-
“Holding someone at gunpoint” while you cannot “fire a shot or give chase if they attempt to flee” does not make sense.
-
If you see someone being killed, should you be allowed to use physical force to restrain the murderer from fleeing?
Pardon my ignorance, but do you mean to tell me that there are states that require a person to flee from an intruder, as opposed to standing firm and protecting your loved ones and possessions? :dubious: :mad:
Cite, please?
(emphasis mine)
So your advice to the world is to just stand there, and watch the bad guy, run away?! WTF?! :eek:
I’m sorry, but if I clearly observe someone commit a violent crime against an innocent person, I feel that it’s my duty, as a law abiding citizen, to do everything that is within my power, to…
- Detain that person,
- With whatever force, that is required to do so,
3.Up to and including, administering a healthy dose of lead. (Healthy for society in general, unhealthy for the ‘perp’.;))
Terr
You should never do that, according to some people. :rolleyes:
I totally disagree, as per my previous post.
So your stance is, ‘As long as the homicidal maniac doesn’t come after me, everybody else can just fend for their self.’? 
It may not make sense, but he’s absolutely right. You are not a police officer, and if he flees you have to let him go. You will be judged on your actions, and shooting a fleeing assailant in the back will go a long way to making your particular case that much more difficult for yourself.
That is an entirely different thing. A murder is a violent crime, whereas a robbery/mugging where you were able to deter the crime with a weapon is (probably) not.
To repeat, you are not a police officer, and you will be judged on your actions. That cannot be repeated enough. Exercise bad judgment and you will be the one going to jail.
By “intruder” I’m assuming you mean someone unlawfully entering your home. Duty to retreat vs. stand your ground laws generally apply to when you’re in a public place. A castle doctrine is what would apply in your home. And yes, there are states which do not have a castle doctrine. Just because someone enters your home illegally does not always equal justified homicide. There are states in which the prosecution could prove that you and your family had a reasonable opportunity to escape and you could be convicted.
Absolutely. You’re not a cop - at least I’m assuming you’re not. It’s the police’s job to pursue and apprehend criminals. Taking action in order to prevent the commission of a crime or protect someone is one thing. But once the crime is done and the assailant is leaving the scene, any forceful attempt to apprehend and detain them could result in criminal charges against you. Again, every state is different.
While many of us may feel morally obligated to do just that, we’re talking about the law here, not morality. Everyone is responsible for their actions. If a criminal is injured or killed as a result of your actions, it’s up to the police - who may not have witnessed anything - to decide whether or not your actions were justifiable. Take that a step further and you could face a jury trial and have to convince a jury that you had no other reasonable alternative. It’s not always innocent until proven guilty.
IANAL, YMMV, this is not the baggage check mentioned in the Warsaw Convention.
This sounds about right. Once the threat of danger is diminished, normal legal avenues of justice apply again and the “correct” thing to do is have the guy arrested and brought before a judge and a full jury and give him his day in court to determine what is to be done with him. The right to use deadly force is an exception to the rule that proper legal channels must be followed to condemn or punish someone for their unlawful behavior. Along the same vein, you normally can’t shoot petty thieves/shoplifters, crack dealers, check forgers, welfare cheats, and people with out-of-date vehicle registration stickers - those things have to be formally investigated by the law in order to determine what, if any, action should be taken. One guy with a gun doesn’t have the right to make that choice.
Damn,there go my plans for jaywalkers!
Well, it actually still is innocent until proven guilty, because that’s the standard that hypothetical jury will be applying to judge you in that hypothetical trial.
As a general principle, defense of another is analyzed in precisely the same way as self-defense:
From Foster v. Commonwealth, 412 SE 2d 198 (Va Ct App 1991).
I think what that means, in a nutshell, is that you can’t avoid legal liability for murder (e.g. say “it isn’t murder”) by first firing several shots in their direction that you, secretly, intend to miss, waiting for the victim to pull a gun and return fire, and then “OMG he is shooting at me!”, and pulling the trigger a final time to put a bullet straight through his head.
thatguyjeff
(emphasis mine)
Not trying to nitpick, but your statement is a little confusing. Which doctrine do ‘*most states’ *subscribe to, “stand your ground” or ‘tuck tail and run’ (“expectation to flee”)?
And again, can you provide a cite or case precedent for these statements? Please?
thatguyjeff
You are correct in your assumption that I’m not a LEO, also, IANAL. You’re also correct, in that every state is probably different.
Criminal charges could be brought “against me”?
What for?! Unlawful detainment? :dubious:
IMHO, it’s ***everyones responsibility ***to assist law enforcement authorities, whenever possible.
thatguyjeff
It is most definitely not … “up to the police - who may not have witnessed anything - to decide whether or not your actions were justifiable”.
That decision can only be made by a judge and jury.
thatguyjeff
(emphasis mine)
As per *your *suggestion, I did “Read up on “duty to retreat,” “stand your ground,” and “castle doctrine” laws.”
Apparently, you did not. :mad:
(According to Wikipedia)
No duty to retreat, regardless of where attack takes place.
Also known as “Stand your ground” laws.
17 states.
No duty to retreat if in the home.
Also known as “Castle laws” or “Castle doctrine” laws.
25 states.
No specific “Castle laws” or weak “Castle laws”.
8 states.
17 states with “Stand your ground” laws, and 25 states with “Castle laws”. Hmmm… Let’s see now, 25 plus 17 equals… well, what do you know, 42!
How in the world did you come up with the idea, “In general, most states are either a duty to retreat state”? :dubious:
I find that the definite majority, are NOT “duty to retreat” states?!
Interesting that my state of Wisconsin isn’t on any of the three lists of states, yet the lists add up to 50.
That’s because the District of Columbia is included in the list of states.
The state of Wisconsin is mentioned, directly preceding the lists of states.
No citizen is “responsible” for assisting LEO’s with anything resembling force/lethal force. Ask any cop and they’ll tell you they would rather you just stayed out of the way. They’re trained to intervene, you and I are not. Throwing civilians into the gun play mix recipe for innocent people being harmed - and I’m not talking about stray bullets. I’m talking about you, the armed concerned citizen who wants to do nothing more than to protect themself and their family from having to face dubious charges and defend themselves in court.
The decision about whether you will be charged with a crime and be forced to spend time and money defending yourself against those charges is most certainly up to the police.
You’re correct about the conviction. But I’ll stick my neck out there and say that I don’t think anyone wants to face a jury in a homicide case, justifiable or not.
Police get things wrong/make mistakes. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. If you shoot and wound (not kill), do you think the criminal you just shot is going to be 100% honest about what happened?
Blame my poor punctuation on that one. I intended to note that most states have clear laws and are one or the other - either a duty to retreat OR stand your ground state.
With respect to the original post question - this is going to have the largest impact on what you’re legally allowed to do.
I say the “majority” of states have clear laws (either being a stand your ground OR duty to retreat state) because some states are neither - as in their laws are vague and do not expressly state if someone has the legal right to stand their ground or if any reasonable opportunity to flee must be taken.
Minnesota is one such state. Self-defense/justifiable homicide laws here are really subjective.
You’re in Texas. I’m in Minnesota, but I’m not some teary-eyed northern liberal. I’m all for citizens arming themselves and defending themselves. I think we both agree in that.
The point I’m trying to make is that many laws are very different in different places and are largely misunderstood. The “shoot first and ask questions later” philosophy will probably bring about 1. lots of questions from the police, 2. possibility of charges being brought against you, and 3. the possibility of some sort of criminal conviction, even if in reality - you are truly innocent.
Don’t get yourself into trouble.
I appreciate that you took the time and effort to clarify your statements, and I was about half way finished with a pretty good response.
Then the screen went blank! :smack: Crap! :mad: And now I must attend to other, more pressing, matters. I will come back to this later this evening. Y’all have a good day, and a better tomorrow! 
(Trouble? Me?! Hell’s bells! If it’s illegal, immoral, immodest, impertinent or fattening, it’s got my name, written all over it! ;))