Armed robbers can now kill victims in self defense and not be charged with murder

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

In reality the deciding factor was most likely race aka..........the robber black the store clerk white.....that would be my analysis of the situation.

Under Section 776.041, Florida Statutes, self-defense is not available to a person who is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

Can Force Be Used to Defend Property?​

In California, the owner or person in possession of the personal property can use reasonable force to protect their property from harm. Furthermore, a person can also use force to protect the property of a family member or guest from harm.

Reasonable force is defined as the amount of force that a reasonable person in a similar situation would believe is necessary to protect the property from harm.

The deadly force used in the protection of the property is authorized in the following circumstances.

• To defend a habitation or property against someone who intends to commit a felony by either violence or surprise.
• To defend a residence or property against an intruder attempting to enter that property violently with the intent of committing violence against someone inside.

These are entirely different situations

 

[Persuader]

Once the attack ends so does the justification for the use of lethal force. Therefore if the victim of the first attack chases and opens fire on the attacker in the first attack we have a brand new situation and a new attacker and victim.

PSA: Don't Chase Criminals

A recent trend involving armed citizens chasing down fleeing criminals has resulted in physical and legal ramifications. This practice should be avoided.

www.usacarry.com

***snip***

Giving Chase Changes the Legal Dynamic​

After a crime is committed, even if it involves armed robbery, once a criminal actor flees the situation the crime is over. Your desire for retribution or revenge has nothing to do with it in the eyes of the legal system. Once the threat is over, the justification for lethal force is over. If you pursue a fleeing criminal that just stole something from you, the law now sees you as the aggressor that is starting a separate fight. You might not like it, but this is how the law views the circumstance.

Being the aggressor that starts the problem is never good for you under the scrutiny of the legal system. Upon making contact with a fleeing criminal actor, you will be held accountable for any force that transpires. If everything goes well and you tackle and detain a robber or shoplifter you may be hailed a good Samaritan. What if things get violent and you end up using force? What happens if that action results in significant injury or death for the fleeing criminal? You may face severe legal repercussions.

Chasing criminals, in general, is a no-go for the citizen. Not only is it incredibly dangerous for all involved, but it is also legally precarious. Unless the fleeing criminal has an innocent person in their hands, there is no legal justification for it. In the event of witnessing a robbery or shoplifting, be a good witness. That means call the police, and provide a good description, if possible. Leave the task of chasing criminal actors to those in uniform.

What a load of pc nonsense.................the bottom line..........the judiciary has become so politically correct it should no lnger be referred to as the justice dept. A more accurate title would be The bureau of political correctness.....aka the bureau that has the muscle to enforce politically correct nonsense.

Again...............those persons who are engaged in a crime ......whether they are at the moment in the midst of the crime or whether they are fleeing from the crime scene are not entitled to claim self defense....it is that simple..........just good common sense and basic justice.

 

[Batcat]

What a load of pc nonsense.................the bottom line..........the judiciary has become so politically correct it should no lnger be referred to as the justice dept. A more accurate title would be The bureau of poitical correctness.....aka the bureau that has the muscle to enforce politically correct nonsense.

Again...............those persons who are engaged in a crime ......whether they are at the moment in the midst of the crie or whether they are fleeing from the crime scene are not entitled to claim self defense....it is that simple..........just good common sense and basic justice.

Have you ever attended a concealed weapons class?

The policy that once an attack ends the reason for the use of legitimate force also ends predates “pc nonsense.’“

PSA: Don't Chase Criminals

A recent trend involving armed citizens chasing down fleeing criminals has resulted in physical and legal ramifications. This practice should be avoided.

www.usacarry.com

***snip***

Finally, avoid the most outrageous mistake we have seen happen on occasion: do not shoot at a fleeing thief. Does the criminal no longer pose a threat to anyone? Then there is no justification for shooting him as he flees. There are exceptions. Such as an active shooter who may be fleeing only to gain cover and fire back. But a robber who didn’t hurt anyone and is now running out the door is no longer an imminent threat. From a safety standpoint, pursuing criminals or shooting at them as they run is a no go for the citizen.

Giving Chase Changes the Legal Dynamic​

After a crime is committed, even if it involves armed robbery, once a criminal actor flees the situation the crime is over. Your desire for retribution or revenge has nothing to do with it in the eyes of the legal system. Once the threat is over, the justification for lethal force is over. If you pursue a fleeing criminal that just stole something from you, the law now sees you as the aggressor that is starting a separate fight. You might not like it, but this is how the law views the circumstance….emphasis added

 

[Failzero]

5 Million Illegals / Getaways & Visa Overstayers And Refugees over last 30 months will ensure Crime rises by 25-40 % Nationwide in next 6 months

 

[Batcat]

5 Million Illegals / Getaways & Visa Overstayers And Refugees over last 30 months will ensure Crime rises by 25-40 % Nationwide in next 6 months

If crime does rise, the fact that illegals had any role will be largely ignored by the liberal mainstream media.

 

[Persuader]

Have you ever attended a concealed weapons class?

The policy that once an attack ends the reason for the use of legitimate force also ends predates “pc nonsense.’“

PSA: Don't Chase Criminals

A recent trend involving armed citizens chasing down fleeing criminals has resulted in physical and legal ramifications. This practice should be avoided.

www.usacarry.com

***snip***

Finally, avoid the most outrageous mistake we have seen happen on occasion: do not shoot at a fleeing thief. Does the criminal no longer pose a threat to anyone? Then there is no justification for shooting him as he flees. There are exceptions. Such as an active shooter who may be fleeing only to gain cover and fire back. But a robber who didn’t hurt anyone and is now running out the door is no longer an imminent threat. From a safety standpoint, pursuing criminals or shooting at them as they run is a no go for the citizen.

Giving Chase Changes the Legal Dynamic​

After a crime is committed, even if it involves armed robbery, once a criminal actor flees the situation the crime is over. Your desire for retribution or revenge has nothing to do with it in the eyes of the legal system. Once the threat is over, the justification for lethal force is over. If you pursue a fleeing criminal that just stole something from you, the law now sees you as the aggressor that is starting a separate fight. You might not like it, but this is how the law views the circumstance….emphasis added

That stuidity only prevails in certain liberal states notably Calif.

anyone that fails to recognize the stupidity of such law is either heavily biased or a shallow thinker.

First of all how does one know it is over? i.e. the store clerk runs in a backroom finds a pistol and comes out shooting....the perp runs out of the store .......which in and of itself does not mean absolutely that the incident is over....the perp may decide once he is out of immediate danger to go back and finish his business.

Or he may decide to wait a couple of days and go back and kill the store clerk who had tried to kill him''

More than one way to look at this controversy....the p.c will see it one way....the more astute will see it another.

Bottom line it is a ridiculous concept of the law that allows a perpetrator to claim self defense either whilst he is committing the act or trying to flee the scene.

Under Section 776.041, Florida Statutes, self-defense is not available to a person who is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

However it cannot be denied that the concept of self defense is gradually being eroded by pc politicians judges and juries.

Most especially in cases where a white kills a black......in a nutshell blacks are being given extra JUDICIAL protection due to the fact that many ignorant people have been brainwashed into believing blacks are usually if not always the victim.


Don't erode right to self-defense
The George Zimmerman case had nothing to do with "stand your ground." It was never used as a defense in his trial. His entire defense was based on his use of deadly force because he reasonably believed that it was necessary to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." It was not a factor in the Michael Dunn case either.

Dan Gelber and others are misrepresenting the facts in their determination to weaken Florida's self-defense laws because of their anti-gun bias. The "stand your ground" law has simply relieved those law-abiding citizens in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm of the duty to retreat, which would put them at a disadvantage in defending themselves from serious criminal attack.

To force law-abiding citizens to risk criminal charges while legally defending themselves because they did not make a "reasonable" attempt to retreat is absurd and self-defeating. The "stand your ground" law puts the attacked on a more even keel, more likely to succeed in legal self-defense.

 

[Failzero]

That stuidity only prevails in certain liberal states notably Calif.

anyone that fails to recognize the stupidity of such law is either heavily biased or a shallow thinker.

First of all how does one know it is over? i.e. the store clerk runs in a backroom finds a pistol and comes out shooting....the perp runs out of the store .......which in and of itself does not mean absolutely that the incident is over....the perp may decide once he is out of immediate danger to go back and finish his business.

Or he may decide to wait a couple of days and go back and kill the store clerk who had tried to kill him''

More than one way to look at this controversy....the p.c will see it one way....the more astute will see it another.

Bottom line it is a ridiculous concept of the law that allows a perpetrator to claim self defense either whilst he is committing the act or trying to flee the scene.

I have no doubt that if I use my EDC Weapon with my California CCW that it could be the last time as my CCW will most likely be yanked ( even if it’s a good shoot and I’m not prosecuted )

 

[SavannahMann]

That stuidity only prevails in certain liberal states notably Calif.

anyone that fails to recognize the stupidity of such law is either heavily biased or a shallow thinker.

First of all how does one know it is over? i.e. the store clerk runs in a backroom finds a pistol and comes out shooting....the perp runs out of the store .......which in and of itself does not mean absolutely that the incident is over....the perp may decide once he is out of immediate danger to go back and finish his business.

Or he may decide to wait a couple of days and go back and kill the store clerk who had tried to kill him''

More than one way to look at this controversy....the p.c will see it one way....the more astute will see it another.

Bottom line it is a ridiculous concept of the law that allows a perpetrator to claim self defense either whilst he is committing the act or trying to flee the scene.

Under Section 776.041, Florida Statutes, self-defense is not available to a person who is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

However it cannot be denied that the concept of self defense is gradually being eroded by pc politicians judges and juries.

Most especially in cases where a white kills a black......in a nutshell blacks are being given extra JUDICIAL protection due to the fact that many ignorant people have been brainwashed into believing blacks are usually if not always the victim.


Don't erode right to self-defense
The George Zimmerman case had nothing to do with "stand your ground." It was never used as a defense in his trial. His entire defense was based on his use of deadly force because he reasonably believed that it was necessary to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." It was not a factor in the Michael Dunn case either.

Dan Gelber and others are misrepresenting the facts in their determination to weaken Florida's self-defense laws because of their anti-gun bias. The "stand your ground" law has simply relieved those law-abiding citizens in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm of the duty to retreat, which would put them at a disadvantage in defending themselves from serious criminal attack.

To force law-abiding citizens to risk criminal charges while legally defending themselves because they did not make a "reasonable" attempt to retreat is absurd and self-defeating. The "stand your ground" law puts the attacked on a more even keel, more likely to succeed in legal self-defense.

Nonsense. Remember Michael Drejka?

Florida man who shot unarmed man in parking space dispute sentenced to 20 years

Michael Drejka, who fatally shot Markeis McGlockton, 28, outside a Clearwater convenience store in July 2018, was found guilty of manslaughter in August.

www.nbcnews.com

Michael Drejka shot when the threat was retreating and was convicted. In Florida. Remember that?

And before you argue that the appeal will see the man set free. Not so far.

Michael Drejka conviction, sentence upheld by appeals court

Drejka was convicted of manslaughter in the July 2018 parking lot shooting of Markeis McGlockton in Pinellas County.

www.tampabay.com

The laws are defined by precedent. And often the law doesn’t mean what you think it does. That is why we have and employ experts in these matters. They are called Lawyers. Educated, trained, and tested before they are allowed to ply their trade.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Have you ever attended a concealed weapons class?

The policy that once an attack ends the reason for the use of legitimate force also ends predates “pc nonsense.’“

PSA: Don't Chase Criminals

A recent trend involving armed citizens chasing down fleeing criminals has resulted in physical and legal ramifications. This practice should be avoided.

www.usacarry.com

***snip***

Finally, avoid the most outrageous mistake we have seen happen on occasion: do not shoot at a fleeing thief. Does the criminal no longer pose a threat to anyone? Then there is no justification for shooting him as he flees. There are exceptions. Such as an active shooter who may be fleeing only to gain cover and fire back. But a robber who didn’t hurt anyone and is now running out the door is no longer an imminent threat. From a safety standpoint, pursuing criminals or shooting at them as they run is a no go for the citizen.

Giving Chase Changes the Legal Dynamic​

After a crime is committed, even if it involves armed robbery, once a criminal actor flees the situation the crime is over. Your desire for retribution or revenge has nothing to do with it in the eyes of the legal system. Once the threat is over, the justification for lethal force is over. If you pursue a fleeing criminal that just stole something from you, the law now sees you as the aggressor that is starting a separate fight. You might not like it, but this is how the law views the circumstance….emphasis added

While the quote you cite is absolutely correct, there is a Florida judge who shouldn't be on the bench as far as I'm concerned because she made this boneheaded ruling in direct violation of every self-defense and use of lethal force law in the country:

Judge in Miami dismisses murder charge in 'stand your ground' pursuit​

By

• Miami Herald

Published Mar. 28, 2012​

​

MIAMI — A bag of stolen car radios — swung during a confrontation — amounted to a lethal threat to a Little Havana man who chased down a thief and stabbed him to death, a Miami-Dade judge said in her written ruling Tuesday in dismissing the murder charge against the man.​

​

Circuit Judge Beth Bloom issued her written ruling six days after deciding that based on Florida's "stand your ground" law, Greyston Garcia was immune from prosecution in the killing of Pedro Roteta, who swung the 4- to 6-pound bag at Garcia just before the stabbing.​

​

Police painted Garcia as a vigilante who chased Roteta for more than a block before stabbing him during a confrontation Jan. 25.​

​

But Bloom, in her order, said that under the law, Garcia "was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property. … The defendant had no duty to retreat and could lawfully pursue a fleeing felon who has stolen his property." Bloom acknowledged in her order that Garcia did not call police or 911, but went home.​

​

Garcia's defense attorney, assistant public defender Eduardo Pereira, hailed the decision, saying: "Although controversial, the result in this case is due to the hard work of our office, which remains dedicated to protecting the Constitution by defending each client's rights pursuant to the laws that apply to and protects us all."​

​

Florida's controversial 2005 stand your ground law eliminated a citizen's duty to retreat before using deadly force against an attacker. Miami-Dade Chief Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague, who trains her office's lawyers in self-defense cases, said her office would appeal the decision because "we feel the judge abused her discretion."​

​

Judge in Miami dismisses murder charge in 'stand your ground' pursuit

 

[Batcat]

While the quote you cite is absolutely correct, there is a Florida judge who shouldn't be on the bench as far as I'm concerned because she made this boneheaded ruling in direct violation of every self-defense and use of lethal force law in the country:

Judge in Miami dismisses murder charge in 'stand your ground' pursuit​

By

• Miami Herald

Published Mar. 28, 2012​

​

MIAMI — A bag of stolen car radios — swung during a confrontation — amounted to a lethal threat to a Little Havana man who chased down a thief and stabbed him to death, a Miami-Dade judge said in her written ruling Tuesday in dismissing the murder charge against the man.​

​

Circuit Judge Beth Bloom issued her written ruling six days after deciding that based on Florida's "stand your ground" law, Greyston Garcia was immune from prosecution in the killing of Pedro Roteta, who swung the 4- to 6-pound bag at Garcia just before the stabbing.​

​

Police painted Garcia as a vigilante who chased Roteta for more than a block before stabbing him during a confrontation Jan. 25.​

​

But Bloom, in her order, said that under the law, Garcia "was well within his rights to pursue the victim and demand the return of his property. … The defendant had no duty to retreat and could lawfully pursue a fleeing felon who has stolen his property." Bloom acknowledged in her order that Garcia did not call police or 911, but went home.​

​

Garcia's defense attorney, assistant public defender Eduardo Pereira, hailed the decision, saying: "Although controversial, the result in this case is due to the hard work of our office, which remains dedicated to protecting the Constitution by defending each client's rights pursuant to the laws that apply to and protects us all."​

​

Florida's controversial 2005 stand your ground law eliminated a citizen's duty to retreat before using deadly force against an attacker. Miami-Dade Chief Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague, who trains her office's lawyers in self-defense cases, said her office would appeal the decision because "we feel the judge abused her discretion."​

​

Judge in Miami dismisses murder charge in 'stand your ground' pursuit

As I understand “no duty to retreat” it says that if I am attacked I don’t have to first try to escape before I can use appropreate force to stop the attack.

In my case I would not be able to run from an attacker but instead limp away and hope he would be laughing so hard that if he was trying to shoot me he would miss. I am l;legally handicapped.

The law doesn’t state that i have the right to chase and severely injure or kill my attacker even if he has stolen something of value from me.

 

[Batcat]

That stuidity only prevails in certain liberal states notably Calif.

anyone that fails to recognize the stupidity of such law is either heavily biased or a shallow thinker.

First of all how does one know it is over? i.e. the store clerk runs in a backroom finds a pistol and comes out shooting....the perp runs out of the store .......which in and of itself does not mean absolutely that the incident is over....the perp may decide once he is out of immediate danger to go back and finish his business.

Or he may decide to wait a couple of days and go back and kill the store clerk who had tried to kill him''

More than one way to look at this controversy....the p.c will see it one way....the more astute will see it another.

Bottom line it is a ridiculous concept of the law that allows a perpetrator to claim self defense either whilst he is committing the act or trying to flee the scene.

Under Section 776.041, Florida Statutes, self-defense is not available to a person who is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

However it cannot be denied that the concept of self defense is gradually being eroded by pc politicians judges and juries.

Most especially in cases where a white kills a black......in a nutshell blacks are being given extra JUDICIAL protection due to the fact that many ignorant people have been brainwashed into believing blacks are usually if not always the victim.


Don't erode right to self-defense
The George Zimmerman case had nothing to do with "stand your ground." It was never used as a defense in his trial. His entire defense was based on his use of deadly force because he reasonably believed that it was necessary to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." It was not a factor in the Michael Dunn case either.

Dan Gelber and others are misrepresenting the facts in their determination to weaken Florida's self-defense laws because of their anti-gun bias. The "stand your ground" law has simply relieved those law-abiding citizens in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm of the duty to retreat, which would put them at a disadvantage in defending themselves from serious criminal attack.

To force law-abiding citizens to risk criminal charges while legally defending themselves because they did not make a "reasonable" attempt to retreat is absurd and self-defeating. The "stand your ground" law puts the attacked on a more even keel, more likely to succeed in legal self-defense.

Well over 20 years ago I was talking to an owner of a gun store in Tampa. A man had purchased some some items and when the owner opened the cash register, the man hit him in the head with an object and stole the money from the register. He then ran off. The owner recovered from the attack and pursued him with a pistol in his hand until he realized that if he caught up to him and shot him he would be in deep trouble.

Now I can’t speak to all states but as I understand the law in Florida the “stand your ground” law says you don’t have to retreat but doesn’t give you the right to pursue after the attack ends either.

George Zimmerman was being attacked when he used lethal force to stop the attack. Travon Martin didn’t attack Zimmerman and run away with Zimmerman changing him down and shooting him.

Personal Defense Tip: Don't Shoot at a Fleeing Attacker - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings. Once an attacker starts to...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings.

Once an attacker starts to leave — whatever he may have said, done or stolen — he no longer presents a threat. And that’s why shooting at a fleeing attacker is a very bad idea.

 

[Mac-7]

In reality the deciding factor was most likely race aka..........the robber black the store clerk white.....that would be my analysis of the situation.

 

[Batcat]

View attachment 741930

I agree. However in today’s world if you are white and shoot a black man it would be wise to be legally right to the letter of the law.

 

[Polishprince]

Well over 20 years ago I was talking to an owner of a gun store in Tampa. A man had purchased some some items and when the owner opened the cash register, the man hit him in the head with an object and stole the money from the register. He then ran off. The owner recovered from the attack and pursued him with a pistol in his hand until he realized that if he caught up to him and shot him he would be in deep trouble.

Now I can’t speak to all states but as I understand the law in Florida the “stand your ground” law says you don’t have to retreat but doesn’t give you the right to pursue after the attack ends either.

George Zimmerman was being attacked when he used lethal force to stop the attack. Travon Martin didn’t attack Zimmerman and run away with Zimmerman changing him down and shooting him.

Personal Defense Tip: Don't Shoot at a Fleeing Attacker - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings. Once an attacker starts to...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings.

Once an attacker starts to leave — whatever he may have said, done or stolen — he no longer presents a threat. And that’s why shooting at a fleeing attacker is a very bad idea.

If the criminal is no longer in possession of the items he was stealing, I have to agree with you. But if he has a dame's purse or bag of money he stole from a bank- the people have a right to shoot IF they clearly tell the criminal "Stop or I'll shoot" first.

 

[Persuader]

Well over 20 years ago I was talking to an owner of a gun store in Tampa. A man had purchased some some items and when the owner opened the cash register, the man hit him in the head with an object and stole the money from the register. He then ran off. The owner recovered from the attack and pursued him with a pistol in his hand until he realized that if he caught up to him and shot him he would be in deep trouble.

Now I can’t speak to all states but as I understand the law in Florida the “stand your ground” law says you don’t have to retreat but doesn’t give you the right to pursue after the attack ends either.

George Zimmerman was being attacked when he used lethal force to stop the attack. Travon Martin didn’t attack Zimmerman and run away with Zimmerman changing him down and shooting him.

Personal Defense Tip: Don't Shoot at a Fleeing Attacker - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings. Once an attacker starts to...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings.

Once an attacker starts to leave — whatever he may have said, done or stolen — he no longer presents a threat. And that’s why shooting at a fleeing attacker is a very bad idea.

In some states that is true but not in all..............irregardless it is stupidity to claim the criminal no longer presents a threat....he could come back at any time ....only the criminal has the ability to know if he will go back or not.....again...............................Under Section 776.041, Florida Statutes, self-defense is not available to a person who is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

California not surprisingly has an exceedinglly bad law on self defense.....

 

[Persuader]

I agree. However in today’s world if you are white and shoot a black man it would be wise to be legally right to the letter of the law.

A white man that kills a black criminal today under just about any circumstances will have to go before a jury.....and everyone should know going before a jury these days is a big gamble.

 

[Persuader]

Well over 20 years ago I was talking to an owner of a gun store in Tampa. A man had purchased some some items and when the owner opened the cash register, the man hit him in the head with an object and stole the money from the register. He then ran off. The owner recovered from the attack and pursued him with a pistol in his hand until he realized that if he caught up to him and shot him he would be in deep trouble.

Now I can’t speak to all states but as I understand the law in Florida the “stand your ground” law says you don’t have to retreat but doesn’t give you the right to pursue after the attack ends either.

George Zimmerman was being attacked when he used lethal force to stop the attack. Travon Martin didn’t attack Zimmerman and run away with Zimmerman changing him down and shooting him.

Personal Defense Tip: Don't Shoot at a Fleeing Attacker - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings. Once an attacker starts to...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings.

Once an attacker starts to leave — whatever he may have said, done or stolen — he no longer presents a threat. And that’s why shooting at a fleeing attacker is a very bad idea.

I seem to remember all those posses that chased bank robbers clear across a state sometimes.....that was when common sense prevailed.

Even today when lawenforcement goes after a criminal and they engage the criminal in a gunfight and kill him....will they be charged with murder?

Well if the criminal is black ....very possible....maybe even likely.

 

[Persuader]

Well over 20 years ago I was talking to an owner of a gun store in Tampa. A man had purchased some some items and when the owner opened the cash register, the man hit him in the head with an object and stole the money from the register. He then ran off. The owner recovered from the attack and pursued him with a pistol in his hand until he realized that if he caught up to him and shot him he would be in deep trouble.

Now I can’t speak to all states but as I understand the law in Florida the “stand your ground” law says you don’t have to retreat but doesn’t give you the right to pursue after the attack ends either.

George Zimmerman was being attacked when he used lethal force to stop the attack. Travon Martin didn’t attack Zimmerman and run away with Zimmerman changing him down and shooting him.

Personal Defense Tip: Don't Shoot at a Fleeing Attacker - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings. Once an attacker starts to...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings.

Once an attacker starts to leave — whatever he may have said, done or stolen — he no longer presents a threat. And that’s why shooting at a fleeing attacker is a very bad idea.

Again you leave out that in Florida the criminal has no right to claim self defense.

Under Section 776.041, Florida Statutes, self-defense is not available to a person who is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

 

[Persuader]

Well over 20 years ago I was talking to an owner of a gun store in Tampa. A man had purchased some some items and when the owner opened the cash register, the man hit him in the head with an object and stole the money from the register. He then ran off. The owner recovered from the attack and pursued him with a pistol in his hand until he realized that if he caught up to him and shot him he would be in deep trouble.

Now I can’t speak to all states but as I understand the law in Florida the “stand your ground” law says you don’t have to retreat but doesn’t give you the right to pursue after the attack ends either.

George Zimmerman was being attacked when he used lethal force to stop the attack. Travon Martin didn’t attack Zimmerman and run away with Zimmerman changing him down and shooting him.

Personal Defense Tip: Don't Shoot at a Fleeing Attacker - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings. Once an attacker starts to...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings.

Once an attacker starts to leave — whatever he may have said, done or stolen — he no longer presents a threat. And that’s why shooting at a fleeing attacker is a very bad idea.

That is poor thinking.....the criminal is the only one that can possibly know if he is no longer a threat. Just because a criminal walks out the store does not mean he will not come back....he may even get aways down the street and decide to go back to finish business.

A criminal is always a threat to society.

 

[Flash]

"However, once the threat of harm has dissipated, the victim of a property crime cannot then use deadly force to reclaim stolen property."

This is one of the reasons so many Californians are moving to Texas.

The Liberals in California have really screwed up that state.