Printable View
There is more to disparity of force than just age, sex or weight differential. I'm a big guy, with two bad knees. Maybe you have a heart condition or bleed easily. In the end, self defense is an affirmative defense where you must convince that a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would feel your actions are justified.
If I'm jumped from behind, knocked to the ground and in the process of being beaten down, I might just find that reasonable.
"a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would feel your actions are justified."
Without witnesses or evidence that present overwhelming proof of either self defense or manslaughter, JohnK87 hit it on the head. What would a reasonable believe and do under the same circumstances?
That said, the wrong judge, prosecutor, or jury can turn things bad in a hurry. The time to consider the legal ramifications of shooting an assailant is the day you decide to carry. At the moment of truth, you can only trust your judgement - "Will I be able to get out of this alive without firing my weapon?" The situation dictates the action.
jcabin is either delusional, or perhaps PA law requires you to be beaten within an inch of your life before your ALLOWED to be in fear for your life.
I look at this from a L.E. perspective and one of the things I teach rookie officers during field training is to look at the "totality of the circumstances" when dealing with calls. I don't know what scenario jcabin is looking at but from the article I read this seems to be a clear cut case of justifiable deadly force, just because a man might be unarmed that does not mean he can't use deadly force against you, obviously.
+1 :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by HotGuns
You gotta love the .357! The king of the street. Making bad guys into red goo for more than fifty yers.
Fear for your life OR GREAT BODILY HARM does not require you to be in the process of being beaten. In many cases, simply the threat is enough. And size does not matter... ask Yoda:) or my karate instructor(5'2" 100 lb female) who could easily kill you with her hands, feet, elbows, knees...
I am 27, 6'3", 225lb and very athletic and healthy, and I will not allow myself to be beaten (on the ground or standing up). You never know when a weapon will be introduced or one wrong move could leave you incapacitated. Not to mention potential additional assailants.
Each situation is different, but you do not have to be in the process of being injured to use deadly force. It may look better to the jury, but is definitly not necessary.
If a jury of your peers decides you used deadly force without just cause, your life will be ruined more thoroughly than a beating. You will lose anything you have - your freedom, your family, your savings. Your family will be bankrupt and you will be in prison. If an unarmed, 5'2" 100lb woman threatens to beat up a 6'3" 225lb man, the man had better wait until he has a few busted bones at a minimum before shooting her. "Fear for your life" will get you off, but it has to be a reasonable fear.
The only time I pulled a gun, I was returning from a long hike. There were 8 guys sitting on my car, drinking whiskey. It was miles from the nearest paved road and probably 30 miles from the nearest cop. They got off my car as one, and started to fan out around me. I moved sideways to keep from being surrounded, pulled my gun out (but didn't point it). I think the look I gave the nearest guy conveyed my thought - one more step and I shoot. They stopped trying to surround me and I left. Not a word was ever spoken.
No, you don't have to wait until you're injured, but the threat has to be reasonable. Even when it is reasonable, the legal system can ruin your life. Consider the case of Harold Fish:
http://www.azcentral.com/community/s...ense21-ON.html
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2009/...-2004-killing/
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/News....aspx?id=13173
He did what he needed, but the government made a mess of his life. My point isn't that you should never shoot, just that it is the last resort. If someone says, "I'm in a fight and may lose, so I'm justified in shooting...", they are wrong. They MIGHT be justified, or might not. The criminal is one threat, and the criminal justice system is another.
would you feel more comfortable if harold fish was mauled and died from his wounds?....thats the point being made by many here...
i understand that in a combat zone you have very specific rules of engagement...i am curious though...in the event you were being continually pelted by rocks and did not have an escape...were in peril of life threatening injuries...would you be allowed to shoot?...
If you are at any time in fear for your life you are authorized to use deadly force. That's always in the rules of engagement. Sometimes they can be strange, Male 18-30 between the hours X and X, but you're always allowed to defend yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by bladenbullet
Harold Fish's case was different. The dogs were effectively deadly weapons. You still can't shoot unarmed men without serious provocation, and just running your general direction from a "kicked in door," ain't gonna cut it. Do you actually think you can stand in front of a jury and say "I saw two men running towards me and I feared for my life, so I shot them both." ?
Military or civilian, you always have the right to defend yourself from life-threatening injuries. However, the actions taken by the other person have to be such as would give a reasonable person cause to believe serious harm was about to follow. That is why things like size, sex, anger level, location, weapons of any kind, etc all play a part...and why you can have a case where no one can know in advance how it will play out.
For my part, I think I'd prefer to die than spend 20 years in prison. If I have doubts, I won't shoot - not to defend myself. In the example I posted earlier, running wasn't an option - I was exhausted and needed water and I wasn't outrunning anyone. Fighting wasn't an option - I was smaller than most and outnumbered 8:1. Frankly, shooting wasn't a great option either - I had a 6 shot 22. In pulling the little 22, I was making it clear I would die fighting. Happily, that wasn't the outcome.
But if it had been 1:1, I don't know what I would have done.
did you just say you'd rather be killed by a BG than risk going to jail....?!
I know what he means. I'd rather meet my maker than spend 20 years in jail. I would chance it on an iffy situation either. As you know, doing Jujutsu, having other options decreases this risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by ctsketch
true, in a one of one i'm more likely to feel confident going hand to hand, but if this was some champion fighter or just someone lucky who started beating me into the pavement I may change my tune...after all let us not forget we are not the aggressor in this situation. hopefully i'd be able to just get him away from me and run.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpine
No. I said, "If I have doubts, I won't shoot - not to defend myself." So if I have doubt about the need to shoot, I won't. If I have other options for keeping me and mine alive and healthy, I'll take them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ctsketch
Does that mean I could die? Of course. If a 5' woman starts screaming obscenities at me & I walk away, she COULD pull a gun and shoot me in the back. If a young guy my size wants to fight, I might try running. If a 6'4" / 240lb muscular guy advances towards me screaming he is going to kill me...I'll probably shoot. Lots of scenarios with lots of factors - but if I have a doubt about needing to shoot, I won't.
People can say "I'll worry about prison later..." - but that is a good way to end up in prison. In the real world, our actions have consequences beyond the next 5 seconds. When I balance near term risk against long term consequences, I'll factor in risk of prison if I shoot unjustified.