Yes, one CAN shoot an escaping mass-murderer

[westwall]

Yeah. Um. How can I say this. It is apparent that you are the heir to the throne for the kingdom of fools. You ain’t a cop. Dreaming that the laws and authority of a cop will divest upon you is damned foolish. People have been charged for shooting at fleeing felons before. If a cop shoots a bystander, oh well, he was doing his duty. If a citizen shoots a bystander it is at a minimum a massive lawsuit that you don’t have the cop union to cover your costs. You don’t have immunity. You are merely a fool with delusions of grandeur.

If you manage to shoot the baddie fleeing then again it is a lawsuit. Castle Doctrine don’t apply. You will likely spend the rest of your life paying the felon. I thought I had the same rights as a cop won’t save you.

As for being charged. Reckless Endangerment for spraying rounds at a running man. If a bystander got hit, then you are looking at assault with a deadly weapon. If you are going to carry as a citizen, restraint is what you need. And if you think you can get on Fox News and look like a hero then I have more bad news for you. You will come off looking like a nut. Especially if you argue the authority of a cop is yours as a citizen.

Get rid of the police scanner. Stop checking out the most wanted webpage. Or if you really want to be a hero, join the fire department.

You are wrong. The shooter at the waffle house was a now KNOWN bad actor. Had ANYONE shot him as he was fleeing, there would have been NO charges filed. Not one. The perp is a fleeing felon, with unknown resources. Thus, based on actions that are immediately apparent, he is DANGER to society as a whole. It would be the incredibly rare, and stupid, DA who would file charges in a case like that.

 

[westwall]

I love these snowflakes who think you shouldn't shoot someone in the back.

Where the fuck are you supposed to shoot them if they don't turn around?

We're not talking about someone who committed armed robbery and is escaping, we're talking about someone who walked into a place and committed mass murder and then fled. If I've got a clean shot on him and that's the ONLY way to prevent him from escaping, I'm taking that shot.

And you would be correct in doing so. Anyone who argues otherwise is unfamiliar with the laws of this land.

 

[harmonica]

if a criminal gets shot, the burden of proof should be with the criminal/etc
the criminal is the one who INITIATES the problem--not the cop

 

[Pop23]

Not that I disagree, but from your quote:

As usual, I was right and you were wrong.

Excerpt:
...such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

"and the officer"

I'm assuming that's an LEO.

What am I missing?

 

[K9Buck]

Not that I disagree, but from your quote:

As usual, I was right and you were wrong.

Excerpt:
...such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

"and the officer"

I'm assuming that's an LEO.

What am I missing?

Yes, officer is LEO.

 

[Pop23]

Not that I disagree, but from your quote:

As usual, I was right and you were wrong.

Excerpt:
...such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

"and the officer"

I'm assuming that's an LEO.

What am I missing?

Yes, officer is LEO.

So, when stating "one can", you were not stating a citizen could, you were stating a Law enforcement officer could?

 

[SavannahMann]

Not that I disagree, but from your quote:

As usual, I was right and you were wrong.

Excerpt:
...such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

"and the officer"

I'm assuming that's an LEO.

What am I missing?

Yes, officer is LEO.

So, when stating "one can", you were not stating a citizen could, you were stating a Law enforcement officer could?

He figures that if a cop can, any citizen can.

 

[K9Buck]

Not that I disagree, but from your quote:

As usual, I was right and you were wrong.

Excerpt:
...such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

"and the officer"

I'm assuming that's an LEO.

What am I missing?

Yes, officer is LEO.

So, when stating "one can", you were not stating a citizen could, you were stating a Law enforcement officer could?

He figures that if a cop can, any citizen can.

A Texas citizen DID and wasn't charged.

 

[K9Buck]

Not that I disagree, but from your quote:

As usual, I was right and you were wrong.

Excerpt:
...such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

"and the officer"

I'm assuming that's an LEO.

What am I missing?

Yes, officer is LEO.

So, when stating "one can", you were not stating a citizen could, you were stating a Law enforcement officer could?

Either.

 

[SavannahMann]

Not that I disagree, but from your quote:

As usual, I was right and you were wrong.

Excerpt:
...such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

"and the officer"

I'm assuming that's an LEO.

What am I missing?

Yes, officer is LEO.

So, when stating "one can", you were not stating a citizen could, you were stating a Law enforcement officer could?

He figures that if a cop can, any citizen can.

A Texas citizen DID and wasn't charged.

Other citizens did and were charged. So I guess the DAs in those cases didn’t get the memo on your ludicrous theory that if cops can do it than everyone can. Douche.

 

[K9Buck]

Other citizens did and were charged. So I guess the DAs in those cases didn’t get the memo on your ludicrous theory that if cops can do it than everyone can. Douche.

Did those "other citizens" shoot a mass-murderer who was on the verge of escaping? Show me a case where a citizen was charged and convicted after shooting someone who had just committed mass murder and was in the process of fleeing. Cue the kunt act.

 

[SavannahMann]

Other citizens did and were charged. So I guess the DAs in those cases didn’t get the memo on your ludicrous theory that if cops can do it than everyone can. Douche.

Did those "other citizens" shoot a mass-murderer who was on the verge of escaping? Show me a case where a citizen was charged and convicted after shooting someone who had just committed mass murder and was in the process of fleeing. Cue the kunt act.

Are there any other things cops can do that apply to you as well? How about emergency lights and sirens. I mean, the cops can, why not you?

With your law degree, I’m sure you have the right answer. I’m not a lawyer myself, so I read up on what lawyers say. They say not to do that. But hey, I’m sure you know better than they. One of the reasons I said you should join the USCCA is that they will send you a bunch of books, and videos to learn from. But I doubt you are capable of learning. Douche.

 

[there4eyeM]

It would seem it depends upon the jurisdiction, and the situation. Obviously, blazing away at someone who is a suspect (you know, innocent until proven guilty, etc.), thus putting who knows how many people in jeopardy (bullets don't stop when they don't hit the intended target, and they travel great distances very rapidly) should be a very last, very well considered act.
Doing such a thing in order to prevent an innocent person from becoming a victim is different from shooting someone who is running away. In either case, one takes responsibility for one's actions. If it were I, shooting someone to prevent harm to my loved ones would be natural, regardless of the 'law'. Shooting someone running away from a shooting such as this might be less automatic, but I can imagine doing it. I would own up to my decision. That doesn't mean I recommend this as advisable or something that should be generally codified as 'legal'.

 

[K9Buck]

Other citizens did and were charged. So I guess the DAs in those cases didn’t get the memo on your ludicrous theory that if cops can do it than everyone can. Douche.

Did those "other citizens" shoot a mass-murderer who was on the verge of escaping? Show me a case where a citizen was charged and convicted after shooting someone who had just committed mass murder and was in the process of fleeing. Cue the kunt act.

Are there any other things cops can do that apply to you as well? How about emergency lights and sirens. I mean, the cops can, why not you?

With your law degree, I’m sure you have the right answer. I’m not a lawyer myself, so I read up on what lawyers say. They say not to do that. But hey, I’m sure you know better than they. One of the reasons I said you should join the USCCA is that they will send you a bunch of books, and videos to learn from. But I doubt you are capable of learning. Douche.

As I predicted, the kunt act. You make statements and when you're asked to back your mouth you pull the kunt act. I'm done with you, kunt.

 

[K9Buck]

That doesn't mean I recommend this as advisable or something that should be generally codified as 'legal'.

I'm talking about a citizen shooting someone who has just committed mass murder and is on the verge of escaping. I'm also positing that the citizen has a clean shot, meaning, there are no innocent people around who might be harmed by an errant shot or a shot that goes through the mass murderer.

 

[there4eyeM]

That doesn't mean I recommend this as advisable or something that should be generally codified as 'legal'.

I'm talking about a citizen shooting someone who has just committed mass murder and is on the verge of escaping. I'm also positing that the citizen has a clean shot, meaning, there are no innocent people around who might be harmed by an errant shot or a shot that goes through the mass murderer.

A possible, though we must admit extremely rare occurrence. Too rare to make a law for. If this were to happen, there would necessarily be a lengthy process to assure what the facts were. In the meantime, the "citizen" would have to be happy with the knowledge that his/her civic duty was being vetted and eventual justification would arrive. This could include incarceration until such judgement could be rendered, for his/her own protection as well as for other reasons.

 

[K9Buck]

A possible, though we must admit extremely rare occurrence.

Sure it's rare, thankfully. If you had a clean shot on someone who was on the verge of escaping after murdering 26 people, would you take the shot?

 

[there4eyeM]

A possible, though we must admit extremely rare occurrence.

Sure it's rare, thankfully. If you had a clean shot on someone who was on the verge of escaping after murdering 26 people, would you take the shot?

This is such a hypothetical, and I believe is directed in a general sense to other posters and not simply myself, that an answer may seem obvious. Personally, however, to be very honest, the decision would be in the moment. I could not say beforehand what I would do for certain. It is my experience that acting in emergencies is something that is not intellectual, thought out, planned, pre-determined. What gets done by 'me', which in emergencies has usually been the right thing, gets done by a process that is not something I can claim for my conscious 'self'.
I think one element would be if the perpetrator were still clearly armed and likely to continue killing. The distance and what I was armed with would be crucial, as well. Too many elements to be able to say in advance. All that is still not to say, "No, I wouldn't".

 

[SavannahMann]

A possible, though we must admit extremely rare occurrence.

Sure it's rare, thankfully. If you had a clean shot on someone who was on the verge of escaping after murdering 26 people, would you take the shot?

No. First, my CC weapon is a two inch barreled revolver. I can hit at say fifty feet with regularity but not much further. If the baddie is leaving, and I engage and miss, what are the chances he ignores me? Pretty slim. So now he is firing back. Not only am I in jeopardy now, but everyone else around me who managed to survive the onslaught is now in further danger.

If I did not have a clear shot where it was reasonable to engage while he was shooting, trying to hit a running man with a two inch revolver is idiotic. Far too much chance that I’ll miss and hit someone behind him.

Now, he may “get away” for now, but there is an extremely high probability that he was caught on video, as the Waffle House idiot was. This allows the police to find him and get him with a lower risk to innocent lives.

My pistol is for self defense, or immediate defense only. If he leaves, the need for immediate defense is negated. I am not a cop. I am not responsible for hunting the idiot down. I am responsible for defending myself, my family, and perhaps depending on the scenario my friends.

If I had been inside the Waffle House I would have fired back at him. Once he left, it becomes SEP. My responsibility at that time is to accurately report what I saw to the cops. That can’t be done if some idiot thinks he is Wyatt Earp and starts a long running gun battle where everyone else is shot.

This is the recently released footage of the shooting where the sound man for the TV show COPS was killed. This was trained police, and of the two people killed half were innocents.



Chances are the shootout isn’t going to go the way you think it is.

 

[Pop23]

Other citizens did and were charged. So I guess the DAs in those cases didn’t get the memo on your ludicrous theory that if cops can do it than everyone can. Douche.

Did those "other citizens" shoot a mass-murderer who was on the verge of escaping? Show me a case where a citizen was charged and convicted after shooting someone who had just committed mass murder and was in the process of fleeing. Cue the kunt act.

The number of murders are not the issue. If the perp is "active", or is pointing the weapon at the citizen, then yes he could. If the individual is fleeing, then he likely could be charged (proprietorial discretion).