Shooting an accomplice...from a Brazilian video

O

OhioGuy

New member
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2018/05/brazilian-cop-armed-robbers/

At about the 3-minute point in the video, the narrator States unequivocally that because the second robber was in cahoots with the first, you can legitimately assume that he is also an armed thread and engage him. Does anybody know of cases in which this actually happened, and how those cases turned out for the person who stopped the robbery?

Somehow it's hard to imagine that shooting the Armed robber, and then shooting his accomplice before you have any visual confirmation that he's armed, wouldnt cause all sorts of problems...?

The narrator did not specify that this was the case just in South America, or only for off-duty police. Anyone listening to this video would come away with the idea that this is okay for anybody who is armed and acts to stop a robbery.
 
Considering how different the rules are everywhere, ... that’s a loaded question.
In Texas juries and grand juries have tended to consider all the attackers “fair game”. (My non-legal term) :) Except in 3 ultra liberal cities where anyone using a gun in self defense is going to trial.

But I believe that the narrator (who does a lot of these after action shooting reviews) generally discusses tactics not specific laws.
 
I have seen a lot of these videos on you tube. It seems like the wild west in South America. I would guess self defense laws down there are a little more lax then in the USA. Plus it differs on where you are in the U.S.
 
A lot of the shooting the shooting videos out of South America (like this one) involve off-duty/plainclothes police. Extrapolating the legality of LE tactics in a foreign country to civilian self-defense in this country is tricky.
 
Somehow it's hard to imagine that shooting the Armed robber, and then shooting his accomplice before you have any visual confirmation that he's armed, wouldnt cause all sorts of problems...?
Click to expand...

You need to learn the laws of your state, plain and simple.
 
OhioGuy said:
The narrator did not specify that this was the case just in South America, or only for off-duty police.
Click to expand...

kenny53 said:
I have seen a lot of these videos on you tube. It seems like the wild west in South America.
Click to expand...

Please don't generalize. I believe there are fourteen separate countries in South America, each with its own laws, constitution, police, and judiciary. What's legal in Brazil might not be legal in Paraguay or Uruguay.

In my late wife's native country (in South America), for example, there are no local police. All police are the national police, and they are technically a branch of the military. I have no idea what the status of the police is in Brazil.
 
If this happened in my state LEO/ NON-LEO the questions will be:

- Did you fear for your life and the lives of others?

- Why?

If the shooter can answer these questions effectively with fact based evidence the rest of it likely will not matter.

Notes:
- The second robber never showed a gun. It does not mean he did not have one. He was a party to an armed robbery so odds were good he did have one.

- The analysis guy said it is unusual for a robber not to pull a gun. This is likely untrue. Lone actor bank robbers often do not show a gun because they don't want to start a panic. They know the bank tellers are trained to give them the money. They pass a note and wait calmly. They may or may not show a gun. They then leave calmly.

- Note that the shooter shot both suspects twice at close range with COM hits from what looked like a full size 9mm and that neither dropped and both were able to flee (and therefore still fight as well).
 
MTT TL said:
- The analysis guy said it is unusual for a robber not to pull a gun. This is likely untrue. Lone actor bank robbers often do not show a gun because they don't want to start a panic. They know the bank tellers are trained to give them the money. They pass a note and wait calmly. They may or may not show a gun. They then leave calmly.
Click to expand...
Don't try to apply U.S. logic to Brazil. As I've noted, my late wife was from another South American Country. Brazil isn't quite as unsafe as Venezuela, but it's pretty bad. Even a few years before she passed away (which was 4+ years ago), when the subject of Brazil came up she said "I can go there, but you can't. It's not safe for Americans." I have an e-friend in Brazil from another "gun" forum who has told me the same thing.
 
I am not, that is why I prefaced with "in my state" We can draw lessons and inferences but each must apply them to their particulars.
 
In my state I believe that you could justify and be safe to shoot the accomplice, even if not obviously armed and presenting a lethal threat. If the first target was completely justifiable, it follows that the second will be equally as dangerous.

But, here is the rub, I don't think that without presentation of a deadly weapon or other sign of possible serious attack, I don't think that it will hold up.

IMO. According to legal issues that I have followed and what I believe the principles of our law are, the accomplice must present an equal level of threat. There must be an equal level of danger, and fear of danger. Just being the guy standing next to the threat doesn't justify use of force against him.

I believe that if such a thing happened in my state, which has very strong protection for use of force, there would be a prosecution and possible conviction for shooting an unarmed, or if armed, non-threatening accomplice.

Our state laws, as many others do, require that the shooter provide evidence that the threat was tangible and believable.

We have liberal castle laws, but our responsibilities are different for just normal encounters outside of the home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top