Agreed. Firearms typically escalate situations but regardless of the story version there were already firearms present and being used to threaten.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Good Tactics vs Ethical Dilemma Gets CHL Killed
- Thread starter MTT TL
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Property crime may be technically wrong as used though I get the understanding of what the poster meant. I referenced it as a transactional crime. “Give me your money” is a transactional crime. You give up property and pursue the criminal portion of it later - more properly law enforcement does. In most cases the transaction is not worth escalating to violence because the violent outcomes are not worth it. Even if you win the costs will be far greater than the money in your wallet.
To me this is opposed to anti-social behavior. Someone trying to cause severe injury or death just because. Here there is no talking your way out of it. While not a likely target I classify rape as an anti-social crime as well and not transactional though I suppose it could be argued. Because I believe kidnapping ultimately becomes anti-social I would resist it as well.
To me this is opposed to anti-social behavior. Someone trying to cause severe injury or death just because. Here there is no talking your way out of it. While not a likely target I classify rape as an anti-social crime as well and not transactional though I suppose it could be argued. Because I believe kidnapping ultimately becomes anti-social I would resist it as well.
Armed robbery is typically considered a violent crime, regardless of the weapon used. However, not all armed robberies result in shots fired, stabbings, bludgeonings, etc.
The 2 incidents I mentioned in my previous post involved armed robberies where the suspects were armed with guns, but they hadn't yet shot anyone while demanding money. The off-duty cops decided to intervene, which is when the suspects started shooting.
I remember being told as a young cop that if I chose to invoke my status off-duty when on-viewing a violent crime, such as an armed robbery, I needed to consider the totality of the circumstances before taking an action which might escalate the nature of the danger inherent in the crime (robbery) and increase the potential risk to the Public.
Specifically, if the robbery suspect(s) hadn't yet shot anyone, and it appeared they might leave without shooting anyone, it reduced the risk to the Public if I allowed them to leave without pulling my weapon and engaging them. Why start a shooting when one wasn't occurring? I could always act as a trained witness, or even follow the suspect(s) outside to attempt to get a description of any veh (bicycle, or no veh used), and the direction of travel to aid in the attempted apprehension.
In other words, actions can have consequences, and my actions ought to be geared toward helping preserve the Public safety. The safety of innocents was of a higher priority than the loss of someone's money or personal property. We could always attempt to track down the suspect(s) once they'd fled the scene - without them having shot anyone - and taking an unwise action which might cause a shooting to start was both irresponsible and an unnecessary risk to the safety of the victims and bystanders.
It's common sense that any action taken by an off-duty peace officer which involves a drawn weapon and the use of deadly force isn't something to be considered lightly, and especially if that action might increase the risk of injury or death to the innocent Public.
Now, once a suspect has started shooting, or the suspect's actions (threats, manner, etc) gives the off-duty cop a reasonable cause to believe that victims are at an immediate risk of suffering seriously bodily injury or death due to the suspect's violent actions, then the off-duty cop may be forced to choose to take action.
Better be right, though. You can't call bullets back, either yours or those of the suspect(s).
Kind of what we had here other than status. The victim gave up his items when he was robbed and when the robbers began shooting in another nearby location he decided to intervene. This is why it was an ethics choice. He had no real duty to those in the shop. In most places police have a general duty to quell disturbances, unrest, prevent crime and preserve life.
OldMarksman
Staff
That bears repeating.
It's also a finger pointing away at the moon.
OldMarksman
Staff
This poor fellow exhibited no tactical prudence whatsoever.
He may have believed he had an ethical duty to put himself at extreme risk, without understanding the likely outcome.
Personally. I would not do anything in suc ha circumtanceswith a best case outcome of incurring tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.
He may have believed he had an ethical duty to put himself at extreme risk, without understanding the likely outcome.
Personally. I would not do anything in suc ha circumtanceswith a best case outcome of incurring tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses.
Don Fischer
New member
Bottom line to this is that not a one of us can possibly know what we are going to do before hand and the idea of what to do after you've run into the situation is gonna likely be a spur of the moment idea that may very well back fire. I think if you run into a situation the best course of action is get out of sight. From there you can walk away of sit out a situation to see what is going to happen. If the bad guy's haven't fired on anyone yet, you rush in and that all by itself can start the shooting. You action just may have caused it! If the guy's are content to get the money and walk away shooting, let them! It's only money. Never have being put i a situation like this, this is easy for me to say! But then I also believe my gun is for protecting myself, family and close friends. I don't think I want to go beyond that.
FireForged
New member
If my life is in danger, it doesn't really matter what kind of crime is involved. If my life is not in danger, my gun would certainly not be part of the equation anyway.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
It has been noted, but perhaps bears repeating, that armed robbery is not a "property crime." Whether or not shots are fired, the use or even display (and, in some jurisdictions, even the threat) of a firearm constitutes use of deadly force. If a bad guy has a gun, innocents ARE at risk ... by definition.fastbolt said:
The case under discussion serves to demonstrate this point. The two thugs walked into a barber shop. It's unlikely that the barber or the patrons were armed -- there has been nothing in the news reports to suggest that they were armed. Yet the bad guys shot one of the patrons. So the patrons obviously were at risk.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Please explain.fastbolt said:
Some of you are overlooking the potentially tragic obvious. Let's not get caught up and dragged down in the "but it's an armed robbery" riptide.
Yes, robbery (including the attempt) is classified as a violent crime. It's one of the Part 1 serious offenses in the UCR.
However, while the use of deadly force may be justified, it's arguably still prudent to consider whether the specific totality of the circumstances (as known to the person at the moment, etc) also make it reasonably necessary and appropriate at any moment in time. In other words, it's not an automatic "check the box - the suspect is armed - let's shoot" response.
If shots (or a stabbing, etc) by some suspect hasn't yet occurred, is the risk of running in and starting shooting worth it? From the LE perspective, if the suspect hasn't already shot anyone, it's safer for any innocent victims and bystanders if attempts to engage the suspect are delayed until the suspect leaves the immediate scene.
Yes, robbery (including the attempt) is classified as a violent crime. It's one of the Part 1 serious offenses in the UCR.
However, while the use of deadly force may be justified, it's arguably still prudent to consider whether the specific totality of the circumstances (as known to the person at the moment, etc) also make it reasonably necessary and appropriate at any moment in time. In other words, it's not an automatic "check the box - the suspect is armed - let's shoot" response.
If shots (or a stabbing, etc) by some suspect hasn't yet occurred, is the risk of running in and starting shooting worth it? From the LE perspective, if the suspect hasn't already shot anyone, it's safer for any innocent victims and bystanders if attempts to engage the suspect are delayed until the suspect leaves the immediate scene.
Paraphrase of an old Bruce Lee quote. Don't get so distracted by looking at the finger pointing up at the moon that you forget to see the moon (heavenly glory).
The fact that robbery is a serious crime and not a simple property crime is the finger.
Whether the use of deadly force is not only justified, but also reasonable and appropriate for the specific circumstances, is the moon.
Did shooting start before the attempted intervention of the Good Samaritan concealed carrier? I’m not denying his motivation but if this situation could have ended without shots being fired without his intervention perhaps everyone would have been better off had he left it alone. Had shots (actual shots intended to do harm) already been fired then all bets are off. I guess I am looking for clarification. The premise seems to be offered that he only responded after shots were fired. Is this premise backed by evidence?
The ethical dilemma only exists for civilian concealed carriers if one prescribes a positive moral duty to intervene in criminal acts committed against another person. This dilemma should really be considered ahead of time. For me it’s my wife, my kids, young children in general, employees and customers in my business, and guests in my home. My duty is limited to the threat of imminent severe physical harm, rape, or kidnapping. It limits heavily the situations I am going to respond with violence. We discussed earlier these things are best decided ahead of time.
Wasn't arguing about it being justified and excusable.
Was talking about situations where starting the shooting might not be particularly reasonable or appropriate for the circumstances.
Just because someone may be lawfully armed and could justify shooting, doesn't mean it may be the best idea for the moment.
What I wrote was ...
While the use of deadly force may be justified, circumstances may present themselves which might argue against it being appropriate if using it presents a clear risk to other innocents.
None of us wants to attempt to use justifiable deadly force in a way that might mistakenly cause the death of another innocent person, meaning a person who wasn't the "threat" we intended to shoot, right? Innocents in close proximity to, or crowded behind, the armed robbery suspect? You can't call a bullet back.
As far as being justified, consider a part of the CA's 192 PC subsection on Manslaughter, subsection (b), for Involuntary manslaughter, which states (in part, italics mine) "; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection".
Think about if the use of deadly force which could be said to be justified against the "threat", but its use results in shooting someone we didn't intend to shoot, and that unlawful death is argued to have been "without due caution or circumspection", even though the initial reason for our use of deadly force was justified? That's how any of us might find ourselves on the wrong end of a criminal manslaughter case.
This is where private persons, and even cops, may find themselves in trouble for an act that causes the death of someone who ought not have died.
Yep, I rather suspect that we're not disagreeing on some particular points. Perhaps I'm not explaining my thoughts clearly, or I'm thinking of other aspects of situations that I've seen occur during my career that aren't something that would ordinarily occur to private persons?
I'm not an attorney, so I'm not qualified nor licensed to give legal advice. (You can go buy some if you feel the need.)
Nor am I an instructor to anyone on this forum and responsible for training them. Just my thoughts.
- Status