Nanuk said:
For all the talk about criminals that do not care about being endangered we seem to be ignoring something that used to be true: most encounters where a would be victim draws a firearm end without injury to the victim and without a shot being fired.
Is this no longer true?
Where did you come up with that?
A person is not by definition a criminal until he victimizes someone. You can't use deadly force to protect yourself unless justified, so how would you justify deadly force if not being attacked to the level that deadly force is the appropriate response?
You seem to be conflating two concepts here. A criminal becomes a criminal the moment he initiates a contact with another person for the purpose of committing a theft, robbery, or fraud. The victim is a victim the moment the criminal act is set in motion, regardless of whether the crime is carried through to completion or is interrupted and the criminal flees.
As to whether or not the victim is allowed to resist using deadly/lethal force, that's a separate question from when the act becomes a criminal act, or when the victim becomes a victim. The laws of each of the fifty states differ, so it's not wise to make generalizations -- although some generalizations do apply. One such generalization is that the determination of whether or not deadly/lethal force may be used is based on the perception of the victim, not the crook. That perception is, in turn, subject (if the case should get to court) to the "reasonable man" standard, but it's still from the victim's perspective.
Example: How many times have we read about crooks who try to stick up a store or a bank carrying a BB gun or an airsoft pistol? From the crook's perspective, it's a toy and not a lethal weapon, so victims "shouldn't be shootin' folk over a toy." From the victim's perspective, "He pointed a gun at me, so I shot him. I had no way of knowing it was a toy - it looked real."
Casting about the Internet for information on "statutes+deadly+force" I hit on a summary from the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research. It begins to summarize this issue -- for Connecticut:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0847.htm
A person is justified in using reasonable physical force on another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force. The defender may use the degree of force he reasonably believes is necessary to defend himself or a third person. But deadly physical force cannot be used unless the actor reasonably believes that the attacker is using or about to use deadly physical force or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.
So, for Connecticut, a threat to inflict great bodily harm ("I'm going to beat the [bleep] out of you") is justification for using deadly force to defend yourself.
Additionally, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force if he knows he can avoid doing so with complete safety by:
1. retreating, except from his home or office in cases where he was not the initial aggressor or except in cases where he is assisting a peace officer at the officer's directions;
2. surrendering possession to property the aggressor claims to own; or
3. obeying a demand that he not take an action he is not otherwise required to take.
Note, however, that this memo dates to 2002, so it's now 17 years old. Obviously, at that time Connecticut didn't have a "stand your ground" law, they had a duty to retreat -- except in the home or office, and only if retreat can be accomplished in "complete" safety. Tough call to make on the spur of the moment.
But the memo then goes on:
In 1984, the Connecticut Supreme Court articulated the test for determining the degree of force warranted in a given case. Whether or not a person was justified in using force to protect his person or property is a question of fact that focuses on what the person asserting the defense reasonably believed under the circumstances (State v. DeJesus, 194 Conn. 376, 389 (1984)). The test for the degree of force in self-defense is a subjective-objective one. The jury must view the situation from the defendant's perspective; this is the subjective component. The jury must then decide whether the defendant's belief was reasonable (DeJesus at 389 n.13).
In other words, the victim gets to decide whether or not he/she can use deadly force to defend him/herself based on his/her perception of the threat -- not based on the bad guy's intentions or excuses.
Geting back to the video (which, despite the thread title, was not a convenience store but a liquor store): Someone commented that the crook left and then came back. I went back and watched the video again, at reduced speed. I did not see the bad guy leave. It's apparently a small store. He did move over toward the door but, if he went outside, the camera didn't show it. So, the way I viewed it, he was still in the store, and he had a shotgun. We don't know if it was loaded, but it doesn't matter. The women didn't know but they had a right to believe it was loaded. A shotgun is a deadly weapon, so that means they had every right (IMHO) to use deadly force to defend themselves. As long as the guy was in that small space with a shotgun (and, arguably, even if he dropped it), he was still a threat.
If he had turned tail and left the store, then they would not be allowed to pursue him and keep shooting. Then you get to a situation like that pharmacist a few years ago who shot one would-be robber, pursued a second robber out of the store, then returned to the store, switched guns, and killed the wounded robber who was lying on the floor. In that case, the pharmacist was convicted of murder.
