Is it legal to shoot kidnappers who tries to abduct your children?


The recent arrest of pedophile kidnapping couple who abducted Caycee girl at the age of 11. She had been held in prison at the couple back yard.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/08/28/california.missing.girl.blog/index.html

I am wondering if you see the kidnappers doing their deeds, is it legal to shoot them to save the kids?

does any Canadian on this site know about Canadian law about this issue?

picard120, this topic is completely inappropriate for this site.

oh sorry. I had no idea.

Disagree. Moderator?


1) In most jurisdictions the use of deadly force to prevent the kidnapping of a minor is lawful.

2) I think, and one suspects that most reasonable people who have children, niece's and nephews, friends with children etc would consider shooting too honorable a death for them. A ignominious method of execution would be more appropriate. Like hanging.

Also, in terms of urban survival it's a threat that has to be considered and dealt with.

Picard120 : Yes

dougwalkabout: Good Job

Leigh_Ratcliffe: You are so right

This is one of the reasons I got out of Law Enforcement. I feared what I might do when faced with one of these scum bags again. My frustration tolerance level had been reached.

The OP may not have used the most politically correct language but IMO it's a valid question for this board since it addresses the physical security and (literal) survival of our children.

The PC approach:

Is deadly force justifiable in order to prevent the abduction of a minor?

The PC answer:

It depends entirely on the jurisdiction in question.

Assuming I'm not further contributing to an inappropriate thread: Typically, you may use the amount of force reasonably necessary to resist or prevent an abduction, but only the amount reasonably necessary, and no more. This may include deadly force. Jurisdictions vary.

Even those accused of the most loathsome crimes still deserve a fair trial. A nineteen year old girl having consensual sex with her seventeen year old boyfriend might be guilty of a criminal sexual offense against a minor, as might a mentally challenged sixteen year old, more or less innocently "playing doctor" with a younger playmate.

I know that's not what people are thinking or suggesting, but every case is different and unique. But for the most egregious cases? A death penalty should perhaps be an option.

Consider shooting at the tyres instead. Less embarrassing if it turns out you made a mistake and mis-interpreted the situation.

In my opinion, if this is the kind of situation you are going to plan and equip for, then you have a moral obligation not to immediately escalate to the most extreme force. Your planning should be designed to make deaths less likely, not more likely.

I want to thank you all for responding appropriately to this question. Well done!

I'm tempted to lock this thread, but I'm going to be optimistic and leave it open. Don't make me regret that decision.

Input from Texas: yes, we could legally shoot a kidnapper we catch in the act to prevent him/her from succeeding in this crime. However we had better be dang sure this is a "real" kidnapping. It's a given that at some point one of my adopted daughters will yell "You're not my real dad!" at me while I try to drag her out of someplace. This has happened to EVERY adoptive parent I know...

-Blast

I would think it depends on the scenario...

If someone broke into your house and snatched a kid I would think you have legal right to do that, however if a mother who was not allowed to see her child snatched her from school I highly doubt the school has any right to shoot her.

*This is not legal advice I am not an attorney for entertainment purposes only*.

Thats my 02.

To broad a question really.

And like Blast said that situation is common even with non-adopted kids

This is actually a great subject (tangent) that stems off the original question. Interjecting yourself into a situation that you don't have an intimate understanding of is very dicey.

A popular scenario thrown around in concealed carry discussions revolves around encountering two men in a fight. John Doe intervenes only to find out the the opposing party was a plain clothes police officer. Shooting a police officer (in plain clothes or not) typically does not look good on a resume.

Specifically, in the scenario initially posed by the OP, in my local I would be justified in using deadly force to prevent the abduction of one of my kids. That does NOT mean that I'm going to shoot someone pulling a screaming kid into a car even under suspicious circumstances.

If I were to observe what appeared to be an abduction in progress I would call 911 and do everything in my power to make myself known & remain in contact with the actor(s) until police arrive. If an abduction is really playing out, hopefully the perpetrator will release the kid and run. At the very least they now have to deal with a physically capable, armed adult male instead of continuing their attack on the child. If the scenario playing out is benign then the actor(s) can explain it to the police when they arrive.

Shooting someone, even a guy who is kidnapping your child, is awfully dangerous. The kid is squirming and fighting.. suppose you hit him? Even police officers with a lot of training have shot the wrong person. The farther away you are, the more likely you are to hit the wrong person. And if you miss, where is the bullet going? How far? What (or who) is going to end up stopping it?

If you're close enough to get a good shot, you're probably close enough to do something else.

From what I've seen of most men fighting, most of them don't seem to be very good at it.

Use women's self-defense tactics, instead. Here are some things I would attempt:

* If you can kick him as hard as you can in the side or front of the knee, do it immediately. I'm not talking about pointy ballerina kicks -- you know how you set a stick up against a log and slam your foot down on it to break it so it fits in the campfire? THAT'S the kind of kick you want to do. You're trying to fold his leg in a direction is isn't meant to go. It's intensely painful and will probably cripple him for life.

*Don't grab the kid, grab the guy.
1) If you can grab one or two of his fingers, bend it all the way backward. Thumbs are good. Or,
2) If you're coming up behind him, grab his ears and twist them, dig your thumb nails into them and don't let go, or,
4) Reach around for his Adam's apple dig your fingers deep, like you're trying to rip it out, or
5) Reach around with both thumbs extended and jab him in the eyes.
6) Grab his lower lip and yank it downward.

If he gets away, get a good description and the license plate. If you have a pen but nothing to write on, write it inside your forearm.

Even if you get your kid away from him, but he gets away, be sure to call the police. He will try again with someone else's child.

Put your kids in a basic self-defense class. You won't always be around.

(Shooting out tires is just for movies and TV shows, and possibly for a cool, expert marksman. Those bullets don't just evaporate when they miss their target, they ricochet and kill people.)

As a sentence? Nope, no one outside the military uses firing squads any more, AFAIK, and they haven't used it in a long time. Even one of the "cleaner" methods of capitol punishment is highly unlikely for "just" kidnapping, even under these circumstances. I don't think Canada even has the death penalty for treason.

Now, if you are asking if you can use lethal force to prevent the commission of a felony, in most states here. Not sure about Canada, but most civilized nations seem to be OK with the use of force to prevent the battery or sexual assault of another, or arson of an occupied building, so I'm thinking kidnapping of a young child would fit into there. Again, not sure about Canada, and not even willing to guess on the UK, but....

Sue, I hope you don't dislike the way I wrote this. I REALLY hate the way it looks but I agreed with most of the things you said, disagreed with a couple and had comments for others. It was just complicated enough that I thought this was the best way to do it so that it didn’t get too hard to follow.

Shooting someone, even a guy who is kidnapping your child, is awfully dangerous. The kid is squirming and fighting.. suppose you hit him? Even police officers with a lot of training have shot the wrong person.
Lots of variables. Skill, distance, threat, proximity to child, etc.

Absolutely agreed that the time to try your first head shot is not in the heat of the moment. All those action movies folks watch are not technically considered training. Adrenaline and a pulse rate of 120 do interesting things to your ability to place rounds where you want them. I know people that have trained like this and I know many, many more that only wish they had.

The farther away you are, the more likely you are to hit the wrong person. And if you miss, where is the bullet going? How far? What (or who) is going to end up stopping it?
Always applicable; good general advice.

If you're close enough to get a good shot, you're probably close enough to do something else.
IMO there are simply too many variables involved to make such a generic statement.

I’m guessing (dangerous I know ;)) that you’re assuming the assailant is unarmed. General advice is going to run against kicking the knee of a man holding your child and a firearm.

From what I've seen of most men fighting, most of them don't seem to be very good at it.
Agreed, BUT assuming how well someone can handle themselves is extremely dangerous. Several of the most dangerous people I know look as “normal” as can be.

If he gets away, get a good description and the license plate. If you have a pen but nothing to write on, write it inside your forearm.
Good advice Sue. The only part of this I would change is that you should try and develop a habit of getting a description immediately, don’t wait.

Even if you get your kid away from him, but he gets away, be sure to call the police. He will try again with someone else's child.
Amen sister!!! Too many people stop when the threat to them and theirs ends.

Put your kids in a basic self-defense class. You won't always be around.
Agreed. The attitude of active resistance and the understanding that they can help themselves alone is worth a lot. I am amazed at the ability of my son to put his feet on people effectively. He’s taken more than one of my adult friends to the ground and he weighs about sixty pounds.

(Shooting out tires is just for movies and TV shows, and possibly for a cool, expert marksman. Those bullets don't just evaporate when they miss their target, they ricochet and kill people.)
A broad generalization with many variables and assumptions. Believe it or not, particularly in rural areas, shooting tires out still happens. Just in case anyone thinks police officers are super human shooters, typically they are not any better than anyone else you pluck out of the general population that has been through a little formal training.

Several rounds through the radiator or tires before the car even moves may decrease the likelihood of escape.

I would be more concerned with whether shooting the pedophiles in question is the correct course of action. You are either putting the child in mortal danger - if , as mentioned above, the kidnapper is close - or dispensing vigilante justice if the kidnapper is a safe distance away from the victim.

I'm having difficulty imagining a realistic scenario in which bringing guns into the equation actually helps the child. It seems more likely to me that the OP's endgame here is to murder a pedophile and get away with it.

First off, in the hands of an abductor the child is already in mortal danger.

I must be the only one here with a little imagination. lol

Let's say the bad guy grabs your daughter in an attack similar to the Dugard case. You are able to close on the car as the bad guy is climbing in and or starting to drive off. There are a number of angles from which shooting the driver without putting a passenger in more danger would be very possible. You might also be able to disable the car as they are attempting to flee.

Everyone is getting caught up with being too close to use a weapon or too far away to use a weapon. A LOT of CQB training courses include shooting at contact distance.

I would comment on the last sentence in your post but I'm having trouble keeping my response civil.

If and when there is a situation when the choice is having a kid abducted and using deadly force I don't see a jury convicting you. That said I am having a pretty hard time figuring a situation where it would come down to knowing an abduction was taking place and you either shoot or let it happen.

It isn't like child molesters wear distinctive molester uniforms or look any particular way. It is also possible that what you are seeing may not be an abduction. Kids can often kick and scream and make a fuss when being hauled off by their parents. Some kids have also learned that if they make it sound like an abduction they will cause a fuss. This alone should cause you to pause before doing anything you can't take back, like shooting people.

Must have been eight or ten years ago there was a molester stalking school bus stops. He would talk up the kids and had exposed himself more than once. Clearly he was building up to something bigger.

The police were alerted but he was working a wide area. One day a lady saw what generally fit a rather vague vehicle description and saw a man pull up and talk to kids at a bus stop. She dialed 911 and followed the vehicle while keeping a safe distance. Using her minute by minute description the police were able to get the vehicle and driver.

Point here is that intelligent use of a phone and vehicle can be as effective, and a hell of a lot less risky, as using force. If the guy had not been a molester the police would make their apologies. Shoot someone you think is a molester and then they find out your wrong and your looking at a lengthy court case and jail time. You could be sued for everything you own and lose you house, vehicle, job and reputation. Good intentions don't mean a thing. Shoot someone and you had better be right.

You can't let your desire to be a hero, to 'save the children', or to 'rid the world of scum' affect your judgment. Before taking any action that can't be taken back you need to be absolutely sure your know what your seeing. Misreading it could be tragic for everyone if you use deadly force.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't keep your eyes open and react. If the situation resembles an abduction call the police. Memorize the description of the vehicle, license plate number and driver. Given that cell phones with cameras are so common take a few snaps. Call 911. If it seems prudent follow the vehicle. Get creative.

Maybe you can block the vehicle in. If your damned sure get your car in front of theirs and stand on the brakes so you have a low-speed collision that destroys his radiator but doesn't risk life and limb. A wrecked car is better than a lost kid. If it turns out it is the kids uncle picking up the children you can claim 'a cat ran in front of my car'. And everyone gets to know the auto body shop owner.

To be honest, I had the same thought as Rodion, no offense intended to the original poster or to follow-ons.

8 years ago I had to say goodbye to a part of my career, where I had to receive warrants from law enforcement for access to online services, and assist with lawful recovery of evidence in cases of pedophilia. The evidence recovered in the first few cases were bad enough, but the photographic evidence recovered in the fourth case was enough not only to make me cry but convince me I wasn't cut out for this task. Just talking about it now is tough, it screwed me up good. I am afraid that in a kidnap situation, I will flash onto those memories, and over-react. I don't carry a gun, but am afraid what I would do to subdue a kidnapper. If the kidnap victim was my own kid, I know there is no rationalizing, just reaction. I honestly have difficulty treating pedophiles as human beings.

Just from what I've heard/read, most child snatchers aren't armed. They either get the kid into the car by asking them if they want to see some puppies (etc), or they just step out and grab them, like this Garrido creep. Garrado's wife was driving the kidnapping car. If it were my kid, I think I would probably take the chance that he wasn't armed and try to take him down. Or cripple him. Or both. I wouldn't be adverse to breaking both his legs.

Yes, lots of variable and adrenaline could alter the situation, which is my main reason why shooting could be a very iffy way to handle the situation.

"From what I've seen of most men fighting, most of them don't seem to be very good at it." I'm sorry, I wasn't clear about what I meant. I meant the father of the child may not be much of a fighter, not the perp. I still think if anyone could get the perp from behind, they would have some advantage.

Following with a car and cell phone would be excellent, if you could. But luck doesn't always work like that.

Last month near Seattle, a boy saw his 4-yr-old sister taken into a man's car, and he chased it down and grabbed her out of the car. You do what you can with what you've got.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009213659_kidnap13m0.html

If you intervene in an abduction, you better be ready to take a life. The reason I say that, I have intervened in an abduction. No, I didn't shoot anyone but it did get physical, it was scary and it was the worst fight of my life.

That's coming from a guy that bounced some of the biggest honkey tonk bars in "real cowboy country" in the U.S. Yea, I've been in a few fights.

I was in high scool, 17 years old and driving home from school one day when I noticed a car on the other side of the road with 2 young girls about 8-10 years old and a stereotypical frail, little old blue haired lady standing on the curb by the car. One little girl was screaming for help, the little old lady was screaming at the driver of the car to "let her go" and the driver was hanging onto the other girl by the arm trying to drag her into the car. I pulled over and ran to the car, asking the little girl do you know him? as I approached.

She said no and the driver bailed out of the car and came at me. He was a full grown man probably mid to late 30's. Again, I was a 17 year old kid. This was over 25 years ago before the age of cell phones, internet, and instant access to sex offender registries. (You should look up your area online for your own safety by the way)

He came at me and the fight was ON. At a couple points he tried to break away and flee but by that time I was hurting, pissed off and knew he was up to no good. I was NOT going to let him go. Someone in a nearby house called 911 and the police finally arrived. I was conseravitely, actively fighting the man for 10 to 12 consecutive minutes.(That's a damn long time to spend rolling around on the ground getting hit, kicked, gouged and bit if you've never done it.) I was black and blue for a while.

The aftermath: the cops determined he was a known child molester. He tried to lure both girls into the car and the old lady happened to walk up as it was happening and interfered. Being afraid of getting caught again, he admitted to the cops he tried to "disable me from identifying him and then get away." The cops never even mentioned the possibilty of me being charged with assault or anything like that. He was arrested on the spot and went to jail. I never heard another word about it. Of course things were different then. Now days you get sued if a criminal falls and breaks his leg breaking into your house. And he wins in court.

Just food for thought, if you were to get involved with something like this, chances are it's a repeat offender who will NOT want to get caught again and may be very desperate. Desperation = danger.

You aren't the only one with imagination, you're just letting it run wild and free here. As for not accidentally shooting the child being "very possible", that's not good enough. Putting rounds through a vehicle with children in it does not help anyone. It "might" save the day, yes, or it just might not.

Your time would be better spent writing down the license plate number.

If I wasn't sure what was happening, you would be told to "STAND STILL!" .

A much more effective command than "freeze!"

Gives me time to sort out exactly what is going on......

On that note, I myself had a child scream "I'm being kidnapped!" at a crowded bus station during my college years. I was volunteering in the projects and the child was African-Israeli. I'm not. Nobody bat an eyelid.

I understand where this is coming from, I really do. It's appalling that children can and do become victims of predators in this day and age. It's even worse that bystanders let it happen.

But none of my training, or simply common sense, suggests guns would be too useful in this situation. I suppose when you've secured the victim/s behind you a gun will come in handy to subdue the perp. Any other application of firearms runs a high risk of turning the event into a blood bath, or a hostage crisis. Why escalate? If possible - knock the guy out, sure. If not - okay, at least you saw A. Who is missing. B. Who took them and when.

That's a good start right there.

[censored] out of pedophile?

Does Canadian law permit parents to use force to defend their kids?

Do the parents have to consult lawyers on this issue ?

Picard, it would be best if you asked a local lawyer these questions rather than asking them here.

Also, consider yourself warned in regards to using swear words in your post.

-Blast

oops. I didn't realize I used swear words.

I never did it to my parents and neither did my sister. We are both adopted. So there is at least one set of adoptive parents that didn't have to hear it, i hope you will never hear it either.

I gather it's rare for them to enter homes to abduct. Apparently when they are claimed to have done so, it often turns out the parents were involved in foul play and covering it up by claiming abduction. (This is part of why not everyone believes Madeleine McCann's parents, for example.)

In the Caycee case in the article you linked, the victim was outside, waiting at a bus stop. That is (relatively) more common. So the case you linked to is not an example of what you were talking about.

Ranter - Most of us will go through our entire lives without making such a profound difference in anyone's life that you made in these two girls' lives by saving them from their attacker. Hopefully his being arrested saved others, as well.

God bless you and the elderly woman for taking an interest and then taking action.

Child molesters don't usually walk around with "CHILD MOLESTER-PEDOPHILE" emblazoned on their forehead or t-shirt.

But when a child we don't know is in distress we should pay attention and assess the situation. And if anyone else is around as a potential witness or help, we should try to draw their attention, too.

But shooting the suspected perp on sight? Outside of Hollywood, that's very dangerous for innocent bystanders and exposes the shooter to considerable legal jeopardy. Being judge-jury-executioner on the spot like that is a horrifying prospect.

If it were my own child at issue and in or around my own home, I'd know the person was a threat and if armed and my child were not in the way, I'd probably shoot. And shoot, and shoot until all the bullets were gone. I'd worry about whether my action was legal when someone from the police department mentioned it.

As for the thread title: Shoot Pedophiles Who Abduct Children? I'm all for the death penalty for these perps. Their recidivism rate is extremely high and the crimes they commit against children are pure evil.

In Canada we are allowed the use of lethal force to protect ourselves or others.
It is still homicide though and you will almost certainly defending yourself against a murder charge.

So you had better be very sure that you really had to kill to protect yourself or somebody else from harm.

We don't have the death penalty in Canada for any offence. We do have life in prison instead, which is supposed to be 25 years with no parole.

I just wanna throw my hat into the ring here.
First off, even though I have gone through several training courses in both offensive & defensive shooting techniques, to include several CQB courses, there is no way on gods green earth I would attempt a shot on a person holding a hostage, unless it was a contact shot-there is simply too many variables there, and I dont think I could honestly live with myself if I injured or killed an innocent person-particularly the child. I firearm used on the VEHICLE would be my option-it isnt jinking left or right, and is a rather large target. tires, radiator, and engine block. flat tires can be driven on, and if you hit the angle wrong, may not even puncture it. Or you can hit the rims (remember, at this point, your system likely dumped adrenaline, and your heart & breathing are accelerated). Better to shoot the front end-thats where all the vitals lie in the car. A cracked engine block will only go a short distance-same with a car with no coolant-once the engine is dead, thats it.
Now, put yourself in the abductors mind for a second, scary as it may be-he now KNOWS he has been identified (by you shooting at his car); what would YOU do? Ok, that may not be fair, but these people arent wired correctly. They likely will kill their captives, and possibly themselves, to avoid being caught. His WHOLE world just fell apart; this may not be the first abduction. This is a risk you take by actively engaging someone. Now, I am not saying DONT act, particularly if its your own child; I am just saying that, well, we arent superheroes-we let adrenaline take over, and the situation can potentially have a far worse ending.
Barring finding someone in my home, attempting to abduct my own kids, which is a whole different scenario, I would have to agree with Susan; Get as much info as possible-call 911 IMMEDITATELY....they record the call, and you can feed them the information. If needed, follow. If you were unnoticed, follow at a distance, feeding info. Let the police handle it-thats their job, not yours. If you arent familiar with the actors, yourself may be making a mistake-it could be, as someone stated, a parent picking up a child who is angry, and simply doesnt want to go home. again though, let the cops work that out.
I think that there are too many situations & variables to say with certainty what I would do. In my own home is a FAR different scenario than witnessing it on the street between strangers. In the first case, I would know that the situation isnt normal, and act appropriately. The second one, I would call 911, and follow, if possible-if not, I would feed them information actively as I am seeing it.
The human mind works in funny ways too...by recording what you are seeing, there isnt any guesswork. Most people wont remember the general details of the situation, simply because they are trying to focus on details. For instance, a "dark shirt" can be red, green, blue, black, grey. Thats kind of important if they pick him up immediately. Alone its nothing though. Which is why, IMHO, its best to call 911 IMMEDIATELY and report what youre seeing, before the person gets away. Cell phones are amazing technology; utilize it. There is no worrying about hitting someone else with stray rounds.

When I read this, the first thing I thought was... If my wife is present when you try to take her kids, first you are going to get shot, then she will probably get mad and do something worse.

Some women's self-defense tactics involve 1911s.

Greg

I think this is generally superb advice. But I'll throw out a few contrarian thoughts. First, I'd be very hesitant to shoot at any vehicle, especially one in motion. It's a very tough shot, perhaps less likely to disable the vehicle than you'd imagine, and it really raises the risk of bystanders getting hurt. Cars can do far more more damage than bullets, and streets and parking lots tend to be busy, chaotic places.

Second, I have what I call the "Mini-Mart Rule," which states "you might find me dead in a mini-mart, but you won't find me dead in the cooler of a mini-mart." In other words, I may or may not choose to resist or intervene in a holdup (probably not), but I will virtually always resist being moved or going to a second place at gunpoint.

Experience amply demonstrates that this is a potentially "game over" point of no return, one that dramatically increases the odds of getting killed. Likewise, very few children survive to return home from a kidnapping. Therefore, applying the rule, I would not allow a kidnapper to take a child away if I thought a)there was a reasonable chance to prevent it, AND b)I also thought that the cops were not likely to arrive very promptly.

Getaways can happen in seconds. Thereafter, the perp may get caught eventually, but the kid is likely gone. Some cops frustrated by these sorts of situations have bitterly remarked that their department's motto ought to be changed to "we arrive just after the nick of time" or "when seconds count, we arrive in minutes." I would not like my carefully noted description of the kidnapper to be used against him - at his murder trial.

Third, intervening by use of a firearm does not equate to discharging that firearm. In fact, the large majority of armed confrontations do not involve a discharged weapon, but only a presented one. Although you absolutely must be ready, willing and able to shoot if you present your firearm, you don't actually have to. Indeed, you often find, after drawing your weapon, that you can't shoot. This may be due to the lack of a reasonable shot, other persons in your line of fire, psychological factors, or other reasons.

Just my $0.02. But, overall, I'd say that the best advice remains what Old Solder wrote: "its best to call 911 IMMEDIATELY and report what you're seeing, before the person gets away. Cell phones are amazing technology; utilize it. There is no worrying about hitting someone else with stray rounds."

If I am _sure_ that a child is being kidnapped and I am _sure_ that I have a good shot, I don't care what the law says about the matter.

And I'm a lawyer.

The movie "Gone Baby Gone" makes this scenario much less black and white.

Very well said Jeff_M.

First, I want to say that my early comment about shooting at tyres was in the context of shooting at people; it was a step down in the violence, not a step up.

Second, even if you can't stop the vehicle, it can be useful to mark it so that anyone who sees it will notice its passing, and any police will likely investigate. It may also be noticed if taken to a garage for repairs. It can be better than nothing.

As I understand it, abducted children rarely survive the first 24 hours anyway. If the kidnapper does have to abandon the car in a hurry, they may not have time to kill the child. I appreciate your point about them not being rational, but it's still worth noting that there isn't much for them to gain by killing it. They've been seen by adults at the abduction, they probably used their own car and in any case will probably have left forensic evidence in it. Leave it alive will tend to distract anyone chasing them, and of course will look better in court.

Agreed; and I'm not saying DO act.