« What Forensics Tell Us About Iraq | Main | High Cost of Gas Resulting in Rash of Thefts »
April 18, 2008
Shooting Prowlers, Burglars and Attackers
by Jack Lee
(The author is a retired police detective and security consultant with over 20 years of experience and training in law enforcement and dignitary protection)
Elizabeth was house sitting in the country for her Grandmother when she alerted by Lucy her pet Beagle who was growling at something outside in the carport. Liz went to the back door and flipped on a series of outside lights. As she opened the door Lucy immediately pushed past her and ran out and started barking hysterically at something under her pickup truck. Liz's first reaction was to think it was probably a raccoon or some other small animal.
When she peeked under her vehicle she was startled to see a man crouched on the other side near the rear wheel. He realized he had been spotted and suddenly jumped up and took off running down the long dark driveway with Lucy barking at his heels and Liz cursing at him as she retreated to the house to call 911. She reported it, but by the time the Sheriff's department showed up the guy was long gone.
A week before this incident her jeep had all the gasoline siphoned out of it. And keep in mind, this is a rural ranch home that is enclosed by a chain link fence, but there is also an open area through the orchard. So what to do? For starters we're installing motion detector lights and Liz has been given some brush up training on the use of our 12 ga. that comes with a lesson in the law.
Here's what I told her and this is based upon my many years of training and experience as a police detective. You can legally shoot to kill... anyone who by "threats or actions" presents an imminent threat of "great bodily harm to yourself or another".
Now let’s break it down because there are all sorts of ways you can read into the above statement and get the wrong answer. Let's say you are a lone female and the aggressor says, in a fit of rage, "I'm going to rape and kill you!" but our suspect is a quadriplegic in a wheel chair and you're a healthy young adult. You can't have a "reasonable expectation of great bodily harm" from an unarmed person in a wheelchair and that means you're going to have to resolve this without resorting to deadly force.
For our next scenario, lets say you are a lone female ( I like using the lone female, this presents the most obviously vulnerable victim type...oh, I can hear the protests from feminists already!) and you are walking in a remote area. It is late at night and this area is well known for brutal attacks on females (ok, don't ask, so why are you there??!!!...just go with it) and a large man in dark clothing comes charging out of the undergrowth and right for you, his big hands are reaching for y-o-u-r throat! You have a split second to react and you answer with... ka-blam, blam, blam! 3 empty 9mm shell casings tumble through the air and the would-be assailant falls dead at your feet. But, you didn't hear him say what he intent was? So, did you have a "reasonable expectation of great bodily harm" or worse under this circumstance? You betcha! His stealth, the darkness, the area and his aggressive actions said enough to make this a good shoot.
Remember, the aggressor must have a "present ability" coupled to an "overt" action, overt meaning something said or done that would lead a reasonable person to expect they are in imminent danger of at least great bodily harm. If that's not the case then you can't shoot.
Let's say a man, make him a 300 lb weight lifter, is sitting on the ground 300 feet away from you and he yells out in anger "I am going to kill you!" and he does nothing more than give you a mean look. Can you shoot him? He's big, he's strong and he's stated his intent, but this is not an "imminent danger" situation. This means you must use another option other than deadly force. Calling the cops is far more reasonable and appropriate in this case.
There's your basic lesson in law, but if you have any questions you can contact your local district attorney's office or a police investigator. Asking just any police officer in uniform may not get you the right answer, because some new officers may be confused about, shoot v. don't shoot. I don't want to have to cite examples, but we've had a few where the officer should have shot and didn't.
Posted by Post Scripts at April 18, 2008 10:53 AM
Comments
The imminent threat of great bodily harm concept is pretty much standard everywhere. You cannot shoot to protect property, but you can shoot to protect your life. But there are many complications, and they differ by state. In Arizona, where I was an officer for 22 years, we have what is called the my home is my castle concept. That means if someone breaks into your home (not your driveway siphoning gas), that qualifies as a clear threat to your life, and you can shoot him. You don't have to wait to see if he has a weapon, and you don't have to call 911 first. You can do that after. There is also the no need to retreat concept. In some states, probably including California, if you have a chance to retreat from the attack rather than use deadly force, you must try it. In Arizona, you have no requirement to retreat, but you still have to make sure you can argue that you were in fear for your life. Of course, there are a million lawyers out there with different opinions, depending on who is paying them. But remember the old cop adage: Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
Posted by: Dan at April 18, 2008 06:28 PM
Good article Jack, and good points Dan. The key for most civilians in the use of deadly force is #1 are you in fear for your life to include the fear of great bodily harmis and #2 Can you reasonably articulate that fear.
The "Reasonable Man" test is, I feel, the best.
In otherwords, would a reasonable man or woman, feel the same fear confronted with the same circumstances.
If you find yourself in this situation, familiarity with your weapon is very important.
Aim for center mass of the person you are trying to stop. It is the biggest target, and consider what a tragedy it would be if you tried to just wound a person who was trying to do you or another innocent person harm, but missed and your bullet travelled down the street and hit someone innocent.
Posted by: John Freitas at April 19, 2008 04:31 PM