Robber running away, can you shoot him

[zigzag]

Just scream , drop it ! ! That should let the fleeing guy know you have something to stop him.
But for a few dollars in that bag, let him have it. If you shoot em, you got a wounded fool and /or a dead body, you'd be stuck with the legal system, DA after you and u ending up in jail and in debt. SOmetimes the law allows you but u ahve to have the better judgment in pullling the trigger. Its no easy way and best is stay alert and be ready to make the judgment call .

[ELB]

Another data point for consideration:

At my initial CHL course (in San Antonio), one of the local assistand DAs came in to brief us on the law. At that time his role in the DA's office was to review all the violent crime reports in the county and decide how to proceed.

He talked about the burglary in the night situation. He gave us an interesting insight into his evaluation of such a scenario.

He described an example of a workman on a tight budget whose tools are being stolen. If has no tools, then he does not work. If he does not work, then he does not get paid, and maybe he and his family go hungry, miss rent or mortage payments, are now generally in a world of hurt, etc. This would be evaluated differently than someone who shot a guy for stealing a pink flamingo.

The ADA did NOT say the workman automatically gets a pass, but it would be justification that would be seriously considered.

Would all DAs do this? Dunno.

elb

[KD5NRH]

What's in the purse? Possibly medication she needs to live? House keys and ID with home address? Just becasuse he's running away now doesn't mean you won't see him again later.

Yep. Anybody who thinks it's just stuff should try this; go to the nearest bad guy and give him your ID, cash, credit cards, and keys. Then try to get the locks changed on your now-compromised home. That's not going to happen without the locksmith letting you in, which he isn't going to do without ID, and isn't likely to do at all knowing you can't pay him until your credit cards are reissued. Better stay in a motel until it's done...oh gee, can't do that without ID or money either. So, shoot the thief, or give up on sleep until he's caught, knowing that he has your address and house key?

Don't forget, he got your CHL too, so he knows there's a gun there...and it's not much of a stretch to figure out you'll be leaving it there until your plastic is replaced.

[Will938]

I couldn't live with myself if I killed someone who I felt was no longer a threat. If the guy gets me at gun point with my pants down he'll get my wallet and anything else he wants (save someone I'm with). If he runs away then I'm running to cover, drawing, and keeping it trained on him if he's still in sight. If that gun so much as points in my direction or he turns around I'd fire, otherwise I'd just call the police.

[Frost]

Dead men can't talk.

You kill him, and then walk to the body, shoot him in the chest a few times to make it look like he was facing you.....there ya go.

Theres this thing called science, and there is a relatively new branch of it called Forensic science. It is really good at finding out what happened in the past based on physical evidence.

Lying about any aspect of a shooting is way up there on the list of stupid things to do.

[nitrogen]

Does a man retreating from you put you in fear for your life? is a man running away an imminent threat to you or your family?

Will you be willing to severely injure someone, possibly killing them to stop them for what they stole?

That's what it comes down to, regardless of what the law says; there's a higher law here.

I can see both sides here. In some circumstances, I could see a shoot of a retreating robber being justified, but not in most cases.

[badkarma56]

On a podcast that I listen to from time to time called The Shooting Bench, I recently heard the host (Cope Reynolds out of Farmington, New Mexico) discuss an effective and easy to remember formula for justifiable lethal force encounters. In my estimation, his analysis also seems to square with Texas law on the subject.

In essence, to be justified, you need to "reasonably believe" at the time of the shooting that the assailant had 1. the intent, 2. the ability and 3. the opportunity to cause you greivous bodily harm and/or death. If these three elements are satisfied, you'll likely be justified in the use of deadly force (other subjective contextual factors may play a part in the final analysis on a case-by-case basis).

Conversely, if any of these three elements are missing from the particular encounter (i.e., you "reasonably" ascertain that the "bad guy" had the intent to cause you greivous harm but lacked the opportunity or the ability to do so, etc.), the shooting will likely not be justified.

As such, I probably would not use my firearm to shoot a fleeing robber in the back. He may still have some deadly intent, but if he's fleeing, he certainly won't have any "ability or opportunity" to cause you physical harm.

[THE ENGINEER]

If he robs me at gun point then runs away, he is still armed and still has the ability to cause serious harm to me. If he is fat and slow, I will give chase and pistol whip him, if he is too fast for me I shoot. I have had a few things stolen from me in the past including a nice motorcycle that have never been recovered. This leads me to believe that stopping the robber before he escapes is the only means of recovering my property. Besides, I'm kinda partial to my wallet. Anyway, these scenarios are great for discussion, but hardly represent what most of us would actually do. There are just too many factors to take into account.

BTW, motorcycle thief = instant shoot!

[KD5NRH]

In essence, to be justified, you need to "reasonably believe" at the time of the shooting that the assailant had 1. the intent, 2. the ability and 3. the opportunity to cause you greivous bodily harm and/or death. If these three elements are satisfied, you'll likely be justified in the use of deadly force (other subjective contextual factors may play a part in the final analysis on a case-by-case basis).

TPC 9.41-9.43 don't require any of the above for most of their justifications.

Of "arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime," only robbery and aggravated robbery require that there be a threat to a person, and simple robbery does not require the threat to be more than simple bodily injury, defined in TPC 1.07(a)(8) as "physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition."

Note also that force or threat of force to maintain control of the property in the course of theft makes it robbery, so a thief can quickly become a robber if caught and challenged during or immediately after the theft.

[badkarma56]

In essence, to be justified, you need to "reasonably believe" at the time of the shooting that the assailant had 1. the intent, 2. the ability and 3. the opportunity to cause you greivous bodily harm and/or death. If these three elements are satisfied, you'll likely be justified in the use of deadly force (other subjective contextual factors may play a part in the final analysis on a case-by-case basis).

TPC 9.41-9.43 don't require any of the above for most of their justifications.

Of "arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime," only robbery and aggravated robbery require that there be a threat to a person, and simple robbery does not require the threat to be more than simple bodily injury, defined in TPC 1.07(a)(8) as "physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition."

Note also that force or threat of force to maintain control of the property in the course of theft makes it robbery, so a thief can quickly become a robber if caught and challenged during or immediately after the theft.

Sure, those are certainly relevant points. The law recognizes certain exceptional situations where deadly force is authorized without a direct and substantial physical threat toward the victim.

However, could you personally live with the consequences of killing someone if you didn't absolutely have to? I'm simply not going to shoot a man for stealing a piece of my property or my car, my insurance will cover that loss. Now if some dude attempts to "carjack" me, and shoves a weapon in my face in the process...well, that's a different story altogether. I will only use deadly force in a situation where I detect a direct and imminent threat to my or my family's physical well-being. I won't use deadly force to protect an inanimate object.

I might add that a civil suit will likely arise following a circumstance in which you shoot someone solely over a piece of property or a trespass-related transgression. Being excused from criminal prosecution will not indemnify you against a civil suit. As such, I'm going to reserve the gunplay for only the most necessary circumstances.

[WarHawk-AVG]

If you have liability insurance will they replace your vehicle...or shrug their shoulders and say..."too bad, so sad. Pay your next months premium or we will cancel your insurance"

[frankie_the_yankee]

Does a man retreating from you put you in fear for your life? is a man running away an imminent threat to you or your family?

Will you be willing to severely injure someone, possibly killing them to stop them for what they stole?

That's what it comes down to, regardless of what the law says; there's a higher law here.

I can see both sides here. In some circumstances, I could see a shoot of a retreating robber being justified, but not in most cases.

Back in RI a guy once tried to rob a jewelry store. He pointed a Beretta 9mm at the owner and told him to fill up a bag with (expensive) jewelry from a case he pointed to. The owner moved to do this, but instead drew a 45ACP auto from a holster he had fastened to the underside of the top of the case (in a way that it was out of sight to patrons).

The owner was quoted in the newspaper as saying, "I was sure he was going to shoot me, so I drew the gun."

At the sight of the gun, the would be robber turned and fled. The owner followed him out into the street, not to try to catch him, but in his words, "...to see where he went so I could point him out to the police."

As he is chasing the BG down the street the BG turns partly around, probably to see how close his pursuer was. Apparently, his gun hand swung around while he was doing this. The jeweler said, "I was sure he was going to shoot me, so I fired."

He ends up hitting the BG in the leg. (It was a heck of a shot.) The police caught him soon after.

As I am reading this account I'm thinking, this guy must have taken some kind of deadly force class. He said a lot of "magic words". He'd have to be one clever dude to come up with all that stuff himself.

It turned out that the 9mm was not loaded. Of course the jeweler would have no way of knowing that.

The cops didn't bring any charges and he was later no billed by the grand jury.

[badkarma56]

If you have liability insurance will they replace your vehicle...or shrug their shoulders and say..."too bad, so sad. Pay your next months premium or we will cancel your insurance"

LOL, well dude, I sure hope my state farm agent won't treat me that way. Your cynicism is appropriate...the insurance "bidness" is one of the biggest "legal" rackets in the country!

[badkarma56]

Does a man retreating from you put you in fear for your life? is a man running away an imminent threat to you or your family?

Will you be willing to severely injure someone, possibly killing them to stop them for what they stole?

That's what it comes down to, regardless of what the law says; there's a higher law here.

I can see both sides here. In some circumstances, I could see a shoot of a retreating robber being justified, but not in most cases.

Back in RI a guy once tried to rob a jewelry store. He pointed a Beretta 9mm at the owner and told him to fill up a bag with (expensive) jewelry from a case he pointed to. The owner moved to do this, but instead drew a 45ACP auto from a holster he had fastened to the underside of the top of the case (in a way that it was out of sight to patrons).

The owner was quoted in the newspaper as saying, "I was sure he was going to shoot me, so I drew the gun."

At the sight of the gun, the would be robber turned and fled. The owner followed him out into the street, not to try to catch him, but in his words, "...to see where he went so I could point him out to the police."

As he is chasing the BG down the street the BG turns partly around, probably to see how close his pursuer was. Apparently, his gun hand swung around while he was doing this. The jeweler said, "I was sure he was going to shoot me, so I fired."

He ends up hitting the BG in the leg. (It was a heck of a shot.) The police caught him soon after.

As I am reading this account I'm thinking, this guy must have taken some kind of deadly force class. He said a lot of "magic words". He'd have to be one clever dude to come up with all that stuff himself.

It turned out that the 9mm was not loaded. Of course the jeweler would have no way of knowing that.

The cops didn't bring any charges and he was later no billed by the grand jury.

Frankie, I agree that the jeweler was well-briefed on buzzwords and "what not to say to po-po" by someone. He sounds like a graduate of Charles Bronson's "Death Wish" school for clever vigilantes.

I'm not defending the robber's acts at all, but that jeweler was very fortunate not have been indicted for something.

[RubenZ]

While you may not be put in Prison. You may get taken to Civil Court and that will probably COST you more money that TRIPLE of whats in your wallet or purse.

I'd love to shoot every robber out there. But when his mama and papa take you to Civil court and you have to pay 100k in Legal fees. Thats a scenario I wouldn't want to be in.