Ruger Forum

sr40cForMe · June 23rd, 2012, 10:47 AM

So I only semi understand the laws in my state. My big question is. In Connecticut lets say I'm at a bank or at a convenience store and somebody pulls out a gun and tries to rob the place (not rob me) does the law prevent me from drawing my own gun to protect the store owner/people in a bank since technically he has their lives in danger by drawing a gun at them it would be considered lawful if I did draw as I would be doing it to protect their lives. Correct? Then let's say because I draw on him he turns to me ad aims at me. If I shoot him in the shoulder or somewhere non-lethal to attempt to disarm him/protect myself that's justified correct? Obviously if he fires on me and I shoot him in the head and kill him it's justified. I know that much at least. Hoping someone can help me out with this.

razadp · June 23rd, 2012, 01:36 PM

Center Of Mass - repeat that again.

Don't try trick shots. If the bad guy has a hostage and all you see is half a head, you better be a superb marksman, or else do your best to de-escalate by leaving.

On the other hand if he's already firing shots, then maybe you just take your best chance.

If you make a mistake you may very well be justified in criminal court but lose in civil court.

dacaur · June 23rd, 2012, 02:04 PM

You may only use your weapon when you think you or someone else is in imminent danger of death or grevious boily harm.... In that case your goal should be to stop the threat ASAP. A shot in the shoulder may not do that. If you are not shooting to stop the threat ASAP, it could also be argued that you didnt really belive there was an imminent threat. If you have time to aim only to wound, then you have time to take another action. Wounding someone wont always stop them from hurting/killing someone. If someone shot me in the shoulder, I would shoot them with my other hand.

terry_p · June 23rd, 2012, 02:07 PM

First off I have no clue what CT laws are. It is up to you to learn the laws from a reliable source. I do know there is no difference between shooting someone in a "non-lethal" area and putting one between the eyes except with the latter you are less likely to get shot if you hit him. I agree with center mass and keep shooting until the threat is gone. Either your life is in danger or it is not. If not you should not unholster your firearm.

I am not sure what I would do in the scenerio you laid out as I suspect most of us don't know what we would do in a high stress situation. Here is a link to an article by Evan Marshall called "The Dangers of Intervention". Here is a quote from the article:

Quote:

Let me be perfectly frank. Those who think that intervention will bring fame, honors, glory, etc., are delusional. I once prevented the rape of a woman by butt stroking her attacker with a shotgun while he was in the act of penetrating her. Weeks later she made an excessive force complaint against me. She thought I should have been more restrained in my behavior! On another occasion, my partner and I chased a holdup man into a store where he took a woman hostage. He then threatened to kill her (he had just shot two people in a bank and we believed him!). My partner shot the bad guys three times. One of those bullets slightly grazed the woman’s finger and she sued us for endangering her!

Commentary by Evan Marshall

Marine Division Two · June 23rd, 2012, 02:51 PM

If they Rob and start to leave without physical harm and You shoot them,you will be in a world of S__ __ T !

PiratePast40 · June 23rd, 2012, 03:07 PM

During the CHL class I went to, the instructor refused to discuss hypothetical situations because he said they were just that. He did point out that there have been situations when a firearm was used during roberies when it was not used. If you pulled out your gun and that provoked the bad gun to shoot, and someone was injured or killed, there would be questions about you being a contributor to that death or injury. Same issue with a hostage situation.

Just food for thought.

wheelyfun101 · June 24th, 2012, 12:48 PM

You might want to re-think your reasons for carrying a concealed weapon? (addressed to the OP)

Only in the movies do people "shoot to wound".

Believe me, when you are in a high-stress situation involving firearms and the threat of death or imminent harm....you will be lucky to be able to make hits on the center mass of an aggressor's body.

You are not the police...you are not carrying a weapon to be a hero....your weapon should only be used when you are in immediate danger of grave bodily harm or possible deathly violence.

Save the hero scenarios for movies...
Maybe take some training courses, to help you begin to further understand how to react to threats, what constitutes an immediate threat to your life, etc..

Sorry if I seem to be preaching...but it seems that when people pose such...basic...questions about using deadly force (or shooting to "wound"), that they are not yet ready for the real deal.

Training is your friend!
Welcome to the Ruger forum!

SafetyJoe · July 26th, 2012, 11:26 PM

I live in CT and have a pistol permit, but I'm not a lawyer so nothing I say is legal advice. If the bad guy wasn't shooting anyone and just wanted the bank's money I wouldn't try to stop him, but if he starts to gather people together and makes everyone go into the vault I'm going to assume he's going to start shooting people in the vault and I'm going to shoot him before he gets the chance to do that. I think something like that is pretty rare though. I think most bank robbers just want to get the cash and leave.

I think I remember my pistol permit instructor saying that in CT if someone breaks into your house you have to order them to leave and not block their way out and if they come at you instead then you can shoot them, but for some reason you can't just shoot someone that breaks in especially if you don't see they have any weapon. I could be wrong about that, but I think I remember hearing him say that. In any case it's probably best to just tell the cops you thought you were going to die and you don't want to say anything else until you talk to your lawyer.

Slyakins · July 26th, 2012, 11:42 PM

In my opinion, by pulling out his gun he becomes a felon. You can, if you choose to, "get involved" and fire on the felon. If you wound him or kill him it should will be justified by the courts. Yes, you will have to go to criminal court and maybe civil court because the bad guy or his mommy, or siblings will sue you for wounding or killing her baby.

SafetyJoe · July 27th, 2012, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slyakins

In my opinion, by pulling out his gun he becomes a felon. You can, if you choose to, "get involved" and fire on the felon. If you wound him or kill him it should will be justified by the courts. Yes, you will have to go to criminal court and maybe civil court because the bad guy or his mommy, or siblings will sue you for wounding or killing her baby.

You can do what you want, but him becoming a felon because he pulled out his gun in a bank doesn't matter to me. Especially if he isn't harming anyone. I think escalating the situation could make things a lot worse. When you carry a pistol you have the obligation to avoid and deescalate all situations. You will be judged in your efforts and ability to do those things. Lethal force is only a last option. I say just let him take the money and let the real cops do their job and track him down later. Last time I checked you don't automatically become a felon doing anything until after a jury convicts you. So even though you see him committing a felony it doesn't make him a felon until after he's convicted in court. That's called being innocent until being proven guilty. I'm not saying he's a good guy. I'm just saying he's not technically an actual felon until after he's convicted.

Also saying that it should be justified in a court if you killed him is bad advice because you're not a lawyer or a judge and you don't know how the laws are in CT. A bad decision like that, with the way the twisted legal system works, could result in you being locked up for many years. I think it would have been better to just leave it up to the real cops to handle it. As long as the robber wasn't hurting anyone you shouldn't really care if he wants to run away with a sack of green pieces of paper.

30cal · July 27th, 2012, 02:11 AM

Okay, just to.clarify, I was told by the NRA instructor who teaches the basic pistol class and also other safety classes what the laws are in CT on use of deadly force. You have to realize, we live in a very liberal state and do not have the same "stand your ground" laws such as Florida. However ill explain it like be explained it to me.

For instance, if somebody breaks in your house and your sitting on the couch you can not shoot him. If he breaks into your house with a baseball bat, you can not shoot him. If he breaks in with a gun, you can take a shot. The key is your life has to be in immediate danger in order for you to pull the trigger. Say that same guy comes in your house with the baseball bat, you can't shoot him unless he's within striking distance meaning your life was in danger and you are protecting your life.

Another example I was given. Say I'm walking down the road and a couple of thugs come up from behind me and start beating me up, I can pull the trigger if I am able to unholster whilst getting beat up. If I was unable to defend myself when I was getting beatup but now.I see these guys walking away with my wallet, I cannot pull the trigger because I am no longer in danger.

So basically in CT only unholster if your life is in danger ans you are trying to protect yourself. Its not worth the legal or mental heartache thaw could come with knowing you injured or killed someone else trying to be a hero. Like others said with the bank scenario, I would comply unless I knew I was in danger. If they are there for.the banks money, let them take it.

bwinters · July 27th, 2012, 05:09 AM

It is a good idea to let a robbery of a store go down as long as no one is harmed. I used to carry in my store to protect my money. NJ has no ccw but if it did I would not intervene to protect another persons money. If they start to hurt people that is another story.

dacaur · July 27th, 2012, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SafetyJoe

Last time I checked you don't automatically become a felon doing anything until after a jury convicts you. So even though you see him committing a felony it doesn't make him a felon until after he's convicted in court. That's called being innocent until being proven guilty. I'm not saying he's a good guy. I'm just saying he's not technically an actual felon until after he's convicted.

I agree with most of what you said, but not this part.... I'm not actualy sure what he laws are in CT, but here in utah, the person BEING or becoming a "convicted felon" has no bearing on anything here. Its only the act of COMMITTING a forcible felony thats important. Here you can use anything up to and including deadly force to stop someone in the act of committing a forcible felony. (A forcible felony is one that includes the threat of physical force or violence. In most places stealing parked a car is a felony. Stealing a car at gunpoint is a forcible felony.)

The fact that we have to say "alleged" before everything these days is stupid. Someone can be caught in the act of doing something, with hundreds of witnesses, (like robbing a bank...) and yet until their day in court they are an alleged criminal according to the media... I just dont get it. I'm not saying lock them up without a trial, but come on, they ARE a bank robber, not an "alleged" bank robber

SafetyJoe · July 27th, 2012, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dacaur

I agree with most of what you said, but not this part.... I'm not actualy sure what he laws are in CT, but here in utah, the person BEING or becoming a "convicted felon" has no bearing on anything here. Its only the act of COMMITTING a forcible felony thats important. Here you can use anything up to and including deadly force to stop someone in the act of committing a forcible felony. (A forcible felony is one that includes the threat of physical force or violence. In most places stealing parked a car is a felony. Stealing a car at gunpoint is a forcible felony.)

The fact that we have to say "alleged" before everything these days is stupid. Someone can be caught in the act of doing something, with hundreds of witnesses, (like robbing a bank...) and yet until their day in court they are an alleged criminal according to the media... I just dont get it. I'm not saying lock them up without a trial, but come on, they ARE a bank robber, not an "alleged" bank robber

Yeah, I know it seems odd, but until they are convicted in a court they're not technically an actual felon. There can be proof without a shadow of a doubt, but that doesn't " automatically " make him a felon. Like you said it just makes him an " alleged " felon and in some cases, in some states, you might be able to use deadly force against an " alleged " felon. In Connecticut you don't have the right to use deadly force to protect any property of any kind. If someone tries to steal the bank's money or your car parked in the driveway and you kill the person you're going to have to prove that someone's life was in direct and immediate danger. That could be very hard to do in an anti gun state like CT.

dacaur · July 27th, 2012, 12:30 PM

Quote:

If someone tries to steal the bank's money or your car parked in the driveway and you kill the person you're going to have to prove that someone's life was in direct and immediate danger.

Yea thats what I said. There is a difference between a "felony" (stealing a parked car) And a "forcible felony". (carjacking at gunpoint) If you shoot at a person stealing a car parked in your driveway here you would be in a heap of trouble even in a pro gun state like utah. You cannot use deadly force on someone committing a felony unless its a forcible felony. Fraud is a felony, but you cant shoot someone trying to pass a bad check.

On the other hand, when a bank robber points a gun at someone, what reasonable person would not belive that persons life was in "direct and immediate danger"?

In connecticut law : Sec. 53a-19.
Use of physical force in defense of person. (a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this section, a person is justified in using reasonable physical force upon another person to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force, and he may use such degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose; except that deadly physical force may not be used unless the actor reasonably believes that such other person is (1) using or about to use deadly physical force, or (2) inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm.

A person could reasonably believe that someone who points a gun at another person is about to use deadly physical force. Some might try to argue that you have no way of knowing if they are going to pull the trigger. I guess they want us to wait until they do pull the trigger before we act? Are we not all taught never to point a gun at anything we do not wish to destroy? Being taught that all my life, If I saw someone pointing a gun at someone else, I could reasonable believe they intend to shoot them....

A bank robber with a shotgun pointed at the ceiling "might" be a different story, depending on their demeanor....

Ruger Forum

Carrying in CT