't. In Michigan, if you shot the guy in the back as he fled after telling him to stop, it would be good, whether the gun was operable or not, because at that point he was a fleeing felon whether the gun was operable or not.

It all depends on how you explained your rationale for shooting the guy and what you inferred based on your perceptions.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #10  
Old 04-30-2017, 06:44 PM
Donn's Avatar
Donn Donn is offline
US Veteran
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 5
Liked 2,799 Times in 1,179 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
In Michigan, if you shot the guy in the back as he fled after telling him to stop, it would be good, whether the gun was operable or not, because at that point he was a fleeing felon whether the gun was operable or not.
??? Don't know what part of Michigan you live in, but you better check your local laws again. Where I live, a retreating bad guy,
felon or not, no longer poses a threat. You shoot him/her in the back, it is NOT a good shoot. You stand an excellent chance of going to prison along with Mr. Bad Guy.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #11  
Old 04-30-2017, 07:25 PM
Watchdog's Avatar
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
US Veteran
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 7,225
Likes: 11,950
Liked 15,521 Times in 4,141 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
In Michigan, if you shot the guy in the back as he fled after telling him to stop, it would be good, whether the gun was operable or not, because at that point he was a fleeing felon whether the gun was operable or not.
Please furnish a link to a factual source for that information, or post a link to the applicable Michigan law(s) that validate that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RSanch111 View Post
It all depends on how you explained your rationale for shooting the guy and what you inferred based on your perceptions.
I have a pretty good imagination. But if you're still talking about shooting a fleeing criminal in the back, I'm having a hard time imagining a rationale for that. I would understand someone doing that out of pure anger, frustration, or revenge, but not sure those reasons would hold up in court.

As someone else says, if someone's running away from you, you'd have a hard time convincing the cops he was a threat to you.
__________________
I can't get no...satisfaction.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #12  
Old 04-30-2017, 07:26 PM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is online now
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 21,689
Likes: 25,568
Liked 17,584 Times in 8,733 Posts
Default Somebody points a gun.....

Malfunction or not, if someone pulls a gun it's a deadly threat. Handle it how you want up to and including shooting the attacker.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #13  
Old 04-30-2017, 08:21 PM
427mach1's Avatar
427mach1 427mach1 is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,566
Likes: 816
Liked 1,803 Times in 562 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog View Post

As someone else says, if someone's running away from you, you'd have a hard time convincing the cops he was a threat to you.
He still had a gun and he turned as he was running and pointed it in my direction..... He was running away from me but toward my family members... The pharmacist that shot the armed robber as he ran away/down the hall toward other employees....
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-30-2017, 08:24 PM
vigil617's Avatar
vigil617 vigil617 is offline
US Veteran
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fayetteville NC area
Posts: 4,896
Likes: 14,255
Liked 8,618 Times in 3,106 Posts
Default

The video of this event is posted in this thread:

If you think carrying with an empy chamber is a good idea
__________________
All Tar Heel, all the time
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #15  
Old 04-30-2017, 09:06 PM
Muss Muggins's Avatar
Muss Muggins Muss Muggins is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: southeast Missouri
Posts: 7,601
Likes: 2,678
Liked 9,213 Times in 3,302 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog View Post
Please furnish a link to a factual source for that information, or post a link to the applicable Michigan law(s) that validate that.



I have a pretty good imagination. But if you're still talking about shooting a fleeing criminal in the back, I'm having a hard time imagining a rationale for that. I would understand someone doing that out of pure anger, frustration, or revenge, but not sure those reasons would hold up in court.

As someone else says, if someone's running away from you, you'd have a hard time convincing the cops he was a threat to you.
I've looked at this a little after similar claims from other Michigan members. The Michigan law is fairly confusing. On the face of it, the poster seems to be correct about what the law says. I don't know how it would shake out in court.
__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-30-2017, 09:08 PM
Walkingwolf's Avatar
Walkingwolf Walkingwolf is online now
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 599
Likes: 440
Liked 471 Times in 269 Posts
Default

IMO it would be a justified shoot. He still had the opportunity to clear the gun, and shoot the clerk, or others.

Personally I do not carry to be a hero, I carry to protect my family, and myself. If the robber appears to be a threat to us then I would take action. If the robber shoots the clerk, then it is a good bet he is a threat to us. If he just takes the money, and leaves it is not my concern.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #17  
Old 04-30-2017, 09:13 PM
Walkingwolf's Avatar
Walkingwolf Walkingwolf is online now
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 599
Likes: 440
Liked 471 Times in 269 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog View Post
Please furnish a link to a factual source for that information, or post a link to the applicable Michigan law(s) that validate that.



I have a pretty good imagination. But if you're still talking about shooting a fleeing criminal in the back, I'm having a hard time imagining a rationale for that. I would understand someone doing that out of pure anger, frustration, or revenge, but not sure those reasons would hold up in court.

As someone else says, if someone's running away from you, you'd have a hard time convincing the cops he was a threat to you.
Is he threat to the public? A particularly violent criminal that has already committed a viscous crime I doubt there would be charges in red states. Shoot a terrorist that is running after killing, and I would doubt the shooter would face charges in any state.

We had a Pizza Hut employee in Charlotte shoot a robber in the back of the head. No charges filed, though the family threw a tantrum.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #18  
Old 04-30-2017, 10:47 PM
snuffy51's Avatar
snuffy51 snuffy51 is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Tennessee 38017
Posts: 1,494
Likes: 2,538
Liked 1,720 Times in 669 Posts
Default

I have stated here before, I'm NOT a cop. I have a permit to carry a weapon to protect me and mine. Tennessee law states you cannot shoot anybody that is retreating after the fact. As long as I don't feel threatened, (ie. He looks my way with a weapon in his hand), I'm outa there and call 911. As a side note, do ya'll hesitate and look before entering a store etc.?? I've developed a habit of looking where I'm going. In addition to this, I haven't been to Memphis since the day I retired, 3 years and 9 months ago. Nothing I need or want there.
__________________
"Only guns that spin" K.I.S.S.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #19  
Old 05-01-2017, 12:06 AM
transit transit is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 61
Likes: 280
Liked 135 Times in 40 Posts
Default

100% good shoot.

The surveillance video is NOT the view the victim had.

The victim's view (-and I saw the BBC interview with the "duuuuude" victim ) was of a HUGE black hole at the end of a gun pointed at his face. -Even if he was too dumb to understand.

No one, not even here in NYC, will be expected to evaluate the condition of a firearm pointed at them in the commission of a felony.

If a robber points a gun at your head, he is good to go.

No assistant district attorney is going to come before a grand jury of citizens and try to convince them of two things: that the victim should have known and understood that the weapon was in an un-fireable condition at that instant because the felon had mishandled it, AND the fact that the felon could have remedied that condition in fractions of a second with a standard drill was meaningless.

It's just not going to happen.

Not because they might not like to, but rather because they know that any competent defense attorney would humiliate them if they did so.

Humiliation is not acceptable in a DA's office.

100% good shoot.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #20  
Old 05-01-2017, 12:15 AM
gman51 gman51 is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Just West of Houston
Posts: 1,730
Likes: 381
Liked 1,919 Times in 925 Posts
Default

The BG pointed a gun in my face then I am not going to give him the chance to rack the slide again to give me a super bad headache. Boom... he is dead if I have a gun handy.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-01-2017, 02:34 AM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,318
Likes: 894
Liked 1,591 Times in 695 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by transit View Post
The surveillance video is NOT the view the victim had.

The victim's view (-and I saw the BBC interview with the "duuuuude" victim ) was of a HUGE black hole at the end of a gun pointed at his face. -Even if he was too dumb to understand.

No one, not even here in NYC, will be expected to evaluate the condition of a firearm pointed at them in the commission of a felony.
While I agree with the application of the reasonable person standard to the situation, I believe it is ultimately irrelevant. Even if it were proven that the armed citizen in question knew the (presumably deceased) attacker's pistol was jammed out of battery, it still meets all the requirements for an "immediate, imminent threat".

In other words, the winner's innocence shouldn't hinge on the loser's incompetence.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #22  
Old 05-01-2017, 02:45 AM
Kiwi cop Kiwi cop is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Taranaki, New Zealand
Posts: 182
Likes: 478
Liked 380 Times in 110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
??? Don't know what part of Michigan you live in, but you better check your local laws again. Where I live, a retreating bad guy,
felon or not, no longer poses a threat. You shoot him/her in the back, it is NOT a good shoot. You stand an excellent chance of going to prison along with Mr. Bad Guy.
To the original post I have just three words, Tap. Rack. BANG!!!!

As to the "fleeing felon" situation: Here in New Zealand we do not have the right to carry firearms for self defence, nor can pistols be used by civilians anywhere except on a recognised club range.

BUT our use of force rules say that if an offender is running away and a pursuing police officer has good cause to suspect that he may pose a risk of causing death or previous bodily harm (and pointing a pistol at another person demonstrates both) then he can be shot in the back as he flees.

We only have to be able to demonstrate we believed that he needed to be stopped immediately due to the risk he poses to another police officer or a member of the public.

Of course both the legislation allowing the use of deadly force and our policies do not actually say this, but that is what they mean.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #23  
Old 05-01-2017, 08:20 AM
petepeterson's Avatar
petepeterson petepeterson is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,032
Likes: 3,793
Liked 2,588 Times in 1,149 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise_A View Post
While I agree with the application of the reasonable person standard to the situation, I believe it is ultimately irrelevant. Even if it were proven that the armed citizen in question knew the (presumably deceased) attacker's pistol was jammed out of battery, it still meets all the requirements for an "immediate, imminent threat".

In other words, the winner's innocence shouldn't hinge on the loser's incompetence.
This would be similar to someone pointing a 1911-style pistol at you with the hammer down. There can't be any reasonable expectation for an average citizen to understand the condition of a gun pointed at him/her.
__________________
Because of the metric system?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #24  
Old 05-01-2017, 09:57 AM
cmort666's Avatar
cmort666 cmort666 is online now
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Rocky River, OH, USA
Posts: 8,958
Likes: 995
Liked 7,810 Times in 3,198 Posts
Default

How many tries to murder somebody are you going to give him?
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #25  
Old 05-01-2017, 10:08 AM
Thomasino Thomasino is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 49
Likes: 11
Liked 32 Times in 21 Posts
Default

As a clerk, all's I see is a gun pointing at me, period, in the heat of the moment noone will notice the slide jam or be held accountable because of it. In my opinion the robber deserved to be shot.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #26  
Old 05-01-2017, 01:58 PM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is online now
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 21,689
Likes: 25,568
Liked 17,584 Times in 8,733 Posts
Default It doesn't even have to JAM jam.......

What if the perp figures that giving his slide a little bump into battery fixes it. He's back in action.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-01-2017, 03:07 PM
Jessie's Avatar
Jessie Jessie is offline
US Veteran
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Virginia
Posts: 5,050
Likes: 4,085
Liked 6,583 Times in 2,581 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clampit View Post
Today on the news a bad guy goes into a fast food store to rob it. Bad guy racks the slide and has a FTF. Points the gun with finger on the trigger at clerks head. Knowing that the gun is inoperable at this point, you shoot the bad guy to protect the life of another would that be considered a good or bad shoot?
It looked like the slide hung up on the brass and could go into battery, but didn't.
You're a lawyer for one of them, right?
Low post and an unanswerable question makes me wonder.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #28  
Old 05-02-2017, 02:30 PM
Smoke's Avatar
Smoke Smoke is offline
US Veteran
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,739
Likes: 1,734
Liked 4,213 Times in 1,698 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clampit View Post
Knowing that the gun is inoperable at this point, you shoot the bad guy to protect the life of another would that be considered a good or bad shoot?
You just said you knew the gun was inoperable what are you protecting the clerk from?
__________________
Read More Post Less
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-02-2017, 02:41 PM
keith44spl's Avatar
keith44spl keith44spl is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,486
Likes: 6,920
Liked 14,532 Times in 3,070 Posts
Default

A whole lot of variables.....Have ya ever saw one hang up on the case mouth,
And then all of a sudden go into battery???


I have.


Every one needs to know their own limitations.
.
__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #30  
Old 05-02-2017, 04:48 PM
federali's Avatar
federali federali is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 9,534
Liked 4,852 Times in 1,426 Posts
Default Knowledge Needed

Following this line of reasoning, Can you shoot the bad guy while he's reloading or must you wait for him to finish?
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #31  
Old 05-02-2017, 05:57 PM
Bajadoc Bajadoc is offline
US Veteran
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern California
Posts: 570
Likes: 802
Liked 911 Times in 330 Posts
Default

I don't know the weapon is inoperable, I shoot and I am happy about it.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #32  
Old 05-02-2017, 06:18 PM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,318
Likes: 894
Liked 1,591 Times in 695 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petepeterson View Post
This would be similar to someone pointing a 1911-style pistol at you with the hammer down. There can't be any reasonable expectation for an average citizen to understand the condition of a gun pointed at him/her.
Literally doesn't matter. The pistol is a fraction of a second from being ready to fire. The fact that it isn't doesn't play into the math, whether or not the victim is cognizant of the fact.

Bad Guy in question would simply have lost the fight before it started.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #33  
Old 05-02-2017, 06:22 PM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,318
Likes: 894
Liked 1,591 Times in 695 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smoke View Post
You just said you knew the gun was inoperable what are you protecting the clerk from?
In the given stoppage, said Bad Guy's handgun can be made ready to fire quickly. Hence, the clerk--and presumably, the 3rd-party CCW holder--can reasonably expect that they are in immediate, imminent, and unavoidable risk of death or serious injury.

Shooting at that point is simply a matter of tactics, no different than if the Bad Guy dropped his pistol or became distracted.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #34  
Old 05-04-2017, 07:09 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 721
Likes: 467
Liked 717 Times in 298 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donn View Post
??? Don't know what part of Michigan you live in, but you better check your local laws again. Where I live, a retreating bad guy,
felon or not, no longer poses a threat. You shoot him/her in the back, it is NOT a good shoot. You stand an excellent chance of going to prison along with Mr. Bad Guy.
You're wrong. Michigan still has a "fleeing felon rule." See "People V. Couch" and google "Archie Arp". They don't teach you about it in CPL class because they don't want to get sued.

TN V Garner was a civil case, not criminal. It ruled that a person could be held civilly liable for shooting a non-violent fleeing felon. Not criminally charged. After TN V Garner, most states made it a crime to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. Michigan wasn't one of them.

Last edited by RSanch111; 05-04-2017 at 07:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-04-2017, 07:13 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 721
Likes: 467
Liked 717 Times in 298 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog View Post
Please furnish a link to a factual source for that information, or post a link to the applicable Michigan law(s) that validate that.






I have a pretty good imagination. But if you're still talking about shooting a fleeing criminal in the back, I'm having a hard time imagining a rationale for that. I would understand someone doing that out of pure anger, frustration, or revenge, but not sure those reasons would hold up in court.

As someone else says, if someone's running away from you, you'd have a hard time convincing the cops he was a threat to you.
You don't need to convince them he was a threat to you. Only that a felony was committed and that he committed it and was fleeing.

Quote:
People v. Couch
Annotate this Case

436 Mich. 414 (1990)

461 N.W.2d 683

PEOPLE v. COUCH

Docket No. 85979, (Calendar No. 6).

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued April 3, 1990.

Decided September 26, 1990.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, John D. O'Hair, Prosecuting *416 Attorney, and George E. Ward, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, for the people.

Kenneth R. Sasse and James A. Waske, for the defendant.

BOYLE, J.

We agree with Justice ARCHER'S conclusion that the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Tennessee v Garner, 471 US 1; 105 S Ct 1694; 85 L Ed 2d 1 (1985), did not "automatically" modify this state's criminal law with respect to the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon. Post, p 441.

As Justice ARCHER explains, Garner's pronouncements regarding the constitutionality of the use of such force are inapplicable to private citizens such as the defendant. Regardless of the defendant's status as a private citizen, however, the prosecution's argument that Garner applies directly to change this state's fleeing-felon rule fails because it is premised upon the notion that the United States Supreme Court can require a state to criminalize certain conduct. Clearly, the power to define conduct as a state criminal offense lies with the individual states, not with the federal government or even the United States Supreme Court. While the failure to proscribe or prevent certain conduct could possibly subject the state to civil liability for its failure to act, or for an individual's actions, if that state, for whatever reason, chooses not to criminalize such conduct, it cannot be compelled to do so.

Moreover, we fail to see how Garner can be applied "directly" in any event, since the Court in that case concluded only that the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon who posed no harm to the officer or others was "unreasonable" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. In other *417 words, Garner was a civil case which made no mention of the officer's criminal responsibility for his "unreasonable" actions. Thus, not only is the United States Supreme Court without authority to require this state to make shooting a nondangerous fleeing felon a crime, it has never even expressed an intent to do so.[1]

Unlike Justice ARCHER, however, we decline the opportunity to change the common-law fleeing-felon rule with respect to criminal liability to conform with Garner. Not only does this Court (and therefore the Court of Appeals) arguably lack the authority to do so, even prospectively, given the Legislature's adoption of and acquiescence in that rule, we must resist the temptation to do so. The question whether the common law, which allows the use of deadly force by a citizen only to apprehend a felon who is in fact guilty, has outlived its "utility" (post, p 440) is a matter of compelling public interest, demanding a balancing of legitimate interests which this Court (and therefore the Court of Appeals) is institutionally unsuited to perform. In short, it is a question for the Legislature.
Google it yourself. The law is not vague. People V. Couch. Also a local case involving a Detroit cop who shot an unarmed 15 year-old in the back for tampering with a motor vehicle. Archie Arp. Google that. County wanted to charge him but could not. There are many cases in and around Detroit over the years that have demonstrated this "fleeing felon rule". They don't like to publicize it though.

Even if it's an non-violent felony, the rule holds. Sorry if you don't WANT to believe it, but it's true. You can always contact a Wayne County prosecutor to verify.

They also don't explain the "fleeing felon rule" to cops in the police academy, one, because they cover criminal law in about 10 classes, and two because they don't want cops shooting people out of department policy. And three, because in the police academy they have to teach to the "lowest common denominator". It ain't law school. After TN V Garner police departments re-wrote their deadly force policy to conform with Garner. That didn't make it illegal to shoot a non-violent fleeing felon. The department could be held civilly liable, and they could fire the officer for a violation of policy, but they officer could not be charged criminally. In fact, Archie Arp, in my above example, got his job back after they fired him.

Several cases I recall playing out during 30 years on the PD and dealing with prosecutors: Doctor sees someone trying to steal his Jag in the parking structure. Pulls his gun and chases the guy. He finds the guy hiding under a car and shot him. He was charged. Bad guy was not fleeing.

Security guard comes home to find a guy breaking into his garage. Pulls his gun and gives chase. Guy stops and puts his hands up and says: "Go ahead and shoot me." So the homeowner does. He was charged, but would NOT have been if he had shot him in the back while he was running. I was sitting in the prosecutor's office and those words were right from his mouth.

Another one, EMS technician comes home and sees someone stealing his car. Fires shots at the guy as he's driving away and kills him. No charges.

I win a LOT of bar bets with that one. Lots of attorneys are clueless on that issue too, unless they practice criminal law and civil law involving shootings. Another reason not to call your uncle the real estate lawyer when you shoot somebody.

Last edited by RSanch111; 05-04-2017 at 07:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-04-2017, 07:30 PM
snubbyfan's Avatar
snubbyfan snubbyfan is online now
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: WVa East Panhandle
Posts: 21,078
Likes: 56,609
Liked 56,594 Times in 12,865 Posts
Default

__________________
Keep on Chooglin'
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #37  
Old 05-04-2017, 07:32 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 721
Likes: 467
Liked 717 Times in 298 Posts
Default

Here's an article that explains the Arp shooting: Detroit cops are deadliest in U

A lot of cops aren't even familiar with this aspect of deadly force law in MI. An area cops shot a fleeing felon who was in a stolen car, fleeing the scene of a traffic stop. The officer shot through the passenger side window from several feet away. There was no way he needed to take that shot to save his life.

Everyone at the station was talking about it and the head of detectives said that it was a bad shooting. I said it wasn't, based on the fleeing felon rule. He looked at me like I was an idiot. After a couple of days, he called the prosecutor and found out I was right. He asked me: "How did you know about that?" I asked him: "How did you NOT know about it, you're the head of the detectives!"

In fact, the reason I "knew" is because I knew the police academy was a joke when it came to the legal training part. Because I carried a gun for a living, I wanted to know everything about what I might be facing in the event of a shooting. NOT just what some guy who paid the NRA a few bucks to be an "instructor" told me and not what some police union lawyer told me. And that means not only knowing the statutes on the books regarding deadly force, that means knowing what the jury instructions are, what the case law is, etc. Especially the case law. There is no "statute" in MI that defines the fleeing felon rule. It's based on old common law and case law.

And that's just the way it is.

Last edited by RSanch111; 05-04-2017 at 07:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #38  
Old 05-06-2017, 02:03 PM
Doug M.'s Avatar
Doug M. Doug M. is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington State
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 4,176
Liked 3,245 Times in 1,562 Posts
Default

Garner did not apply to civilians, and has nothing to do with criminal law. (Some state legislatures did amend their statutes to match it, but that is an unrelated question.) It is a civil rights case alleging excessive force under the 4th amendment. As such, it only applies to government action (law enforcement). Putting aside it reveals some flaws (like that burglary, even residential burglary, is not classified by the FBI as a violent crime, which is utter drivel, and that some part of the decision was based on LE agencies having moronic restrictions in their policies), it is not as restrictive as most people consider it to be.

The statutory standards in your state may or may not be the same for cops and civilians. It is the responsibility of the armed citizen to know that. The overwhelming majority of lawyers don't know a darned thing about use of force, and there are maybe 1000 in the US who know about LE use of force to be worthy of attention. If you have any interest in the law about LE use of force, the first and best choice is 400 Bad Request. (I have no idea why that URL gets that title - it still works, but looks wrong no matter what I do to fix it.) It also has some really excellent discussions of ballistics, tactics, and reaction time, and one should give it serious attention even if LE force is not of import to your life.

Based on what reasonable person who knows what they need to know and could articulate - yeah, shooting RFN is the answer.
__________________
NHI. 10-8.

Last edited by Doug M.; 05-06-2017 at 02:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #39  
Old 05-08-2017, 01:33 PM
RSanch111 RSanch111 is offline
Member
Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no? Good shoot or no?  
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 721
Likes: 467
Liked 717 Times in 298 Posts
Default

In MI, for example, there is no statute that defines the fleeing felon rule. It is based on common law and case law. There are statutes relative to "self-defense" and various jury instructions along those lines. But the "fleeing felon rule" has been around for a long time. It applies ALMOST equally to police and non-police. The only difference being that the rule requires non-police to "know" that the person they're shooting committed the felony from which they are fleeing and the police to have a "reasonable belief" that the person they're shooting committed the felony.

One may still be held civilly liable for the shooting, whether police or non-police, but not criminally charged.

The last time I spent much time researching other states, there were only 3 total that did not legislate the shooting of a non-violent fleeing felon to be a crime subsequent to TN v Garner. One, of course, was MI. One was Washington state, and the other I forget. I think that Washington state may no longer have a "fleeing felon rule" and may have enacted a statute similar to the rest of the country. If they did, it's been in the last 5 years or so.

Here's the rule in Washington state. Some may find this interesting:

Quote:
9A.16.020.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.

9A.16.040. Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding
(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or
(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.
(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:
(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;
(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or
(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony;
or
(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.
(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a “threat of serious physical harm” are the following:
(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to p revent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.
(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.
(4) This section shall not be construed as:
(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or
(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.

Last edited by RSanch111; 05-08-2017 at 01:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do all 625-8 Shoot this Good? boatswainsmate S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 1 11-30-2016 10:27 PM
What's a good age to teach your children to shoot? Cal_Abe The Lounge 17 09-03-2014 01:19 PM
felt good to shoot!!!!!! blkpitbull Smith & Wesson SD & Sigma Pistols 7 06-09-2011 10:41 AM
Not only does the 686-4 shoot, but the grips look good, too . . . Denver Dick S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 11 08-24-2009 08:59 PM
Altamont Grips - Look good.....shoot bad! AZ Desertrat S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 3 06-09-2009 12:15 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:03 PM.


S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)