Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/18/2006 7:43:43 AM EDT
In this months Combat Handguns magazine, they have some reader submitted stories about defensive use of handguns by convenience store clerks. One of the stories is from a guy carrying a Colt 1911 Gov't model. To keep a long story short, on the final shot of his 7-shot magazine, he reports that he shoots 75 feet through a doorway, across an open parking lot at the felon who is running from the scene. This final round hits the fleeing robber and kills him. He says that his gun was returned the next day and a grand jury ruled it justifiable homicide. Does this story strike anyone else as a little far-fetched? Shooting at a BG as he's running away clearly does not meet the requirements of imminent bodily harm or threat of death. Anyone else read this and care to comment? Personally, I find it almost hard to believe they printed this story.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 8:33:18 AM EDT
Maybe the robber was firing as he ran? Also, some states allow the use of deadly force to stop someone who is fleeing after commmiting a violent felony.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 8:58:45 AM EDT

Several years back, a guy walked in to a small jewelry shop in McAllen,TX and held up the place. He made off with some jewelry (I don’t remember him getting cash) and was getting into his vehicle when the store owner approached him and shot the guy through the window while he was starting his car. He died. Everyone in the community was pissed when they said they would conduct an investigation and possibly file charges. Anyway, the DA did an investigation and decided not to prosecute the guy for anything. Then again, the store owner was in his late 70’s or 80’s. Can you imagine the public outrage at the authorities for trying to can some poor, old WWII veteran for trying to defend his business against some crazed thug? Like I said, everyone in the community went berserk! I really don’t remember, but maybe it was an election year.

There may very well be too many factors involved to know if that story in Combat Handguns is true or not.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 1:09:05 PM EDT
Funny, I got this issue and it's the first one I have ever read. Anyway I agree that that story is BS. Kinda makes me wonder about the rest of the mag.
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 2:38:54 PM EDT
If you know better, you realize 50% of written articles are "elaborated."

People are lazy. Authenticity requires research. Much easier just to fabricate.

Link Posted: 2/18/2006 4:33:51 PM EDT
A fleeing armed robber isn't that hard to justifiably shoot.

He is an armed fleeing felon that still poses a threat to society. You need people around that may become victims, another place he may run and take hostages, or "he turned and pointed the weapon at you".
Link Posted: 2/18/2006 5:59:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 6:33:55 AM EDT
I thought the same thing when I read it earlier this week.

I am a LEO in Ohio (which is where that took place, IIRC) and there is no way in hell that occured as written unless it was prior to 197? when it was rulled against the law to shoot a fleeing felon (or fleeing anything for that matter). That guy would get his gun back in a year or two IF he didn't go to jail for it.

I am amazed that people fabricate stuff like this and even more amazed that the magazine doesn't take the time to confirm the story.


I say BS .. if I'm wrong, then I owe someone an apology.
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 9:28:57 AM EDT
(humor mode on) It's obviously BS. The article said ' on the final shot of his 7-shot magazine' and everybody knows that a Colt 1911 won't fire that many shots without jamming. (humor mode off)

75 feet is only 25 yards, which I consider to be the far range for combat pistol work, but doable. Not being charged for shooting a fleeing felon depends on what the state laws are. I believe in Texas you are allowed to gut and skin a fleeing felon after shooting them, limit 2 per year.

I'm just not sure about getting your gun back the next day though. At that point it would be evidence, and I've never seen or heard of a DA that could decide which direction to wipe his ass in less than 2 weeks. BSW
Link Posted: 2/25/2006 6:07:04 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/26/2006 5:27:56 PM EDT
I'm a subscriber and when I saw that story I thought the same thing. I'll for carrying and using a gun in self-defense, but this seems too far to me. Nowadays I can't imageine it going that easy for him. That has to be bs.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 9:19:59 PM EDT
Armed, fleeing felon.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:45:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By joker581:
Armed, fleeing felon.



You say that like it means something. Please don't give legal advice to all these guys unless you're truly informed. This did indeed used to be the state of the law, but I think you'll find that the Supreme Court decided that that is no longer the case.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:56:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 2:59:07 AM EDT by 1IV]
Yes. it was justified. The fleeing fellon still had his gun, and the shooter was authorized deadly force to prevent the comission of a felony. What felony? The one the jackass was trying to run away from. His escape was not compleete, and the store owner was justified in shooting him. You pull a gun on me and turn your back? Fuc%in -A I will shoot yer a$$. I have no problem with the shoot. This is Texas. Check the statute for the justification of deadly force. It means that civilians have a much broader use of deadly force.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 6:04:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 7:26:28 AM EDT by joker581]

Originally Posted By WilsonCQB1911:

Originally Posted By joker581:
Armed, fleeing felon.



You say that like it means something. Please don't give legal advice to all these guys unless you're truly informed. This did indeed used to be the state of the law, but I think you'll find that the Supreme Court decided that that is no longer the case.

I said that as a possible explanation of why the shooting may have been justified.

It certainly is not legal advice.

In fact, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that if you are stupid enough to take a post on the internet, written by a stranger as legal advice, you deserve what you get when it blows up in your face.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 8:36:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WilsonCQB1911:
but I think you'll find that the Supreme Court decided that that is no longer the case.



In TN v Garner there was no issue of being armed. Any fleeing felon could be shot whether or not the actually posed a threat to others.

An armed fleeing felon will meet that threat in most circumstances.

One thing you also need to consider is this was a restriction ON THE GOVERNEMENT not on the people. Granted, a DA may use this ruling to decide if it is criminal or not even though it should not apply.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:02:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RDP:
A fleeing armed robber isn't that hard to justifiably shoot.

He is an armed fleeing felon that still poses a threat to society. You need people around that may become victims, another place he may run and take hostages, or "he turned and pointed the weapon at you".



True. As a matter of principle, though, not supposed to shoot them if they're fleeing from you. Also, at the distances described, it sounds like BS. Who the hell is good enough that they could actually hit a running target from 75 feet with a single shot from a stock 1911 while under stress and actually eliminate the target ?
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:43:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 5:57:59 PM EDT by WilsonCQB1911]

Originally Posted By RDP:

Originally Posted By WilsonCQB1911:
but I think you'll find that the Supreme Court decided that that is no longer the case.



In TN v Garner there was no issue of being armed. Any fleeing felon could be shot whether or not the actually posed a threat to others.

An armed fleeing felon will meet that threat in most circumstances.

One thing you also need to consider is this was a restriction ON THE GOVERNEMENT not on the people. Granted, a DA may use this ruling to decide if it is criminal or not even though it should not apply.



Really? Who did you hear that from? You won't be representing me anytime soon .

This is my favorite part: "Any fleeing felon could be shot whether or not the actually posed a threat to others." Don't commit tax fraud folks -- they'll gun you down. Why did they even bother arresting those Enron guys?? That's what full auto is for


From the end of the majority opinion in the case courtesy of Justice White:
"In reversing, the Court of Appeals accepted the District Court's factual conclusions and held that "the facts, as found, did not justify the use of deadly force." 710 F.2d, at 246. *21 We agree. Officer Hymon could not reasonably have believed that Garner--young, slight, and unarmed--posed any threat. Indeed, Hymon never attempted to justify his actions on any basis other than the need to prevent an escape. The District Court stated in passing that "[t]he facts of this case did not indicate to Officer Hymon that Garner was 'non-dangerous.' " App. to Pet. for Cert. A34. This conclusion is not explained, and seems to be based solely on the fact that Garner had broken into a house at night. However, the fact that Garner was a suspected burglar could not, without regard to the other circumstances, automatically justify the use of deadly force. Hymon did not have probable cause to believe that Garner, whom he correctly believed to be unarmed, posed any physical danger to himself or others."
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 5:52:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 5:54:56 PM EDT by WilsonCQB1911]
Since there's been a lot of internet lawyering in this thread, I thought I'd provide some guidance to those of you who are lost and wondering what to do. Let me give you a little guidance so that you don't end up facing murder charges because of some BS story that got published in a magazine. They really should've done some real reporting and investigated this story before it was published.

I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Here's some cliff note's law for you:

If you're a Police Officer:
armed + felon + fleeing might/might not = "shoot to slide lock". It's not an easy thing to answer and there's no bright-line rule. It will be evaluated based on the circumstances.

If you're an armed citizen:
armed + felon + fleeing DOES NOT = shoot. Fleeing means that you no longer have a reasonable belief that you're in fear for your life or in fear of serious harm. You carry a gun for SELF DEFENSE and that's what the law allows. You're not Batman. You will likely find yourself a felon if you shoot a fleeing suspect or at least on the wrong end of a wrongful death action.
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 9:26:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WilsonCQB1911:

Really? Who did you hear that from? You won't be representing me anytime soon .

This is my favorite part: "Any fleeing felon could be shot whether or not the actually posed a threat to others." Don't commit tax fraud folks -- they'll gun you down. Why did they even bother arresting those Enron guys?? That's what full auto is for



Apparently you failed to understand that was standard practice in LE.....shooting fleeing felons was routinely utilized.

Represent you??? Nah, you couldn't afford the bill
Link Posted: 3/1/2006 9:48:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/1/2006 9:50:15 AM EDT by WilsonCQB1911]

Originally Posted By RDP:

Originally Posted By WilsonCQB1911:

Really? Who did you hear that from? You won't be representing me anytime soon .

This is my favorite part: "Any fleeing felon could be shot whether or not the actually posed a threat to others." Don't commit tax fraud folks -- they'll gun you down. Why did they even bother arresting those Enron guys?? That's what full auto is for



Apparently you failed to understand that was standard practice in LE.....shooting fleeing felons was routinely utilized.

Represent you??? Nah, you couldn't afford the bill



That's a world of difference from stating that it's legal however. Carjackings, theft, etc are becoming "routine" in some parts of the country as well....

Where exactly was this standard practice and why do you state that it is standard practice? Did a police chief tell the troops to shoot any fleeing suspect? What time period was it that it was considered standard practice?

No offense at all, truly, but all I've got are sweeping generalities without any substance or proof with which to evaluate that. The only substance you've provided turned out to be exactly the opposite of what you claimed. I'm really not trying to personally attack you, just the arguments submitted.
Link Posted: 3/2/2006 8:52:25 AM EDT
I was quoting the situation of the case, not the ruling. That is what was being practiced. See my earlier post for what is accepted by the courts for the ruling.

Were you not alive prior to TN v Garner????

Since you not believing a practice was widely used, you can look at TN as a prime example of how it was being used.
Link Posted: 3/3/2006 5:37:12 PM EDT
Top Top