Shooting Intruder as they retreat?

[The Annoyed Man]

For me, it depends. Are they fleeing with my alarm clock and a bag of rice? I'm not going to shoot someone over that. But are they fleeing because I just found my wife in a lifeless bloody heap on the floor? I'll dump a 30 round mag between their shoulders.

[rotor]

Let's take it even further. About 2 years ago a neighbor's house was broken into by 3 thugs, they pistol whipped one of the teenagers that lived there and then ran with some loot to a parked car just outside my house. Was night time. As per usual stupidity, they had locked their car and couldn't find the keys and ran away to be caught on foot. I awoke to a bunch of police cars in front of my house. Now, some would say they were fleeing and therefore let them go. If they had just pistol whipped my child and I had a weapon available I don't know that I would be so gentle as to let them go. On the other hand I am glad that I didn't have a bunch of lead being shot into my house. So really, at what point would you let these guys run without firing? Fortunately nobody was shot but the kid was taken to the hospital and the bad guys were found. Stupid people. i guess real crooks would know how to break into and hot wire their car.

[jbarn]

So we Have changed the topic from self defense to retaliation?

[Jumping Frog]

How do I know they're fleeing and not just taking cover before they turn and fire?

The code uses the phrase "immediately necessary". What he "might" do is not a justification. There is no justification to shoot a fleeing person who does not have stolen property.

Also, in your quote you left out the parts where you must reasonably believe the deadly force was immediately necessary, AND you must reasonably believe there is no other way to protect or recover the property, or that using force less than deadly force would expose you or another to a sunstantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Yep, what jbarn said: if they are backing away is one thing, if they are running 'for their life' is another thing altogether.

Let me be clear.... I would never shoot a perp who was no longer a threat to my (and loved ones) physical safety.
The dilemma comes in knowing whether he's actually fleeing, and whether he'll keep fleeing.

That said, I firmly believe that the level of danger presented by a gun-toting perp in close proximity, someone who has already attempted to break in to my house (OP), should not be so quickly dismissed just because they've turned their back on me and started to step away. Proximity to me (and my loved ones), offenses committed and most importantly, the opportunity for me (and loved ones) to gain cover out of harms way will determine the best course of action.
....

I think it's a huge mistake to pre-determine an immediate change from shoot to no-shoot until the immediate physical danger has clearly passed. I can shoot fairly well out to 25 yards, why would I assume any differently for the perp? That mistake might cost me more than money.

RoyGBiv raises a solid point that I do not believe people are giving adequate thought to.

For example, the Force Science Institute has scientifically proven to a standard admissible in court in many different scenarios that action always beats reaction.

Have a police officer pointing a gun at a fleeing suspect fully ready to fire. That suspect can turn, shoot at the officer, and then turn back so his shoulders are again squared up and he is facing away before that officer can react and shoot. That is one defense in an OIS when the suspect is shot in the back.

Article here: WHY IS THE SUSPECT SHOT IN THE BACK? Finally, Hard Data on How Fast the Suspect Can Be In 11 Different Shooting Scenarios.

Or did you know that a prone suspect lying on his stomach with his hands hidden can turn and shoot an officer before the officer can react, even when the officer is already pointing the gun at the suspect and knows he is being tested for reaction time? Study here: http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/164.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Or a different study shows

You are confronting an armed suspect, no cover available. He faces you, with his gun at his side, pointed at the ground. Your gun is aimed at him and you’re ready to shoot. He ignores your commands to drop his weapon.

Are you justified in pulling the trigger before he makes any move to point his gun at you?

According to conclusions reached by researchers in a unique new reaction-time study, your preemptively shooting under such circumstances may well be considered reasonable by the standards of Graham v. Connor.

If the offender suddenly points his gun in your direction, you are highly unlikely to get a shot off to defend yourself before he shoots, the researchers documented. Even under ideal circumstances, you probably can fire no faster than simultaneously with the attacker.

Bottom line, just because an armed person is now running away does not mean we can safely conclude they no longer pose an immediate threat.

[locke_n_load]

Great post frog... Great post.
That's what I was thinking. If they are running, with a handgun we'll say, how quick could they turn on the run and make a potshot? I figure in about 1/2 a second, which is about the normal human reaction time I believe. Although their shot would be highly inaccurate, if it's my life at stake, should I take that chance if I have a clear shot? Hmm...

[jbarn]

Great post frog... Great post.
That's what I was thinking. If they are running, with a handgun we'll say, how quick could they turn on the run and make a potshot? I figure in about 1/2 a second, which is about the normal human reaction time I believe. Although their shot would be highly inaccurate, if it's my life at stake, should I take that chance if I have a clear shot? Hmm...

Will you be pursuing or attempting to arrest a fleeing suspect?

Remember, the penal code allows LE to use deadly force in circumstances when the non LEO can. In the scenario above, the suspect actually turned and fired and the officer fired. The bullet struck the suspect in the back, and the action vs reaction testimony to show that the person could have actually fired at the officer. Because of reaction time, the person could be shot in the back by the officer responding to being shot at. It does not mean to just shoot armed fleeing suspects as a matter of course.

The article referenced (a great article) does not suggest, for example, that officers shoot traffic violators preemptively in case the violator will try to shoot the officer. See example 1.

I maintain there is no justification for Joe Citizen for shooting a person fleeing without property based only on the premise of what the suspect "might" do.

[RoyGBiv]

Bottom line, just because an armed person is now running away does not mean we can safely conclude they no longer pose an immediate threat.

Thanks very much for providing those references. Good stuff.

It does not mean to just shoot armed fleeing suspects as a matter of course.
......
I maintain there is no justification for Joe Citizen for shooting a person fleeing without property based only on the premise of what the suspect "might" do.

Nobody (certainly not me) is suggesting this is an easy decision to be made as a matter of course. I was intending to provide a counter argument to what appeared to be a rush to say "any sign of fleeing = definitely no shoot".

Here's what it comes down to for me....Certainty and risk.
How certain am I that the perp is fleeing and will not turn and fire?
Do I have the ability to mitigate risk by achieving (not just seeking, but reaching) cover immediately (immediately defined as the time it would take for the perp to change his mind, turn and fire)?

In such a situation, I'm asking myself the question...
Can I avoid shooting and not wind up with MY (or a loved ones) face in this photo frame?

[ShootDontTalk]

RoyGBiv



The issue is one of survival. I'll make no general hard and fast rule and say "never". I will deal with the situation as it arises. I will make tactical adjustments if possible. But, I will survive. I have interviewed gunfight survivors who spoke of that "feeling" that the actor was about to turn on them and fired preemptively as a result. The fact that they survived and were no-billed says they made the right decision. I pray each of us never face that kind of situation.

[txnative1951]

I like Dragonfighter's response. If they are fleeing after a break and enter or even if they have my laptop, I would let them go. Laptop is cheaper than the attorney bill. If, however, they have harmed someone in my family and are then fleeing all bets are off.

Let's say that someone comes up, stabs you, leaves the knife in you, and runs away. Well, you're no longer in danger of being stabbed, but would you shoot him as he was running away? Depending upon what part of the country you live in, it might very well be illegal to do that. In some places, it might be illegal, but no jury would ever vote to convict. I'm not sure what the Texas laws are on this, but I definitely would be inclined to shoot at him (even as he was running away) in whatever time I had before I lost consciousness due to loss of blood.

[Oldgringo]

Yep, what jbarn said: if they are backing away is one thing, if they are running 'for their life' is another thing altogether. You really don't want to shoot anybody...if you can get out of it. It will definitely be a life changing experience, in more ways than one.

Let me be clear.... I would never shoot a perp who was no longer a threat to my (and loved ones) physical safety.
The dilemma comes in knowing whether he's actually fleeing, and whether he'll keep fleeing.

That said, I firmly believe that the level of danger presented by a gun-toting perp in close proximity, someone who has already attempted to break in to my house (OP), should not be so quickly dismissed just because they've turned their back on me and started to step away. Proximity to me (and my loved ones), offenses committed and most importantly, the opportunity for me (and loved ones) to gain cover out of harms way will determine the best course of action.

Specifically, if I'm standing in my front yard after an attempted armed robbery and the perp is 2 feet away with his back to me, my course of action might very well differ from an encounter with that same armed perp creating distance from the other side of my locked door. Standing in that field and choosing not to shoot leaves me at the mercy of the perp. Must I wait for him to turn and shoot when, if he chooses to do so, I am clearly in mortal danger?

Can't argue with that.

I think it's a huge mistake to pre-determine an immediate change from shoot to no-shoot until the immediate physical danger has clearly passed. I can shoot fairly well out to 25 yards, why would I assume any differently for the perp? That mistake might cost me more than money.

[ShootDontTalk]

"The off-duty HPD officer said he was sleeping when three men broke into his home. Witnesses heard gunshots and said the officer ran outside holding a gun and handcuffs.

"He was running in his boxer shorts, chasing and telling him to stop," said Adrian Barajas, a neighbor.

"At one point, in between the two buildings, one of the suspects had a gun and turned and pointed the gun at the officer and, in fear of his life, that's when he opened fire," said Deputy Thomas Gilliland with the Harris County Sheriff's office.

"All of a sudden, I heard boom, boom, boom, boom," said Troy Evans, a neighbor. "I was, like, 'Oh my God, what was that?' Then I heard another round. I told my daughter to hit the ground."

One suspect was pronounced dead a Houston hospital."

Just saw this. HPD officer shoots fleeing teen as he is running away. Regardless of how the law differentiates between LEO's and citizens, this example should serve as a reminder of the old saying, "It ain't over until it's over."

[MechAg94]

I guess it has a lot to do with how far the criminal is from you and are they still armed? ALso, where are they going?

If you are on one side of the house and they are fleeing toward your kid's room, shooting is probably justified. Maybe also if the guy is still inside the house. If the criminal is armed and running away down the street, I doubt I would shoot, but I think I should also not just stand there making myself a big target. If the guy is already out the door and you can still close the door, that might be the best thing to do. If the guy is running down the street with a TV he stole, insurance can replace that. If he is running away with a couple of loaded guns he stole from your house, then you might be able the make the case is a threat to you or someone else. I am curious if there is any case precedent for that last one.

There are so many different scenarios that it is very difficult to make broad statements of fact.

[Jumping Frog]

Great post frog... Great post.
That's what I was thinking. If they are running, with a handgun we'll say, how quick could they turn on the run and make a potshot? I figure in about 1/2 a second, which is about the normal human reaction time I believe. Although their shot would be highly inaccurate, if it's my life at stake, should I take that chance if I have a clear shot? Hmm...

Will you be pursuing or attempting to arrest a fleeing suspect?

Remember, the penal code allows LE to use deadly force in circumstances when the non LEO can. In the scenario above, the suspect actually turned and fired and the officer fired. The bullet struck the suspect in the back, and the action vs reaction testimony to show that the person could have actually fired at the officer. Because of reaction time, the person could be shot in the back by the officer responding to being shot at. It does not mean to just shoot armed fleeing suspects as a matter of course.

The article referenced (a great article) does not suggest, for example, that officers shoot traffic violators preemptively in case the violator will try to shoot the officer. See example 1.

I maintain there is no justification for Joe Citizen for shooting a person fleeing without property based only on the premise of what the suspect "might" do.

Jbarn, your comments prompted me to clarify my thoughts somewhat.

See, you obviously have a background where you know about action versus reaction and deadly force situations. But not everyone reading these forums have a similar understanding.

My point in linking the above studies on reaction time should not be construed as saying, "go ahead and shooting a fleeing robber in the back as a matter of course". No, my point is earlier in this message thread people seemed to be stating, "well now that he is running away he is no longer a threat."

That is a dangerous conclusion, as you well know. I simply want people to realize the science that proves an armed perp is always dangerous whenever they are within gunshot range. Do not relax and breathe a sigh of relief just because they are running away.

That is still the time to be hyper alert, behind cover, and ready to fire as fast as you can react. They are still an immediate threat. And if he so much as twitches in my direction . . .

[txnative1951]

But this begs the question:

Are they truly retreating or are they withdrawing in order to regroup?

If you pursue the enemy, you might be led into a trap. Taking a few pot shots at them as they were retreating was always acceptable "back in the day".

[Javier730]

Dont shoot if they are fleeing but make sure they are not just running for cover.