Zone1 If someone attempts to rob you At knife or gunpoint do you believe you have a right to shoot them in response?

[skye]

I said it before but will say again....

If somebody attempts to rob me at knife or gun point.....I'll shoot him/her/it

No questions asked.

Not feeling guilty either.

 

[protectionist]

It should be noted that

If someone attempts to rob you At knife or gunpoint​

you can't shoot them unless you're carrying a gun. so if you don't have one, you better get one, and learn how to use it.

 

[protectionist]

You're switching back to the "fleeing felon" doctrine as it relates to law enforcement. If you have details regarding where it's been successfully employed by a civilian I'd be interested in seeing it.

I haven't "switched" anything. The Fleeing Felon Rule has been law since 1985 with Tennessee vs Garner.

As for civilians, I stated that case in Post # 175 > in Michigan, in People vs Couch, and in South Carolina in State vs Cooney + the state action doctrine.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I haven't "switched" anything. The Fleeing Felon Rule has been law since 1985 with Tennessee vs Garner.

As for civilians, I stated that case in Post # 175 > in Michigan, in People vs Couch, and in South Carolina in State vs Cooney + the state action doctrine.

This is a VERY long read and it doesn't exactly sanction the use of deadly force by civilians to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon. Doing so, the shooter pretty much assumes the same risks of liability that would occur in any other shooting except one cannot claim self-defense (because it's not).

Honestly, it reminded me a lot of the Ahmad Arbery case except the defendants in the Arbery case had even less grounds for suspecting and chasing him down than in these cases.

It's a good find though, thanks.
People v. Couch

 

[protectionist]

This is a VERY long read and it doesn't exactly sanction the use of deadly force by civilians to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon. Doing so, the shooter pretty much assumes the same risks of liability that would occur in any other shooting except one cannot claim self-defense (because it's not).

Honestly, it reminded me a lot of the Ahmad Arbery case except the defendants in the Arbery case had even less grounds for suspecting and chasing him down than in these cases.

It's a good find though, thanks.
People v. Couch

It DOES sanction th use of deadly force by civilians to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon. That's exactly what is does, and this has been the law in the US ever since.

Self-defense includes not just defending oneself, but also includes the defense of others. With the FFR, the idea is defense of everyone in the community, if the FF were allowed to escape, and thereby present danger to all of them.

 

[Rigby5]

That’s the situation you’re walking down the street and somebody approaches you and pulls out a knife or gun and attempts to rob you saying “give me what you have”. Do you then have a right to shoot that person?

Depends.
If they look like they are about to cause harm, then you can kill in defense.
But if you have alternatives, they are not close by and not aiming at you, then you should not just kill.

 

[Rigby5]

It DOES sanction th use of deadly force by civilians to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon. That's exactly what is does, and this has been the law in the US ever since.

Self-defense includes not just defending oneself, but also includes the defense of others. With the FFR, the idea is defense of everyone in the community, if the FF were allowed to escape, and thereby present danger to all of them.

The case of a "fleeing felon" is only true if the person has been convicted and is a fleeing escapee.
If the police just think the person committed a felony, but has not yet been convicted, then the use of deadly force to prevent fleeing is not legal.

 

[jwoodie]

I'd say pack your bags and move.

Only if you promise to stay.

 

[Rigby5]

Not sure why that is arrestable? The armed criminal took your stuff. Should be able to put it down?

If you chased them for 2 blocks, they don't have your stuff any more, so you have no right to harm them.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

In my state you do. If someone is busting your car window, you can shoot them and not wait for them to get inside your car.

 

[protectionist]

The case of a "fleeing felon" is only true if the person has been convicted and is a fleeing escapee.
If the police just think the person committed a felony, but has not yet been convicted, then the use of deadly force to prevent fleeing is not legal.

1.
2. Laws differ from state to state.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It DOES sanction th use of deadly force by civilians to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon. That's exactly what is does, and this has been the law in the US ever since.

Self-defense includes not just defending oneself, but also includes the defense of others. With the FFR, the idea is defense of everyone in the community, if the FF were allowed to escape, and thereby present danger to all of them.

You have to read the rulings to understand better what I mean when I say that the case(s) don't exactly sanction the fleeing felon statute for multiple reasons.

1. I didn't see whether or not any of these rulings set legal precedence for the rest of the United States. Our gun laws are legislated and enforced at the state level so what is legal in one or a handful of states, doesn't necessarily make it legal in the rest of the U.S.​

​

2. In the Cooney case (The people [of the State of South Carolina] v Cooney), there were two defendants - one was acquitted, the other was found guilty of murdering the person they allegedly were attempting to apprehend:

"The trial judge did not err in refusing to charge the jury on the law of involuntary manslaughter as the evidence did not support such charge. Appellant admitted shooting the gun towards the ground at the victim's feet. Appellant not only admitted firing the gun but admitted that he intended to shoot at the victim. There was no evidence to support a claim of mere criminal negligence in the use of a dangerous instrumentality.​

Appellant asserts the court erred in not giving an instruction on voluntary manslaughter.[3] Voluntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being in sudden heat of passion upon a sufficient legal provocation. State v. Norris, 253 S.C. 31, 168 S.E.2d 564 (1969). There was no evidence presented that appellant was in a sudden heat of passion. The only reason appellant gave for shooting the victim was because he was escaping. The victim did not attack appellant, nor was he armed. The victim was fifteen to twenty feet away at the time appellant fired his gun three to four times at the victim. There was no evidence that appellant was provoked by the victim at the time of the killing. The trial court did not err in declining to charge voluntary manslaughter...."​

3. The following are excerpts and my notes/comments from The People of [the State of Michigan] v Couch:​

• "Criminal homicide, or more precisely murder and manslaughter, has been a statutory offense in Michigan since 1846"
  Note: This was prior to the abolishment of slavery in the U.S.
  
  
• murder and manslaughter, *421 arguably, are no longer common-law crimes in this state, but rather became statutory crimes as early as 1846, and we are no longer free to redefine what is not justifiable homicide by holding that a citizen is "not privileged to use deadly force to prevent a fleeing felon's escape unless the arresting citizen reasonably believes that the felon poses a threat of serious physical harm to that citizen or to others." Post, p 440.[8]
  
  
• It is true that the Legislature has authorized private citizens to make arrests, see MCL 764.16; MSA 28.875. However, the statutory language does not support the contention that the Legislature *439 authorized the use of deadly force by private citizens arresting a fleeing felon. Legislative history is silent on this issue. Such authorization was made by case law, not statute. See Gonsler, Whitty, supra.
  
  
• Providing some practical reasons why the common-law rule should not be applied in the present, the Court in Garner expressed:
  • It has been pointed out many times that the common-law rule is best understood in light of the fact that it arose at a time when virtually all felonies were punishable by death. "Though effected without the protections and formalities of an orderly trial and conviction, the killing of a resisting or fleeing felon resulted in no greater consequences than those authorized for punishment of the felony of which the individual was charged or suspected." [Garner at 13-14. Citations omitted. See also Whitty at 415, citing LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law, § 56, p 405; Pearson, The right to kill in making arrests, 28 Mich L R 957, 974-975 (1930); Commonwealth v Chermansky, 430 Pa 170; 242 A2d 237 (1968).]
    
    
  • Like the Garner Court, we are not persuaded that the shooting of a nondangerous fleeing suspected felon is so vital as to outweigh the sanctity of the suspect's interest in his own life.[13] The *440 consequences of the continued use of an unmodified common-law deadly force rule, death or serious injury, far outweigh the rule's alleged utility especially in this case where the suspected felon did not appear to pose a serious threat of harm and did voluntarily retreat pleading, "Okay, man, don't shoot."
  • the Court of Appeals reasoned that despite Garner, the Court could "not give [a] defendant permission to use deadly force in a situation where it would be denied to a law enforcement officer having broader powers to effect an arrest." (Emphasis added.) We agree.
  • • Accordingly, we would hold that a private citizen effecting an arrest pursuant to MCL 764.16; MSA 28.875 is not privileged to use deadly force to prevent a fleeing felon's escape unless the arresting citizen reasonably believes that the felon poses a threat of serious physical harm to that citizen or to others. In the event excessive force is used, the citizen arrester may be subject to criminal prosecution commensurate with the injury caused.

This is not all of it and it doesn't explain everything, particularly regarding when the person attempting to make the arrest is a private citizen attempting to affect a citizen's arrest, which is one of the reasons I said that it reminded me of the Ahmad Arbery situation.​

​

What you and the OP have described is really sketchy BECAUSE it means people who are OPENLY hostile and bigoted against certain minorities in our country desire the LEGAL leeway to be judge, jury & executioner based solely on your own interpretation(s) of a scenario. That's the same thing the guys who shot & killed Ahmad Arbery did and not only were they mistaken regarding their own rights, but they were WRONG in their interpretation of the laws unless they just didn't care what the laws say and decided to do what they wanted to do anyway.​

​

In a nutshell you're basically asking us, the public, to trust that you will make a sound, unbiased evaluation of a scenario, possibly while under a huge amount of stress and will get it right every time. That's too much to ask from my perspective, at least in this situation, involving these actors.​

​

Since you're in Tampa I'm sure you've read the following but do you understand it?

​

​

​

​

​

 

[FranklinRoosevelt_FTW]

That doesn't make your statement any more correct. And just because person A is an armed drug dealer doesn't mean that everyone else gets to shoot person B in the back for running away from the police.

I understand wanting to retaliate against someone who has committed a crime against you, but some of you sound like you're just itching to shoot someone. Or have someone shot.

Not the case my friend. And that is an inappropriate and unprovoked comment from you.

I’m stating a fact. I don’t have the golden answer to crime in the USA.

It’s the fact that in the USA a lot of criminals are armed and dangerous…. so they are therefore a threat to society when they are running from police.

 

[Man With A Plan]

That’s the situation you’re walking down the street and somebody approaches you and pulls out a knife or gun and attempts to rob you saying “give me what you have”. Do you then have a right to shoot that person?

I would say yes...but not more than six times! (Make them count!)

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Not the case my friend. And that is an inappropriate and unprovoked comment from you.

I've been posting on this board a bit longer than you have, since 2018 and I speak from personal experience. I did a search on my posting history and "George Zimmerman".

If you can read any of this and come back and tell me that my comment was not accurate, then I will retract it and apologize.
Search results for query: george zimmerman

 

[FranklinRoosevelt_FTW]

I've been posting on this board a bit longer than you have, since 2018 and I speak from personal experience. I did a search on my posting history and "George Zimmerman".

If you can read any of this and come back and tell me that my comment was not accurate, then I will retract it and apologize.
Search results for query: george zimmerman

That’s a different topic with respect. That shooting comment was not necessary. I don’t engage in such personal attacks or assumptions.

You saying but some of you sound like you're just itching to shoot someone. Or have someone shot.

Was not necessary that’s my issue.

I’m simply making a point based on the facts. That specifically is that in the USA a lot of criminals have guns… that makes it a very dangerous situation when one runs from the cops.. ..police have a very stressful job in this country they don’t know if the suspect running is going to turn around and shoot them at any point.

 

[protectionist]

You have to read the rulings to understand better what I mean when I say that the case(s) don't exactly sanction the fleeing felon statute for multiple reasons.

1. I didn't see whether or not any of these rulings set legal precedence for the rest of the United States. Our gun laws are legislated and enforced at the state level so what is legal in one or a handful of states, doesn't necessarily make it legal in the rest of the U.S.​

​

2. In the Cooney case (The people [of the State of South Carolina] v Cooney), there were two defendants - one was acquitted, the other was found guilty of murdering the person they allegedly were attempting to apprehend:​

​

"The trial judge did not err in refusing to charge the jury on the law of involuntary manslaughter as the evidence did not support such charge. Appellant admitted shooting the gun towards the ground at the victim's feet. Appellant not only admitted firing the gun but admitted that he intended to shoot at the victim. There was no evidence to support a claim of mere criminal negligence in the use of a dangerous instrumentality.​

Appellant asserts the court erred in not giving an instruction on voluntary manslaughter.[3] Voluntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being in sudden heat of passion upon a sufficient legal provocation. State v. Norris, 253 S.C. 31, 168 S.E.2d 564 (1969). There was no evidence presented that appellant was in a sudden heat of passion. The only reason appellant gave for shooting the victim was because he was escaping. The victim did not attack appellant, nor was he armed. The victim was fifteen to twenty feet away at the time appellant fired his gun three to four times at the victim. There was no evidence that appellant was provoked by the victim at the time of the killing. The trial court did not err in declining to charge voluntary manslaughter...."​

3. The following are excerpts and my notes/comments from The People of [the State of Michigan] v Couch:​

• "Criminal homicide, or more precisely murder and manslaughter, has been a statutory offense in Michigan since 1846"
  Note: This was prior to the abolishment of slavery in the U.S.
  
  
• murder and manslaughter, *421 arguably, are no longer common-law crimes in this state, but rather became statutory crimes as early as 1846, and we are no longer free to redefine what is not justifiable homicide by holding that a citizen is "not privileged to use deadly force to prevent a fleeing felon's escape unless the arresting citizen reasonably believes that the felon poses a threat of serious physical harm to that citizen or to others." Post, p 440.[8]
  
  
• It is true that the Legislature has authorized private citizens to make arrests, see MCL 764.16; MSA 28.875. However, the statutory language does not support the contention that the Legislature *439 authorized the use of deadly force by private citizens arresting a fleeing felon. Legislative history is silent on this issue. Such authorization was made by case law, not statute. See Gonsler, Whitty, supra.
  
  
• Providing some practical reasons why the common-law rule should not be applied in the present, the Court in Garner expressed:
  • It has been pointed out many times that the common-law rule is best understood in light of the fact that it arose at a time when virtually all felonies were punishable by death. "Though effected without the protections and formalities of an orderly trial and conviction, the killing of a resisting or fleeing felon resulted in no greater consequences than those authorized for punishment of the felony of which the individual was charged or suspected." [Garner at 13-14. Citations omitted. See also Whitty at 415, citing LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law, § 56, p 405; Pearson, The right to kill in making arrests, 28 Mich L R 957, 974-975 (1930); Commonwealth v Chermansky, 430 Pa 170; 242 A2d 237 (1968).]
    
    
  • Like the Garner Court, we are not persuaded that the shooting of a nondangerous fleeing suspected felon is so vital as to outweigh the sanctity of the suspect's interest in his own life.[13] The *440 consequences of the continued use of an unmodified common-law deadly force rule, death or serious injury, far outweigh the rule's alleged utility especially in this case where the suspected felon did not appear to pose a serious threat of harm and did voluntarily retreat pleading, "Okay, man, don't shoot."
  • the Court of Appeals reasoned that despite Garner, the Court could "not give [a] defendant permission to use deadly force in a situation where it would be denied to a law enforcement officer having broader powers to effect an arrest." (Emphasis added.) We agree.
  • • Accordingly, we would hold that a private citizen effecting an arrest pursuant to MCL 764.16; MSA 28.875 is not privileged to use deadly force to prevent a fleeing felon's escape unless the arresting citizen reasonably believes that the felon poses a threat of serious physical harm to that citizen or to others. In the event excessive force is used, the citizen arrester may be subject to criminal prosecution commensurate with the injury caused.

This is not all of it and it doesn't explain everything, particularly regarding when the person attempting to make the arrest is a private citizen attempting to affect a citizen's arrest, which is one of the reasons I said that it reminded me of the Ahmad Arbery situation.​

​

What you and the OP have described is really sketchy BECAUSE it means people who are OPENLY hostile and bigoted against certain minorities in our country desire the LEGAL leeway to be judge, jury & executioner based solely on your own interpretation(s) of a scenario. That's the same thing the guys who shot & killed Ahmad Arbery did and not only were they mistaken regarding their own rights, but they were WRONG in their interpretation of the laws unless they just didn't care what the laws say and decided to do what they wanted to do anyway.​

​

In a nutshell you're basically asking us, the public, to trust that you will make a sound, unbiased evaluation of a scenario, possibly while under a huge amount of stress and will get it right every time. That's too much to ask from my perspective, at least in this situation, involving these actors.​

​

Since you're in Tampa I'm sure you've read the following but do you understand it?​

View attachment 947457​

​

​

​

​

​

I'll read this when I have more time. It;s long. in the meantime, yes different states have different laws, but th Garner vs Tennessee is a US Supreme Court ruling, so it should apply to the whole US, no?

 

[protectionist]

That’s a different topic with respect. That shooting comment was not necessary. I don’t engage in such personal attacks or assumptions.

You saying but some of you sound like you're just itching to shoot someone. Or have someone shot.

Was not necessary that’s my issue.

I’m simply making a point based on the facts. That specifically is that in the USA a lot of criminals have guns… that makes it a very dangerous situation when one runs from the cops.. ..police have a very stressful job in this country they don’t know if the suspect running is going to turn around and shoot them at any point.

That's another good point. In general, police shoot suspects, whenever the suspect's hand(s) disappear from view, because the suspect could pull a gun, and shoot in a fraction of a second. The same is true of a suspect running away.

 

[WinterBorn]

YES, That person surrendered their life the moment they decided to introduce lethal force.

I am certainly not putting my life in the hands of someone who has already shown a complete disregard for the law and for other people's lives. Yep, I'd shoot'em. I'd call an ambulance for them immediately, but I would shoot them.

 

[Dr.Know]

A liberal would claim that YOU DEPRIVED THE ASSAILANT OF HIS LIVELIHOOD, so no, you cant defend yourself in Joe Bidens world. Look how NYC turned loose the NEWCOMERS that attacked those police.

Another point is, if people start defending against assaults,,,,then word would spread to the Third World and LESS NEWCOMERS would come to the USA and go to Canada or UK. How are we going to destroy the social and economic fabric of the middle class if we cant flood the USA with cheap labor ?

When I go to Walmart, most of the people in there are Hispanics and they have lots of money; strange how Democrats claim to be for the poor people ( Just not American poor)

Guys, most of the so called "Liberal Posts" are done by AI Bots. They are trying to arouse anger in the populous in order to trigger mass unrest and the succeeding martial law.