"So whatya gonna do....?"

[gman3]

It depends on a lot of things:

What is the very bad thing that happened?

Is the suspect armed, and is he escaping by means of a deadly weapon?

Is there probable cause to believe that others may be harmed if the offender is not immediately apprehended?

What is it that you are thinking at the time? You have just witnessed something very bad happen to someone. Can you reasonably explain your actions?

These are just a few examples of decisions that sometimes have to be made in a fraction of a second, yet others will have the luxury of time to examine your actions under a microscope.

Whatever you think you would do, you better make sure you are right, and you better make sure you can explain it without saying...Ummmm.

 

[garryc]

In Ohio you may use force, including lethal force, in defense of a third party WHERE THAT PERSON WOULD BE JUSTIFIED USING THAT FORCE IF THEY COULD.

So, if that person initiated the encounter or escalated it they would not be justified in a use of force, NOR WOULD YOU IN THEIR DEFENSE. That does not consider what you assume. Your assumptions might get you locked up.

Let's understand that when the guy is walking away the element of jeopardy is gone. We the enter into the realm of preclusion. (I.E. is there a reasonable option of use of a lesser level of force or eliminating it) In this case letting him walk away is preclusion.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Let's understand that when the guy is walking away the element of jeopardy is gone.

No, let's not understand this because this is what gets some people injured or killed. When a person is headed away from you, the element of jeopardy certainly may remain. It is easy to know, after the fact, that a person was walking away when they continue to walk away, but what you don't know at the time of the event if that person is simply moving to a better position or is moving to harm another.

As long as that person still has the opportunity and means to harm you, there is still jeopardy. You may nor may not be able to use lethal force at that time according to your state laws, but do not assume that you are not in jeopardy. Too many robbers have turned around and fired while "leaving" or fired while running away.

http://www.live5news.com/story/27361804/ncpd-responded-to-reports-of-attempted-robbery

A report states the employee and a customer chased after the suspect, who fired off three rounds while running away.

http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/d/...pharmacy-robbery/31981/wjTNXG1mx0yazYTcnGYh-A

Investigators say the suspect fired back multiple times while running out the door, but no one was hurt.

These guys were firing on the way out...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVN3nqlIIzo

Just because the bad guys are going away does not mean there is no jeopardy. To think otherwise would be naive.

 

[TimSr]

Being a good witness is probably the best advice for a perp walking away, but I think I'd have a really hard time with that if he had just walked out my front door and had some of my valuables still in his hands. No, it would NOT justify deadly force, but it could likely result in a confrontation, and a reaction that might justify it. This is where local law enforcement attitude can vary greatly between the two extremes of expecting you to watch somebody cart away your belongings to physical intervention that could be interpretted as escalating the situation into a deadly outcome. You can't shoot somebody to save your jewelry box, but you might have a better chance or arguing that while trying to save your jewelry box, the thief pulled a knife on you, etc. and you defended yourself. A "good witness" who takes camera phone pics or even yells at a fleeing perp as the potential of then being attacked, and a defense claim at that point.

One thing they installed in our CCW class was that no one can give you permission to shoot based on thought out scenarios in advance. If you shoot, you will have to defend yourself to authorities and seek retroactive permisson after the fact. You cannot predict how different prosecuters would view the same set of circumstances. Your first obligation is to survive.

 

[zincwarrior]

Everyone on the planet has a cell phone with a camera. Call 911 and use the camera function.

 

[zincwarrior]

Generally, you can shoot, use deadly force to stop violence but not to keep someone from leaving after the crime has been committed, unless you are a cop

That does depend somewhat on jurisdiction, but its a good overall rule.

EDIT: Its always good to note here Texas women always have the "he needed killin your honor" defense. I've never found the actual statute, but thats what my wife told me...

 

[Frank Ettin]

...not to keep someone from leaving after the crime has been committed, unless you are a cop...

Much of the time not even if you're a cop. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985).

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr:

... I think I'd have a really hard time with that if he had just walked out my front door and had some of my valuables still in his hands.

Few, if any, people have enough in the way of valuables to cover the expenses that would follow the use of force in a situation that would lead to a criminal investigation, prosecution, and trial, or that would be required in the event of civil proceedings.

A "good witness" who takes camera phone pics or even yells at a fleeing perp as the potential of then being attacked, and a defense claim at that point.

Thin ice.

 

[Doug Ridley]

Everyone on the planet has a cell phone with a camera. Call 911 and use the camera function.

That is not true, Zinc warrior. There are still a few of us holdouts left.

 

[TimSr]

A "good witness" who takes camera phone pics or even yells at a fleeing perp as the potential of then being attacked, and a defense claim at that point.

Thin ice.

Please explain. I witness a crime. The guy is leaving and I take his picture. He sees me do it, and comes after me and says he's put my phone where it will cause me great pain. Did I escalate the situation and therefore, forfeit my right to claim self defense?

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TimSr:

Please explain. I witness a crime. The guy is leaving and I take his picture. He sees me do it, and comes after me and says he's put my phone where it will cause me great pain. Did I escalate the situation and therefore, forfeit my right to claim self defense?

Earlier, you mentioned yelling at him as he departs. Not prudent.

If he turns and attacks you simply because thou took a picture, and if he has the ability and the opportunity to injure you seriously and if it reasonably appears to you that he is about to do so, you most certainly have a right to claim self defense. Whether you will prevail will depend on what evidence you are able to produce after the fact, and on what others say they saw. And if you do prevail, you may be seriously impoverished.

Is it clear that his yelling at you would not suffice?

And then there is physical risk--he and/or his accomplices could cause you all kinds of pain and anguish.

Take a pic is a good idea, but it would be much, much wiser to do it surreptitiously.

 

[OldMarksman]

Tim, I did not mean to come across as argumentative, but I have become absolutely convinced of one thing. That is that one should always, always, avoid confrontations wherever and whenever possible.

I am very risk averse. There are two kinds of risk that I want to avoid: legal and physical.

The first encompasses both criminal and legal proceedings, against which the defenses could be panlful and costly, and that could have extremely serious consequences.

Regarding the second, we need to always remember that our firearms, even if we are able to access them timely, provide absolutely no ballistic protection against those whom we see and those whom we do not see.

I hope this is helpful.

 

[4V50 Gary]

Be a good witness. Call the police, give description, direction of flight and ask for an ambulance for the victim.

There is a theory of mistaken defense. You see a fight. One guy is winning. You intervene and subdue him. Later it is determined that the guy who was winning was the victim and that he was besting his attacker. Opps!

 

[44 AMP]

Helping the wrong guy in the fight even happens to the police too, from time to time. This is why you must be MORE than just certain you know exactly what is happening, and who is who BEFORE you choose to intervene.

The law gives you the right to do so, but YOU have to be sure and your assessment of the situation MUST be accurate. Even beyond the potential physical risk and legal risk to your self, your well intentioned help could wind up causing MORE suffering instead of less.

Never an easy call.

 

[garryc]

Double Naught Spy

If he is still deploying force as he withdraws then jeopardy still exists. You see, now we get into reasonable belief. That can be a rough row to hoe. Is it reasonable to believe he intends to continue his use of force? What factors bring that conclusion? Convince the prosecutor.

Jeopardy and Proclivity are the factors her. While he may still have the ability the other two have to be a reasonable belief.

 

[zombietactics]

... I have become absolutely convinced of one thing. That is that one should always, always, avoid confrontations wherever and whenever possible.

I am very risk averse. There are two kinds of risk that I want to avoid: legal and physical ...

There's another risk: moral failure. Life doesn't always present us with clear choices. Sometimes the law is wrong, sometimes confrontation is good & moral, even when illegal.

As much as I don't want to injured when it could have been avoided, and as much as I'd rather avoid anything which could (even mistakenly) land me in prison, I am equally haunted by the notion of having done nothing when I should have, and living with the consequences of my inaction.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by zombietactics:

I am equally haunted by the notion of having done nothing when I should have, and living with the consequences of my inaction.

I do not want to judge here, but quite often that postion belies an attitude that is fraught with problems.

If you believe that you "should" intervene in a conflict, and it turns out to be domestic violence, and both parties testify against you and report you as having attacked them and you go to trial and jail, will you have done something that you "should have"? That happens.

Or if, as 4V50 Gary suggested, it turns out that you intervened on behalf of a violent criminal actor... (no, we do not have to ask; you most certainly did do something that you should not have done). That happens.

What if you intervention made matters worse for a legitimate victim, or resulted in the injury or death of an innocent third party? That happens.

What if you are seriously injured and can no longer support your family or yourself, and they have nowhere to live? Will you have "done something that you should have"? That happens.

And what if you are otherwise deprived of your livelihood and fortune as a result of your actions and can no longer support your family or yourself, and they have nowhere to live? Will you have "done something that you should have"? That, too, happens.

You will not be the only one who lives with the consequences of your action or inaction or your poor judgment or your mistaken assumptions.

 

[Buzzcook]

You draw your gun and call to him to stop.

You might be brandishing and your hand is full of gun instead of camera/phone.

Is there such a thing as citizen's arrest? How much force is allowed to detain the suspect in that case?

What about the hew and cry? Does yelling "stop that man" get us out of bounds? If we can get a group of people to gang up on the bad guy are we instigating mob violence?

The limit of my involvement in this kind of thing was helping a store security guy restrain and handcuff a shop lifter. It was even less impressive than it sounds. My main concern was not hurting the guy as we ground his face in the pavement and twisted his arms behind his back.

I'd be very hesitant about using force unless the bad guy was small and weak, unless there was more people to help.

 

[zombietactics]

I do not want to judge here, but quite often that postion belies an attitude that is fraught with problems.

PLEASE judge, the world needs more (good) judgement, and we need to get used to - once again - recognizing good judgement vs, bad judgement.

All of your points are valid, and detail quite well many of the problems with real world decisions. There are countless "what if"s which can imagined on any side of any question.

However, I do believe that "what if" is seldom the basis of good judgement.

 

[zincwarrior]

Everyone on the planet has a cell phone with a camera. Call 911 and use the camera function.

That is not true, Zinc warrior. There are still a few of us holdouts left.

I would advise getting at least a cheap cell phone (thats what we have). They are excellent for emergencies.