TexasCHLforum.com

jbarn wrote:

locke_n_load wrote: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 . . .

jbarn wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote: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.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Oldgringo wrote: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.