I agree that the "defense of property" provisions do not appear to apply. The property neither belongs to us nor were we commissioned to guard it, so these provisions would not justify deadly force.surprise_i'm_armed wrote:After perusing the law quoted in a post above it seems that a CHL customer of the bank
would not be justified in shooting this perp since:
1. The robbery happened in the daytime, not the nighttime. We have more leeway if it's night.
2. Although we might be justified in shooting him to stop his escaping with the loot,
the loot belongs to the bank, not us as a customer in line.
3. The bank, as a 3rd party, did not commission us to guard their property.
Comments from the peanut gallery welcomed.
It does seem, however, that intervening with deadly force would be justified while the gun is being "brandished" and the crime of aggravated robbery is imminent. At this point, the threat to both yourself and to other people would seem to justify deadly force under either "defense of person" or "defense of third person".
The closer the guy gets to the door and the more obvious that he is retreating, however, the more shaky the grounds for intervening with deadly force would seem to become. That is, it would be harder to demonstrate that the force was "immediately necessary" to prevent the criminal's use of deadly force (because he is leaving) or to prevent the "imminent commission" of aggravated robbery (the robbery is no longer imminent but rather progressing quickly toward being completed.) Once again, defense of property would not seem to be applicable at this point as it is not our property being stolen nor are we commissioned to guard the property.
Of course, IANAL and am just reading the quoted statutes.