When is it O.K. to shoot?

[Tom Towns]

I live kittycorner to a residential park of about two acres & in the last couple of months there have been 5 shooting incidents...in the first, a group of five "urban yutes" parked a car about 5 houses up the street & when getting out, I seen one of them sticking what appeared to be a sawed off weapon of some sort, down his pants...I got on the phone to the 911 operator & was giving descriptions when the one who'd stuck the gun down his pants, pulled it out & started popping shots off across the park at another group of thugs, who promptly started slinging shots back...the instigators were directly in front of my house when this started... cops never did show up.
In the next incident, I heard shots being fired, looked up & seen a young teen firing at another (who was running down the street)...The shooter started running towards my house as his escape route. I was in my garage & if he'd tried to come through it I would have shot him...luckily for both of us, he rounded the corner & ran up the street. Again, no sheriffs responded to my knowledge. Last week, a drive by happened to a house on the direct opposite side of the park (one woman hit) & the vehicle came around my corner at a high rate of speed...

In all three incidents, I could have shot & killed, or seriously wounded the perpetrators... I'm seriously sick to death of this crap.

[FresnoRob]

I would not leave my house to engage in a gun fight. If you or your family is in danger you have a right to defend yourself. Just because you could have shot the perpetrators I would not unless there is a real danger to you and your family.
This sounds like a gang war. Stay out of it unless you are threatened.

Only you know if you are in danger and if you are take action. Be aware even if you are involved in a good shoot you will have to prove you feared for you life or great bodily harm. If not in criminal court then in civil court and maybe both.

[Tom Towns]

I'm 62 years old & I grew up less than a mile from here. When I was a kid, these miscreants would have been dealt with promptly...There is a real danger to my family...& that's letting these dumbasses get away with this sort of thing. My house already has a chip of stucco missing where someone hit it with a round. Our laws should allow for citizens to shoot thugs who start shooting up residential neighborhoods...

[fiddletown]

The question is never, "When is it okay to shoot?" The question needs to be, "When must I shoot to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent?"

The core issue with a claim of self defense is that you will need to present evidence supporting your claim that a reasonable person would have believed lethal force was necessary to prevent otherwise unavoidable, imminent death to an innocent. What will be needed to do that depends on exactly what happens and how it happens. Some factors will make it easier (e. g., the assailant has a weapon, the assailant is young and fit while you are old and infirm, etc.). Some factors will make it harder (e. g., distance, barriers between you and the assailant, etc.).

Let's look at the basic legal reality of the use of force in self defense.

1. Our society takes a dim view of the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.
   
   
   1. However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
      
      
   2. Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.
      
      
   3. Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.
   
   
   
2. The amount of force an actor may justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.
   
   
   1. Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --
      
      
      1. Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
         
         
      2. Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and
         
         
      3. put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.
      
      
      
   2. "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."
      
      
   3. "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.
      
      
   4. "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.
      
      
   5. And unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.
   
   
   
3. If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.
   
   
   1. Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
      
      
   2. If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.
      
      
   3. Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.
      
      
      1. Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
         
         
      2. In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.
         
         
      3. It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.
         
         
      4. It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.
   
   
   
4. Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.
   
   
5. Sometimes a defensive use of lethal force will have grave consequences for the defender, even when ultimately exonerated. For example --
   
   
   • This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.
     
     
   • Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
     
     
   • Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
     
     
   • Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
     
     
   • Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.
     
     
   • Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.
     
     
   • And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.

[Tincon]

Our laws should allow for citizens to shoot thugs who start shooting up residential neighborhoods...

The irony...

[fiddletown]

...Our laws should allow for citizens to shoot thugs who start shooting up residential neighborhoods...

Perhaps you think they should and will find others who agree with you. But the reality is that our laws do not allow that.

[Jimi Jah]

Time to move?

[ElDub1950]

Go to page 8 'Use of Deadly Force' for the legal summary, and note that all justification involve protecting yourself and others from an immediate threat to your/their life or serious injury. Punks shooting up the neighborhood a half a block away would be hard to justify. Punks kicking in your door with guns blazing would be easy to justify. Everything in between depends on your evaluation of the threat.

The key words in the whole thing are: "as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent great bodily injury or death." That 'reasonable person' is going to be the police on scene; the DA; and in the worst case, 12 jurors. Your thinking needs to be correct.

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf?

[kygen]

Here is a hypothetical; what if the guy was standing right in front of your house, shooting outwardly towards the street, or down the street at other people? Would it be justified to take him out in that situation?

[Condorguns]

Here is a hypothetical; what if the guy was standing right in front of your house, shooting outwardly towards the street, or down the street at other people? Would it be justified to take him out in that situation?

You could in theory say you were stopping him from killing others. Of course you will have to yell this above the screaming that you shot a man in the back who was not trying to kill you.

[kygen]

You could in theory say you were stopping him from killing others. Of course you will have to yell this above the screaming that you shot a man in the back who was not trying to kill you.

damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[CSACANNONEER]

Here is a hypothetical; what if the guy was standing right in front of your house, shooting outwardly towards the street, or down the street at other people? Would it be justified to take him out in that situation?

Would a reasonable person be in fear of great bodily injury or death? Using lethal force is a last resort and a non LE doesn't have any legal protection. A non LE should be worried about protecting him/her self and their family instead of playing "hero". In the end, you will be arrested and it would be up to a jury to decide if you shooting someone IN THE BACK was justified or not. You will also be sued in civil court.

We can play "what if" all day and there will never be enough info given to account for ever possibility. But, the facts are that you would probably spend more than a few minutes behind bars and be sued for millions.

[rexblaine]

So long as you match the ammo with the perps you didn't shoot anyone.

[ElDub1950]

Here is a hypothetical; what if the guy was standing right in front of your house, shooting outwardly towards the street, or down the street at other people? Would it be justified to take him out in that situation?

The poor guy was just trying to defend himself from a gang of thugs that are trying to kill him. Go To Jail, Go Directly To Jail, Find $1 million Bail Money. The bottom line is you can't make assumptions about what you think you see and turn vigilante.

[stoeger562]

stick to you and yours bro...last thing you was to be mixed up in a turf war. Sounds like you should round up the community and put pressure on local law enforcement to patrol that area more to show a police presence. .....already sounds like they are avoiding the area.