I'm curious, is this legal?

Self defense laws regarding killing the aggressor only apply in your own home or property. Also, the person must be killed in self defense within your property boundaries. Also, the bullet fired cannot leave your property or you will face charges of a fire arms discharge in a public setting or possibly injure someone else across the street.

However, in a public domain, these laws do not apply. You cannot kill in self defense when in a public location or government building: and every bank falls under one of those two. Also, many banks prohibit concealed fire arms; something else you would be held accountable for. Of course, this is all based on US Federal and Texas state statutes. However, most bank robbers are idiots; not the brilliant hiest masterminds you see on television. Usually, the grab the money and run. In their haste, they fail to cover all bases; and some means of identification and tracking is found. Most (meaning a very large majority) are caught within the month of the robbery.

~Black Zero

BlackZeroSA

I already posted something from the Florida government website which basically contradicts most of this, at least in Florida. In fact, it was right before your post. It explicitly states that Florida law permits deadly force when "trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping."

Maybe it is illegal in some states, but it is certainly not illegal in all of them.

No, because shooting him with the gun would be a greater harm than losing your money. However, if your life was in danger you would be allowed, at least that's how it is in Canada.UssjTrunks

But you're not allowed to bear arms............

Most states have a 'retreat' law of some form. The states that do have a 'self defese' law, have such with many restrictions. Unless the bank robbery was under federal jurisdiction, the state laws are going to take president over any federal statute of justifiable homicide. For example: the 'Castle Law' in Texas. If someone tries to burglarize your home while you are in it (which would actually become a robbery), you are entitled to shoot and kill them. BUT, they cannot be shot in the back. They MUST be dead. The body MUST be in your place of residence when they fall to the ground (they cannot fall outside your house, then you drag them back inside). If these conditions are not met, you are the aggressor. If they live, they can press charges against you. If they are shot in the back, they are not seen as a threat, and once again, you are liable. If they are outside your home; again, they are not seen as a threat and you are responsible for shooting them. That is what I mean. You can't just kill someone because you feel threatened. There are certain conditions that apply to those laws. That's why I say: leave the crime fighting to the experts. They are better suited to handle it.

~Black Zero

BlackZeroSA

Your post in a nutshell: Aim for the head, use hollowpoints.

That may be true of federal law, but not necessarily state laws. I looked up my state penal code, read the part dealing specifically with immunity, and found that it was only justified if:

1. There was no way to escape and force was absolutely necessary. (retreat laws)

2. If someone tried to enter your place of residence forcefully (as I've already discussed)

Also, your site says specifically that it is NOT run by lawyers. I quote: "We are not lawyers at this site. However a few things are clear from the literature in this area"

This indicate that this is not voiced by lawyers and is also localized (isolated to whatever area they happen to be in). But that's not important.

So, after having read that, I'm not screwed. I understand my state penal code and know when lethal force is and is not legal. While federal justified homicide laws may be different, they only apply in federal jusrisdiction and cases; not state level. And unless it was a federal bank being robbed, or if they fled across state lines (something that would be difficult for them to do if you gunned them down in a bank lobby), it would be a state level offense; hence federal laws would not come into play. However, state laws change from state to state. Some states have more lax self defense laws than others. Mine, however does not. Basically, follow whatever legal self defense measures your state allows. Mine says run unless trapped with absolutely no way out. So, if there is somewhere you can run, that's what you do. So, I say again: you can't just kill someone because you feel threatened. Check your state penal code to see what it says you can do.

Hypothetically, say you go to a bank to withdraw some money, and all of the sudden someone pulls out a gun and says it's a hold and he's taking everyones money. You have a gun with you, are you legally allowed to shoot him? Or not, because he's not posing a direct threat to you?pink_floyd123

While I'm not sure on the specifics of this myself, I'd like to think that just so much as taking out a gun and pointing it at him telling him to drop his own gun should be enough of a signal that he should back off.

No, because shooting him with the gun would be a greater harm than losing your money.UssjTrunks

Agreed there despite what I said in the previous post. If that's why it wouldn't be allowed, it's an understandable reason.

While I'm not sure on the specifics of this myself, I'd like to think that just so much as taking out a gun and pointing it at him telling him to drop his own gun should be enough of a signal that he should back off.

matthayter700

You can't seriously tell me you've never seen videos of police standoffs with armed criminals.

It all depends,(by state mostly)

but seriously....

A guy comes into a crowded bank waving a gun around, pointing it at innocent children/mothers/families.

I would hit him with so many rounds, it wouldnt even be funny.

It would be hard for anyone to just sit there, if they knew they could stop it.

What if he started shooting people? By not shooting him, its too late.

I would pump the guy with, legit, the whole clip.

Maybe. If you did shoot him, shoot him DEAD. If he lives, then the lawyers can go on some "State of psychosis" spiel and make him look good. Dead men tell no tales.

Actually, a better idea is to give your gun to a pretty lady next to you. That way, there is no way that a jury could convict a poor, helpless woman.

Even better is to give it to a mom. All she has to say is she was protecting her kids from permanent psychological harm and she is off the hook.

Actually, just make a loud noise that causes him to point his gun at you and say you went into panic a pulled the trigger.

Maybe. If you did shoot him, shoot him DEAD. If he lives, then the lawyers can go on some "State of psychosis" spiel and make him look good. Dead men tell no tales.

Actually, a better idea is to give your gun to a pretty lady next to you. That way, there is no way that a jury could convict a poor, helpless woman.

Even better is to give it to a mom. All she has to say is she was protecting her kids from permanent psychological harm and she is off the hook.

Actually, just make a loud noise that causes him to point his gun at you and say you went into panic a pulled the trigger.

DOS4dinner

Or you can just shoot the guy and plead legal insanity

Im pretty sure its legal.

Youre defending yourself.

Not legal, but I'd sure as hell take the prick out if I was in that situation. Who knows when he might start offing innocent people, or you. Legality can be worried about AFTER I know my life and the lives of those around me are safe.Atheos-Arkhaios

Exactly. First you do what's right, then you worry about whether or not it's legal.

[QUOTE="BlackZeroSA"]

No. It would not be legal in the US. One does not break the law to prevent someone else from breaking the law without facing the charges of their offense. Two wrongs don't make a right, people. Let them take their money, then get picked up by the FBI two months later.

~Black Zero

SpaceMoose

...except it isn't always breaking the law in that case. Anyway, there are robbers who will shoot people even after they comply with everything. I don't know if it happens at banks in particular so much, but it certainly happens.

I've ALWAYS been taught one simple rule with regards to firearms. Don't point a gun at someone unless you damn well intend on shooting them.

Granted, that's not the ONLY rule I've been taught, but it's one of the most important rules.

In any case, if I see someone pointing a gun, I'm gonna assume that they ARE gonna use it. What, I'm supposed to sit idly by and then say "but how was I supposed to know that the robber was gonna shoot everybody?"

Uh...well the first hint was when he pulled out a ****ing gun.

And I'd rather go to prison for saving someone's life than to spend the rest of my life knowing that I let someone DIE because I was too afraid of going to jail.

**** that.

[QUOTE="matthayter700"]

While I'm not sure on the specifics of this myself, I'd like to think that just so much as taking out a gun and pointing it at him telling him to drop his own gun should be enough of a signal that he should back off.

SpaceMoose

You can't seriously tell me you've never seen videos of police standoffs with armed criminals.

Why? How was I supposed to have seen them?

No, because shooting him with the gun would be a greater harm than losing your money. However, if your life was in danger you would be allowed, at least that's how it is in Canada.UssjTrunks

its not legal but it should be