Shooting someone in the Back (NonLEO vs LEO)

[cb1000rider]

Cant a non LEO shoot someone who has just committed a violent felony? Like just killing a loved one of that person?

As described? No, probably not. IE - they just killed your spouse and are fleeing the scene. No. Would a Texas jury convict you? That's a different question.

However, at night, fleeing with your property, yes...

Once again, massive legal hassle likely associated with either incident. Proceed with caution.

[Javier730]

Cant a non LEO shoot someone who has just committed a violent felony? Like just killing a loved one of that person?

As described? No, probably not. IE - they just killed your spouse and are fleeing the scene. No. Would a Texas jury convict you? That's a different question.

However, at night, fleeing with your property, yes...

Once again, massive legal hassle likely associated with either incident. Proceed with caution.

If someone kills a loved one of mine and are running away, the only thing that will keep them from getting shot is if I miss. I'll let property go, unless it's my best friend Tito.

[TVGuy]

Cant a non LEO shoot someone who has just committed a violent felony? Like just killing a loved one of that person?

As described? No, probably not. IE - they just killed your spouse and are fleeing the scene. No. Would a Texas jury convict you? That's a different question.

However, at night, fleeing with your property, yes...

Once again, massive legal hassle likely associated with either incident. Proceed with caution.

If someone kills a loved one of mine and are running away, the only thing that will keep them from getting shot is if I miss. I'll let property go, unless it's my best friend Tito.

You must really like your vodka.

[The Annoyed Man]

Do you think there are situations where Police would be justified in shooting someone in the back when a non LEO would not be justified in the same situation?

IMHO, I don't think so. If the perp is not immediate threat to officer or others then shooting him in the back for what the bad guy might do later is kinda like using the minority report to justify homicide. Now in the course of giving chase to execute an arrest the bad guy poses the justifiable threat then that's a different story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRV3wQiiWE0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If he's facing away from you, shooting at someone else, what is wrong with back-shooting him, regardless of who you are?

[Javier730]

Cant a non LEO shoot someone who has just committed a violent felony? Like just killing a loved one of that person?

As described? No, probably not. IE - they just killed your spouse and are fleeing the scene. No. Would a Texas jury convict you? That's a different question.

However, at night, fleeing with your property, yes...

Once again, massive legal hassle likely associated with either incident. Proceed with caution.

If someone kills a loved one of mine and are running away, the only thing that will keep them from getting shot is if I miss. I'll let property go, unless it's my best friend Tito.

You must really like your vodka.

My boston terrier. He has alerted me when I was sleeping and there was multiple people standing at my front door. He is the only property I would shoot for.

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm not a LEO, but at the end of the day citizens will decide what is acceptable. They will make those decisions through pandering politicians who will pass laws to garner votes. Tragically, those standards are likely to be set by reactionary, emotional responses.

We've learned though westerns and cop shows that our super cops NEVER shoot anybody in the back. In fact, you give him time to turn around and make it a fair fight. There are even times when you will throw down your gun and go to fisticuffs with an unarmed bad guy.

We (I mean America) desperately need to have citizens who are educated, and can make rational decisions.

Should a LEO ever shoot somebody in the back?
When the Marana, Arizona Police Car Slammed into the perp with the rifle, running toward a shopping center, I would have considered that a justifiable shoot in the back situation. An armed man who had already discharged his weapon, was refusing to follow police instructions, and was heading toward a shopping area with a large crowd. In this citizen's opinion, it would have been irresponsible of the police to NOT stop him by what ever means necessary. If a police car hadn't been handy to run him down, then bang!

Unfortunately, there is a growing divide between the police and the populace. It is THEIR job to keep US safe. So we can sit back in the safety they provide, and Monday morning quarterback with less and less understanding or empathy about what the job actually entails. It seems to me that this mind set ultimately will provide true safety for neither the citizen nor the police. Citizens will make increasingly impossible demands that endanger the lives of officers and at the same time reduces their effectiveness, making the lives of the populace less safe.

It also seems to me that this is unlikely to change until citizens have some skin in the game. Real immediate skin. I think we need to seriously consider revisiting deputizing citizens. Yes I know how crazy that sounds at first beat. But if you really think about it, some version of that may be the only way to change attitudes about police. Something similar to this might get people thinking about US rather than THEM, when it come to law enforcement.

I’m not suggesting that the Sheriff go out and grab the first 10 people he sees and hand them a gun. I am suggesting that we start programs to get citizens involved in actually protecting their homes and neighborhoods. And yes, there WILL be an incident where a citizen is injured or killed. That brings us to what, in my estimation, is the root of the problem. A population that feels entitled to absolute protection with no effort on their part. Maybe we can begin to change that attitude by slowly introducing the idea of citizens with a personal stake in the safety of the community. Citizen ride alongs and citizen academies are great starts. But in those areas where there is still enough an America left that our Founding Father would recognize, may be we could actually put laws and procedures in place to enable and empower citizens to take a more active part in community safety. Maybe even, eventually, deputize citizens to assist with manhunts, or crowd control.

The Constitution doesn’t promise us safety, it promises freedom.* People who don’t risk at least a little for freedom, neither understand nor treasure it. I fear that the only way for this country to survive is for the majority of the citizenry to take a personal responsibility for it’s maintenance and protection. In so doing, some of them will pay a price. Those who refuse this responsibility will take their freedom for granted. Those are the people who think that walking on the flag is a reasonable form of speech. Who will hold real life police officers to the impossible standards of the television western sheriff or big city detective.

I see what I believe is a lot of momentum swinging us away from the founding principals of a government of, by, and for the people. I would hope that if people in a small area demonstrate how good things are when we live by our founding principals, it might spread. There are “progressive” enclaves we are unlikely to ever penetrate, but maybe we can at least get the momentum going in the other direction.

*I heard this in a meeting I was watching on youtube. Unfortunately, I don’t remember the exact time or location.

Edit to remove the word "sheep'"

I don't like the word "sheeple" because it's mostly used as a perjorative, but......even my Bible refers to the Good Shepherd and His flock, so used in that sense, of trusting animals who leave all decision-making and matters of protection to someone else, then "sheep" is appropriate. And in that light, it is also safe to say that most people are sheep, others are sheepdogs, and some are wolves. The sheep never like the the sheepdog, but their survival sometimes depends on him. These are facts about human nature, and they were probably just as true when the founders penned the Constitution, as they are today. It is not an insult to acknowledge the foibles of human nature.

Most of the progressives have two major flaws in their world view:

1. They don't believe in the Good Shepherd, and so they must construct one, much like the Hebrews fleeing Egypt made themselves a golden calf, and their modern golden calf is Government. They do not trust themselves to live in liberty, and so they project that lack of self-trust onto everyone around them, and they demand that ALL people surrender their liberty to the progressives' golden calf. They do this because, since they cannot compel themselves to live in liberty, they must bring everyone else down to their level of slavery in order to preserve their egalitarian ideals.
2. Since they are collectivists, they cannot tolerate the existence or idea of sheepdogs, which are by nature free-thinkers who tend not to operate as part of the collective. Even though the sheepdog is often acting as an agent of the Good Shepherd (for He directs them just as any earthly shepherd directs his border collies), since the sheepdog is not part of the collective submission to the progressives' golden calf, they must hate and marginalize him........until the wolf comes to their door. THEN, they are glad to see the sheepdog, but only for a moment until they discover that his teeth are not on a national registry, kept by their golden calf. Then they take up their pens and criticize the sheepdogs again, as "neanderthals" and "un-enlightened" and as "lacking nuance and understanding", etc., etc., ad nauseum.........until the next time a wolf comes to their door.

[VMI77]

A simple case of a fleeing felon, no, but there are definitely instances when the police shooting someone in the back is justified, even someone fleeing. Would a non LEO be justified in the same circumstances....I think so. Maybe there are some narrowly defined circumstances where there would be a justification for a LEO and not for a citizen but none come to mind. That said, citizens don't have "qualified immunity" so while it might be morally defensible and should be legal for both, the citizen is much more likely to face prosecution.

[cb1000rider]

If someone kills a loved one of mine and are running away, the only thing that will keep them from getting shot is if I miss. I'll let property go, unless it's my best friend Tito.

Good to know, but he asked if it would be legal...
You must have some really expensive Vodka.. :-)

[The Annoyed Man]

If someone kills a loved one of mine and are running away, the only thing that will keep them from getting shot is if I miss. I'll let property go, unless it's my best friend Tito.

Good to know, but he asked if it would be legal...
You must have some really expensive Vodka.. :-)

How do you know this isn't Tito:

[karder]

I don't like the word "sheeple" because it's mostly used as a perjorative, but......even my Bible refers to the Good Shepherd and His flock, so used in that sense, of trusting animals who leave all decision-making and matters of protection to someone else, then "sheep" is appropriate. And in that light, it is also safe to say that most people are sheep, others are sheepdogs, and some are wolves. The sheep never like the the sheepdog, but their survival sometimes depends on him. These are facts about human nature, and they were probably just as true when the founders penned the Constitution, as they are today. It is not an insult to acknowledge the foibles of human nature.

Unfortunately, a part of the flock have become very sympathetic towards the wolves and are telling the rest of the sheep that the wolves only attack because the sheepdogs are mean.

[VMI77]

If someone kills a loved one of mine and are running away, the only thing that will keep them from getting shot is if I miss. I'll let property go, unless it's my best friend Tito.

Good to know, but he asked if it would be legal...
You must have some really expensive Vodka.. :-)

How do you know this isn't Tito:

Great photo, very funny.

[Javier730]

If someone kills a loved one of mine and are running away, the only thing that will keep them from getting shot is if I miss. I'll let property go, unless it's my best friend Tito.

Good to know, but he asked if it would be legal...
You must have some really expensive Vodka.. :-)

How do you know this isn't Tito:

If that was Tito I wouldn't have to worry about him being stolen. He looks like he can fend for himself.