Shooting To Stop the Crime: What is too Far?

So I have a couple of ideas that were discussed today.

There is an armed criminal in a 7/11 robbing the place. Numerous scenarios can play out, but legally the armed criminal can be shot by a bystanding civilian. What might be considered too far and over the line in terms of action by the civilian? Should the civilian be charged with anything?

What about a breaking and entering in an occupied home? Is there are instance where a civilian at home should not shoot the intruder? Should it depend on the location of the criminal in the home? As in bedroom vs kitchen or garage? Or does it depend on what the criminal has with them? Or is the simple act of breaking into an occupied home enough cause to shoot on sight? Should the civilian be charged?

In the instance of a mass shooter, if they are met with armed resistance by a civillian who shoots and kills, is that the wrong course of action of that civilian? Might there be cases where a civilian should not act on an active shooter? Is it wrong for the civilian to act in this situation?

Would it be wrong for a civilian who is right outside of a "gun free zone" to upon hearing gun fire, go into the gun free zone armed...and shoot and kill a mass shooter? Should the civilian be charged the felony for violating the gun free zone policy?

I know my answers. I am curious about others.


Oh and here is an incident I am curious what yall might think about?

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/07/long-island-man-arrested-for-defending-home-with-ak-47/

It goes "too far" and is excessive when the force used exceeds that which would be reasonably necessary to protect the third party from harm. Also, it must reasonably appears that the third party is in eminent danger.

The Long Island man was not justified in using his firearm. He overreacted, he was under a duty to retreat into his home, the police were already called and he incited the situation.

stonewall50 said:

So I have a couple of ideas that were discussed today.

There is an armed criminal in a 7/11 robbing the place. Numerous scenarios can play out, but legally the armed criminal can be shot by a bystanding civilian. What might be considered too far and over the line in terms of action by the civilian? Should the civilian be charged with anything?

What about a breaking and entering in an occupied home? Is there are instance where a civilian at home should not shoot the intruder? Should it depend on the location of the criminal in the home? As in bedroom vs kitchen or garage? Or does it depend on what the criminal has with them? Or is the simple act of breaking into an occupied home enough cause to shoot on sight? Should the civilian be charged?

In the instance of a mass shooter, if they are met with armed resistance by a civillian who shoots and kills, is that the wrong course of action of that civilian? Might there be cases where a civilian should not act on an active shooter? Is it wrong for the civilian to act in this situation?

Would it be wrong for a civilian who is right outside of a "gun free zone" to upon hearing gun fire, go into the gun free zone armed...and shoot and kill a mass shooter? Should the civilian be charged the felony for violating the gun free zone policy?

I know my answers. I am curious about others.


Oh and here is an incident I am curious what yall might think about?

Long Island Man Arrested For Defending Home With AK-47 « CBS New York

Click to expand...

In the situations you describe, I would fire without hesitation, and the ground would never be in danger of getting shot. I think you have to make a conscious decision how far you will go in a given situation before ever getting into the situation. When the SHTF, hesitation means death.

In the linked situation, that is a close call. I would probably retreat, but there would never be a doubt to the gang members that I was capable of pulling the trigger. A human can travel 20 feet in 1 second. Not much time to decide if you are doing the right thing.

Pinkie said:

Every state has slightly different answers to each of your questions, all based on common law we can trace back to the Magna Carta. There can be no real, reliable replies to your questions because in every case, the answers are way too fact-sensitive, state dependent, evolving, etc.

If your question is more "what is moral" as opposed to "what is legal", this is my answer. I don't own a gun, never have, and never will. When I had a little one to protect, I arranged our lives so that I felt we were safe (however much of an illusion that may have been). And safe we were.

I'm older now, I live alone in a nice, safe neighborhood without any recent violent crime, but I'm aware it can happen anywhere. If it does, it does. I am not carrying a gun, let alone shooting to kill. The odds are highly favorable I'll never be the victim of a violent crime, and if attacked hand to hand, I'd fight.

But kill by use of a gun? Not this chick. I am just not wired for that. (Knife, mebbe...but gun, absolutely not.)

I'll never kill another human, at least not with a gun, not even to save myself. I choose not to even consider living with that aftermath.

Click to expand...

I think you are right in understanding your own limits and acting accordingly. A person with a weapon who is insure is going to get themselves killed. Don't know about the knife, though, I would have a hard time with that one.

Totally justified. Having deterrence is not enough, sometimes you must show that you are willing to employ it. They challenged him and he showed them he was willing to use it and did so without harming anyone. If they had actually proceeded to approach the house, I would say he would have been justified in using deadly force.

For me in a public environment I think it comes down to imminent threat of death. You aren't taught to "shoot to maim", so you have to be prepared to cause fatal injury if you're going to aim your weapon at somebody.

In the 7-11 scenario it may not even be necessary to shoot the robber, merely aiming your CC weapon at him could be enough to quell the threat. If the robber runs, let him go and call the cops. If you shoot him while he flees you'll be in a world of trouble in most states.

In the mass shooter scenario I'm not sure you could negotiate with such a person. I think it would likely be self-defense in most states if you shot to kill in that scenario, given the profile of a mass shooter.

As for my home? All bets are off as far as I'm concerned. If you unlawfully enter my house with the intent to steal, molest, destroy, or otherwise negatively affect my property then I will take all actions necessary to stop you in the act. In Texas, castle laws protect the homeowner in the event of a home invasion or intrusion, whether the robber has a weapon or not. I plan to use that law to my advantage if somebody is dumb enough to break into my home while I'm there.

Finally got the article to load. I'm not sure I'd convict the man based on the information available. While it's pretty dumb to shoot at the ground, I don't think his actions constituted reckless endangerment.

I lived in an area of high gang activity for quite sometime and I remember very clearly how good they were about following up on threats. In that situation I'd probably be thinking, "Even if they leave, they might come back. I can't leave my home and family unprotected..." A show of forceand willingness to use his weapon might (or might not) make the gang members hesitate to target him again.

And hey...it got the cops to his home much faster.

In your 7-11 scenerio, I think I would hope I would assess the threat before shooting the robber. If the robber was armed, if I saw a gun, I wouild shoot him until my gun was empty and reload.

In my home, I would shoot until my gun was empty and reload. Of course, this is assuming I would have time to run into my bedroom, get the gun out of the box in my nightstand, find the little key that unlocks it, remove the little orange disc thingie that separates the firing pin from the bullets, load the gun, and fire-fire-fire-fire-fire-fire. If a home intruder takes that long to get to me in my house? He deserves to die.

In a mass shooter situation, fire-fire-fire-fire-fire-fire. Reload.

Many people think these questions are silly. I don't. I think it is helpful to rehearse scenerios in our minds -- though, without professional training, what we think we'd do and what we'd actually do are often very different.

Edit: Oh. The link's scenerio. I would not have gone out on the porch. I think that was stupid. If he really thought they were going to invade his home, he could have announced his intent to shoot and fired off a round in his living room. That's actually when a shotgun comes in handy. Few people are going to advance when they hear that sooo distinctive click-click.

I wonder what that technology is that pinpoints a gunshot...

tessaesque said:

Finally got the article to load. I'm not sure I'd convict the man based on the information available. While it's pretty dumb to shoot at the ground, I don't think his actions constituted reckless endangerment.

I lived in an area of high gang activity for quite sometime and I remember very clearly how good they were about following up on threats. In that situation I'd probably be thinking, "Even if they leave, they might come back. I can't leave my home and family unprotected..." A show of forceand willingness to use his weapon might (or might not) make the gang members hesitate to target him again.

Click to expand...

It really depends on where a person lives, New York law is different than Texas law as the Joe Horn incident illustrates. Joe Horn, living in Texas, shot and killed two men who while they were were attempting to rob a neighbor's house. He was exonerated of all charges even though records from the police dispatcher show that Horn was repeatedly asked to not to interfere with the burglary because the police were on their way to the scene.

jimbo said:

I think you are right in understanding your own limits and acting accordingly. A person with a weapon who is insure is going to get themselves killed. Don't know about the knife, though, I would have a hard time with that one.

Click to expand...

Carrying a knife for defense is a mistake.

MaggieD said:

what we think we'd do and what we'd actually do are often very different.

Click to expand...

...and what we say we would do behind the protection of our keyboards and screens may be totally what would do in real life. (also know as Internet Muscles:lol

in several different cases - different states - rulings have centered aorund one's actions 'ending' the danger.

Chasing away the bad-guy: if he runs away: you cannot open fire - he is no longer an immediate threat *to you*
Pulling a weapon on a bad-guy: if he's rendered unconscious or otherwise unable to inflict harm *on you* you're expected to realize this and stop.

Once you are not in immediate danger that is when you stop your response

I have no problem with what he did.

What is most startling is the police can spot a firearm fired within 35 feet. How? What Big Brother police-state aparatus watching everyone is that?

He's in New Jersey, one of those states where he and his family has a duty to defensely die for the common good as is dictated. Life is cheap in such jurisdictions and individual life is considered essentially valueless by "the authorities."

This is an example of why I HIGHLY recommend against military style weapons. They look bad and are no more deadly that what appears just a hunting rifle.

joko104 said:

I have no problem with what he did.

What is most startling is the police can spot a firearm fired within 35 feet. How? What Big Brother police-state aparatus watching everyone is that?

He's in New Jersey, one of those states where he and his family has a duty to defensely die for the common good as is dictated. Life is cheap in such jurisdictions and individual life is considered essentially valueless by "the authorities."

This is an example of why I HIGHLY recommend against military style weapons. They look bad and are no more deadly that what appears just a hunting rifle.

Click to expand...

He lived in New York State not New Jersey, perhaps there are different laws as well. Nevertheless, can you expound on your theory "Life is cheap in such jurisdictions and individual life is considered essentially valueless by "the authorities."

Aunt Spiker said:

in several different cases - different states - rulings have centered aorund one's actions 'ending' the danger.

Chasing away the bad-guy: if he runs away: you cannot open fire - he is no longer an immediate threat *to you*
Pulling a weapon on a bad-guy: if he's rendered unconscious or otherwise unable to inflict harm *on you* you're expected to realize this and stop.

Once you are not in immediate danger that is when you stop your response

Click to expand...

It varies GREATLY based on the jurisdiction, situation and persons involved. This is a jurisdiction where the authorities prefer burglars be shot (unless children) and overall is a heavily armed citizenry, although that has not stopped crime from rising as the economy continues to tank. There are other jurisdictions where there is essentially no right even to protect yourself or others.

The persons involved matters greatly too as motive does matter. A woman can generally use more force against a man than another man. An older person more right to use defensive force than a younger one. Small person more than a big person. Even the nature and history of the person involved matters greatly.

The linked incident is a situation where the person should NOT have given a statement to the police and should instead insisted on an attorney. What he said was his reasons matters GREATLY. It also sounds like the guy lives in hell with how many people came running up. To real answer in his situation is 1.) let an attorney handle everything. 2.) don't plea to anything, and 3.) move somewhere else, ideally not in Jersey.

The duty to retreat or not retreat, whether the is the "castle" doctrine etc, all matters per state. However, those laws always are changing so people generally have little clue what the law is.

Where I disagree? While tactically unwise to go outside, houses are essentially made of tissue paper compared to most modern firearms. Going outside took the target off his house where family was, which should be his defense. Also, in the house (which has more than one side), his visibility is much lower in a defensive posture of those in the house.

Connery said:

He lived in New York State not New Jersey, perhaps there are different laws as well. Nevertheless, can you expound on your theory "Life is cheap in such jurisdictions and individual life is considered essentially valueless by "the authorities."

Click to expand...

Because it is the social principle exceeds the worth of the individual. The social principle is that people defending themselves can lead to bad things. Therefore, it is that policy, not the individual, that matters. "Greatest good for the greatest number" also justifies people dying or being assaulted who otherwise would not.

In his situation it appears he had to wait until 20 people were beating on him or someone was shooting him before he could defend himself, which of course means no right to defend himself at all. However, he violated the principle of no-guns even against a mob charging at you.

I don't know the laws of his jurisdiction. Merely possessing the firearm violated law or the gun was an illegal type or had an illegal magazine. The press doesn't always get the details right.

tessaesque said:

For me in a public environment I think it comes down to imminent threat of death. You aren't taught to "shoot to maim", so you have to be prepared to cause fatal injury if you're going to aim your weapon at somebody.

In the 7-11 scenario it may not even be necessary to shoot the robber, merely aiming your CC weapon at him could be enough to quell the threat. If the robber runs, let him go and call the cops. If you shoot him while he flees you'll be in a world of trouble in most states.

In the mass shooter scenario I'm not sure you could negotiate with such a person. I think it would likely be self-defense in most states if you shot to kill in that scenario, given the profile of a mass shooter.

As for my home? All bets are off as far as I'm concerned. If you unlawfully enter my house with the intent to steal, molest, destroy, or otherwise negatively affect my property then I will take all actions necessary to stop you in the act. In Texas, castle laws protect the homeowner in the event of a home invasion or intrusion, whether the robber has a weapon or not. I plan to use that law to my advantage if somebody is dumb enough to break into my home while I'm there.

Click to expand...

Do NOT aim the firearm at the person. That is "felony assault with a deadly weapon" UNLESS you can defend doing so. Firing it into the ground was a far lesser potential crime. Even pointing a toy gun at someone if they believe it real is "assault with a deadly weapon" in nearly all jurisdictions.

Here are my thoughts....

In a Public Place:

1. Fire only when the life/safety of a person is at immediate risk.
2. Fire only when there is a CLEAR shot
3. Shoot to KILL
4. Cease Fire when the target is no longer a threat

In your own home:

1. Fire to protect people OR property.
2. Shoot to KILL

joko104 said:

Do NOT aim the firearm at the person. That is "felony assault with a deadly weapon" UNLESS you can defend doing so. Firing it into the ground was a far lesser potential crime. Even pointing a toy gun at someone if they believe it real is "assault with a deadly weapon" in nearly all jurisdictions.

Click to expand...

In the state of Massachusetts, even letting the firearm be seen is "Felony Menacing" and drawing it will lead to an "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" or "Attempted Murder" charge.

you are going to far, when the perp has surrendered..and you still shoot to kill.

however, if he has a gun in his hand, and has not surrendered, deadly force can be defended in court.

MaggieD said:

Many people think these questions are silly. I don't. I think it is helpful to rehearse scenerios in our minds -- though, without professional training, what we think we'd do and what we'd actually do are often very different.

Edit: Oh. The link's scenerio. I would not have gone out on the porch. I think that was stupid. If he really thought they were going to invade his home, he could have announced his intent to shoot and fired off a round in his living room. That's actually when a shotgun comes in handy. Few people are going to advance when they hear that sooo distinctive click-click....

Click to expand...

That is a reason micro analysing what a person does really doesn't work, as those are panic situations and when a person goes into high emotional stress micro-logic vanishes.

People will forget about the safety, drop their firearm in a panick or shoot in a panic. Also, people think the movies are real - ie you shoot someone and they fall down, you point a gun at someone saying "don't move" and they won't move, etc.

I train officers and some civilians. I do little talking. Instead, I use people and - at first plastic/soft knives and guns, and then real guns with paint-bullets - walking the person through actual senarios - making them do the routines over and over and over and over and over for 2 reasons. First, I don't want them to have to make decisions at the moment. I want those already made and done a hundred times. I want the person's actions to be automatic, instinctive and essentially required. Don't think, do. Second, it provides a legal defense because the person did EXACTLY what half a dozen law enforcement officers trained and told the person to do. That puts half a dozen officers on the stand saying "he/she did exactly as he instructed." That addresses motivation. Even if the advise was bad advice, it is virtually the perfect defense, even in a sense "follow the police's instructions."

jimbo said:

I think you are right in understanding your own limits and acting accordingly. A person with a weapon who is insure is going to get themselves killed. Don't know about the knife, though, I would have a hard time with that one.

Click to expand...

O, I am 100% confident as to the knife. I carried a switchblade in HS and I stabbed three different men (none seriously), each time in self-defense. Hell, just the sound one makes when it's opened is enough, most of the time.

People like me could certainly use really workable tazers. I'll injure, but I won't kill....at least not just to protect myself.

Protecting a third person would probably just leave me so torn up I couldn't move. Mebbe not when I had my own baby to protect...but for a stranger? I am not a savior of other people at risk of physical harm anymore.

Thunder said:

you are going to far, when the perp has surrendered..and you still shoot to kill.

however, if he has a gun in his hand, and has not surrendered, deadly force can be defended in court.

Click to expand...

I agree in general...but this is no place for anyone to get reliable legal advice on justifiable homicide for use IRL. There are just too many variables.

Thunder said:

you are going to far, when the perp has surrendered..and you still shoot to kill. however, if he has a gun in his hand, and has not surrendered, deadly force can be defended in court.

Click to expand...

The court of law is pretty far down on my list of concerns in that moment. As I mentioned, in public you should cease the use of force the moment that the perp is no longer a threat. In my home however, they will get no such reprieve. I don't give verbal warnings or fire warning shots either. The only thing they're gonna hear and/or see is the SureFire flashlight bulb then the muzzle flash and report.