Self-Defense Question

[JLed]

I've got an interesting scenario that I've been thinking about for a while and I wanted to get some opinions on it....

Say you're walking down the street and someone gets the drop on you and pulls a gun on you in order to rob you. (I know the #1 rule of self defense is awareness but bear with me). Now say that you can't pull your own weapon since the guy is covering you and you are forced to hand over your wallet, keys, phone, etc.

Now after that, say the guy puts his weapon away and turns to leave, what rights do you have to try and regain your property and perhaps retain the criminal? Are you allowed to restablish contact, pull your weapon and confront the guy to return your possessions? Going further with this, what if upon seeing your weapon, the guy tries to pull his own and you are forced to shoot or even kill him. Is there any liability associated with this scenario?

My questions are primarily concerned with the legalities, not so much as to whether you SHOULD do this. The reason I ask this is I can imagine times where you might be distracted and are unable to defend yourself during the commission of the crime and I wonder how far the law stretches the right to defend yourself and your property.

Thanks in advance

 

[wareagle700]

Depends on how many witnesses you leave.

In that scenario, I hope I would have the mindset to escape when I had the chance and call 911. In the long run, is your wallet or cell phone worth killing someone AFTER the crime is done and they are no longer a threat? However, if they stayed around and weren't paying attention, they would get drawn on.

 

[MonroeTaco]

Just don't shoot him in the back.

 

[shane256]

I'm not a lawyer and, more specifically, I'm not *your* lawyer. However, if the robber has disengaged (is leaving the premises) and you are no longer threatened, then you no longer are in a position to defend yourself. If you then pulled your firearm on the robber, you are now the aggressor and no longer the defender.

Best check with a lawyer specific to your state, though.

 

[Raf Salazar]

i am not an expert by any means, but from what i have read, it is my understanding that you may not use deadly force to recover personal property:

"O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24
Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:

(1) Lawfully in his possession;

(2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or

(3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.

(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

i would say, after reading this, that you would be justified in using deadly force when you are being held up, but not once said criminal has turned around and is leaving you alone; since at that point, he is no longer "committing a forcible felony"

that's just my 2 cents though

 

[j_seph]

Get ya a wallet holster gun then pull your wallet out and give it to him

 

[JLed]

i am not an expert by any means, but from what i have read, it is my understanding that you may not use deadly force to recover personal property:

"O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24
Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:

(1) Lawfully in his possession;

(2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or

(3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.

(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

i would say, after reading this, that you would be justified in using deadly force when you are being held up, but not once said criminal has turned around and is leaving you alone; since at that point, he is no longer "committing a forcible felony"

that's just my 2 cents though

I figured it would be something like that. It's interesting that the law makes that distinction though. If the guy is trying to take something from me, you can use justifiable force to prevent this. But in this example, the second he turns around and you now have the opportunity to protect yourself, its suddenly unlawful? I understand much of this reasoning as the law tried to prevent vigilantism but it seems silly that you can't get your own belongings right back.

I'll take it even one step further as an academic exercise. What if this occured in the middle of nowhere, the man takes your wallet, phone, keys, and your vehicle and you're literally stranded without the means to survive. Assuming the same situation, he turns around and you can finally pull your firearm and you're forced to shoot/kill the bad guy. Is the shooting now justifiable since you might could argue that being left alone in the wilderness and out of contact constitutes a serious threat to your safety?

 

[lagrangedave]

Wait I found another $100 in my pocket, BOOM.

 

[K80Shooter]

Lets say you're alone when all this happens, no witnesses or anything then you wind up shooting / killing him, who's to say he was turned around and leaving?

I know what I would do, do you?

 

[Buck Nasty]

Lets say you're alone when all this happens, no witnesses or anything then you wind up shooting / killing him, who's to say he was turned around and leaving?

I know what I would do, do you?

be careful with that.... you never know when there are security camera's at businesses recording things. you might just be caught on candid camera and the story might not match the evidence.

 

[GunnSmokeer]

You're asking a legal question, not about what is practical or wise or in your best interests.

I read the question as basically, "I witnessed a forcible felony take place in front of me (because I'm the victim!) and the crime was successfully complete and now the offender is escaping. Can I use deadly force to stop his escape?

My answer is NO, not directly based on only what you have written so far. But you can probably draw your gun and have it handy and ready and to a "felony stop" on him-- announce that he's under arrest and warn him to not touch his weapon.

If he pulls his gun at that point, you can shoot him.
If he runs away, you can't shoot him. That's 100% certain. You'll have to choose to either use non-deadly force on him (chase him down, tackle him, pin him down, etc.) or just let him go and call 911 and give a good description of him and which way he went.

The legal gray area is if he doesn't make any move toward his gun, but instead curses you and balls up his fists and dares you to try to take him down. You can't shoot him, but he's confident he'll kick your butt if you go against him man-to-man with fists and feet. Can you legally try? Sure. But you can't pull your gun halfway through the fight and kill him just because you're losing a fistfight that you challenged him to (by trying to do a citizens arrest on him).
You'd have to wait until you were losing the fight so badly that you reasonably thought he would beat you to death or seriously disfigure you.
Or you'd have to wait until he got frustrated with the bare-hands brawling and HE goes for either your gun or his. Then you could legally shoot him, if you could physically pull that off.

 

[ross the deer slayer]

Guy with gun threatens you and steals your stuff..puts gun in pants, turns around, starts walking away. alright see ya' tomorrow! I'd pull the gun on him but that doesn't answer your question

 

[Doe Master]

The best piece of advice I was givin is if your ears are red and burning you will be in trouble because you are mad.... if your cold and clammy you are scared and are in fear for your life and will be justified. If you are worried about what will happen most likely you shouldn't do it. Pray you never have to find out.

 

[JLed]

This was mainly an academic exercise just to get a sense for where the line is drawn for the right to protect yourself and your property.

I think I understand the responses to say I can draw on him after the fact to detain him for the police to come and if he tries to draw his in response I can open fire. I understand that all of this is tricky and the best course of action is probably to let the cops sort it out since its not worth dying over a $10 Wal-Mart wallet and plastic credit cards that I'll cancel in the next hour.

What about in the second scenario where you're being robbed and stranded in the wilderness might constitute a serious threat to your well-being?

 

[JustUs4All]

Very basically: you can use non lethal force to prevent him from leaving with your property. If he resists to the point that you are reasonably in fear for your life you can then use lethal force to defend yourself.

This situation would very fluid, the differences between being in the right and being in the wrong are slight, and your actions will be second guessed after the fact by people who do not necessarily have your best interest at heart.

If you have any doubts, give Mr. George Zimmerman a call.

 

[Randy]

If he turns to leave jump him. If he goes for his gun again shoot him.

 

[noylj]

This reminds me of the arson law.
You can't shoot an arsonist before he ignites something. You can't shoot him once the fire has started. Thus, the only justifiable time to shoot is between the lighter being lit and the gasoline being ignited.
Put all the lawyers up against the wall...

 

[Ballplayer]

Just hope your lawyer finds 11 more like me because if I'm on the jury you'd be safe even if he had turned and was headed toward the next victim

 

[Lindseys Grandpa]

The simplest way i know to put this is. You shoot someone because you have to not because you can.

 

[NCMTNHunter]

I'm not one to back down from a fight but if the guy has my wallet and is walking away and I am alive to go home and see my daughter then I am going to leave it at that. I'm a pretty good shot with a handgun but there is still a chance I miss and he doesn't... If your alive and the threat is over no sense in chancing it.