flintknapper wrote:
You immediately rack the slide (not knowing the condition of the weapon) and cover the perp. while gaining distance.
Question: You are now armed, the perp. is unarmed. Are you "legally" justified to "threaten deadly force" by holding him at gunpoint. Think about it.
Well guys,
As you can see, it is easy to come up with different opinons...when no more details (than were given), are available.
Many fine points were made, and I believe this group has a very good "tactical handle" on what might be an appropriate response.
I was glad to see gigag04 pick up on the word "Legally", and present a challenge to its use. I agree with him 100% for several reasons.
First, the word "legal/legally", has the basic meaning of: By law, or conforming to the law.
Second, the word "law" (as in legal), can be taken to mean: A rule, or body of rules.
Any of the lawyers here will tell you that "the law" is only "a good starting point". If it were all cut and dried...we would have no need for judges, lawyers or juries. We have lawyers to argue the "law", and judges to interpret it. So... while we may want to present certain penal codes to support our position, in the end....."justification" will ultimately be determined by: Prior case law, other legal precedents, and most importantly
(what another reasonable and prudent person) might have done in the same situation. So,
"The Answer" from a legal perspective is an absolute "we'll see"!
From a purely tactical standpoint, if you
don't cover the threat until you have retreated to a safe distance, then we need to talk. In this case, there has been no verbal threat. But, we might
"reasonably" deduce that the perp.
intentionally threatened deadly force, or was about to use deadly force...by his actions alone.
By disarming him, we have only succeeded (for the moment) to deprive him the use
of that particular weapon. His intentions may still be the same, and he might very well have another weapon, or try to regain the one taken from him.
For these reasons, I think it is
"prudent" to cover the threat until such time as you gain 25 or more feet between you, and he clearly indicates that he wishes to disengage.
At this point, you'll want to be mindful that LEO is probably on the way, and most likely all the information they have is: Man with a gun! If you still have it in your hand when they get there, then you're braver (or more foolish) than I am.
All of the above is my opinion only! It is worth, just exactly what it cost you: $.000000
I hope no one is too disappointed....thinking that there would be a definitive "right" answer at the end of all this. It was meant only to stimulate some thought, and I think you guys are pretty darn sharp about it!
