Deadly Force

[glennmac]

Just got around to reading this tractor discussion. I think the two discussion themes need to be combined. Suppose someone is robbing your antique store in daylight. You have been to FBI shooting school and are an expert marksman. You shoot almost straight up in the air confident that the bullet will peak, then start to fall, reach terminal velocity, and then hit the thief on the top of the head. This happens. The bullet doesnt penetrate, but the thief dies of internal bleeding in the head. Did you attack him with "deadly" force?

 

[ERNIEB]

I'm no lawyer, but I would say yes. It would be the same as hitting him with a ricochet.

Ernie

 

[gordon]

If you unholster your weapon and fire a shot, that is deadly force according to the deadly force model. Doesn't matter where you aim it.

Gordon

 

[glennmac]

The defense to the deadliness charge would be provided by our TBN physicists. They would testify that, under accepted formulas, the terminal velocity of a falling bullet is not sufficient to be deadly or to even penetrate skin. The muzzle velocity of the gun has been completely dissipated by intervening physical phenomoma--gravity and air friction--and therefore the deadliness normally provided by the muzzle velocity of the gun must, ladies and gentlement of the jury, be ignored. This situation is exactly the same as a bullet being dropped from a helicopter, which has never been considered to be a use of deadly force. (Except maybe in those namby-pamby coastal states.) The defense will also have up its sleeve the powerful skydiver analogy.

Still guilty?

 

[dmccarty]

Glennmac,

Nope Ernie and Gordon got it right. Deadly force is deadly force. It does not matter what ones intent according to the law. Your scenerio is an illustration of the "Warning Shot." In your scenerio you did not mention if the bad guy had a weapon or if the antique store person felt like their life was threatened. If the Store Person felt their life was in danger, and a reasonable person would also share in that opinion, i.e., the DA and/or jury, then deadly force was acceptable to use. If the Store Person's life was not endangered they still used deadly force, they did shoot the firearm afterall, and they are in deep doo doo since their life was not threatened.

I pretty sure this stuff applies throughout all of the US since its based of Supreme Court decisions. The only wiggle room in this is that the Surpeme Court/lower court decisions I'm thinking about usually are applied to law enforcement. So MAYBE, but I would not bet a cent on this, but maybe it would not apply to citizens. In cases I know of, as well as a Tennesse case which the Supreme Court decided, EVEN if the state statute allowed the use of deadly force in a given situation, say to prevent a robbery, if ones life is not directly threatened you are nuts to employee deadly force. While one might avoid prison time they wont' avoid being dragged through the courts. I'm pretty sure I discussed some of this earlier in this thread.

The bottom line is if ones life or someone elses life is not being threatened, then the use of deadly force is a no no. Most law enforcement agencies that I know of do not allow the use of a warning shot. They are expressly forbiddon. So if an officer uses a warning shot they might not go to prison but they most likely will be looking for a new job/career. A citizen might get away with it but I would not bet my family's financial future.

Don't shoot unless one can articulate that one's life is threatened. PERIOD!

Besides, I'm not sure how the TBN Physicists would do on the stand. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

Later...
Dan

 

[gordon]

If you unholster your weapon and fire a shot your using deadly force. Doesn't matter if you fire in the air or at the person in question, a shot is a shot is a shot.---DEADLY FORCE!

Here is the use of force model http://pss.cc/uofm.htm

This is pretty close to what we learned. Same chart a couple of small differences in what we are allowed to do for a given situation. The chart is at the bottom of the page that I linked to above.

Gordon

 

[patrickg]

Ernieb Isn't that a lot like the question, "If Hellen Keller fell in the woods, would she make a sound?"

 

[patrickg]

I can assure you that if I shoot at someone it will be to kill. I hope the occasion never arrises. I would never pull a gun out to scare/impress anyone. My personal philosophy says that if the other guy convinces me that he is a credible threat to my physical safety it is my duty to dispatch him with the least danger to my self. I try to avoid any circumstances where that eventuality would unfold. A benefit of the shoot to kill policy is that there is only one version of what happened, the truth as supported by forensics, no BS from the bad guy or his lawyer. I expect there are better odds of my being electrocuted by lightening while posting on this forum than my ever having to shoot anyone.

Did I mention that Oklalhoma is a concealed carry state and that it is working well, no dire consequences
A N D we have reciprical priveleges with Arkansas and Texas, maybe others I haven't needed to know.

Patrick

 

[JOR_EL]

GlenMac,

[[[ The defense will also have up its sleeve the powerful skydiver analogy.

]]]

Having authored/presented the "skydiver analogy", I must point out that the conclusions it was used to support would best serve the prosecution, ...not the defense!

I.e.:

[[[There probably are some less-hard-headed among us that would not survive a point-on hit from a 1/3 -1/2 ounce projectile at 400+ fps.

Skin? (180fps avg.?)Thin skulls? (maybe double that-or-so?)

I say keep Granny and the baby INSIDE, when it's "celebratin' time"!! /w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif ]]]]

(For the record: the weapon/caliber/bullet-weight used by our FBI-trained thief-shooter has not been stipulated/entered-into-evidence, ...but I believe the generally accepted conclusion of the preceeding arguments was that injury/death was indeed possible, if perhaps not "probable", in such cases!)

/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Larry

 

[ERNIEB]

Update
From my first message. The two shooters still have not been charged, and no grand jury. The SAPD has issued a statement that as far as they are concerned, case closed.
The mother of the boy that was killed has not yet filed a lawsuit. No other details.

Ernie