question on a defensive scenario

S

swampcrawler

Inactive
Ok, some time back a woman I work with told me about a sittuation her husband was in, and iv wondered about it sense. Her husband was on his way home from work in a bad part of town, and while stopped aat a redlight or stop sign, a single armed man attempted to carjack him, armed with a handgun. The husband quickly presented his own arm, and before he could fire the perp wheeled and ran, fireing hus handgun blindly behind him. The husband held his fire as he didn't think it would be legal to shoot the fleeing man. However, I think stopping the blind fire in a residential area would be more than justified. As far as I know no one was hit.

Like I said I believe I would have fired as jail time is worth preventing the death of an uninvolved bystander to me. I'm sure a prossicution would tear the defensive shooter appart as the suspect was fleeing, but he still presented a very real threat to everyone with his blind behind the back fireing. What do you guys think would have been appropriate in the sittuation?
 
There is a difference between dangerously firing unaimed shots that might hit someone and presenting an imminent threat that necessitates the immediate use of deadly force.

Firing would have been a very foolish thing to do.
 
I am not sure of this question. First off I think it would matter on where you live and your local laws.

I personally live in Alaska. I am not 100% sure but I believe here I could legally shoot the guy. He attempted to rob you and he then ran away and is now shooting at you. SO it would be considered self defense I believe. But hopefully a more knowledgeable poster could clear this up for me.
 
No, I would not have fired back in that situation. You are not a police officer, and that scenario would likely have bad results for you.
Let the BG worry about where his bullets went.
Jerry
 
It is debatable but I think firing upon could have been understandable. Although he is just shooting randomly those bullets were obviously meant for him, all it takes is one lucky shot so I do think you could say it was self defense. However, it sounds like it was probably a good thing he didn't, he made it out alive and didn't have to take someones life in the process. He got lucky.
 
If the law was always applied equitably, it would be hard to say that a person being fired at was not within his rights to return fire. Whether the BG is moving toward or away from you would hardly seem to matter. Unaimed fire can still make you dead.

"If" can be an awfully big word, though. It is easy to see an over-zealous prosecutor turning a situation like that around. And even being acquitted leaves a big impact on one's finances, reputation, and state of mind.

As far as whether returning fire is tactically valid in this instance, there are too many unanswered questions to take a position. Were there bystanders? Where? How many? Were the surrounding buildings occupied? Did the good guy have a clear shot, and at what distance? What was his backdrop? How much of this information did he have at hand? Complex situation with fractions of seconds to make decisions. It is hard to criticize the outcome, and I would be very hesitant about returning fire in a situation where a BG was already fleeing, but at the same time I can understand a different decision in some circumstances.
 
You really don't want to get your legal education at the defendant's table in a courtroom. Check with a local criminal defense attorney to find out what the laws in your jurisdiction have to say about that kind of scenario... and anything else involving self defense, while you're at it.

I believe I would have fired as jail time is worth preventing the death of an uninvolved bystander to me

And you can ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE where every one of your bullets will wind up when they are fired? What if it was your bullet (a miss, or overpenetration) that dropped an innocent bystander?
 
The husband did the right thing.
Click to expand...

I believe so as well, better just to floor it at GTFO at that point.

Plenty of people have had very big and expensive headaches over (even justifiably) shooting a fleeing perp.
 
Carjack and fleeing

I think the victim did right in presenting his gun. It made the perp flee, shooting in defense.
I'm glad the vic elected to not shoot. The best time to shoot would have been at the car.

Not having to explain the whole story over and over again to the law would be a relief. And with all the expense and trial.....

I'm glad to read the victim wasn't harmed.
 
Thanks guys. I guess I just figured a guy spraying rounds through down town Batton Rouge with the entention of hitting you was as good a reason as any to put him down. Guess a guy has to be sure the perp actually hits him, prefferably with a life threatening hit, before he's allowed to shoot. :/

(Not argueing with you guys at all. You all know WAY more than myself. Just get more and more frustrated with our system every day)
 
Oh, you didn't mention that it was in Baton Rouge. In that case go ahead and shoot, with a crime rate that's in the top 5 of the nation the chances of hitting an innocent person is pretty slim. That's one of the reasons I got out a long time ago.

Seriously though, duck and cover......it's still an approved tactict.
 
Another thing to consider as far as legality and how the the jury could help or hurt you would be, is the BG wheeling backwards or running forwards firing sideways or under his arm. If you were to hit the BG, would it be in the chest or back? If it was in his chest it would seem he would still be an aggressor even if he was making distance, but if you hit him/her in the back it would seem he would be fleeing to someone who was not there. Food for thought, otherwise I have no idea.
 
No matter what position his body is in, if the bad guy is firing shots at you, you are justified in stopping the threat. Stopping the threat could involve shooting him...and this would be justifiable. However, the threat could also be stopped by you simply taking cover or driving away as he flees. I don't think I could say with certainty how I would react without actually being in the moment. I'm glad everyone is safe, though.

As some have suggested, it may be an equally instructive exercise to determine what may have been done differently to begin with. Here are a coupld of thoughts...
- avoid "bad" parts of town, even if it means driving a lot farther
- firing immediately upon presentation of the weapon...after all, the bad guy already has his gun out. Why give him an opportunity to shoot at you at all?

Good thread.
 
If I'm in a vehicle, and it isn't immobilized, the best tactic is most likely to use the gas pedal.

If the vehicle were immobilized, and the BG were shooting at me, and it seemed at all likely to me that he might hit me, I would shoot the BG.

Unaimed shots can kill every bit as well as aimed shots. The BG was posing a real threat. Legally, shooting him would have been defensible in any jurisdiction - but some jurisdictions would be more likely to press charges, and some more likely to not press charges.

The real question isn't whether returning fire would have been legal, but whether it would have made the most sense. Apparently, the car owner felt it would not have in his particular scenario.
 
swampcrawler said:
Thanks guys. I guess I just figured a guy spraying rounds through down town Batton Rouge with the entention of hitting you was as good a reason as any to put him down. Guess a guy has to be sure the perp actually hits him, prefferably with a life threatening hit, before he's allowed to shoot. :/
Click to expand...

Actually, in Baton Rouge, he would probably have been justified in shooting the perp. Louisiana law doesn't exactly spell it out, but there has long been a rule that you're allowed to use force if the offender is using force, is fleeing, and is liable to use force against an innocent third-party. We can assume as reasonable persons that the offender was armed, was willing to use lethal force to escape, and that his actions showed he was willing to use force indiscriminately. Ergo, a shoot would probably have been legally justified.

However, the difference between being legally justified to shoot someone and being involved in the aftermath of a shooting is huge. Our hero did the right thing by presenting his weapon, then leaving the area. I hope that he called it in to the police, gave a description, and let the cops know that someone was trying to carjack someone at gunpoint.

State law varies, and this is based on my understanding of Louisiana law.
 
The only issue I have was the first action by the GG. If the BG has you at gun point you do not present it and have a mine is bigger contest.
 
Better to think twice about shooting someone in the back. You will be paying a lot of money in legal fees............even if the cops find those empty casings from the dead man's gun.
 
I agree that the driver *probably* would have been exonerated *eventually* had he decided to return fire, but the fact that he didn't made everything so much simpler, because the issue never had to be addressed at all.

I've written a few "line of duty/misconduct" investigations in the Navy, and alcohol consumption is the same way. If there's even a trace of alcohol in the member's system, there are a whole bunch of questions that have to be asked and answered, and the investigation is suddenly a dozen pages longer.

Just as there's a world of paperwork difference between a BAC of 0.00 and 0.01, there's a big difference between an investigation where the victim returns fire (however justified), and one where the victim didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top