Drop your weapon...

[cmort666]

Can you cite the law? I want to read it. Thanks.

2307.60 Civil action for damages for criminal act.

(2) Recovery on a claim for relief in a tort action is barred to any person or the person's legal representative if any of the following apply:

(a) The person has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty to a felony, or to a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, arising out of criminal conduct that was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action.

(b) The person engaged in conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence and that conduct was a proximate cause of the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor.

(c) The person suffered the injury or loss for which relief is claimed in the tort action as a proximate result of the victim of conduct that, if prosecuted, would constitute a felony, a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence, an attempt to commit a felony, or an attempt to commit a misdemeanor that is an offense of violence acting against the person in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of the victim's residence, regardless of whether the person has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to or has been charged with committing the felony, the misdemeanor, or the attempt to commit the felony or misdemeanor. Division (B)(2)(c) of this section does not apply if the person who suffered the injury or loss, at the time of the victim's act of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence, was an innocent bystander who had no connection with the underlying conduct that prompted the victim's exercise of self-defense, defense of another, or defense of residence.

 

[CH4]

Didn't the French perfect that phrase in WWII?

Never fired. Only dropped once.

 

[BAM-BAM]

*
Go to the prior response I made."If one does not have a visible weapon, other than personal weapons (hands/feet), the idea of the verbal commands is to reduce the odds of them being stupid and doing something that is or looks like a draw. If they have started the drawing motion, it may already be too late, and it sure as heck is not time to be talking. It's time to move and shoot."

Almost certainly, if one wastes the time with a verbal prompt, it is not a good choice. The difference between a serious criminal and those impaired by substances and/or mental health is not relevant to the use of force analysis. If the threat reasonably appears to be sufficient, that's all that matters.

Good points...... just to clarify...... my comments were all directed to a "Civilian " thinking about intervening............. going from white/maybe yellow; from grocery shopping to deciding to use deadly force in 2.5 seconds.

Doing a mental 180, processing all the info you're seeing and hearing....... separating the wheat from the chaff.... and making the "correct" decision in 2.5 seconds...... or less.

My advice to the OP is still call 911........ take appropriate defensive action.

 

[Doug M.]

If in white they will not perceive the problem until it is too late, if at all. But I also see the rest of your points. If one is observant, many circumstances that are ... imprudent to attend can be seen developing and evaded. That's a big if; most people are multiple recipients of the SAOAFR award.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Things can happen so danged fast, and what I perceive to be the situation may not be correct. How am I to be so sure that my involvement will necessarily result in a better outcome?

Unlike a lot of LEOs, I haven't been involved, put to the test or learned anything from real life situations. I'd like to think I could call the situation right, sort out the bad guys from the good guys and take appropriate action that would result in a good outcome. But that's a lot of rolling dice on the behalf of unknown persons in an unknown situation that I may end up making things worse. Not an easy call if you ask me. At least with LEOs they put the rookies with the experienced guys to help keep them out of trouble until they hopefully learn something from real world experience.

 

[Doug M.]

You have to be "reasonable", not actually correct. However, if you are not confident enough in your perception to think that the situation is what it appears to be or might be, then the answer is to not take action until and unless you become confident. You are the one who has to live with your decision, and if you think that using force is not the action to take, then I have to say "don't".

There is a reason I wear a bluetooth for my phone almost all the time when outside the house - so I can use it to keep my hands available while I call 911. If the situation is ambiguous, or I think I will make it worse (or "not better), this gives me the most options. My hands remain free to deal with my dog, my flashlight, my gun ... whatever. I have made use of such options while on the phone with dispatchers, and maintaining that capability is vital and most times, the right answer. I know of two different cases in the Spokane area in the last few years in which the tape of the call showed that the caller/shooter did the right thing, and there was no significant fuss over the shooting of the decedent/criminal. That was priceless for both victims, who essentially helped the cops with the paperwork and went on with their lives.

Example: let's say you can see what looks like a domestic assault, even a serious one. Can you tell that it is? Maybe not. Can you call LE, stay out of the scene and maybe unobserved while feeding information to LE (what you are seeing, good directions of approach, movement of the parties, etc), so you are helping without taking what you think is an unwise risk?

The cops are not able to protect individuals most of the time, and have no obligation to. We civilians, even more so. At least if you call with alacrity, you are not standing there like an indecisive soup sandwich like the vast majority of people.

 

[steelslaver]

The first thing about "tactical" problems to learn is that all answers are wrong. After that you have a choice of picking least wrong, but those will be highly situational and what works one time might not the next.



I live in Wyoming, where cowboy law never died. You do not walk on by. If you do, you will be shunned.

I agree completely. Montana is the same way. I hope that if necessary I have the enough a wisdom

 

[Fastbolt]

"Drop your weapon"!


Yeah............that'll do it.

I'm surprised no earnest & well-meaning legislator hasn't had an epiphany and decided that police have been missing the boat all these years, and drafted legislation to make us shout out "Stop breaking the law" before doing anything physically assertive.

 

[Muss Muggins]

No officer wants to be the subject of multiple witness statements that are substantially similar to this: "He didn't say anything. He just shot him."

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

At least if you call with alacrity, you are not standing there like an indecisive soup sandwich like the vast majority of people.

Nice.

 

[RSanch111]

Cmort=Walter Mitty.

 

[cmort666]

Cmort=Walter Mitty.

If you choose to let someone maim or murder you, I support that decision 1,000%.

 

[jimmyj]

First: Shoot and kill the BG
Second: shout " Drop your weapon"
(Jimmy's method)

 

[CROSSROPE]

Unless it was my wife or a family member my opinion would be to not get involved. I carry a gun to protect my family and myself. As a civilian you have no police powers and you have no idea what has occurred to create this situation. For all you know it could be two drunken brothers that fight like this every week. You get involved, take a shot, and find yourself on trial, or in a costly civil lawsuit.

Agreed! And of course call 911..

BUT, if SHe is yelling ajahao akbar bs, then I will take that person out if I have a clear/good shot. We are all counter anti-terrorists!

 

[cmort666]

Agreed! And of course call 911..

The one who calls 911 first gets to be the OFFICIAL victim.

The thing from which 911 MOST protects you is suspicion of having committed a crime.

 

[Doug M.]

No officer wants to be the subject of multiple witness statements that are substantially similar to this: "He didn't say anything. He just shot him."

*
There is no LEGAL requirement to say anything. There is a lot of training to do so, for a lot of reasons unrelated to the legal or ethical issues - it is, as you note, all theater. That's putting aside that the overwhelming majority of people will not perceive anything, sometimes even shots, and some number will lie anyway.

Unfortunately, the rule of law is rapidly dying to the court of public opinion and mob rule. The number of lawyers who are actually qualified to have an opinion on this legal issues is probably no more than 1000 in the whole US, but a lot of them yammer. Throw in some loudmouths with an agenda, one of the most high profile of whom has been the loser in a defamation lawsuit over false allegations against LEOs and a prosecutor, and is thus NEVER credible, and we end up with a huge amount of folklore and a dearth of truth or integrity.

 

[BAM-BAM]

The one who calls 911 first gets to be the OFFICIAL victim.

The thing from which 911 MOST protects you is suspicion of having committed a crime.

Given your last two posts....... did you read the OP?

You are a 3rd party "civilian" who encounters/comes upon a situation involving 2 other people......... from the OPs wording;"bad guy and "a third party" ............to me it implies that "You" don't know either party .......

the Poster asked does he have to say "Drop your weapon!" before shooting the "bad guy".......................

As a "Civilian" you are not required or "obligated" to do anything to resolve the situation......as a good citizen you should notify the authorities (911 would be the fastest way) and then act in a matter that will not make the situation worse.

Shooting the "bad guy" given the facts; as presented, is not the most prudent course of action IMHO and it appears many others here.......but...........what's the expression ?......... YMMV.... IIRC it was you who stated you would shoot the "bad guy" in the bacK.

 

[cmort666]

Throw in some loudmouths with an agenda, one of the most high profile of whom has been the loser in a defamation lawsuit over false allegations against LEOs and a prosecutor, and is thus NEVER credible, and we end up with a huge amount of folklore and a dearth of truth or integrity.

You just say that because you're in the Irish Republican Army!

 

[cmort666]

IIRC it was you who stated you would shoot the "bad guy" in the bacK.

And I also believe I stated under what circumstances.

If you find yourself in a "fair" fight, SOMEBODY screwed up, BADLY.

I'm not interested in dueling or playing Matt Dillon. If somebody puts me, or somebody to whom I feel a duty of care, in immediate and credible fear of life and limb, they don't deserve any "breaks" or a "fair" fight. They deserve whatever renders them no longer a threat.

I don't want to get shot, hence I don't try to rob, rape or murder people. There's a thing called "assumption of risk". People who engage in robbery, rape and murder assume the risk of getting shot. I don't have one iota of sympathy for them when that risk stares them in the eye, up close and personal.

 

[BAM-BAM]

And I also believe I stated under what circumstances.

If you find yourself in a "fair" fight, SOMEBODY screwed up, BADLY.

I'm not interested in dueling or playing Matt Dillon.

If somebody puts me, or somebody to whom I feel a duty of care, in immediate and credible fear of life and limb, they don't deserve any "breaks" or a "fair" fight. .

"Circumstances"... that had nothing to do with the OP's scenario or question.........

There is no such thing as a "fair fight"....I will want every advantage I can get.....or take.......if I "have to" fight......

True your not Matt Dillon..........FWIW your posts come across as those of someone who seems inclined to shoot first and ask questions later...... which is why "I" and maybe some others are challenging your advice to the OP.