Good or bad shoot???

[mikenewgun87]

I was watching youtube, several videos in other countries and here stateside: had the good guy shoot and eliminate the bad guy threat. Both good and bad guy facing towards each other, but some shoots had the good guy shoot the bad guy in the back...

What's the legality of this here in the US? Would the food guy got jail time for shooting the threat/bad guy in the back when he's busy robbing the place???

I think I can kinda understand that shooting the bad guy in the back when they are leaving, the jury might say that bad guy is no longer a threat right???

But like I said, what if the bad guy had their back turned to the good guy and they were shot???


Sorry if this is a beaten horse...but I'd like to get some opinions...

[IrishJoe3]

Context is missing, as well as a good grasp of the "check boxes" necessary for a "good shoot".

Keep in mind lethal force is justifiable in defense of self OR others. For example, an armed individual running away from the police, but towards a school, businesses, etc could easily be a justified shoot based on reasonable fear for the safety of bystanders.

There is also the "fleeing felon" rule, whereas a violent felon can be shot for for the purpose of apprehension and preventing a further threat to society. For example, consider the Dorner search. Dorner was clearly a public threat, violent, and he was a significant serious public threat. In a hypothetical situation where an officer saw a fleeing Dorner, using lethal force on Dorner to apprehend him would be justified under that rule.

[IVC]

In most states "shooting in the back" by itself is not a legal issue. It will factor into the overall picture of the event, though.

The problem with back shots is that they don't imply the guy was retreating or that the threat has passed. They simply establish relative position of the parties. What matters to determining legality is whether there was a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm.

[IrishJoe3]

In most states "shooting in the back" by itself is not a legal issue. It will factor into the overall picture of the event, though.

The problem with back shots is that they don't imply the guy was retreating or that the threat has passed. They simply establish relative position of the parties. What matters to determining legality is whether there was a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm.

Exactly, well said. I recall a shooting in San Francisco a few years back where officers shot a man in the back while pursuing him on foot. It invoked a lot of local outrage, but the man was actually firing blindly over his shoulder while running away.

[Skip_Dog]

^^ this. A bad guy can still shoot at you while having his back to you. If you fear for your life because bad guy is shooting at you or others time to take him out. Back, front or where ever you can hit him.