Quoted: You hear a scuffle in the office across the hall from you and what seems like a struggle and yelling.  When you go to look out of your office you see a co-worker stabbed sitting at his desk and a man fleeing with a knife and blood on him (lets even assume that he is IN FACT the man who committed the crime, no CSI Miami needed here).  In shock you stare as the assailant runs past you and to the front door down the hall. img155.imageshack.us/img155/948/82779319xd4.png You KNOW that this person has just committed what could amount to murder and he is getting away.  He is NOT a threat to you since he is fleeing the scene.  You draw your gun and fire into his back dropping the suspect at the door before he can escape. img233.imageshack.us/img233/751/57868102ii1.png Was your shooting justified?  If you were a third party observer and the crime had already been committed and the assailant was fleeing the scene.  Do you have the right to shoot him in the back? Or front, what ever.  The point being that he posed NO threat to you at that point? Just curious as to answers from CCW guys as well as any LEo's Edit: yes I realize its "assault"  I was in a hurry....

You're going to jail for murder.

Here you CAN hold someone at gun point until the police come (citizens arrest), but it's not a great idea, and in that situation I probably wouldn't do it.

Guy isn't an immediate threat to you or anyone else at that point.  Can't use deadly force.

Shooting in the back of a fleeing perp is always ALWAYS a bad idea for a ccw holder.  Once the guy/girl starts running and they aren't a threat, you can only be a good witness from then on.

Quoted: Well thanks for the info.  But  I think it comes down to how you explain your actions.  To me, seeing someone commit murder and then run, means they are still dangerous.  They have shown dissreguard for human life already by stabbing someone.  AGAIN I SAID THAT THE GUY IN FACT WAS THE BAD GUY.  So his explanation was that if you saw that, take the shots.   He is retired after 35 years as a sheriff.

Unless your state allows shooting fleeing felons for non-LEOS, that act would get you in jail.  Since you believe the retired cop, post the law that justifies your actions.  

Quoted: So him stabbing and killing someone then running doesn't show a threat to others?  I'm a little confused.  So if I were to see the actual physical stabbing... I could shoot him, yet if he is all done, and leaving, I have to let him? I'll be sure to pass on that he is an idiot for ya.

Self defense laws do not allow you to shoot people who "show a threat to others".  

an IMMEDIATE deadly threat, probably.

I DONT PLAY HERO
UNLESS IT COMES TO MY FAMILY

No.

Tennessee v. Garner

Good thread, though.

so would the situation be different if I had witnessed the attack? then shot?

I would Probably end up shooting him down the road somewhere because I would have chased him,and he would get annoyed that Im chasing him,so he will more then likely pull his knife and try to cut.

BTW: Im good at running down bad guys on foot,I think its fun. Im a track star!!

But if he is dead... you can spin it anyway you want correct?



dead bad guys can't get you in trouble!

Not justified in Michigan.

He did kill your co-worker.

He did run past your office.
(Had you come out of your office to see him running at you or exiting the office  across the hall, you'd be justified in shooting.)

He did commit murder.

Though you like to, you cannot (should not ) shoot him.

In this case, I would dial 911, render aid, make my way to the front door to provide a pursuit direction for police (prehaps vehicle plates, clothing details), and make sure no other co-workers/customers were in his path upon exit.

The rule of thumb in this case is administer aid to the victim and be a good wittness. Your life and the life of another person was not in immediate danger given your situation. I work in the criminal justice field. A jury would probably convict you and put you on probation depending on your criminal history.

I gotta say it doesn't sound justified IF the attacker is running away. As others have said if he's facing you with a knife in his hand fire away.

I'll make sure to yell at him that he dropped his wallet so I can cap his ass then...

If he's running AT me, or a loved one, with a bloody knife in his hand I'll shoot him and I'll be justified.  However, if he's already past me and running away and he's not running towards a loved one, then  I have to assume he's fleeing and he gets a pass from me.

Just because he stabbed your buddy doesn't mean he's a danger to society, maybe your buddy was sleeping with his wife and when he confronted him your buddy pulled a gun from his desk drawer and threatened to kill him and he used the knife in self defense then panicked.  

If you didn't directly witness what happened then you don't know what really happened, and shooting somebody in the back based on an assumption is likely to get you a long visit in club fed.  How will you protect your family then?  Even if you do avoid prison defending yourself in a non defense shooting will break you and your family financially

If he's fleeing then let him flee, the cops will track him down, it's one of the few things they are very good at.  Your time will be better spent calling an ambulance and rendering first aid.

You should shoot only when you have to, not when you want to or when you can.  You are in no danger, in fact if you engage the BG you are quite possibly increasing the danger for others.

NO  Do not shoot captain!
Originally Said by My CHL instructor:

If you don't know the rules or players, don't play in the game.

The concept is simple.  Human interactions are complicated.  The decisions people make are even more so.  How would you know (not ACTUALLY seeing the act take place) that it was in fact a willful act of attempted murder?  It could have very well been self defense.  Who is the victim?  Who is the offender?  It could have been an accident and the person got freaked out and ran, or ran for help.  There are too many possibilities if your information is that limited.

Now to be fair, there are cases where I might be more tempted to take more action:

--If I had seen the stabbing and knew it was a crime, then maybe.

--If I knew the stabee well and that was his office, I might conclude that there is no way he would be the offender (assuming I know his easy-going personality), and if I knew that the man running away had gone in hostile and threatening, then maybe.

--If I had been privy to what was beeing said, like "Hey young man, get away from me with that knife" then maybe.

But in the scenario you laid out, I had not, so NO.

Tex78

This whole thread illustrates one undenyable fact:

That what is "legal" and what is "right" are two radically different things.

Does anyone have a moral problem with filling the guy described in this scenario full of lead?  I don't.  

Yet the law is quite clear that you'd get fried in court for "doing the right thing" and turning Mr. Stabber into a cold sack of meat in the hallway.  Is that right?

I DO know one thing for certain: if I ended up on the jury of the guy shooting the attacker in the hallway, there is no way he gets convicted.  None.

THe "correct" answer depends on TWO things:

First, is the state you live in and the applicable laws therein.


Second, and most important, is YOUR percieved threat at the time COUPLED with your ability to AR-TIC-U-LATE that threat.


In the state of Florida I could say that the use of force laws (chapter 776) could easily justify shooting this guy IF you could articulate that 1) you believed that he was a CONTINUED deadly threat (was he still holding the knife, was there anyone else in his way to the door or in the parking lot, was he making any statements that he was intent on hurting someone else) and 2) you were in FEAR that you are someone else was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm.


Again, this situation can be articulated either way.  Most importantly, don't base your actions on whether or not you'll get sued or prosecuted. That can "get you dead".  Fortunately in the state of Florida if you are deemed justified in the use of force you cannot be sued.

Quoted: In Florida you'd be going to prison. You have no legal authority/justification to use deadly force in your hypothetical situation.

Funny, I would say the exact opposite in Florida IF articulated correctly.


EDIT:

776.012  Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1)  He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or


and

776.08  Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.


The "perp" in the above scenario could fall into this catagory IF he was doing some of the things I described in my first post.

You can "what if" something to death.  That's fine to a point to "wargame" a scenario to learn from it.  But it gets to a point where you what if everything and come up with stupid crap like......."what if a frog had wings, would he bump his ass when he jumps".

if you shoot when there was no immediate threat you would be looking at manslaughter minimum if death occured, if not at least assault with intent or assault with a deadly weapon.

it would be considered vigilantism or revenge killing and yes you are looking at the same charge as the individual who is fleeing

Quoted: Quoted: So him stabbing and killing someone then running doesn't show a threat to others?  I'm a little confused.  So if I were to see the actual physical stabbing... I could shoot him, yet if he is all done, and leaving, I have to let him? I'll be sure to pass on that he is an idiot for ya. Self defense laws do not allow you to shoot people who "show a threat to others".   an IMMEDIATE deadly threat, probably.

Not only deadly, but most states allow you to use the same amount of force to protect others as you would yourself. That includes great bodily harm, forcible felonies and lethal threats.

Quoted: Quoted: In Florida you'd be going to prison. You have no legal authority/justification to use deadly force in your hypothetical situation. Funny, I would say the exact opposite in Florida IF articulated correctly. EDIT: 776.012  Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1)  He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or and 776.08  Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual. The "perp" in the above scenario could fall into this catagory IF he was doing some of the things I described in my first post. You can "what if" something to death.  That's fine to a point to "wargame" a scenario to learn from it.  But it gets to a point where you what if everything and come up with stupid crap like......."what if a frog had wings, would he bump his ass when he jumps".

Question is, if he's fleeing, how can you articulate that he's an immediate threat to anybody? Short of seeing him actively runnings toward somebody with weapon in hand, I don't think anybody is going to buy it. I certainly won't.

Solution, get his attention so he turns around then pop him in the chest. Makes it look like he is coming at you with knife and you were defending yourself.
.
.
.
.

It depends on where you are (which state) when you faced with this situation.  There are States that will not prosecute because the bad guy was a threat to the general public.  Other states will throw you under the prison.  Your best bet is to go help your coworker and get a good description of the bad guy.  I doubt I would shot.

You want to "tackle" some guy running with a knife?  Not smart.

The use of deadly force is justified if you or a loved one is in immenent danger and there is no way out of the shooting.  So to answer your question call 911 and administer first aid to the victim

I side with the crowd that says the shoot was bad. If the person is fleeing with their back to you they are not a direct threat to you. Administer First Aid to the victim and call police.

I suppose you could go chase after the person as they are running away but I would not recommend that. Best to leave the chasing to the cops.

My view of CCW is that it is for my direct protection and the protection of my family. I am not a cop and it is not my duty to enforce the law. Everyone elses protection is their responsibility. I have no desire to shoot someone and would try to avoid at all costs unless my life, my wifes, or my childs is directly threatened. Using Deadly Force to save someone else is at ones own discretion and should be done with extreme caution if you are a CCW Holder.

That's my humble opinion.

Prison love is one the way .

At the risk of not reading 4 pages of arguments...it depends on where you live and the laws you are governed by.

Where I come from, it is legal to shoot a fleeing felon in the event you can articulte that he is/was an immediate potential threat to others.  Is this a good idea?  Likely not, unless the threat is very immediate.  Regardless of the circumstances, you are likely to get sued after shooting someone.  This is civil...and civil law is very open.  Additionally, in the case you present, they are likely going to make you look very bad.  Are you likely to get charged criminally?  It could happen, but I don't think so, given you had the idea I laid out above.  If you just figured you'd shoot the guy to prevent him from escaping...well, then you may not fare as well.  Rather than shoot, you may be smarter to call 911 and try to follow the guy.  Tactically, you're probably better to call 911 and render aid to the stabbed victim and give a good description of the "suspect" and his direction of travel...but my conscience would feel terrible if the guy ended up killing others and I didn't try to follow him to aid in his apprehension.  Then again, if your co-worker died and they could argue that you didn't render aid...well, you're probably damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Have fun with that.

Do the right thing.

A knife-wielding murderer is about to run out on to the street.

Is there a school nearby?
Is your wife / GF stopping by work today?


If you were driving around town and saw a police officer shot or stabbed, then run over by the badguy would you just walk away?
www.wmur.com/news/13309049/detail.html


Use of force is pretty typically covered by 3 key components:
Ability
Intent
Opportunity

if all 3 are a "GO" to myself, my friends, loved ones or even society as a whole, I'm comfortable shooting / stabbing / beating / biting until the guy is no longer a threat.


What if this was at a mall?  Some guy stabs a clerk to death and runs out past you and into the halls of the mall?  Is he a threat to others? Has he shown the Ability and Intent to commit murder?   Does he have the Opportunity to kill others that get in his way?



DO THE RIGHT THING.

height=8

Quoted: ....Remember it is all how you perceive this attacker....

Unfortunately that is not the case.  It's how the law percieves the attacker.  Shooting in the back is a big bad no no if the person is trying to flee.  We could argue this many times over but the law is on the bad guy's side in this instance (as far as shooting him goes).  Because he is no longer using deadly force, or posing a threat of deadly force (he's running away....common), you can no longer use deadly force to stop him.  By all means, tackle him and beat his ass if you so dare.  Or corner him and make him come at you with the knife (then he would be using deadly force to get past you), THEN shoot him.  

But as the situation was layed out, you can't shoot the BG here.

Quoted: Quoted: ....Remember it is all how you perceive this attacker.... Unfortunately that is not the case.  It's how the law percieves the attacker.  Shooting in the back is a big bad no no if the person is trying to flee.  We could argue this many times over but the law is on the bad guy's side in this instance (as far as shooting him goes).  Because he is no longer using deadly force, or posing a threat of deadly force (he's running away....common), you can no longer use deadly force to stop him.  By all means, tackle him and beat his ass if you so dare.  Or corner him and make him come at you with the knife (then he would be using deadly force to get past you), THEN shoot him.   But as the situation was layed out, you can't shoot the BG here.

Not so. The legal standard relies on the reasonable man. If a reasonable man, knowing what you know, would have reasonably believed that he was threatened to the degree required by law for the use of deadly force, it is lawful to shoot.

My point is that "how the law perceives the attacker" is simply how a reasonable man would perceive the attacker.

But certainly the judges instructions have a huge role in whether a defendant is convicted or not, and whether an appeal is successful or not.

Shooting is not justified and if the fleeing shot guy dies, you get indicted for murder most likely.

There was a case like this in Ft Lauderdale. A fired employee showed up and started shooting the joint up (possibly a sanitation business). Several victims and a witness who saw the buy leaving. Witness wanted to do something and happened to have an ak or sks in his truck. Results were, one dead bad guy, shot in the back. State Attorney said in effect "We don't encourage people to take this type of action but given the circumstances of this case we wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting a jury to convict the witness in the case" No charges were filed.

Bravo to the state attorney for not putting the witness through the wringer.

Quoted: There was a case like this in Ft Lauderdale. A fired employee showed up and started shooting the joint up (possibly a sanitation business). Several victims and a witness who saw the buy leaving. Witness wanted to do something and happened to have an ak or sks in his truck. Results were, one dead bad guy, shot in the back. State Attorney said in effect "We don't encourage people to take this type of action but given the circumstances of this case we wouldn't have a chance in hell of getting a jury to convict the witness in the case" No charges were filed. Bravo to the state attorney for not putting the witness through the wringer.

Knew Florida was good for something.
I love the use of force in perceived danger/threat

Have to remeber this:

Whenever you shoot someone you can be charged with the crime of Murder or Manslaughter.

What is murder?  Under the old common law Murder is the intentional unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought.  

A prosecutor or in some cases a Grand Jury will decide based on the facts presented to them by the police whether there is probable cause that exists to charge you with murder or possibly manslaughter.

What is manslaughter?  Under the old common law Manslaughter is intentional unlawful killing of another in the heat of passion.   Heat of passion is characterized by two factors 1) whether there was provocation, 2) whether there was no time to chill.  When it is found that there has been an imperfect use of self-defense Manslaughter will be the most likely charge.

Self-Defense and Self Defense of Others:  

When you have a reasonable belief that you or those around you are about to be done immediate great bodily harm or death and either you or they are unable to make a safe retreat then the law recognizes that you can raise the affirmative defense of self-defense or self-defense of others to the crime of murder or manslaughter.  

Once you raise the defense you must prove through clear and convincing evidence that you were not the initial agressor, that a reasonable person would have formed the same fears as you under the circumstances, and that a safe retreat was not an option.  So, the burden of  proof is on you once the defense is raised and not on the state to show that you didn't act in self-defense of yourself or others.

If you properly raise the defense of self-defense of yourself or others and the jury agrees your actions to kill will be deemed lawful and you will be excused from the crime.  

Imperfect Self-Defense:

Let's examine the facts you provided:

1) The criminal had already abandoned his attack and this was clear to a reasonable person since his back was facing toward you and he was running away.

2) There was no one at that point at an immediate risk of death or great bodily harm from the attacker given the circumstances described.

In conclusion, it is highly likely that under the provided facts in the hypo that most defendants in the majority of states would be found guilty of Murder.  I doubt even manslaughter would be a charge here as this wasn't a case of imperfect self-defense since there was not even evidence of a subjective belief of death or great bodily harmed.  Often imperfect self-defense stems from individuals using deadly force when instead they should have used non-deadly force.  In others words, they had a right to defend themselves, but not to a lethal degree.  Another instance where an imperfect use of self-defense is when you could have made a safe retreat, but didn't although it is much more likely that folks will find that there was a reasonable question about whether a safe retreat was an option.  Here the risk of harm was never presented to the Defendant and therefore it is more likely he would be found guilty of murder. The provocation element to manslaughter might be met if you had a special relationship or the circumstances otherwise provided it, but it is doubtful that would fly.

The best you could do would be to hope for and accept a plea deal where you would be charged with manslaughter or if you were really lucky involuntary murder (unlawful act with intent to injure or grossly neglegent).  Get a sentence of 10-20 and maybe you're out in 10 or slightly less with parole.  If I was your lawyer I would attempt to persuade the prosecutor to not charge you in the first place and if they did than I would push for involuntary manslaughter and try to get you a favorable recommedation for sentencing by the prosecutor.  Otherwise, all I'm doing at trial is a song and dance hoping I stacked the jury with members of AR15.com. I'd have to say something to the effect that is was highly likely that other people could have been outside the building coming in and it was reasonable for you to believe that such people a) existed and b) were in danger, which is a stretch. I highly doubt you'd be able to get any expert witness to support such a defense either.  I wouldn't want to go to trial on it though and would probably withdraw from the case if you insisted on it.
 

I wouldn't risk it!  Take a mental picture of the attacker, call 911 and try to help your co-worker.