Protected One
Member
Nor should you be expected to, sir. Still, it seems that to many it's either "use a gun or do nothing at all"...there is no other possible response. I disagree.
Last edited:
What if they don't follow your commands?
- Thread starter Rastoff
- Start date
- Status
Nor should you be expected to, sir. Still, it seems that to many it's either "use a gun or do nothing at all"...there is no other possible response. I disagree.
One of these many responses is bound to remind you that you have no obligation to get involved and never draw your gun unless you are in fear of life and ready to use it immediately. Period.
I'm not sure how to respond to some of these comments. Even the LEOs here say don't draw the weapon. My mind tells me that when I'm armed that there is a responsibility not to escalate a already bad situation unless absolutely necessary.
I have been in bad places where a stand off was necessary, but many more were machismo was totally the wrong thing to do.
Last edited:
"why would I insert myself in the middle of a non-violent store robbery if I’m just a customer?" was asked. Isn't making a threat of violence with a weapon itself a violent act? "give me the money or else" is violence in my mind. "give me the money or I will throw a tantrum?, not so.
Ziggy2525
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 3,249
I’m the one that said it. Where I’m at you don’t have to threaten violence to rob most chain stores. If someone walks in and says “this is a robbery, give me the money” the clerk will. No threat required. The police sweep them up after the fact. Less risk for the chain.
686-380
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2013
- Messages
- 832
- Reaction score
- 703
This is a good discussion. I've found that very little in this life is cut and dried. Every situation has many nuances, on all sides of the equation.
Unless the perpetrator is Lucifer incarnate, it is doubtful he/she deserves to be killed...especially over property. I absolutley abhor thieves but am unwilling to murder them.
Unless the perpetrator is Lucifer incarnate, it is doubtful he/she deserves to be killed...especially over property. I absolutley abhor thieves but am unwilling to murder them.
Last edited:
nachogrande
Member
LESS TALKING, MORE SHOOTING!
Just kidding, sorta. Issuing commands that may OR MAY NOT be followed is a bad idea IMO. DO, OR DON'T DO. A can of Cambles tomato soup well thrown (Mmm Mmm good) knocked a buddies older brother cold. A detective in Fl threw a can of baked beans with good effect more recently. I wouldn't recommend that if a weapon was visable however. ROLL THAT BEAUTIFUL BEAN FOOTAGE.
Just kidding, sorta. Issuing commands that may OR MAY NOT be followed is a bad idea IMO. DO, OR DON'T DO. A can of Cambles tomato soup well thrown (Mmm Mmm good) knocked a buddies older brother cold. A detective in Fl threw a can of baked beans with good effect more recently. I wouldn't recommend that if a weapon was visable however. ROLL THAT BEAUTIFUL BEAN FOOTAGE.
Last edited:
keith44spl
Member
My uncle signed on the local police force....
He told me they asked him if he though he could use deadly force.
He said, I told em, hell I was in the first wave to go ashore at Utah Beach, what do you think?
I guess some of us are cut from a rougher old stock....
In the OPs scenario, the cashier is someone's daughter, son or wife, mother, father....
I would hope that someone with the wherewithal to defended
one of my loved ones in a tite spot, would step up.
.
He told me they asked him if he though he could use deadly force.
He said, I told em, hell I was in the first wave to go ashore at Utah Beach, what do you think?
I guess some of us are cut from a rougher old stock....
In the OPs scenario, the cashier is someone's daughter, son or wife, mother, father....
I would hope that someone with the wherewithal to defended
one of my loved ones in a tite spot, would step up.
.
Last edited:
Nope...not always.
Perhaps it was policy of your organization that ‘verbal warnings’ must be given before the use of deadly force, it is not a requirement everywhere (anywhere?), and I suspect there are exceptions even in your policies.
For sure, it is a good idea to give a warning should circumstances allow but doubt it is codified anywhere.
Be safe.
Perhaps it was policy of your organization that ‘verbal warnings’ must be given before the use of deadly force, it is not a requirement everywhere (anywhere?), and I suspect there are exceptions even in your policies.
For sure, it is a good idea to give a warning should circumstances allow but doubt it is codified anywhere.
Be safe.
SCOTUS offers guidance on this for police...holding a pistol does not make one a police officer. From TN v Garner, 471 US 1:
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.
Most kinds of circumstances that involve a killing have been litigated extensively over the past 200 years - take a look at what courts say before you try to re-invent the wheel.
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.
Most kinds of circumstances that involve a killing have been litigated extensively over the past 200 years - take a look at what courts say before you try to re-invent the wheel.
Last edited:
Doug M.
Member
As a rule, I don't GAF about escape, and even in LE, most of the time I did not. I would have to absolutely KNOW for sure that the escaping person was one truly vile and dangerous criminal to care. Garner, despite the manner dishonest plaintiff's lawyers and gullible judges in some settings (9th Circuit, which I plan to leave when I retire) have expanded it, simply does not apply to private citizens. While some states changed their laws after that decision and made LE and civilian use of force the same, others did not, and left it so that cops were more restricted. That has nothing to do with defense of self and others.
In the scenario Dave Keith described experiencing, the response Iggy described is sound. If that time comes, put shots into the vital areas as rapidly as you can until you perceive the threat is controlled (which means the offender is incapacitated). Most likely, at close range as is likely here, some number into the center of available mass, and one right into the face, or ear, or other line directly into the brain, as rapidly as you can do with adequate precision, is the answer. (Pistol rounds suck - other than the brain/CNS shots, you need to plan on 3-7 shots into the offender as fast as you can in order to prevail.) If you cannot do that because you are not confident of your skill, the law, the ethics, whatever - that choice is already made for you.
In others, standing there like a lump and doing nothing but observe is sound. We should not care enough about the store's money to do something stupid, as much as I dislike the trend toward letting criminals engage in their actions with little risk.
If you have the ability to carry lawfully, you darned well better have considered such issues at length, become familiar with legal, tactical, and ballistic issues, and made up your mind before carrying, or you need to not carry until that time. There is no in between place. You are either prepared, or you are not.
ETA: If one looks at the number of violent crimes committed in the US (I've linked the data before, but don't have it readily at hand now; google the Bureau of Justice Statistics victimization data, IIRC), it is pretty clear that victims, like cops, don't shoot anywhere near as many offenders as they could (and by necessary implication, should).
In the scenario Dave Keith described experiencing, the response Iggy described is sound. If that time comes, put shots into the vital areas as rapidly as you can until you perceive the threat is controlled (which means the offender is incapacitated). Most likely, at close range as is likely here, some number into the center of available mass, and one right into the face, or ear, or other line directly into the brain, as rapidly as you can do with adequate precision, is the answer. (Pistol rounds suck - other than the brain/CNS shots, you need to plan on 3-7 shots into the offender as fast as you can in order to prevail.) If you cannot do that because you are not confident of your skill, the law, the ethics, whatever - that choice is already made for you.
In others, standing there like a lump and doing nothing but observe is sound. We should not care enough about the store's money to do something stupid, as much as I dislike the trend toward letting criminals engage in their actions with little risk.
If you have the ability to carry lawfully, you darned well better have considered such issues at length, become familiar with legal, tactical, and ballistic issues, and made up your mind before carrying, or you need to not carry until that time. There is no in between place. You are either prepared, or you are not.
ETA: If one looks at the number of violent crimes committed in the US (I've linked the data before, but don't have it readily at hand now; google the Bureau of Justice Statistics victimization data, IIRC), it is pretty clear that victims, like cops, don't shoot anywhere near as many offenders as they could (and by necessary implication, should).
Last edited:
What civilians should pay attention to in Garner is the reasoning the Court used in making the decision. There has much discussion here about commission of a felony somehow making the use of deadly force against the perpetrator okay. Not at all true; what you see in Garner is the Court affirming the injustice of the old fleeing felon rule, and also affirming the value of human life over criminal acts that do not rise to the level of serious violence.
I don't have to agree with rules to understand the need to follow them.
I don't have to agree with rules to understand the need to follow them.
Last edited:
TomkinsSP
Member
My statement was perhaps too brief, but what I would add is essentially a less authoritative version of the third paragraph of post 72.
The first thing I have to say is that I wouldn't involve myself at all if there was any other option. I certainly wouldn't attempt to detain or apprehend the criminal.
Second, assuming I did involve myself I wouldn't be the least bit surprised when (not if) the criminal failed to obey my commands. I've seen it happen to cops in too many non hypothetical situations. I wouldn't expect the robber to listen to me at all.
Finally, I've already said I wouldn't attempt to detain an armed criminal so I'm left with "Bye Felicia".
Oak leaf cluster only means a second and subsequent awards. I have a Good Conduct Medal with oak leaves, it doesn't make me a badass.
I don't think Dave was talking about a Good Conduct Medal.
My point was that is was a meaningless statement. If you want to tell us the guy was a bad *** say "The guy as a bad ***."
The problem with these hypotheticals is Rastoff has one scenario in his head and everyone else has a different scenario in their heads and they're not the same.
In Rastoff's head he's envisioning a scenario in which deadly force wouldn't be appropriate.
In Kieth's head he's remembering his scenario where if he DIDN'T act the clerk was likely to die.
I live in Colorado Springs, we have at least a couple of these robberies Every. Single. Night and the robbers have yet to kill anyone or even fire a shot.
This indicates to me that the odds of of the robber leaving with nothing but the cash are astronomically in my favor and that I'd be an idiot to do ANYTHING to escalate the situation.
Of course, if I observed indicators that THIS is going to be the robbery in which the robber does start shooting I'd probably do something different.
In Rastoff's head he's envisioning a scenario in which deadly force wouldn't be appropriate.
In Kieth's head he's remembering his scenario where if he DIDN'T act the clerk was likely to die.
I live in Colorado Springs, we have at least a couple of these robberies Every. Single. Night and the robbers have yet to kill anyone or even fire a shot.
This indicates to me that the odds of of the robber leaving with nothing but the cash are astronomically in my favor and that I'd be an idiot to do ANYTHING to escalate the situation.
Of course, if I observed indicators that THIS is going to be the robbery in which the robber does start shooting I'd probably do something different.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Looking to get educated on non-appendix IWB holsters
- Latest: Chuck Edwards
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
WTS- Mags, Barrels & Parts Kits, PRICES REDUCED
- Latest: sndbggr1484