Shooting Someone In The Back

Would You Shoot Someone Running From a Murder Which You Witnessed?

  • In NY the law says Yes and I would shoot

    Votes: 3 50.0%

  • In NY the law says Yes but I would not shoot.

    Votes: 3 50.0%

  • You are misinterpreting the law but I would shoot anyway.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • You are misinterpreting the law AND I would not shoot.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    6
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
I've been reviewing the NY State Physical Force Law and it states the following:

35.30 Para 4

A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has committed such offense; and may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a)....(Not pertinent here)
(b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder, manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible criminal sexual act and who is in the immediate flight therefrom.

Seems obvious to me that this law makes an exception to the general rule of shooting someone in the back, assuming you have "reasonable belief". Agree? Disagree?
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
No, and I don't think it seems strange at all. I'm asking for the interpretation of the law.

Things like "reasonable belief" are difficult and hairy legal concepts that change from one incident to the next. I am attempting to clarify the intentions of such a law and the reasoning for the wording thereof.

That and I was curious about the thoughts of others on the steps that are reasonable in apprehending a murderer or other criminal.
 
J

JuanCarlos

New member
To explain, I'm pretty sure that that law says you'd (theoretically) be covered, but things like "reasonable belief" are often left up to juries and I'm not sure I'd trust one, particularly anywhere near NYC.

So yes, I think the law allows for it but no, I probably would not shoot.
 
T

TwoXForr

New member
I dont know it would change with the total circumstances of the situation. Did I see the murder committed, did I know the actors involved.

A lot of vaiables involved in "reasonable belief".

This I would think would be more pertinent in the Tactics Section.
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
This I would think would be more pertinent in the Tactics Section.
Click to expand...

I almost posted it there but then I decided it was about the interpretation of law so I put it here.
I'm sure the mods will use their magic wand if I was mistaken.;)

A lot of vaiables involved in "reasonable belief".
Click to expand...

I know it, that's what I'm trying to figure. I had to take a class to get a CC permit and the last question on the test was:
You walk around a corner and witness a man stabbing an old lady to death, he runs when he sees you. Are you authorized to shoot?

I said Yes (even though I don't think I personally would) but I'm not sure what answer they were looking for as we didn't get any results, just PASS/FAIL and the other questions were no brainers.
 
F

FireMax

New member
I don't believe that I am capable of shooting someone in the back. Anytime I hear of such an event where someone is shot in the back, I think negatively upon the shooter, regardless of the situation. Think about the legend of Jesse James, whose killer shot him in the back, and was considered a coward by many.

On a side note, why can't people make polls with simple answers. Would I shoot someone in the back who was running away from a murder scene? NO.
 
A

astromanluca

New member
It sounds like the law will protect you if you shoot someone in the back who committed a murder, IF they did in fact commit a murder (or one of the other crimes listed).

If you shoot someone who did not commit one of those crimes, even if you think they did, then you would probably be charged with manslaughter (or equivalent, if the person doesn't die).

That's my non-lawyer reading of the law, anyway.

From a personal standpoint... I'd only shoot if I saw it happen. If I only see a guy running from the scene of a murder, no way. Maybe he's an innocent bystander who is afraid he'll be the next victim. You can't be certain unless you actually see someone commit the crime - and on top of that, you'd have to see enough of it to be sure that you're actually witnessing a crime and not an act of self-defense.

The idea is not to punish someone on the spot for committing a crime. That's what the justice system is for. The idea is to prevent him from running off and killing someone else.
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
On a side note, why can't people make polls with simple answers. Would I shoot someone in the back who was running away from a murder scene? NO.
Click to expand...

Because it's not that simple. There are two variables and therefor 4 possibilities to account for those variables. It's really not a complicated poll.
The laws says X, I would X1. Simple.
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
It sounds like the law will protect you if you shoot someone in the back who committed a murder, IF they did in fact commit a murder (or one of the other crimes listed).
Click to expand...

Note also that the law actually lists robbery in that section. I would never think that shooting a robber after he robs you and runs away would be legal.
 
M

Musketeer

New member
Think about the legend of Jesse James, whose killer shot him in the back, and was considered a coward by many.
Click to expand...

Romance aside James was a robber and murderer. I consider Pat Garret simply smart to have shot him in the back. Different era anyway from what we are discussing.
 
B

Brian Pfleuger

Moderator Emeritus
It is a very strange statute. The same law in a higher paragraph seems to indicate that LE can only shoot someone fleeing a felony if they are armed:


35.30
1) A police officer or peace officer... deadly physical force may be used for such purposes only...

(b) The offense committed or attempted by such person was a felony and that, in the course of resisting arrest therefor or attempting to escape custody, such person is armed with a firearm or deadly weapon; or... (paraphrase here) it is necessary to protect someone else


So the private citizen has a LOWER threshold for deadly force than a police officer?
 
A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
A criminal deense attorney in NY, could give you a better answer than anyone on the interweb. Even an attorney can't predict how a Jury will see it, however.

Closed.

If you can't figure out why, then you really need to quit posting in L&P.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top