I STOPPED A ROBBERY LAST NIGHT

[thatguy]

Other than the fact that zip-ties are easy to break (as are many handcuffs), I personally don't want to get near someone who's likely to be highly-motivated to take me out in order to avoid prison. Distance = life. Yeah, I'm leaving cuffs for the bedr... er, I mean the cops.

Distance = Life

Yeah, I'm leaving cuffs for the bedr... er, I mean the cops = WOW

[Excaliber]

Perhaps this should be a thread of its own, but a question occurred to me in re-reading about this incident.

When did this robbery stop being "imminent"? And...when, if ever, did the justification to use deadly force disappear prior to arrival of police and/or the suspect ran off?

PC 9.31/9.32/9.33 says, paraphrasing, an actor is justified in using deadly force to protect himself or others if he reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent the use or attempted use of unlawful force against himself or others, and (in this case) to prevent the imminent commission of robbery or aggravated robbery.

"Imminent commission of robbery" seems pretty clear here.

So when did the "imminent commission of robbery" stop? When the suspect walked out the door? Then shooting the suspect as he got up off the floor could fall under the "robbery" justification for self-defense. (I'm not talking about tactics here, or whether it was a good idea in the long run, just the legal aspect).

But if "imminent commission" stopped when the suspect laid down on the floor, then legally shooting him as he got up would have to rely on the actor's (Javier's) reasonable belief that it the suspect was attempting to use deadly force against the actor or others. I think it would be reasonable since the suspect had indicated he had a gun in his pocket, and it might still be there, but it seems a stronger legal justification if "imminent commission of robbery" is still in play.

I would think after years of robberies and trials there is some answer to this in case law/precedent, but I do not know it.

One could remove some ambiguity by stating clearly to the BG on the ground that any uncommanded move will be seen as an attempt to reach and use his weapon and he will be shot. Then the BG has a decision to make, and the witnesses have a point of reference that will likely be helpful.

[ELB]

One could remove some ambiguity by stating clearly to the BG on the ground that any uncommanded move will be seen as an attempt to reach and use his weapon and he will be shot. Then the BG has a decision to make, and the witnesses have a point of reference that will likely be helpful.

I can see how that would be helpful, but I still wonder if there has been some court agreement on when "imminent commission" stops...

For example, as a rough analogy, Mr. Cotton noted a few years ago that when people were testifying about the castle doctrine stuff, all the legal eagles agreed that in the phrase "unlawfully and with force entered...habitation..", that "force" could be as little effort as opening an unlocked door or window -- it didn't have to mean kicking the door in. I suspect this was argued about at many trials before through appeals and such the came a decision or consensus about how little effort constituted "force."

I wonder if the phrase "imminent commission" has a similar judicial history with an agreed on interpretation. After the suspect in the OP had left the shop and gone down the street, I suspect there was no longer any "imminent commission". As long as he was inside tho, I would vote that was still "fight's on."

[CoffeeNut]

Popping in to say that I saw this listed in February's Armed Citizen in American Rifleman.

[The Annoyed Man]

Popping in to say that I saw this listed in February's Armed Citizen in American Rifleman.