Re: Lunatic Shooting Passing Vehicles
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DonniePD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Badshot308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm curious to hear from any California LEO on this board as to whether it would have even been legal for anybody to have stopped and engaged the shooter vs fleeing once they realized the nut in the middle of the intersection was shooting at them. In some states you cannot use deadly physical force if you can flee or retreat safetly. These drivers, once they realized they were being shot at, did the most sensible thing, they hit the gas and fled. In some states that don't have some type of castle doctrine, you can't even use deadly physical force in your own home without retreating first. So my question to any California LEO on the board, would it have been legal for one of these motorists to pull over and engage this shooter vs fleeing the scene? Would it have been legal for someone in a building to have engaged the shooter even though the shooter wasn't directing any fire in their direction. While most people would consider an armed citizen a hero for ending the rampage, what would the possible legal ramifications have been for someone had they done so? </div></div>
I can not answer for CA but you would've been justified in KY. Your reasoning would've been to try to save others lives </div></div>
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. <span style="font-weight: bold">Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:</span> (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
This is a section of NYS Penal Law Article 35 Defense of Justification. Even here, it could be argued that by retreating, you would not do so with the complete safety of others, as in the shooter was still posing a deadly threat to pedestrians and motorists entering the intersection unaware that the man standing there was opening fire on passing vehicles. I'm interested in California's laws and how they may be interpreted in this situation.
