# Robbery gone very wrong - defensive gun use **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 17, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615 "2013-05-17T18:49:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Archaic\_Entity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@Archaic\_Entity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Archaic_Entity)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/21 "2013-05-17T21:44:34Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > There’s another video out there of a really old guy in a video poker parlor. Two guys come in to rob the place and he pulls out a gun and drives them out. One of the guys actually runs out the front door and the old man actually gets onto the street and starts firing after him–when he could have just remained in the poker parlor and been safe. I don’t believe anyone died from that shooting, but that’s one where I went from feeling the old man was behaving in a justified way and then he transitioned into doing something illegal and dangerous. No one was killed, but the old guy in that scenario had no business leaving the building and firing on the guy from behind, he could make no plausible argument he was still in danger at that point. I’ve seen that video. Neither suspect died, if I remember correctly. The only thing I could see justifying the old man’s actions are to ensure that the suspects didn’t regroup at the door. I believe he pegged one of them in the butt, though. Again, there was no audio on that video, so there’s no way to verify that the suspects weren’t firing as they ran. But I think he would have been better justified to withhold fire and get behind cover. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/22 "2013-05-17T22:03:54Z")
I’m strongly against things like “stand your ground,” but if I were on a jury, I would vote to acquit. I don’t see that there was any moment in which a an average person could reasonably decide that things had gone from “holy crap my life is in danger” to “the threat has ended and I am now safe.” In fact, I’m rather amazed that considering the speed of the attack and the fact that the assailant clearly had the drop on the guy in the car, that the guy in the car had his wits about him to respond at all. ---
**Author:** ![Archaic\_Entity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@Archaic\_Entity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Archaic_Entity)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/23 "2013-05-17T22:12:18Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m strongly against things like “stand your ground,” but if I were on a jury, I would vote to acquit. I don’t see that there was any moment in which a an average person could reasonably decide that things had gone from “holy crap my life is in danger” to “the threat has ended and I am now safe.” > > In fact, I’m rather amazed that considering the speed of the attack and the fact that the assailant clearly had the drop on the guy in the car, that the guy in the car had his wits about him to respond at all. Honestly, and I can’t see in the car, but I think he was able to move the assailant’s gun away from him. No idea if the assailant fired into the car. But the person in the car seemed to move fairly professionally. As for the whole “stand your ground” idea. The problem arises when not standing your ground could cause injury to others. For example, if you find the potential moment to flee, but doing so may leave other victims in the immediate area then what choice do you have? You can flee, and obey the letter of “duty to retreat” states or you can stand your ground to ensure the safety of others. But I agree with your assessment of this particular situation. He was never in a good position to flee before the engagement ended. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/24 "2013-05-17T23:03:43Z")
> [@Archaic\_Entity](#): > > As for the whole “stand your ground” idea. The problem arises when not standing your ground could cause injury to others. For example, if you find the potential moment to flee, but doing so may leave other victims in the immediate area then what choice do you have? You can flee, and obey the letter of “duty to retreat” states or you can stand your ground to ensure the safety of others. I believe that even in places where there is a duty to retreat, one can use deadly force to defend others. I have never heard anyone seriously state that a duty to retreat is actually a legal requirement of “every man for himself.” ---
**Author:** ![Archaic\_Entity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@Archaic\_Entity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Archaic_Entity)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/25 "2013-05-17T23:10:08Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I believe that even in places where there is a duty to retreat, one can use deadly force to defend others. I have never heard anyone seriously state that a duty to retreat is actually a legal requirement of “every man for himself.” It depends on the letter of the law, and the prosecutor. I’m not familiar with every state’s laws. Also, you can open yourself up to law suit, if you fail in your “duty to retreat” and further injure even the assailant. So… it’s sticky, at best. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/26 "2013-05-17T23:28:26Z")
The guy is shooting backwards out of a car without looking into a street, that is just a horrible horrible idea. I am fine with a criminal dying in the process of committing a crime, but what he did put a whole lot of other people in danger. There were people and cars on that street, hell there was someone else right behind the robber a second before the shots started going off. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/27 "2013-05-17T23:31:15Z")
> [@Archaic\_Entity](#): > > It depends on the letter of the law, and the prosecutor. I’m not familiar with every state’s laws. Can you show me one state where a person does not have a right to use deadly force in defense of another? Just one will do. ---
**Author:** ![Archaic\_Entity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@Archaic\_Entity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Archaic_Entity)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2013, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/28 "2013-05-17T23:44:20Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Can you show me one state where a person does not have a right to use deadly force in defense of another? Just one will do. New York State Law > **[Article 35 NY Penal Law - Defense of Justification | NY Laws](https://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.php)** > > Justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when I’ll quote the relevant portion. > [@S 35.15](#): > > 1. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person > under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: > (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or > about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the > actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with > complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the > necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no > duty to retreat if he or she is: The next portion specifies if they’re a cop, residing in their home (so called Castle Doctrine), or certain egregious crimes (not including murder). I’m currently trying to find a case involving it. But there could be an argument made, if you are shooting at a “fleeing” aggressor, that they are actually fleeing, and you have a duty to retreat. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/29 "2013-05-18T00:27:42Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I can’t believe how people rush to judge that people don’t stop defending against their attack the millisecond their attacker MAY be backing off. You have a gun in your face, your life is in immediate danger. The guy may be running, he may not. He may shoot at you while he’s running to cover his escape. The burden of making this situation resolve with the least possible damage to anyone is not on the guy who just had his life threatened. > > Imagine the situation turns out a bit differently. The guy flees, but he fires back at the guy in the SUV just to try to keep him from being shot himself. Guy in the van gets hit and dies. Are we all congratulating him on his self restraint? > > Once a guy threatens your life, concerns about him have pretty much ended. Yeah, if you can control the situation enough that you don’t feel your life is immediately threatened, then yes, you have a responsibility not to execute the guy. But a fast, fluid situation where your life is threatened like that - your only concern should be collateral damage. I deplore the fact that access to guns is so easy and that this sort of situation is sometimes unavoidable, but I support the above assessment of the event in the video. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/30 "2013-05-18T01:00:18Z")
> [@yellowjacketcoder](#): > > Anyway, I figure the dopers will have a good perspective on this. Is the guy in the car in the clear legally? What about morally and ethically? (I assume nobody is going to claim the robber was in the clear either way). Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Human beings don’t come with on/off switches. From the time the robber made contact until the last shot was fired only six seconds passed. Six seconds isn’t a lot of time to collect your thoughts during an extremely stressful situation. After it was clear the robber was no threat the driver stopped firing. When he got out of his vehicle he didn’t continue to fire because it was clear the threat had ended. Morally and ethically the driver is in the clear. If this happened in the United States I think it would be difficult to find a jury willing to convict him. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/31 "2013-05-18T01:27:48Z")
Does anyone have a news story to accompany this? Eight months before the date on the video, this was in the news: [Venezuela prohibits sales of guns, ammunition](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120601/lt-venezuela-guns/) I don’t know whether the above is relevant, but throw it out for anyone to find more current sources. As for the rightness or wrongness, it was all very fast. It wouldn’t be realistic to expect the victim to so quickly process that the assailant was running away, so I don’t blame him for the shooting. And there may be other relevant facts we don’t have. Venezuela has a homicide rate 9.4 times that of the US, and 45 times that of Sweden, Australia, and China, as can be calculated from here: > **[List of countries by intentional homicide rate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)** > > The list of countries by UNODC homicide rate is typically expressed in units of deaths per 100,000 individuals per year. A homicide rate of 30 (out of 100,000) corresponds to 0.03% of the population dying by homicide. The reliability of underlying national murder rate data may vary. Only UNODC-vetted data is used in the main table below. In some cases it may not be as up to date as other sources. See further down as to why its data is used over other sources. > Research suggests that intentional... The homicide to suicide ratio in Venezuela is 14.1. This compares to 0.4 in the US and 0.1 in Australia. I have posted, in other threads, many links to studies showing that owning a gun for defensive use is harmful to the the safety of the gunowner and his or her family. None of this applies to the radically different conditions in Venuzuela. ---
**Author:** ![Archaic\_Entity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@Archaic\_Entity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Archaic_Entity)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/32 "2013-05-18T01:31:23Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I have posted many linked to studies showing that owning a gun for defensive use is harmful to the the safety of the gunowner and his or her family. None of this applies to the radically different conditions in Venuzuela. I feel like you should join this other thread. [Folks, gun owners do not have to wear yellow stars in public. - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=691225) Because we’re rehashed a lot of what you’ve stated here already. But to this particular point. Those studies provide truthful statistics. I will not argue that. However, they do not provide a valid argument. Anything in my possession is more likely to hurt myself or my family than anything I’ve never seen before. My kitchen knives are more likely to cut me than your kitchen knives would. My iPhone is more likely to fall and hit my foot than yours is to me. It’s statistically true of every object I own. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/33 "2013-05-18T03:32:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > If you are trying to get away, you’re fleeing even if you’re in a tank much less holding a gun. And that doesn’t address **Czarcasm** ’s point about stray bullets anyway. If you are still armed you are just looking for cover. ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/34 "2013-05-18T04:07:40Z")
I might, MIGHT be convinced if I were on the jury that this guy is somewhat in the wrong. But it would take a lot of convincing. From what I see in the video, I think what he did was justified. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/35 "2013-05-18T11:56:26Z")
> [@Archaic\_Entity](#): > > New York State Law > > [Article 35 NY Penal Law - Defense of Justification | NY Laws](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm#p35.15) > > I’ll quote the relevant portion. > The next portion specifies if they’re a cop, residing in their home (so called Castle Doctrine), or certain egregious crimes (not including murder). > > I’m currently trying to find a case involving it. But there could be an argument made, if you are shooting at a “fleeing” aggressor, that they are actually fleeing, and you have a duty to retreat. Your reading of the law is poor. The full two sections: > [@](#): > > S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person. > > 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless: > (a) The latter’s conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to cause physical injury to another person; or > (b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force; or > (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. > 2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: > (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to **oneself and others** he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is: > (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or > (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section [35.30](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm#p35.30); or > (b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a [kidnapping](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article135.htm#p135.20), [forcible rape](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm#p130.35), [forcible criminal sexual act](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article130.htm#p130.50) or [robbery](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article160.htm#p160.05); or > (c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a [burglary](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article140.htm#p140.20), and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section [35.20](http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article35.htm#p35.20). Your interpretation misses the part bolded–you only have a duty to retreat if you **know** that doing so can be done with complete personal safety to oneself and **others**. If your child is about to be cleaved in two by a madman with a machete then retreating can only be done with complete personal safety **for yourself** not for the other person. A little bit of logical reading would have avoided this misinterpretation in the first place. Why would the first section (justifying physical force to protect another from deadly harm) specify that you could use deadly force to protect another person but then say you can only do that if you yourself cannot escape? So you can protect another person, but if you have the opportunity your duty is to behave in an “every man for himself” mentality? Common sense should tell you the law is not written that way, that would be a legal requirement that a parent or spouse leave their child/partner to be murdered as long as they have a clear route of escape–a law that would be so offensive to the public conscience it would never exist in the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/36 "2013-05-18T13:11:33Z")
UK, gun-hater here, so I’m going to ignore the fact that guns were used by both parties in this conflict and focus on what actually happened. A man violently attacked another man - who then responded with matching force - and the force continued until the threat had fully subsided - Gun or no gun, once you make an overtly aggressive move against someone, there is no guarantee of a quick and easy ‘undo’, short of something that defeats your capacity to be any kind of continued threat. So, whilst we don’t have guns here, and I don’t want them, I don’t see how the victim in this incident did anything particularly wrong - the attacker changed the game by waving his own gun around, and a reasonable backout plan for that is to stop him being able to do that by shooting him. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/37 "2013-05-18T13:44:23Z")
He shot backwards without looking into a busy street, that’s pretty obviously “wrong” in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/38 "2013-05-18T14:01:52Z")
It looks to me like the first shot is before he was fleeing, while he was still right at the driver’s door. The rest of the shots were to make sure he’s dead. And that’s what you’re supposed to be doing. You don’t shoot someone and then just leave him maimed and armed otherwise you’ll be sure to end up dead too. Notice how he continues to stand over the body with his gun drawn. Considering how quickly that guy pulled his gun out of his holster, dropped the carjacker (and didn’t appear to miss, even while shooting backwards over his shoulder) and then stood over the body, I’m guessing he’s got quite a bit of training. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was a cop. ETA, I take that back, at least one shot did miss, you can see if hit the building. I don’t know about Venezuela, but in the US, if the driver hit and killed anyone, the carjacker or any accomplice he had with him would have been the one charged with murder. ---
**Author:** ![shijinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@shijinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shijinn)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/39 "2013-05-18T14:06:22Z")
it’s hard to tell, but that other guy could very well be an accomplice; he had the same stance - one hand in his jacket holding something, then pulling it out and holding what could be a gun with both hands. the driver’s shot hitting the wall spooked him and he ran. i’m leaning towards gun as i can’t picture what else would require such a two-handed posture when you were taken by surprise. ---
**Author:** ![Archaic\_Entity](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/41988e/32.png) [@Archaic\_Entity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Archaic_Entity)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615/40 "2013-05-18T15:15:08Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > He shot backwards without looking into a busy street, that’s pretty obviously “wrong” in my opinion. What would have been “right” in your opinion? > [@Joey\_P](#): > > ETA, I take that back, at least one shot did miss, you can see if hit the building. > I don’t know about Venezuela, but in the US, if the driver hit and killed anyone, the carjacker or any accomplice he had with him would have been the one charged with murder. This is true, at least, in Florida. I’m sure other states are similar, but I don’t think that can be categorical stated for every state. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/robbery-gone-very-wrong-defensive-gun-use/658615.md?page=3)