Rules of Engagement Once Attacker Fires?

[jcabin]

Let me set the grounds for my question first please.
This is pertaining to an attacker/s with guns really, but input on melee weapons can be opined if you feel it necessary.
Obviously you can not fire to stop a threat once the attacker is retreating if they are only armed with an edged or blunt object, but is it so obvious?

What about if an attacker has fired upon you, in your home, or in public. You have exchanged fire, maybe you havent had the chance to. You see him with his back turned moving away. You don't know if he is retreating, you don't know if he is disengaging, you don't know what he is doing. All you know is he has a gun capable of killing you from a distance that he has already used in attempt to kill you. Now you are presented with an opportunity. You have an opening where you can stop the threat and save your life/lives of others.

The problem is. Is it legal to take this opportunity? I think it could be argued he is just repositioning to attack again. You don't know what he is doing, you DO know he already tried to kill you. Do you have to wait for him to turn about face and raise his gun again before you can continue the process of stopping the threat?

I really feel there are some technicalities here, where someone could with the only intention of trying to save their life, when an anti-gun DA could see it as murder, shooting someone in the back.

I hope I expressed my question clearly enough and look forward to your responses.

[tlgpa]

What about if an attacker has fired upon you, in your home, or in public. You have exchanged fire, maybe you havent had the chance to. You see him with his back turned moving away. You don't know if he is retreating, you don't know if he is disengaging, you don't know what he is doing. All you know is he has a gun capable of killing you from a distance that he has already used in attempt to kill you. Now you are presented with an opportunity. You have an opening where you can stop the threat and save your life/lives of others.

I think it'd come down to... Can you convince the Jury?

[Karma8541]

I would say if the attacker has fired on you,Then the ROEs would be to return fire in defense of yourself,I would think whether he is trying to reposition his-self for a better shot or if he is trying to retreat,One can not know for sure. For all you know u got him in the back as he was trying to repo himself to get you...There will always be something an anti will say..Hence get witnesses to what happened at the scene.

[PocketProtector]

I think it'd come down to... Can you convince the Jury?

Last thing I would think of. First and only: Is your life or others in danger?

[Himni]

IANAL but I think if you were in your house (both of you) you could keep shooting to stop the threat. If you were not in your house in PA I believe you have a duty to retreat if you can do so safely. So it is hard to say if you could take the shot or not. If you can retreat safely and you shot the person then you might be in trouble. If the person that attacked you was trying to retreat and you shoot them you could be considered the aggresser then and that is bad.

[Brown-Bear]

If this "attacker" now has his back turned to me for what ever reason, and has also missed me. I'm gonna continue to duck and cover, draw from cover and be prepared to protect myself and my family. I'm not leaving my wife and daughter to persue an aggressor, whether the incident happened at home or in public. Vengence is a poor substitute for family.

Now if I was alone and this happened. I have no idea, most likely the same thing. I'm not willing to have my daughter grow up without a father or widow my wife.

The "end game" result for me in any of these kind of scenarios is to return home as safely as possible, with no extra holes. So if the attacker is leaving, I'm letting him leave.

Dave W.

[headcase]

The duty to retreat says you must retreat if you can do so with COMPLETE safety. It does not say if you can safely retreat. Complete. Important word.


I believe what the OP is saying is that if you have been fired upon, and you see a chance to take a shot at the attacker's back, can you take it without being accused of "shooting him in the back" so to speak. I don't think he was asking about an obviously fleeing attacker.

That being my assumption, my feeling is if he has attacked you, and there has been nothing that indicates you are now completely safe, the attacker is still a deadly threat to you and I shoot him until I am sure he is no longer a threat, whether his back is to me or not.

[jcabin]

If this "attacker" now has his back turned to me for what ever reason, and has also missed me. I'm gonna continue to duck and cover, draw from cover and be prepared to protect myself and my family. I'm not leaving my wife and daughter to persue an aggressor, whether the incident happened at home or in public. Vengence is a poor substitute for family.

Now if I was alone and this happened. I have no idea, most likely the same thing. I'm not willing to have my daughter grow up without a father or widow my wife.

The "end game" result for me in any of these kind of scenarios is to return home as safely as possible, with no extra holes. So if the attacker is leaving, I'm letting him leave.

Dave W.

Nowhere did I talk about persuit. I'm aware persuit is illegal. I think you misunderstood my question. So I'll try and restate it, "if you are being attacked and shot at, and you are at a place of cover, and peer out to take a shot in defense, and see the attacker with his back turned, what are the legal ramifications if you shoot him?" Simply because someones back is turned, does not mean they are leaving. They could be repositioning, or turning around because they thought there were police, another victim, a dog, a naked clown, who knows what the reason is, but you can't bet with your life they are turned around because they are disengaging the situation.

[jcabin]

The duty to retreat says you must retreat if you can do so with COMPLETE safety. It does not say if you can safely retreat. Complete. Important word.


I believe what the OP is saying is that if you have been fired upon, and you see a chance to take a shot at the attacker's back, can you take it without being accused of "shooting him in the back" so to speak. I don't think he was asking about an obviously fleeing attacker.

That being my assumption, my feeling is if he has attacked you, and there has been nothing that indicates you are now completely safe, the attacker is still a deadly threat to you and I shoot him until I am sure he is no longer a threat, whether his back is to me or not.

I'm just worried about what the DA might think of this.

[XD40coyote]

The real problem here is that if you find yourself in such a situation, there is no time to think at all, and your adrenaline will be running. It will happen and play out however it does. Has anyone here ever been robbed before, esp an ambush attack? I haven't personally, but have known people who have been. The ambush attack is they run from out of nowhere and knock you down, or try to. Or they try to corner you. The action happens so fast, your muscle memory reflex may have you draw on them, but surely what happens next leaves NO time to think, only react. You may be squeezing the trigger just as they turn, and the bullet gets them on the side towards the back. Instinct can also be a problem. I have seen cctv footage of shopkeepers firing at fleeing robbers, then they stop after the robber is out the door and out of sight. I bet most of those guys didn't even realize they had shot at the robbers backside till afterwards, when either police inform them of the suspect in the hospital or laying dead outside with an entry wound in the back, or when the tape is reviewed.

The blink of an eye movement is something I have a problem with when shooting trapped critters. The slight wiggle of a raccoon can mean I miss the skull by an inch. Now turn the scene into a snarling rabid raccoon (not in a trap) coming towards me and my adrenaline gets going. I am backing away and trying to aim at the same time. No time to think, only react to the threat.