Is This Legal?

[fimbulwinter]

Corollary to the Corollary Thread:

guy jacks me with a knife, I give him my cash etc., he takes off.

I immideately pull a pistol and shoot him dead. legal?

what if i shoot him in the stomach/legs?

what if i walk back to my car, get a rifle and shoot him from a distance?


lawyers out there?

fim

[spamuell]

I am not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that in the UK all of these are clearly illegal once you are no longer in danger and I'd hope it's the same anywhere.

[-Skeme-]

I don't know about the others, but I'm fairly certain that leaving the scene to get a weapon makes it assault, not self defense.

I'll venture a guess and say that shooting someone in the back also doesn't qualify as self defense. He's cleary running away and you're really not in much danger anymore. Not to mention shooting someone is much more lethal than say tackling him and taking your cash back.

[xorbie]

I think there was a case in Texas about this, that may have gone to the supreme court. Something like a guy caught someone stealing from his toolshed and shot him dead with a shotgun. Google is thy ally.

[Tron]

These are all illegal, but in order of increasing legality, I think it would go:

Shoot the legs --> Shoot the stomach --> Shoot dead --> Leave, get a gun, then shoot dead

[Randy_Refeld]

I think in NV and TX you have a right to protect your property.

[gumpzilla]

I am not a lawyer.

I'd be astonished if this were legal. I've heard that it is illegal in several states to do something like pull a gun on an attacker and keep them there until police arrive., and that's an order of magnitude less clearcut.

[-Skeme-]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there was a case in Texas about this, that may have gone to the supreme court. Something like a guy caught someone stealing from his toolshed and shot him dead with a shotgun. Google is thy ally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think shooting people on your property is legal in Texas. You might need a sign, though.

[James Boston]

It is my understanding that the rule of thumb here is that if you can prove that you felt like you were in danger, you're in the clear. So in any situation where you shoot someone who fleeing the scene, the threat has passed and you're going to jail for murder.

I don't know what the law states if you only shoot to wound.

[sleepyjoeyt]

In MA you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself but you cannot use deadly force to defend property. Not sure about other states.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that it is illegal in several states to do something like pull a gun on an attacker and keep them there until police arrive.

[/ QUOTE ]

no way. if that's true, that's sick.

fim

[Mr. Zero]

[ QUOTE ]
Corollary to the Corollary Thread:

guy jacks me with a knife, I give him my cash etc., he takes off.

I immideately pull a pistol and shoot him dead. legal?

what if i shoot him in the stomach/legs?

what if i walk back to my car, get a rifle and shoot him from a distance?


lawyers out there?

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

The general rule is you are only allowed to exercise a reasonable degree of force in proportion to the threat posed to claim self defense. Once he takes off, self-defense becomes inapplicable because the threat already occurred and is now over - he's running away from you.

Most jurisdictions allow you to exercise deadly force only when faced with deadly force. A guy pulling a knife on you would meet that standard.

As a bonus, under your facts, not only are you criminally liable, but you're liable in tort as well - i.e., wrongful death etc.

[David04]

[ QUOTE ]
These are all illegal, but in order of increasing legality, I think it would go:

Shoot the legs --> Shoot the stomach --> Shoot dead --> Leave, get a gun, then shoot dead

[/ QUOTE ]
Not even close my friend.

[stankybank]

I'm pretty sure you can't shoot someone 'legally' unless your life is in danger. If he jacks your money and starts running away from you, your life isn't in danger, therefore shooting him anywhere is a no-no. If he jacks your money and proceeds to slit your throat, I'm pretty sure a bullet to his head is okay since it's either you or him.

[Lazymeatball]

What if as the guy is running away he yells he's gonna come back and kill your family? I'd feel threatened.

[squeek12]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that in the UK all of these are clearly illegal once you are no longer in danger and I'd hope it's the same anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone steals your car by threatening you with a weapon, I think you should be able to shoot to kill, even if he is trying to get away. Damn left-wingers will have you believe that the reason he is stealing is because he grew up in a bad neighborhood and he was disadvantaged... this is BS. He is stealing because he sucks at life, and gives up his right to live when he threatens to kill others.

[Godfather80]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that in the UK all of these are clearly illegal once you are no longer in danger and I'd hope it's the same anywhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone steals your car by threatening you with a weapon, I think you should be able to shoot to kill, even if he is trying to get away. Damn left-wingers will have you believe that the reason he is stealing is because he grew up in a bad neighborhood and he was disadvantaged... this is BS. He is stealing because he sucks at life, and gives up his right to live when he threatens to kill others.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm...

[KingDan]

No. My friend's dads friend owned a local convenience store. He got robbed, and someone took off with a lot of money. He had a gun under the register, and shot the guy as he was inthe parking lot. It hit the robber in the back, and now he can't walk. The robber sued the owner, as the owner was no longer in danger. The owner of the store pays $$ monthly, which far exceeds how much the original robber stole.

A cop said, half-jokingly "should have just pulled him back into the store."

[DasLeben]

I'm no lawyer, but I do often carry a pistol for personal defense.

[ QUOTE ]
Corollary to the Corollary Thread:

guy jacks me with a knife, I give him my cash etc., he takes off.

I immideately pull a pistol and shoot him dead. legal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. In Arizona (as I'm sure in just about every state), you're only allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself from serious injury or deadly physical force. If you're about to be attacked by a guy with a gun, knife, baseball bat, then yes, you can legally shoot him. If he's running away, you're going to have one hell of a time explaining how you were defending yourself by shooting him in the back.

[ QUOTE ]
what if i shoot him in the stomach/legs?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's attacking you and you shoot him in a non-lethal area and he lives, you run the risk of being sued by his family. That's no joke. More importantly though, shooting to kill ends the fight quickly and effectively.

[ QUOTE ]
what if i walk back to my car, get a rifle and shoot him from a distance?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll go to jail?

[TStoneMBD]

what if a guy much bigger than you breaks into your house, tears down your door, rips the phones out of the walls and just starts packing up his truck with your television and [censored] but never says anything to you nor threatens you. how the hell are you supposed to defend your [censored]? you cant shoot the guy?

[DasLeben]

[ QUOTE ]
what if a guy much bigger than you breaks into your house, tears down your door, rips the phones out of the walls and just starts packing up his truck with your television and [censored] but never says anything to you nor threatens you. how the hell are you supposed to defend your [censored]? you cant shoot the guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can shoot him. You can use deadly force to stop burglary of your home in this state.

There are special crimes that you can stop with deadly force. Burglary, aggravated assault, rape, armed robbery, and child molestation to name a few.

[mmcd]

It is in Texas:

Deadly Force to Protect Property

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect his property to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, theft during the nighttime or criminal mischief during the nighttime, and he reasonably believes that the property cannot be protected by any other means."

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. (Nighttime is defined as the period 30 minutes after sunset until 30 minutes before sunrise.)"

[Popinjay]

Perhaps the better question is, if you shoot him and then leave, is anyone going to know it was you?

[Mr. Zero]

[ QUOTE ]
You can shoot him. You can use deadly force to stop burglary of your home in this state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be very surprised if this is the case. If it is, it's in the VAST minority. Most places prohibted deadly force to protect property alone - even inside the home.

[DasLeben]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the better question is, if you shoot him and then leave, is anyone going to know it was you?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can match the bullet and ballistic characteristics to figure out what kind of gun that was used. From there, they just do some detective work. For example, if someone was shot in this area with a Springfield XD9 subcompact, I'd be questioned since I own one.

[DasLeben]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can shoot him. You can use deadly force to stop burglary of your home in this state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be very surprised if this is the case. If it is, it's in the VAST minority. Most places prohibted deadly force to protect property alone - even inside the home.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Prevent special crimes - A.R.S. § 13-411
a. You may threaten or use both physical force and deadly
physical force against another to the extent you reasonably
believe that such force is immediately necessary to
prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied
structure [of your home],
burglary in the second or first
degree [of your home],
kidnapping, manslaughter,
second or first degree murder, sexual conduct with a
minor, sexual assault, child molestation, armed robbery,
or aggravated assault. You will be presumed to be
acting reasonably if you are acting to prevent the
commission of any of the foregoing offenses. You have no
duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical
force to prevent these special crimes (A.R.S. § 13-411)."

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the better question is, if you shoot him and then leave, is anyone going to know it was you?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can match the bullet and ballistic characteristics to figure out what kind of gun that was used. From there, they just do some detective work. For example, if someone was shot in this area with a Springfield XD9 subcompact, I'd be questioned since I own one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do they know that?

[OtisTheMarsupial]

Not a lawyer yet. Haven't looked at other posts.

Unless he is going towards your home or your family, this is probably illegal in al the scenarios you gave. It's not self-defense when he is leaving and he no longer poses a threat to you or your family or your property.

Certainly illegal if you go to the car and get a shotgun.

[DasLeben]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the better question is, if you shoot him and then leave, is anyone going to know it was you?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can match the bullet and ballistic characteristics to figure out what kind of gun that was used. From there, they just do some detective work. For example, if someone was shot in this area with a Springfield XD9 subcompact, I'd be questioned since I own one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do they know that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's registered.

[RacersEdge]

It almost has to be the case even though I would have no sympathy for the thief. There has to be some sense of "immediate danger", otherwise, where do you draw the line? I mean, what if he robs you, and you see him a cople hours later walking in the street - can you still shoot him?

[Mr. Zero]

[ QUOTE ]
"Prevent special crimes - A.R.S. § 13-411
a. You may threaten or use both physical force and deadly
physical force against another to the extent you reasonably
believe that such force is immediately necessary to
prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied
structure [of your home],
burglary in the second or first
degree [of your home],
kidnapping, manslaughter,
second or first degree murder, sexual conduct with a
minor, sexual assault, child molestation, armed robbery,
or aggravated assault. You will be presumed to be
acting reasonably if you are acting to prevent the
commission of any of the foregoing offenses. You have no
duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical
force to prevent these special crimes (A.R.S. § 13-411)."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice. A good Republican state you're in.

[DMBFan23]

wtf? I'm pretty liberal and I think I should be allowed to pop a cap in the ass of anyone who's gonna enter my home, threaten my family, and steal my [censored].

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
They can match the bullet and ballistic characteristics to figure out what kind of gun that was used. From there, they just do some detective work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Use a shotgun - no ballistics! /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[DasLeben]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice. A good Republican state you're in.

[/ QUOTE ]

AZ is a dominantly Republican state, but I'm a registered Libertarian. I'm liberal, but I still think I should be able to carry guns n'[censored]. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[zephed]

[ QUOTE ]
wtf? I'm pretty liberal and I think I should be allowed to pop a cap in the ass of anyone who's gonna enter my home, threaten my family, and steal my [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
Me too.

[spamuell]

Damn left-wingers will have you believe that the reason he is stealing is because he grew up in a bad neighborhood and he was disadvantaged... this is BS. He is stealing because he sucks at life, and gives up his right to live when he threatens to kill others.

No. I have no idea why he is stealing. I do believe, however, the following which makes me think it is extremely wrong to shoot this person:

1. It is not the responsibility of the victims of crime to appropriate punishment (and that's what this is, punishment and revenge, you're no longer in any danger).

2. The legal consequences of a criminal's actions should be proportional to the crime (isn't this in your Consitution somewhere?). I don't think death or even serious injury should ever be the cost of stealing property.

I don't care if the person grew up in a rich home, with loving parents and friends, plenty of opportunities and no need to steal, they still don't deserve capital punishment.

Which of these do you disagree with?

[squeek12]

Very well-done and thought out. I do not object to what you have said, and after further thought, you are right. If the criminal threatened the victim with a weapon, he ought to be brought to a room, an unloaded gun put to his head, and scared out of his wits. Then he should should have to pay the victim back twice what he stole to compensate for emotional damage and inconvenience.

BTW, I moranically came out and used the term "left-wingers," but you replied very thoughtfully, instead of just calling me some conservative zealot (I consider myself libertarian). NH sir, you have earned my respect.

[spamuell]

Awesome. I respect you a lot more now as well, for actually changing your mind in a discussion on the internet.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
It is my understanding that the rule of thumb here is that if you can prove that you felt like you were in danger, you're in the clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ho hum. I wish that was the case in the UK.

Here, it don't matter what you 'feel', the burden of proof of someone's intent is on you.

For example, you hear a noise downstairs at night, you get up, walk quietly past your sleeping childrens' rooms, and turn on the stairs to see a dark shape coming towards you. In the shadows you perceive there may be other figures behind this first one, but can't be sure.

If you attack this guy, and you can't prove he didn't mean to do harm, you could end up in chokey.

sick, isn't it.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I don't know how it is in US. Had a similar scenario here in Norway. Two guys robbed one guy by taking $3k out of his pocket (they knew he had the money). He attacked them and I joined in the attack. One of the robbers sliced the guy in the face with his gun, the robbers then tried to escape, the victim tried to enter the car; and then they did some maneuver to push him into the ground. The guy was injured, the robbers indicted. In court the defence lawyer kept nagging about how the robbers acted in self defence and panic since me and the victim had attacked them /images/graemlins/ooo.gif.

He scored a few points on it and that got me thinking. The victim and I had actually carried out a revenge, which the justice system does not allow (contrary to your instincts). It, on the other hand, allows the original criminals to defend against the revenge.

[Bulldog]

"Law & Order" for all the answers (http://www.dickinson.edu/~buchan/docs/lo/completelist.html)

050. Self Defense 11/11/92
Adam Arkin [George Costas], Ron Rifkin [Alex Dracos], Marissa Chibas [Christine Costas], Paul Butler [Judge Edmond Francis], Jon Manfrellotti [Detective Morelli], Frank Savino [Nick Fortas], Robert Hirschfeld [Abrams], Johnnie Mae [Laticia Ramos], Ron Brice [Marvin Welles], Peter Yoshida [Joon Rhee], Florence Anglim [Mrs. Pinkskey], Mick o'Rourke [Matt Donegan], Andrew Spikes [Kott], Waichinjlto [Mrs. Rhee], Paul Schulze [Garfield], Philip LeStrange [McDowell]. Lou Martini Jr. [CSU Policeman], Carol Anne Hansen [Jury Forewoman], Robert Coffin [Court Clerk]

Greek immigrant George Costas shoots two intruders in his store and claims self-defense, but the evidence isn't all on his side and questions arise about how far his right to defend himself and his property extends.

[evans075]

This reminds me of something my dad said once about someone breaking into your home. He said "Make sure you shoot em before they get to the door, and if they make it to the door don't let them fall into the yard." Technically I believe that if there back is to you then you can't shoot them. Reasoning is that they are no longer Threatning you and are now "leaving". That won't stop me from shooting them though!

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
Here, it don't matter what you 'feel', the burden of proof of someone's intent is on you.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm no lawyer, but I think it's similar here. I just didn't clarify. If the prosecution can prove you had no reason to feel that you were in danger, they can get you for murder. If the prosecution can prove there was no real threat, and the defense can prove you had reason to think otherwise, you're probably looking at manslaughter- a lesser charge. The OP wanted to know what the law was in the event you KNEW the danger had passed, but killed them anyway.