Sort of off-topic law question: Is it legal to shoot a mugger?

[AirBrontosaurus]

First off, hello to all the law enforcement officers! Thank you for putting your lives on the line every day so that I can be safe. I really do appreciate the work you men and women do.

I searched the internet, and surprisingly didn't find an answer to my question. I figured it was a pretty common one, but I didn't find anything definitive.

My question is basically this:

Assume someone had a legal CCW license and was carrying. If they were walking down the street, and someone approached them, took out a knife and said "Give me your money!", could that person shoot the mugger on the spot?

I guess I'm envisioning a situation where a mugger whips out a knife, says "Give me your money", and then the person being attacked whips out their gun and shoots the mugger instantly without a warning. Is that legal?

Also, does the language matter? Would it be different if they said "Give me your money" or "Give me your money or I'll kill you"? Since you're not in your home or car, meaning you have a duty to retreat, do you have a duty to mitigate the situation and give up your wallet as well? If you do decide to shoot, are you allowed to shoot to kill on the spot, or do you have to produce the weapon and see if the perpetrator advances or retreats?

Note: I'm not really interested in the ethics or the advisability of this. I'm just curious if it's legal or not. I see it all the time in movies and TV shows, but when looking for the actual law I couldn't really find it.

 

[mswaim]

The short answer, based on your original scenario = you could shoot.

Long answer;

Hopefully you have plenty of liability insurance.

Hopefully you practiced your presentation (draw from cencealment) a few thousand times.

Hopefully he/she dies; survivors have a much higher rate of return when they sue you.

Hopefully you have no problems with blowing holes in people; men, or women, or a juvenile.

Or you can run like hell and avoid all the above = but then I wouldn't. Good luck. It's never easy, unless your name is Vincent.........

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmKR6evZRQQ"]YouTube- Collateral[/ame]

 

[RDJ]

it would be legal in Texas. I am guessing that it would depend on the state you are in.

 

[FordSVTFan]

As noted above it would certainly depend on the State. Additionally, it would depend on the situation and how credible the threat was. If you could articulate that you were in fear of immediate serious bodily injury or death, in almost every State, you could defend yourself with deadly force.

However, you cannot shoot to kill. If you intention is to kill the mugger, that would be illegal. You can only use enough force to stop the attack/threat. For instance, if you were to shoot him once and he fell to the ground, the threat is gone. You cannot then legally shoot him again. If he dies from that one gun shot that is the consequence of his action and your appropriate reaction.

 

[Lawfficer]

Here is another way to look at it.....

You're walking down the street and a guy pulls a knife and "says give me your money." The threat of the use of force is there just by his actions and being armed. Then you pull out a gun and draw down on him. This is the point in the situation, where the other person shows clear and undisputable intent.........

If he has a knife, and you have a gun, and he's still coming at you, his intent to kill/cause great bodily harm is pretty clear.

If he has a knife, and you pull a gun, and he starts hauling ass in the other direction there is no further intent to harm you.


Only in one of these situations, in my opinion, does someone have the right to shoot another.(Not kill... I said Shoot) If the shot misses but succedes in stopping the threat, great. If you hit them, and they die as a result, that is unfortunate for the robber and the victim alike. Its my opinion and hopefully the opinion of most, you never want to kill someone, just cause an immediate cessation of the violent behavior, death can occur but as an unfortunate and unintented by product.

With the being said like your situation, sometimes the time does not permit someone to draw and warn before having to pull the trigger. If that is the case, there is only one person to blame for putting themself in that situation.

 

[Lawfficer]

.... If you could articulate that you were in fear of immediate serious bodily injury or death, in almost every State, you could defend yourself with deadly force...

Unless you were in Wisconsin. Then Gov. Jim Doyle would think you needed to be charged with carrying a conceal weapon. However, I would hope our pro-gun AG would tell him to pound sand by taking the case from the locals and then refuseing to prosecute.

I hate living in 1 of 2 states that will not allow CCW. Granted I get a pass because Im in LE, but I still think it's atrocious regular citizens can't protect themself.

 

[Hitman318]

Like stated above, if threat is present and you fear he is going to kill you, then most likely you are clear. It always is going to depend on the circumstances. Dont forget also that just because you were found not guilty in CRIMINAL court, doesnt mean you wont have to come out of pocket in CIVIL court

 

[tjs98gt]

this makes me sad to live in a state where we dont even have an option to legally protect ourselves in these types of situations. not that i foresee one, but it would at least be nice to have the CCW option. especially considering my recently acquired kimber ultra cdp II is the perfect size.

 

[Silver2003Cobra]

in your instance, hope your not in California or other gun "unfriendly" states, someplace like Oregon, Nevada etc I'd say your completely within your rights.. Just remember aim for center of mass, and pull the trigger till the perp is no longer a threat THEN STOP (be it one bullet or numerous)..

 

[mswaim]

His scenario as initially described would play out quite well in California. The likelihood of civil liability post-shooting is no more or less likely than it would be in Nevada.

 

[VirtualSVT]

Hope you have a fast draw if he has his knife already out.

 

[VNMOUS1]

First off, hello to all the law enforcement officers! Thank you for putting your lives on the line every day so that I can be safe. I really do appreciate the work you men and women do.

I searched the internet, and surprisingly didn't find an answer to my question. I figured it was a pretty common one, but I didn't find anything definitive.

My question is basically this:

Assume someone had a legal CCW license and was carrying. If they were walking down the street, and someone approached them, took out a knife and said "Give me your money!", could that person shoot the mugger on the spot?

I guess I'm envisioning a situation where a mugger whips out a knife, says "Give me your money", and then the person being attacked whips out their gun and shoots the mugger instantly without a warning. Is that legal?

Also, does the language matter? Would it be different if they said "Give me your money" or "Give me your money or I'll kill you"? Since you're not in your home or car, meaning you have a duty to retreat, do you have a duty to mitigate the situation and give up your wallet as well? If you do decide to shoot, are you allowed to shoot to kill on the spot, or do you have to produce the weapon and see if the perpetrator advances or retreats?

Note: I'm not really interested in the ethics or the advisability of this. I'm just curious if it's legal or not. I see it all the time in movies and TV shows, but when looking for the actual law I couldn't really find it.

While Indiana does have a concealed carry law, and they recently adopted language that no longer makes the victim have a duty to retreat, there are a lot of things to take into consideration. Specific threats to your person in your home or your car are one thing....on the street is another. This may help you find some more places to look it up:

The Indiana Law Blog: Ind. Law - "It's the Law -- 'Deadly force' can be justified against burglars, carjackers"


bj

 

[VNMOUS1]

Unless you were in Wisconsin. Then Gov. Jim Doyle would think you needed to be charged with carrying a conceal weapon. However, I would hope our pro-gun AG would tell him to pound sand by taking the case from the locals and then refuseing to prosecute.

I hate living in 1 of 2 states that will not allow CCW. Granted I get a pass because Im in LE, but I still think it's atrocious regular citizens can't protect themself.

And I would be in "State #2". My guess is that the only reason WI can get away with it is the fact that they have Chicago and Daley within 90 miles.

I live in Oak Park, IL which has a law against handguns...a full-fledged ban, just like Chicago's. I will watch with great interest when the Supremes hear the Chicago v NRA et al case in first quarter of 2010.

I'm a former LEO and an NRA Instructor. Of course, living in Oak Park, I must store and maintain all my firearms at a local range, outside of the city limits.

If any of you have any simliar concerns within your state or municipality, I highly suggest you write to your lawmakers and join the NRA if you're not already a member. Sotomayer will make this a very interesting case. By the same token, they did just refuse to hear the case against Beretta regarding the child who's life was taken when an unlocked firearm was improperly stored. We'll see. I trust that they will do the right thing.

bj

 

[oldmodman]

In that clip from "Collateral". It appears that all the "victims" actions were legal except for his final shot.

 

[AirBrontosaurus]

Wow, thanks for all the great responses guys.

Like I said, I was never in this situation and hopefully never will be. I'm just curious.

 

[mswaim]

In that clip from "Collateral". It appears that all the "victims" actions were legal except for his final shot.

What you don't see is the last shot is fired due to the bad guy's gun hand twitched..........obviously the threat was still present.

 

[Blown4v]

how can someone sue you for shooting them in self defense when their intentions were to cause you bodily harm/death? makes no sense???

 

[stangposse]

how can someone sue you for shooting them in self defense when their intentions were to cause you bodily harm/death? makes no sense???

Is that a serious question? You can sue anyone for anything in this country. This case especially. If the shooter wasn't slashed prior to shooting, a civil court would love to bust the gun-toter.

 

[Iman01]

You can get sued for almost anything. You would then have to spend money to hire a lawyer to fight it. So even if you are in the right, it still costs you time and money.

 

[AirBrontosaurus]

Yeah, I've heard that if you do decide to use deadly force, make damn sure it's deadly. There are a lot of tort cases where someone breaks into another person's house, gets shot and lives, and then sues the home owner and wins.