When standing your ground, how far should you go?

[mcurrier]

When standing your ground, how far should you go?

 

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/02/18/when-standing-your-ground-how-far-should-you-go

[battleop]

"As his assailant fled, the victim followed"

 

I was told once the threat is no longer a threat you go from justified actions to unjustified actions.  This guy should be in some hot water.

[2.ooohhh]

"As his assailant fled, the victim followed"

 

I was told once the threat is no longer a threat you go from justified actions to unjustified actions.  This guy should be in some hot water.

WI law may be different than TN law in that regard. He was "fired upon" so that may also be the deciding factor.

[maroonandwhite]

Well he didn't "Stand his ground". He "advanced his ground" if you will. I am very surprised they are calling it justified but as 2.0 said, WI law may be different. Bad choice on his part IMO.

[glock55]

"his assailant then jogged away south across Capitol Drive."

the self defense situation ended at this point. the police should have been called. if i were the one making the call here i would call the shooting unjustifed permit or not. this is the kind of person who should have carry permit revoked. 

[Monkeyman2500]

I don't know that I agree he was wrong. He didn't try to stop the guy, just followed. What if the robber had decided to just do it again or carjack someone and shoot them in the process. I think it's a big risk, dont know if I would have done the same. I think this world is coming to a point that fighting back against these low life's that are taking over might not be a bad thing. And besides I'm a Chef and he's a cook, God bless his dirty grubby, kitchen rat a##.

[Randall53]

I remember the class I took repeatedly stated once a threat turns away, it's no longer a threat. How can you fear for your life if the threat retreats? In this instance, it's time to call 911 and report an armed robbery.  Whether he was right or wrong I don't know, but you got to think about that guy Zimmerman.....If he hadn't followed the POI, then he'd be a free man today.

 

Well, at least on the count he's now facing anyway.

Edited February 18, 2013 by Randall53

[dcloudy777]

From what I'm reading, he didn't chase after the guy to shoot him, he followed him to get his property back and/or get a good description for law enforcement.  He had every right to do so.  The thief didn't like being followed, so he attacked the HCP holder with lethal force.  It might not have been the smartests course of action, but the HCP holder is 100% in the right.  His self defense claim was based on the second attack, not the initial robbery, which was indeed over and no longer presented a threat. 

[Fivestring63]

I agree with dcloudy.

[Fivestring63]

I agree with dcloudy. +1

[Fivestring63]

Sorry about the double post. Another take on it is you can stand your ground where you're legally allowed to be, so who's to say it's not following him?

[maroonandwhite]

From what I'm reading, he didn't chase after the guy to shoot him, he followed him to get his property back and/or get a good description for law enforcement.  He had every right to do so.  The thief didn't like being followed, so he attacked the HCP holder with lethal force.  It might not have been the smartests course of action, but the HCP holder is 100% in the right.  His self defense claim was based on the second attack, not the initial robbery, which was indeed over and no longer presented a threat. 

That's what the police are there for. Let them get your stuff back so you don't run the risk of going to jail over what was in your wallet or ,more likely in this case, your Rambo complex. Your HCP in TN is for you protection if your life is in immediate danger. Once the guy ran off that threat is over. Running away shooting back I could understand, but once he rounded the corner and went down the street he is gone.

If his self defense claim was based on the second attack, that he provoked, then he's lucky it wasn't a young kid or worse a young minority. Don't mean for that to sound racist either. Just don't know how else to say it. He'll be lucky if he isn't sued in civil court by the family.

Just my .02 and again I don't know WI law so all of this may mean squat up there.

[TMF]

Is it a crime to pursue someone who just robbed you at gun point? 

 

This has nothing to do with "stand your ground".  Perhaps he was following him so he could be a good witness and tell the cops where the guy fled to.  After all, it was his money that was taken, and he has a right to his stuff, unless there is a law out there that says you absolutely MUST hand over your money, then suck your thumb in the corner as the bad guy runs away.

 

Where would he have broken any laws?  The bad guy EFFING SHOT AT HIM, and only then did the citizen draw his weapon and return fire.

 

So, the victim here was in a place where he had a legal right to be, after the criminal robbed him at gun point.  The victim attempted to follow the suspect and was shot at and therefore returned fire.  Maybe I'm just stoopid; could someone please point out where the victim committed any crime versus the criminal who committed armed robbery and aggravated assault/attempted murder?  Or are we just applying our own values to "what I would have done" and thinking falsely that has any sort of bearing on law?

 

This is the story:

 

Bad guy robs good guy.  Good guy follows bad guy.  Bad guy shoots at good guy.  Good guy shoots back and wounds bad guy.  Good guy gets his stuff back.  Bad guy goes back to jail where he belongs.

 

This guy should get a friggin medal, not a bunch of people wishing he be prosecuted for doing absolutely nothing that is against the law.

Edited February 19, 2013 by TMF

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If the victim had his gun drawn while pursuing the attacker, he would have been wrong, but from the story, it said the

attacker fired at him and the victim re-engaged. I don''t have a problem with this. He was aiding the police in following

the attacker, even at great risk to himself, but there is no law that says he can't do this, is there? I value my right to

quiet enjoyment. That attacker violated that, and anyone else he could have attacked.

 

The article also alluded to the worry of this becoming common with the increase in violence and victims being fed up with

it. I agree. If people started fighting back, it would be a strong deterrent. You can't rely on the police, except to clean up,

after the fact, and that is becoming iffy, with backlogs of cases police have to follow up on.

 

Criminals may think twice when confronted with their own actions in reverse. Not everyone will do this kind of thing, but

the ones who choose to stand up for their rights shouldn't be hindered by yours or mine possibly backing away from doing

it, as long as they do it lawfully.

[Punisher84]

I'm glad he wasn't charged. Maroon, I think you're taking an extremist view on this. not saying you're wrong, just that you're leaning heavily to one side of the argument. I don't know how WI law is, but I doubt he'd have been charged in TN either. Mr. Simpson was never an aggressor and actually, by TN law, was well within his legal right to not only follow the man who robbed him, but he could have also used reasonable force to detain him for police. Am I saying that's what i would have done or what most should do? Not in the least. However, there is legal standing for such actions. There was a case in Mississippi not long ago where a suspect attacked a woman and stole her car. Her son followed the guy to guide the cops to him and in the process the suspect fired at him and they exchanged fire. Cops ended up catching the guy and no charges were filed, rightly so, against the victim.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's what the police are there for. Let them get your stuff back so you don't run the risk of going to jail over what was in your wallet or ,more likely in this case, your Rambo complex. Your HCP in TN is for you protection if your life is in immediate danger. Once the guy ran off that threat is over. Running away shooting back I could understand, but once he rounded the corner and went down the street he is gone.

If his self defense claim was based on the second attack, that he provoked, then he's lucky it wasn't a young kid or worse a young minority. Don't mean for that to sound racist either. Just don't know how else to say it. He'll be lucky if he isn't sued in civil court by the family.

Just my .02 and again I don't know WI law so all of this may mean squat up there.

So you say he provoked a second attack by following him? I'd say he did a service to the community. In the first place,

the perp stuck a gun to the back of his head. He acted quite well to just follow him after that. I may have done something

quite different if I had followed him that would have possibly landed me in jail, but that guy wouldn't be around to testify.

 

It will come to a point that, since cops don't have the duty to protect, this happens more often. Some folks are really

getting pissed off about their own stuff being stolen and if this becomes their only option left, it may increase.

 

I don't have a problem with the victim's actions.

Edited February 19, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[GlockSpock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner

[npgunner]

Hmm ... I don't know that I agree with guy's decision to chase after the robber (I personally wouldn't do this, or suggest that others do), but I do think the decision in this case is clear that it was a clean shoot.  I look at this as 2 separate events.  The robbery and the shooting.  If the guy had gotten robbed, walked down a different alley and another criminal started shooting at him, we'd all just consider it a coincedence (and bad luck).  The news report doesn't say he chased the robber down and was aggressive, or offensive; rather that the robber started shooting at him, so in my mind, it's a good shoot, and the robber committed 2 crimes.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Those are two interesting links.

[maroonandwhite]

If the victim had his gun drawn while pursuing the attacker, he would have been wrong, but from the story, it said the

attacker fired at him and the victim re-engaged.

 

This does make good sense. I didn't think to notice that part. If in fact he hadn't drawn his gun after the attack then yes I would agree that he wasn't in the wrong. Not something I would have done personally but nonetheless I wouldn't think there would be grounds for charges.

 

I guess I would hope a court looks at it like TMF described. which it looks like they are.

 

Also just want to clarify I love the fact that the good guys won on this one. I guess I just like playing devil's advocate sometimes even if I'm not THAT good at it. :usa:

Edited February 19, 2013 by maroonandwhite

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nothing wrong with that. :D

[dcloudy777]

It's cool, Maroon, cases like this have a lot details that are easy to miss, and if, like you initially thought, the robbery victim had drawn his gun and chased the robber down, then it would indeed been a tough case for self defense. 

[Randall53]

Does the Tennessee vs Garner apply only to police?

I'm learning here....very good thread!! Edited February 19, 2013 by Randall53

[GlockSpock]

We talked about this in criminal justice in high school. The fleeing felon rule, in essence, says that LEO's can shoot a fleeing felon if they believe he is an immediate harm to someone else. In a conversation with a professor at UTC (who is also an assistant DA for Chattanooga), I asked him about the fleeing felon rule and whether something applied to non LEO civilians. He had never heard of the rule. 

 

I have in my head a picture of a large male running away from you at night because you ran him off your property with your AR-15. He has a semi-automatic handgun in his hand, and is running towards your neighbors house up the road.

 

He has his back to you and is running away. But you feel that he is a danger to the single mother who has two kids. What do you do?

 

Those are two interesting links.

Edited February 19, 2013 by CZ9MM

[bronco302]

Does the Tennessee vs Garner apply only to police?

I'm learning here....very good thread!!

You might do some searching here, there was a case a couple of years ago in Tennessee where a victim followed to get info after being robbed. He was fired on and shot the robber. I don't remember enough to look it up for you, but someone will.

 

Joe W.