User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/18/2006 8:33:18 AM EDT
[#1]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2006 8:58:45 AM EDT
[#2]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2006 1:09:05 PM EDT
[#3]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2006 2:38:54 PM EDT
[#4]
If you know better, you realize 50% of written articles are "elaborated."
People are lazy. Authenticity requires research. Much easier just to fabricate. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2006 4:33:51 PM EDT
[#5]
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". |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2006 5:59:34 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2006 6:33:55 AM EDT
[#7]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2006 9:28:57 AM EDT
[#8]
(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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2006 6:07:04 PM EDT
[#9]
I did not read the story, but I will say it is well within the realm of possibility that it happened just as described...only sometime in the 1960's or prior. Hell they used to convene a "Coroner's Jury" right on the spot and "rule" on the incident! A "Justifiable Homicide" ruling was grounds to give the shooter his gun back right then and there!
 Today? No way a shooter gets his gun / evidence back BEFORE a Grand Jury rules on the case, and ity takes a while to convene a Grand Jury! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/26/2006 5:27:56 PM EDT
[#10]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/27/2006 9:19:59 PM EDT
[#11]
Armed, fleeing felon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:45:55 AM EDT
[#12]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:56:54 AM EDT
[#13]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 6:04:14 AM EDT
[#14]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 8:36:55 AM EDT
[#15]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 2:02:49 PM EDT
[#16]
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 ? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 4:43:01 PM EDT
[#17]
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." |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2006 5:52:44 PM EDT
[#18]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2006 9:26:11 AM EDT
[#19]
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
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2006 9:48:22 AM EDT
[#20]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 8:52:25 AM EDT
[#21]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:37:12 PM EDT
[#22]
As a retired LEO who worked uniformed street level enforcement for over 3/4 of my career, I can truthfully say that prior to Garner many agencies were pretty routine about shooting "non-violent" fleeing felons...car thieves and burglars mostly. (Garner was a burglar). Depending on the location (many state laws simply mirror federal law on such subjects, but not all) it really was not a big deal in lots of places (although I doubt that CT was one of them). In fact, Sandra Day O'Conner wrote the dissenting opinion on Garner (a 5 to 4 decision) and made an excellent arguement for why the law should not have been considered unconstitutional.
Quite a few agencies had already begun to change their policies before the Garner decision and that fact was actually used by the court to justify their ruling. In the case of my agency, I, as chief firearms instructor, had taught for at least 5 years that we just did not shoot ANY fleeing felon (here, theft of a fire extinguisher is a felony) blah, blah, but in many places that was not the case. Recall that the officer who shot Garner did not violate the law and that fact was never in question. A lawfully armed citizen who decides to shoot a violent fleeing felon who is obviously armed and has just committed a forceful felony is taking a chance, but...IF he shoots the right guy... in my area there is about a 99% chance he will not be arrested or prosecuted...elsewhere, I cannot say. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
