When it is no longer selfe defence.

[Frenchy]

Just saw on the news about a man who was attacked by 2 teens, from what the news said, the man shot one of the teens in the back!!!
http://kdka.com/topstories/local_story_244165917.html

Not really a debate thing here, just some thing to think about, there is a time this person might have thought his life was in danger... But if he shot the teen in the back, it is no longer self defence is it.

Man Charged After Washington Co. Shooting

(KDKA) LANGELOTH Police are investigating after a shooting in Langeloth, Washington County.

Neighbors say they heard a gunshot shortly before 6 a.m. and saw a teenager lying in the street screaming for help.

Michelle Cheplic, who lives nearby, says she believes her neighbor, Eraldo Iannitelli, 48, fired the shot after two boys apparently tried to rob him.

According to her, it was the second attempted robbery in two weeks.

A 16-year-old was flown to a Pittsburgh hospital.

The Washington Observer-Reporter reports Iannitelli was charged with attempted homicide, aggravated assault and reckless endangerment by Smith Township police.

Authorities say more charges could be filed in the case, based on the outcome of the investigation, which is ongoing.

(© MMVII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

[Montanya]

Yeah I saw that....my only thing is they are armed with BB guns (no doubt he didn't know they were BB guns) how are you to know when an intruder is fleeing your house or trying to find cover? I just hope some sensible people are on the jury there and let the old guy slide with less than attempted homicide.

[27hand]

If, by chance, they were running from him and aiming their gun back as they were running, He could have shot one in the back thinking he was still going to be shot.


Any info on how that went down?

27

[MarcS]

There are good, valid reasons to shoot someone in the back in an act of self defense, especially if they are armed with a firearm. Just because someone turns around does not mean they are retreating. They could very well be booking it to cover to continue shooting at you from a barricaded position. They could very easily turn around and continue firing. You are not out of harms way simply because someone with a projectile weapon is moving away from you.

Do not disengage until all threats are incapacitated, surrendered or no longer in a position to cause you immediate harm.

[Steve in PA]

Sorry, you can't shoot someone in the back and then try and justify it by saying, they might or could have turned around............

As a police officer I am not justified in shooting someone in the back because they are running away from me and possess a weapon unless he is pointing it at me.

[Montanya]

Overall, none of us were there so we are baseing our entire judgement on a couple paragraphs. If indeed they were retreating and not pointing weapons at him he was certainly in the wrong. If you are running away with a firearm in your hand and you turn around toward me, I think I might shoot them too. Maybe they are turning around to see if you are pursuing them or maybe they are turning around to take a shot at you. I would think that until they are far enough away to no longer be a threat, those are still valid possibilities. I am just hopeful that there is further details about this as it continues with the various trials.

[MarcS]

Originally Posted by Steve in PA

Sorry, you can't shoot someone in the back and then try and justify it by saying, they might or could have turned around............

As a police officer I am not justified in shooting someone in the back because they are running away from me and possess a weapon unless he is pointing it at me.

You have to consider that this is occurring over, what? a second or two? It's not like this guy is hard charging down the street while you assume a stable stance, shake off, line up and plug him.

I actually have a good video of a motel clerk blasting a guy who was robbing the place 3 times in the back as he charged for the door. The second the guy saw the gun he turned to run but it was to late Gun was out, trigger was being pulled. I believe it was Indiana and charges didn't even get filed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sECV2MVYEWI

Bam, 3 in the back, justifiable attempted homicide

Movement on the attackers behalf doesn't necessarily negate ability, opportunity or intent.

[MarcS]

just to be clear, i'm not arguing that the guy in the article was at all justified, just that shots in the back can be justified. The question in the thread is "when is it no longer self defense?" It is not specific to this story.

If a guy ducks behind concealment, do you not shoot through it?

[Steve in PA]

Your mixing to different situations.

Explain how a person running away from you has the ability, opportunity.....and poses and imminent threat of deadly force against you.

[MarcS]

Originally Posted by Steve in PA

Your mixing to different situations.

Explain how a person running away from you has the ability, opportunity.....and poses and imminent threat of deadly force against you.

I didn't read anything about this guy running away, only that his back was turned. In the split second that he turns, how do you know he no longer intends to cause you harm? He has already made his intent clear and he's not moving out of the range of his weapon or surrendering to you.

If someone shoots at you then ducks behind concealment, do you shoot him through it, or assume he's on the other side, gun at his feet crying for his mommy? Do you care one way or the other or do you just want to end this guy and make sure you get home?

Regardless, the question posed by this thread must be hypothetical since I don't see any real information on or a specific question about the event.