could the guy in the background of this picture use deadly force?

[Ghooge2008]

Darth Vader Robs New York Bank

Posted: Jul 23, 2010 12:01 PM CDT

SETAUKET, N.Y. (AP) – A man donning a Darth Vader mask at a New York bank has gone to the dark side.

Police said the man entered a Chase Bank branch on Long Island on Thursday, displayed a gun and demanded money. A surveillance camera caught the "Star Wars" character wearing a blue cape and camouflage pants.

View larger surveillance photos

The bandit escaped from the Setauket bank with an undetermined amount of cash.

The robbery came about a week after another bank robber, dubbed the "bouquet bandit," held up a Manhattan bank.

Authorities said Edward Pemberton used a flower bouquet to conceal a note demanding cash during a $440 bank heist July 15. They said he used a potted plant as a similar prop in a holdup at another bank earlier in the month.

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

my question is : could the guy laying on the floor with his hands up use deadly force on this guy robbing the bank at gunpoint if he had a HCP?

[Rightwinger]

I wouldn't. Not unless he popped or was clearly going to shoot a teller. Darth has no interest in him. He is weak in the force. Note the hand position stating clearly that "yes, this man has no male genitalia"

[chadbuddy]

I think you could justify it by saying you were defending the life of the teller. But unless you are certain that the teller is going to die, I wouldn't get involved. To me the risk of being sued in a civil court by the dead BG's family is too great.

[Guest db99wj]

I would say probably not justified, not impossible, but it would be a tough one to prove. If he was pointing the gun at the teller, like he is, and highly agitated and threating to shoot her, your chances to defend yourself would be higher. A lot also might depend on where you are and how the DA's office is regarding carry laws.

The lady in the third picture on the other hand, if she would have turned around and saw that, and drew her weapon, I believe she would have been justified, the guy is pointing a gun at her, or at least in her general direction.

All this is opinion.

[Mike.357]

I think he could have used deadly force. it would not be hard to make a case that someone pointing a gun at someone is a threat to their life or in danger of grave bodily harm.

Would I have used it in this instance, no. Bank robbers generally do not shoot tellers, and he was not aiming at me.

now to me the big question is do I draw my piece and prepare to defend myself should he point that gun at me?

At that point can a case be made that I incited him to threaten me.

Sticky wicket we have here.

[Smith]

Pretty clear and easy to prove fear of death or injury. Guy has a gun drawn and is committing armed robbery. This would be an easy case.

[Fallguy]

Pretty clear and easy to prove fear of death or injury. Guy has a gun drawn and is committing armed robbery. This would be an easy case.

A drawn gun and committing armed robbery are not justifiable grounds to use deadly force in-and-of-themselves. There could be other things going at the time that would be, but...maybe not as well.

However in this case, I think the argument could be made either way. I think a lot of it would depend on where you are and the political climate at the time.

[Il Duce]

Weak in testicular fortitude you are

[gregintenn]

could the guy in the background of this picture use deadly force?

Not in New York, where the robbery took place.

[Guest Jamie]

my question is : could the guy laying on the floor with his hands up use deadly force on this guy robbing the bank at gunpoint if he had a HCP?

Not without a lightsaber.

J.

[Ghooge2008]

I saw that article and thought, dang that dude on the ground could totally mess up vaders day...figured I would post and see what others would do in John Doe's shoe's.

[JReedEsq]

This is an obvious case of, "just because you might have a legal justification to do something, doesn't mean you should." I don't know of any situation where I'd unholster unless the threat is directed at myself or an immediate family member. Sorry, the rest of you guys are on your own. Notice I said an immediate family member. I'm related to lots of folks that can fend for themselves.

[Guest higherpowerracing]

I wouldn't unless he aimed it at me.

[kb4ns]

.

[daddyo]

Bad guy points a gun at someone, I assume he is going to use it. Deadly force justified.

That said, if my family is with me and I can get them out, I'm getting out. If it's just me, and I have a clear shot, I'm taking the guy out.

[Parrothead]

what if the teller happened to be your wife?

[Guest jackdm3]

His head and helmet = swiss cheese

[Smith]

A drawn gun and committing armed robbery are not justifiable grounds to use deadly force in-and-of-themselves. There could be other things going at the time that would be, but...maybe not as well.

However in this case, I think the argument could be made either way. I think a lot of it would depend on where you are and the political climate at the time.

LE would disagree. If a gun is in process of being drawn, bad guy is down immediately. If a gun is already drawn on arrival and BG even flinches, bad guy is down. IMO this is a really easy situation. I think you guys WAY over think situations that aren't that complicated. BTW you can legally arrest and detain anyone you spot in the commission of a felony. Armed robbery fits that very well. Now holding him at gunpoint may/may not be an issue, but shooting the guy is 100% OK. Only caveat would be if he was already running away from the bank or something along those lines.

Of course this thread won't end until you, Jaime, and few others debate the minutia of the law for 8 pages anyway.

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

Since he has his back toward me I think that I would try to draw my weapon but keep it out of sight under me until and if the BG was to actually shoot someone and or point his gun at me.

Very If 'y situation here but I do think I would want to try and get as ready as possible to respond if the need to arose.

If BG dont shoot anyone or point his gun my way on the way out I would be letting him walk away.

[Guest jackdm3]

You saved me a lot of typing.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

That scenario would involve shooting the perp in the back? If the guy on the floor had male genitalia and rash judgement, would he have to at least wait until the robber turned around? To avoid legal trouble?

[Guest jackdm3]

Angers me to consider the fact that a jury would discern the difference.

[Guest Jamie]

Of course this thread won't end until you, Jaime, and few others debate the minutia of the law for 8 pages anyway.

Hate to disappoint you, but as I've said before, legal or not, I don't get involved in other people's fights. When I quit wearing a badge, I quit defending anybody other than me and mine.

Self defense or home defense... yeah, I'll debate. Defending other people, their property, or worse yet, their money? Forget it.

J.

[Fallguy]

LE would disagree. If a gun is in process of being drawn, bad guy is down immediately. If a gun is already drawn on arrival and BG even flinches, bad guy is down. IMO this is a really easy situation. I think you guys WAY over think situations that aren't that complicated. BTW you can legally arrest and detain anyone you spot in the commission of a felony. Armed robbery fits that very well. Now holding him at gunpoint may/may not be an issue, but shooting the guy is 100% OK. Only caveat would be if he was already running away from the bank or something along those lines.

Of course this thread won't end until you, Jaime, and few others debate the minutia of the law for 8 pages anyway.

My only point was that LE has encountered guys with guns in their hands (drawn) and those committing armed robbery and they didn't always just shoot right away.

Do I think you could shoot DV in this case and be justified? Sure...... Do I think you could shoot him and some renegade DA charge you? Yes as well.

[Guest Navygunner]

Since he has his back toward me I think that I would try to draw my weapon but keep it out of sight under me until and if the BG was to actually shoot someone and or point his gun at me.

Just my opinion but if I could prevent it I wouldnt wait for someone to be shot before I decided to act. I think that it is a moral obligation to protect others if it is within your ability to do so. Its part of what comes along with living this lifestyle. And if you arent prepared to call this a lifestyle then perhaps you should rethink your decision to carry a firearm. I am in total agreement with "family comes first" and if I can get them out thats priority. And I wont go back after I do because that could be argued against me in court but I could continue to help by being an intel source to police when they show up. Besides he meets the deadly force triangle. He has opportunity, capability, and intent. I say drop him like a toilet seat.

There. You can have your soap box back. Lol

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk