Doing this could get you jail time.

I actually have no problem with shooting a fleeing violent armed perpetrator. He is not just fleeing from his current crime, he is fleeing to his next crime where his victim(s) might not fare as well.
Click to expand...

Right, so while it may not be legal to shoot a fleeing criminal on the grounds that the criminal is in flight, it may be perfectly legal to shooting a fleeing criminal you feel is endangering the public.

In the Jerome Ersland case, this did come up specificially and the DA discussed the matter and noted that Ersland, in his shooting pursuit of the fleeing armed robber (who stole nothing and who never fired a shot) was n his rights to do so. The robber was an obvious danger to the public. :D Of course, then getting a gun and pumping several rounds into the unconscious robber on the floor is where Ersland screwed up, but until that time, according to the DA, the video indicated nothing illegal on the part of Ersland.

From the story in the OP, I have a feeling that the pharmacist was not protecting the public. He was chasing and shooting the robber out of "contempt of victim" which would be a lot like "contempt of cop" where cops go overboard for transgressions against them.
 
@Jimpeel,

I actually have no problem with shooting a fleeing violent armed perpetrator. He is not just fleeing from his current crime, he is fleeing to his next crime where his victim(s) might not fare as well.
Click to expand...

I carefully read chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code with deals with justification including all of the defense of self, others, property etc. There isn't anything that would justify a civilian shooting a fleeing felon unless the civilian did so in the presence and at the direction of a police officer.

I don't know about Colorado law, but in Texas if someone is running away you can't shoot him because he is running towards his next crime.
 
I have read laws for some states that would allow this, but generally the shooter has to have witnessed the violent crime, and has to believe the perpetrator will pose an immediate threat to others if allowed to escape.

I don't have time right now to do a look-up, but Frank Ettin may be able to elaborate.
 
Judge and jury

It is presumptive, to say the least, that you have the right and implied responsiblity to shoot an alleged criminal on the way to who knows where. This is similar to the thinking of Zimmerman that shot Martin in Florida. Zimmerman assumed that Martin had to be a criminal, and in the end, an innocent kid was capped. Guns don't endow any of us with some superior god like power to make those judgements.

Misuse of firearms will always feed the anitgun crowd. Even percieved misuse will be twisted and used to the disadvantage of gun owners.
 
Better make clear what I meant

If you are endangered, that is a different animal. IMO. If the danger is passed, shooting at a fleeing criminal is over the top.
 
Guys!!!

What I said was "I actually have no problem with shooting a fleeing violent armed perpetrator...."

I didn't say I would do so.

In the case DNS cited there were extenuating circumstances beyond what was necessary to stop the perpetrator. In that case, it seems the shooter stood over the perp and executed him. He wouldn't get a pass from me if I were on his jury.

What I mean is that I would not be personally against bringing down a perp who is fleeing if they had already shown violent armed criminal behavior.

Look at the case of Luke Woodham. He walked into the high school in Pearl, MS and killed a couple of people. When the vice principal, Joel Myrick, stopped him he was about to head up a road that dead ended into the middle school. Woodham surrendered.He had 36 rounds of .30-30 ammo left and had killed his mother with a knife prior to going to the school.

He was already in his car when the vice principal confronted him. If he had tried to drive away up that road to the middle school, even though he was fleeing and presented no further threat to Myrick, would anyone here have had any problem with Myrick putting one in the back of his head?

(Believe it or not, there were those who castigated Myrick for pointing a loaded firearm at one of his students.)
 
In the case DNS cited there were extenuating circumstances beyond what was necessary to stop the perpetrator. In that case, it seems the shooter stood over the perp and executed him. He wouldn't get a pass from me if I were on his jury.
Click to expand...

You completely have misunderstood the case. The perp Ersland chased out the door and shot at while in pursuit was stated by the DA to be 100% legal. The perp Ersland killed didn't run anyway. He was downed when Ersland legally shot him in self defense during the initial robbery and then was murdered by Ersland after he chased the other robber. UNTIL pumping rounds into the unconscious robber on the floor of his pharmacy, Ersland had been within legal bounds to do what he did and to discharge the shots he discharged...according to the DA.
 
But it does not mean that it was legal.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I was defaulting to the local authority. A look at the law itself indicates that if Ersland believed anyone was endangered by the robber at the time, then he was legal. It falls under the guise of defense of others in self defense. It may not be smart in most cases, but whether or not something is smart isn't really part of the purview of the law.

The comment reminds me of those folks that think it is wrong to shoot somebody over property. They refuse to use lethal force against a guy with a knife robbing them of their wallet because to shoot the robber would be over protecting property. It isn't the property that is in question. It is the threat to life.

It was legal, as was the shooting of the original suspect that occurred during the commission of a felony attempted robbery.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
But it does not mean that it was legal.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was defaulting to the local authority.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that doesn't quite work with the Ersland case.

It's true that Ersland was prosecuted (and convicted) for shooting the robbery on the ground, not shooting at the one running out the door. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the prosecutor concluded that Ersland's chasing and shooting at the robber running out the door was justified.

It's entirely possible that the DA decided that the shooting of the incapacitated robber lying on the floor was by far the most obvious and strongest case. Therefore he might not have wanted to complicate the case by adding the other one. That's a kind of tactical decision that prosecutors make all the time.
 
Frank, IIRC, the prosecutor in the Ersland case made a press statement saying that everything Ersland had done prior to retrieving the second pistol and shooting the downed robber had been justifiable.
 
MLeake said:
Frank, IIRC, the prosecutor in the Ersland case made a press statement saying that everything Ersland had done prior to retrieving the second pistol and shooting the downed robber had been justifiable.
Click to expand...
I don't recall that, but if that is the case, I stand corrected.
 
The problem with the story change that the pharmacist drew his legally concealed firearm... is that there is NO possible way for the pharmacist to have a legally concealed firearm in NJ, unless he is a Law Enforcement Officer, or a Retired LEO. Look for the pharmacist to be charged very soon, NJ also has a duty to retreat law. When he ran to the back room to get his gun, under NJ law he had to stay there or go out back door. NJ laws require you to be a victim unless you are in your home. :confused:
 
Sorry, but that doesn't quite work with the Ersland case.

It's true that Ersland was prosecuted (and convicted) for shooting the robbery on the ground, not shooting at the one running out the door. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the prosecutor concluded that Ersland's chasing and shooting at the robber running out the door was justified.
Click to expand...

Sorry Frank, but the procecutor certainly doubted there being any sort of problem. He specifically stated this in the video concerning charging Ersland.
http://www.news9.com/Global/categor...art=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3804065

...not only giving chase and shooting, but even shooting the fleeing suspect in the back.

Looking at Oklahoma law, as noted by the prosecutor in the case and the events, Ersland's chasing of the robbery suspect and attempt to shoot him certainly can be legal. The prosecutor and the law are not divergent on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top