I am fully aware laws vary widely, but what is your take on this:
If you were in a situation, say in a restaurant, and an armed robber came in and commanded everyone to lie on the floor and get their valuables out - as he made his way around the room, collecting said valuables, could you legally draw and shoot while his back was turned to you?
Obviously, this might be your best opportunity, but would it be legal to shoot a perp in the back in that situation?

If you can persuade the District Attorney that failing to shoot would result in loss of life to you, or another person, It has to be viewed as self defence. If he's not persuaded, then you have to try your luck persuading a jury.

One thing that you should have going for you, or maybe against
you, who knows, is that you should have some witnesses that,
more than likely, wholeheartedly agree with what you had done.

__________________
Ogy

In many states, the justification for the use of deadly force not only applies to yourself, but it also extends to a third party. In other words, you are generally justified in using deadly force to protect another when said person would be justified in using such deadly force him/herself, if he/she were able. The direction in which the "bad guy" is facing is generally irrelevant if said justification does, indeed, exist.

But remember, laws can vary GREATLY from one state to the next.

__________________
NRA Pistol,PPITH,PPOTH&TASER

In Florida, lethal force may be used to stop a forcible felony, including armed robbery.

Just say "His back was to me."

__________________
Wayne
Torn & Frayed

Look at the video from from that Florida internet cafe a few weeks back. The old man clearly draws and fires while the kids back was turned.
"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!"

The other question you should ask is can you make the shot? Because if you miss, what happens next is on you.

But, I agree with the others, I think you would be OK taking the shot.

If he/they we're actually hurting anybody and it was plain they just wanted the money, I'd probably go along and let them rob the place. I'd even give them my money, watch, etc. (but not my gun)
Anything can happen when bullets start flying. You might miss and have all hell break loose. I certianly don't want to be the one to fire the first shot and start a gun fight in a crowded place.

Of course if the BG fires first, all bets are off.

I agree with Grayfox 100%. If it is just robbery he can have it all, as soon as things look to turn violent though, everthing changes. As stated before, you'd best be able to make the shot or it's all coming down on your shoulders.

I read there was a disagreement whether John Selman shot John Wesley Hardin in the eye or the back of the head. One person said if he shot him in the eye it showed he was a good shot. If he shot him in the back of the head it showed good judgement. Larry

This hits it pretty much dead center -- does not matter what direction the robber is facing -- what does matter is the imminent threat of serious bodily injury/death he presents to you and the other patrons -- the fact that he entered armed
and is proceeding to rob people establishes the fact that he is willing to use his gun to insure compliance with his demands -
otherwise, he would not need a gun. Louisiana (and probably most states provide for use of lethal force to protect yourself and others similarly threatened.) As long as the robber is in possession of his weapon and using it to enforce his demands,
you would be good to go to put the rounds in him that takes him down and eliminates the threat.

Can't help but think, in the original scenario, it also depends on the prosecutor in the area. Some are gun-friendly, wouldln't make a big deal out of it cause- the robber was armed, for all you knew he WOULD shoot you if you didn't shoot first. Then you have the prosecutors who hate guns- or that are young and want to make a name for themselves.
So not only local law would dictate, so would the type of prosecutor. We like to think the law is the law- we also USED to think the Constitution was not to be violated- and the RKBA shall not be infringed....times have changed.

__________________
No work? No eat. 2 Thes

CShoff pretty well nailed it.

For me, the deal breaker was lay down on the ground. From that moment on I'd be looking for an opportunity.

__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner

are looked at by me when I eat at a sit down place. If I were alone, and either were close, I would haste out while people are getting up to get down.

Really do not care for 'what ifs' because without details about the eating, details that even a casual diner who is always in condition 'yellow' would know, it is impossible to make a decision.

__________________
the world is round everywhere

I agree with all that's been said. And yes, if forced to lay down or go to a back room, I'm looking for an opportunity.

With any shooting, it's up to you and your attorney to convince the court that you were justified. The actual shooting is only the beginning of a big headache.

The badguy just made a tactical and last mistake.

Good point. Just beware of a tail gunner.

This just happened the other day n Jacksonville, FL. A Dollar Store was being robbed by 2 perps, at least 1 of them armed. A 57 year old CHL holder shot and killed 1 of the robbers, the other got away and I haven't followed up the story to see if he was eventually caught. No charges against the shooter.

Most interesting were some of comments on a Jacksonville radio station website thanking the shooter for saving the state millions of dollars in lengthy trials, appeals, and incarceration costs. This was also another case where the civilian put every shot into the target.

I continue to believe that armed civilians are a major deterrent to crime. The predators never know which "victim" will turn out to be strapped, trained, and willing.

No, it is not! It is the responsibility of the State (Prosecution) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that you have committed a felony. Not only do you have to prove you are not guilty, you have no obligation to even testify.

In the majority of states in the U.S. what is commonly referred to as the "Reasonable Man Test". In other words, under the circumstances, would a reasonable man have perceived that there was an imminent threat of serious physical injury or death to himself or others. In the described situation there should be little doubt that there was an easily, and correctly, inferred threat. Given the assumption that the situation occurred exactly as described there is little chance that the person who terminated the threat would have any concern of prosecution. Once deadly force becomes legally justified it makes absolutely no difference how that force is applied, or from what direction.

There are two other considerations which are very dependent on jurisdiction and political climate. Be sure that you, or a close relative is the endangered party. Some states do not provide for defense of others. There is also a good chance that, unless the bad guy actually fires shots there will always be someone, often a woman, who will bewail the injury or death of the perpetrator an insist there was really no threat and that you overreacted. These can cause you an immense amount of grief no matter how justified you were legally.

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

Whistle real loud, when he turns around to see what it was; hit em.

No one will call you a coward.

That depends on the state. In AZ, the state has to prove you were not justified. It was the other way until recently when a controversial shooting case convinced the legislature to change it.

Sometimes the court of public opinion is the biggest arbiter of an outcome ...

__________________
I'm with the banned ...

If he(they) is/are armed....well,when they start lying people on the floor,it's time to go to war.

__________________
Blessed be the Lord,my Rock

What-ifs are tough, lots of inferences and assumptions happen because it is an incomplete scenario. Heck, you don't even know if there are bullets in the gun.

BUT, in many states the so-called Castle Doctrine exists, which in general reinforces your innate right to defend yourself when you are threatened - what the liberal press has named to a more bullying label "Stand your ground". In addition to inside your home, it also usually describes that right to defend yourself goes with you to any place you are legally allowed to be. Most states include wording to the effect of allowing you to also defend accompanying friends, relatives, nearby third parties.

I believe that as a gun-carrying law-abiding citizen it is my responsibility to be knowledgeable of the local laws, competent in the use of my weapon, and aware of my surroundings. In this what-if restaurant, people milling about between me and the threat would likely prohibit me from discharging my weapon, regardless of whether his back is to me or not. Am I aware of what is behind him? If I miss do I hit a wall or another victim? All these are going through my mind in the moment I determine there is an imminent threat. In the second moment I have either drawn my weapon or decided that another moment's wait is appropriate due to some of the above considerations.

Given the above scenario, though, I'm fairly sure I shoot - a threat with a gun forcing others to participate in his illegal activity is a threat, regardless of his body orientation. Would you think differently if he was pointing a gun at you, or if he was a teenager, or he was a she?

Of course there are subsequent ramifications, all variations on a theme. No matter where you are the police will get involved. How they handle the situation determines whether lawyers are involved or REALLY involved. The so-called "Reasonable Man Test" is as diverse and contradictory as gun rights advocacy in this country. Compare "reasonable" in Chicago to "reasonable" in my small rural PA town.

__________________
Marty 4513TSW 13-1 642 60-10

That's one part of the hypothetical that is completely irrelevant.

__________________
NRA Pistol,PPITH,PPOTH&TASER

Yeah, a poor example on my part. Just trying to say that what-ifs are incomplete and sometimes tough to discuss.

You are correct, threatening folks with a gun is a threat, and of course always assume it is loaded. Even though I typed it, it really is not even on the list of the many situational considerations.

__________________
Marty 4513TSW 13-1 642 60-10

Agreed. I normally just avoid these hypothetical situation threads altogether. However, this one was narrow enough in scope that I was able to answer it with a GENERAL statement.

Absolutely. There are far more "unknowns" involved with any hypothetical situation, than there are "knowns".

__________________
NRA Pistol,PPITH,PPOTH&TASER

My philosophy: Shoot if I feel my life is in danger.

If the guy keeps his weapon hidden or holstered, calmly tells everyone he means no harm but wants your money, I may give him more time.

If he's screaming give me your money or you all die, I'd have to act no matter which way he is facing.

If I fear for someone's life it doesn't matter which direction the bad guy is looking or if his gun is really loaded or maybe actually a water pistol. If I feel the danger I can legally act.

I never shot anybody. Therfore I hesitate to state as fact what I would do. When it comes to pulling the trigger UNLESS I am dead if I dont, I cant really say what I would do. One time I held two guys more or less at gunpoint untill my help came, but had they just said you aint gonna shoot me and tried running off I am quite sure I wouldnt have shot them. Now had they tried going for a gun I think I could have.
I can tell you what I would like to SAY, but I cant claim it as fact untill tried.

If I could draw down on him while his back is turned, I would. At this point, being off duty, I would be acting in the capacity for the protection of the patrons, not enforcing the law. If the bad guy gets away at some point in this situation doesn't matter to me. Only that he doesn't hurt anyone between here and making it out the door.

I understand what your saying. But if your charged with murder, you WILL have to convince somebody that your actions were justified. Where do you think the "expert" witness come in? He's there to "convince".

Even though we must be proven guilty in a court of law, it doesn't mean that the the proceeding is going to be fair.

Every place is different. In Oct. 2009 a 250-lb. mental patient attacked his doctor with a knife in a clinic at Mass. General Hospital in Boston. He was on top of her, stabbing her repeatedly. Other people tried to pull him off and he slashed at them. A young man with a CCW and some part-time police work in his background came in from a corridor, yelled at the guy to stop, but the guy came at him with the knife. He was shot several times and died. This was in front of an office full of witnesses, some of whom hugged the shooter in gratitude afterward.
The aftermath: the female therapist recovered after a long stay in the hospital, and the young man was cleared, but not until March 31, 2010 - five months later. It wouldn't take 24 hours to figure this out in most other states.

It's kinda hard giving up the old notion that shootin' a feller in the back makes you a no-good, rotten, cowardly <fill in your favorite expletive here>, thanks to Hollywood shoot-em-ups we were raised on.

But it makes all the difference if that feller is threatening someone else's life, might pull the trigger or slash the knife at any moment, and you're in a position to stop him, even if that position happens to be at his six. It's a hard call, though, if he's standing between you and his potential victim, and your round(s) might hit more than just him.

I like what the previous poster said, though, that "if it's a fair fight, your tactics suck." <Nod to Leslie Sapp.> Reminds me of what Gen. Powell said about the first Iraq invasion about not caring whether it's a fair fight, just the application of overwhelming force to win certain victory. That's the way to look at war, whether on the battlefield or in a life-or-death situation here at home.

The attacker already made his choice, and lives or dies with the consequences, is how I see it. So if it's a safe shot, we've gotta take it....

__________________
Ukraine -- now more than ever

In fear for my life and for the lives of others....fill in the rest.

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

As you note, this varies by state. Virginia case law stipulates that if you are claiming self defense/defense of others, the burden of proof shifts.

Regarding the old man in Florida who was seen on video using his weapon to thwart an armed robbery, no one knows yet what legal difficulties will come his way. In my eyes he did the right thing, but who knows what a gun hating prosecutor might do. If anyone knows what his outcome was we would appreciate a post here.

__________________
Old Cop
LEO (Ret.)

IMO, a "gun hating" prosecutor would not have a long career in Florida. I understand that the perps in this incident used a BB gun (It is still armed robbery). I would not be at all troubled by an armed perp being shot in the back by an armed customer. As others have said if you decide to do this, you need to make sure you stop the perp, not just make him mad. I could see how this scenario could go horribly bad.


http://www.news4jax.com/news/Jackson...z/-/index.html


Regarding the western shows we older folks watched as youngsters, the "code of the West" was you didn't shoot an unarmed man. Once a man was given fair warning the instigator was fair game. If I am unarmed and you tell me to "go heel yourself", I could pick up a double barrel 10 gage and blow you away and it would have been considered a "fair fight". The shootout on Front street (like Gunsmoke opened with) was an invention of hired killers to make sure everyone considered it a fair fight. I understand it didn't happen that way often.

__________________
Luke 22:36

Besides your Lawyer I would ask Massad Ayoob to represent you in Court also.& Maybe you will get an Aquittal out of it.

__________________
AA

I guess the question I would ask you is this...

If you do shoot, where would you aim?

I'd be pretty pissed if you shot the guy with your .380 and he started shooting people and killed a family member of mine because you couldn't drop him quickly enough. If you're going to start shooting, do it right. If you can't do it right it might be best to leave him alone to get the money and leave as quickly as possible. Odds are in an armed robbery that nobody is going to get shot. The only thing worse than being killed over a few bucks during a holdup is being "rescued to death" as a result of someone trying to be a hero.

I've seen people up close die from handgun wounds. It often takes a long time and they usually have enough time to empty their gun unless you shoot them good the first time. Bottom line is; If you fire the first shot in a situation like that, you'd BETTER not screw up. Especially if you're making decisions for me and/or my family that deviate from what I would have done in the same situation.

EVERY holdup man puts people in reasonable fear for their lives. That doesn't always mean that the best course of action is to open fire. The usual example I use to illustrate this is a bank robbery where a person hasn't spotted the backup man in line while the primary guy is robbing the tellers. A customer decides to take action and takes one to the head from the backup man.

As far as the legalities...In some states not only is it "legal" to shoot a person who is putting you in reasonable fear for your life but it is also "legal" to shoot a fleeing felon even if they're not putting you in fear for your life at the time. I wouldn't suggest it but you can't be charged with a crime for doing it.