Pursuing someone who points a weapon at you.

[remanifest]

Inspired by this thread, I'd like to start another discussion. It seems to me it would be illegal if you were to see a person point a weapon at you, or for them fire the weapon in your direction, and then for you to hop in your car and chase them to shoot them down. Honest question - how would a District Attorney choose to proceed if this happened?

[hovercat]

Unless stalking is involved, it is legal for me to follow you. You would need another probable cause at the other end to justify a shooting IMO.
Please note, I typed legal, not necessarily smart.

[Teamless]

First only a DA with a specific case in front of them could say if they would prosecute or not, all others are speculating

With that said:
They point a gun at me, at that point they have used deadly force on me and I am justified in shooting them.

However, once the threat stops, and they turn and go away, has the threat stopped? If so, deadly force is no longer being used on me, and in my opinion I cannot chase them, and then shoot them.
If I chase them, after the threat had stopped do I then become the aggressor and now I am the one [wrongfully] using deadly force on them?

I have to remind myself (in that situation) that I am not a police officer.
While I have the right to protect myself and others in certain situations, I do not have the powers and abilities of a police officer and I need to be a good witness if at all possible

The question may be one of, "when did the threat actually stop" and that is when my right of self defense ends.

[parabelum]

Inspired by this thread, I'd like to start another discussion. It seems to me it would be illegal if you were to see a person point a weapon at you, or for them fire the weapon in your direction, and then for you to hop in your car and chase them to shoot them down. Honest question - how would a District Attorney choose to proceed if this happened?

Probably try to make an example out of you and eat your lunch, may even take your dinner too.

Here is an example of what he may do if you decide to chase them and someone gets injured or killed in the process.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... en-johnson

[AJSully421]

First only a DA with a specific case in front of them could say if they would prosecute or not, all others are speculating

With that said:
They point a gun at me, at that point they have used deadly force on me and I am justified in shooting them.

However, once the threat stops, and they turn and go away, has the threat stopped? If so, deadly force is no longer being used on me, and in my opinion I cannot chase them, and then shoot them.
If I chase them, after the threat had stopped do I then become the aggressor and now I am the one [wrongfully] using deadly force on them?

I have to remind myself (in that situation) that I am not a police officer.
While I have the right to protect myself and others in certain situations, I do not have the powers and abilities of a police officer and I need to be a good witness if at all possible

The question may be one of, "when did the threat actually stop" and that is when my right of self defense ends.

This is not correct. Pointing a gun, in and of itself, does not constitute deadly force. In fact, sec 9.04 states that showing a gun to create the apprehension that you will use deadly force is not deadly force. Now, what can be said is what would a reasonable person think was about to happen if someone just walks up or drives up to you and points a gun at you? Most reasonable people would say "you're fixin' to get shot". That does not, by itself, make pointing a gun deadly force... It is the reasonable conclusion that aggravated robbery, kidnapping or murder are about to occur that makes the act a threat, and a response by you with deadly force appropriate.

Everything else you said is OK. If you chase someone down and kill them, that is not going to look good to a DA, at all. Where is the threat to your life? That threat is running or driving away and is no longer a threat.

[twomillenium]

If you had to hop in your car and chase them down. How much of an IMMEDIATE threat were they if they were leaving?

PC §9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

If you have time to hop in the car and chase them down, then you have time to call Law Enforcement and be a witness.
IANAL

[thetexan]

No. Given the circumstances you describe, and as stated earlier, the threat was when he was pointing the gun at you. Once he stopped the threat AND you no longer have a REASONABLE (as will be determined by a jury) belief that it is immediately necessary to use deadly force in defense of the threat...then you are no longer justified or authorized to use deadly force. Everything you do afterward is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you follow him (unless stalking), call him on your phone (unless you then threaten him), take him out to dinner, etc. Lawful deadly force is always an action of immediacy, never pre-calculation or after-the-fact retaliation.

So you can follow him certainly to keep track of him until the police can catch up to him and arrest him based on your complaint against him. But you may never track him down to use deadly force. There is no longer a threat.

The only time pursuit is authorized is this...you may use FORCE (not deadly force) in FRESH pursuit after being dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property AND you REASONABLY believe the person HAS NO CLAIM to the property he took

or

the person used force, threat, or fraud to take the property.

But only in fresh pursuit.

The only "after-the-fact" justified use of deadly force is to protect land or tangible, movable property when and to the degree you REASONABLY believe that deadly force is IMMEDIATELY NECESSARY to prevent someone who is fleeing IMMEDIATELY AFTER committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night time from escaping with the property, AND you REASONABLY BELIEVE that the land or property can not be recovered by any other means than deadly force, OR

by NOT using deadly force to prevent the fleeing with your property, you would expose yourself or another to a SUBSTANTIAL rist of death or serious bodily injury. (and I can't even imagine what that scenario would look like). And even under these conditions you are not justified in using deadly force unless you first are justified in using force under 9.41 and meet those requirements.

So even in these paragraphs the requirement that immediate necessity is reasonable is ever present as a requirement for deadly force justification.

There is no justification of deadly force after a threat is over because the immediacy requirement doesn't exists. But, if you can claim that after having the gun pointed at you, and after he takes his gun and gets in his truck and leaves, and after you chase him down THAT IT IS HE THAT IS THE IMMEDIATE THREAT...and THAT IT IS NOT NOW YOU THAT IS THE THREAT TO HIM...then you can explain that to the jury.

tex

[locke_n_load]

Now if they stole something that you can't get back by any other means, then you might be in a better legal standpoint.

[twomillenium]

No. Given the circumstances you describe, and as stated earlier, the threat was when he was pointing the gun at you. Once he stopped the threat AND you no longer have a REASONABLE (as will be determined by a jury) belief that it is immediately necessary to used deadly force in defense of the threat...then you are no longer qualified to use deadly force. Everything you do afterward is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you follow him (unless stalking), call him on your phone (unless you then threaten him), take him out to dinner, etc. Lawful deadly force is always an action of immediacy, never pre-calculation.

So you can follow him certainly to keep track of him until the police can catch up to him and arrest him based on your complaint against him. But you may never track him down to use deadly force. There is no longer a threat.

You may use FORCE (not deadly force) in FRESH pursuit after being dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property AND you REASONABLY believe the person HAS NO CLAIM to the property he took

or

the person used force, threat, or fraud to take the property.

But only in fresh pursuit.

There is no justification of deadly force after a threat is over because the immediacy requirement doesn't exists. But, if you can claim that after having the gun pointed at you, and after he takes his gun and gets in his truck and leaves, and after you chase him down THAT IT IS HE THAT IS THE IMMEDIATE THREAT...and THAT IT IS NOT NOW YOU THAT IS THE THREAT TO HIM...then you can explain that to the jury.

tex

Also remember, the longer the "Fresh pursuit", the less fresh the pursuit becomes.

[lildave40]

First only a DA with a specific case in front of them could say if they would prosecute or not, all others are speculating

With that said:
They point a gun at me, at that point they have used deadly force on me and I am justified in shooting them.

However, once the threat stops, and they turn and go away, has the threat stopped? If so, deadly force is no longer being used on me, and in my opinion I cannot chase them, and then shoot them.
If I chase them, after the threat had stopped do I then become the aggressor and now I am the one [wrongfully] using deadly force on them?

I have to remind myself (in that situation) that I am not a police officer.
While I have the right to protect myself and others in certain situations, I do not have the powers and abilities of a police officer and I need to be a good witness if at all possible

The question may be one of, "when did the threat actually stop" and that is when my right of self defense ends.

[Soccerdad1995]

If we are going to argue hypotheticals, can we at least argue a complete hypothetical and not leave out key pieces of info?

Let's start by assuming that someone points a gun at you in a non-legal manner (not a cop who is justified, etc). You can then of course legally follow them. It's what happens next that makes the difference of whether using deadly force is legal or not.

Scenario A - You pull up alongside their car at a red light, roll down your window and open fire, killing everyone in their car. IANAL, but you are likely going away for a long time.

Scenario B - They jump out of their car and make a run for it. As you are exiting your vehicle, they turn and face you pointing their gun at you in a shooting stance. You open fire and neutralize the threat. You are probably legally OK here. You responded to the initial threat of deadly force by following the perp. You then responded to the second threat of deadly force by using deadly force of your own.

Personally, I am not following the perps at all. I am getting a description of them, their car, and the LP number and relaying that to law enforcement. But that's just me.

[vjallen75]

Personally, I am not following the perps at all. I am getting a description of them, their car, and the LP number and relaying that to law enforcement. But that's just me.

I agree, you do not want to follow anyone. The only reason I can see you following them is to write down the LP and a description of the vehicle. After you get both of those I would call LE and go home or back to the scene. Allow LE to do their job, your only job is to go home to your family safely.

[Soccerdad1995]

Personally, I am not following the perps at all. I am getting a description of them, their car, and the LP number and relaying that to law enforcement. But that's just me.

I agree, you do not want to follow anyone. The only reason I can see you following them is to write down the LP and a description of the vehicle. After you get both of those I would call LE and go home or back to the scene. Allow LE to do their job, your only job is to go home to your family safely.

As I have said before, my job is to protect my family. LE's job is to arrest criminals. I don't do LEO's jobs and I don't expect them to do my job. I know that others have different viewpoints, but this is the way I look at things.

My very liberal brother in law told me that he saw video of armed LTC holders running for safety during the Dallas shooting, and asked me why we allow people to carry when they "just focus on their own safety". We had a good discussion and I think I might have shifted his thinking just a little bit to understanding that guns are something that make you personally safer. Either that, or he was just being polite. It doesn't help matters that his sister (my wife) tells me to "be safe with that thing" every time I leave the house armed. I tell her that this "thing" helps to keep me safe.

[Pariah3j]

It doesn't help matters that his sister (my wife) tells me to "be safe with that thing" every time I leave the house armed. I tell her that this "thing" helps to keep me safe.

I had someone basically say something like that to me once (actually several times) and I finally got fed up, so I decided to make a point. Pulled the gun and holster and put it on the counter. Stared at it for a few seconds and looked up at her. 'How long do you think we'll have to wait till it goes off ?' Looked back down and waited about another minute before saying something like 'It doesn't do tricks, keep trying to teach it but so far it only fires if I pull the trigger'. She wasn't amused but doesn't make those comments anymore.

Back to the topic, I suspect that most cases where you chased down a suspect after an initial confrontation and reengaged would get you charged with something. As others pointed out there are some exceptions to that like recovering stolen property, etc. But if you follow/chase and reengage you become the aggressor in most situations imo, so you wouldn't be protected by most of the 'stand your ground' laws.

[mojo84]

In the given scenario, I think the answer can be found in the term, "pursuing".