If the guy drops the knife, and walks or runs the other way, immediate lethal threat to you is removed. You yourself then (in all states but 1) have the DUTY TO RETREAT. (If in a public place) That means, as he is running/walking one way, you should be going another. Of course calling LEO's, giving description, ect. But get the heck out of there. If you stand there and wait for him to get another weapon and come back again....I can see a jury looking at that as if you were spoiling for a fight, or a little justice....revenge....whatever...
Do I have the right to (especially LEOs and attorneys)?
- Thread starter RWK
- Start date
leadcounsel
Moderator
Caution:
DT is INCORRECT in his statement of the "DUTY TO RETREAT." Many states do not require that you retreat when your life is threatened and give you the right to stand your ground and defend yourself. Check your state statutes.
As I mentioned above, you can generally use deadly force only to counter deadly force or serious injury. Obviously a man with a knife threatening or committed and armed robbery of you falls in this category. Once the knife is no longer in his possession, the immediate threat is removed. Of course, the situation is not safe and you should keep your guard up and gun trained on him and give him commands. Whether he complies is his decision. A citizen can make a citizens' arrest if he witnesses a violent felony. In effecting that arrest, you can use reasonable force. Caution, don't try to make a citizens' arrest because it will turn ugly. Faced with the thought of going to jail, he's not likely to cooperate and will likely struggle or flee. It will put you in an awkward situation because he's basically free to walk away and you'd be wise to let him.
DT is INCORRECT in his statement of the "DUTY TO RETREAT." Many states do not require that you retreat when your life is threatened and give you the right to stand your ground and defend yourself. Check your state statutes.
As I mentioned above, you can generally use deadly force only to counter deadly force or serious injury. Obviously a man with a knife threatening or committed and armed robbery of you falls in this category. Once the knife is no longer in his possession, the immediate threat is removed. Of course, the situation is not safe and you should keep your guard up and gun trained on him and give him commands. Whether he complies is his decision. A citizen can make a citizens' arrest if he witnesses a violent felony. In effecting that arrest, you can use reasonable force. Caution, don't try to make a citizens' arrest because it will turn ugly. Faced with the thought of going to jail, he's not likely to cooperate and will likely struggle or flee. It will put you in an awkward situation because he's basically free to walk away and you'd be wise to let him.
It is my understanding that most states permit the use of deadly force only if retreat is not a viable resort, except in your home or place of business. Check your states statutes. In this case the imminent threat has been resolved by the BG throwing the knife away so DF is a mute point.
progunner1957
Moderator
Yup...
If he turns and runs, never mind that he threatened your life and comitted a felony, let him go to rob, rape and maim your friends and neibors - thus says "The Law."
Makes perfect sense, dosen't it? :barf:
Sorry, but I disagree. You become a felon when you commit -- what a surprise -- a felony. You become a CONVICTED felon after you plead or are found guilty of that offense. This difference is more than semantics; if an individually brutally kills another person, HE A MURDERER notwithstanding the fact that he is never arrested, prosecuted, or convicted. I certainly understand that the law may not consider him as such, but in the eyes of God, he surely is.
bdc,
Thanks for your excellent input. You should understand:
1) My belief has always been that the moment the attacker discarded his knife, he ceased to be an immediate danger and, while I could continue to protect innocents, I certainly could not use lethal force to do so, unless he again posed a grave and imminent danger;
2) For your edification, retired regular commissioned officers are not “former anything”; rather, they remain on the retired list of their respective service, are subject to recall, and remain constrained by the UCMJ, even if they have not worn a uniform in decades. I’m not trying to “pick nits” with you here – as I mentioned earlier, I appreciated your post and believed it was excellent – but I thought you might want to learn the facts of this matter. Obviously, this differs significantly from other government retirees and may be more similar to the status of retired clergy, who remain ordained, however are not actively engaged in routine, habitual church business.
Thanks for your excellent input. You should understand:
1) My belief has always been that the moment the attacker discarded his knife, he ceased to be an immediate danger and, while I could continue to protect innocents, I certainly could not use lethal force to do so, unless he again posed a grave and imminent danger;
2) For your edification, retired regular commissioned officers are not “former anything”; rather, they remain on the retired list of their respective service, are subject to recall, and remain constrained by the UCMJ, even if they have not worn a uniform in decades. I’m not trying to “pick nits” with you here – as I mentioned earlier, I appreciated your post and believed it was excellent – but I thought you might want to learn the facts of this matter. Obviously, this differs significantly from other government retirees and may be more similar to the status of retired clergy, who remain ordained, however are not actively engaged in routine, habitual church business.
Superhornet
New member
Bang-bang, drop the knife....
Progunner:
No, it makes no sense at all, I agree totally. And it stinks. But if the 'immediate' danger to yourself (or loved ones, friends, neighbors, ect.) is removed, then you have no legal right to use lethal force. Especially on the assumption that he MIGHT hurt someone else. Now if you SEE him trying to hurt someone else, that would be a different story.
I know the urge to teach the scumbag a lesson, and send a message to other scumbags is hard to resist, but they just don't let us impale criminals outside the town gates, or stick their heads on pikes anymore as deterants to other criminals.
No, it makes no sense at all, I agree totally. And it stinks. But if the 'immediate' danger to yourself (or loved ones, friends, neighbors, ect.) is removed, then you have no legal right to use lethal force. Especially on the assumption that he MIGHT hurt someone else. Now if you SEE him trying to hurt someone else, that would be a different story.
I know the urge to teach the scumbag a lesson, and send a message to other scumbags is hard to resist, but they just don't let us impale criminals outside the town gates, or stick their heads on pikes anymore as deterants to other criminals.