good thinking and correct use of a CC weapon

[F350]

You guys seem to be missing the definition needed to justify lethal force. If someone punches me multiple times, it may be felony assault. That doesn't mean I'm in fear for my life and that I would be justified in shooting that person.

This is scary, and people need to learn the law.

Here at Camp Ramadi Ultimate Fighting is often on the TVs so I have been watching....Even with professional fighters use to taking punches, ONE good punch to the head is all it takes to render a fighter essentially "defenseless" and the other fighter closes in and rains debilitating punches until the ref calls the fight.

People like Jcabin seem to think Joe Average can take 2,3,4 punches to the head, get knocked down and still be capable of mounting an effective unarmed defense. If ONE punch stops the effective defense of a professional fighter so the fight has to be called, what happens to Joe Average when there is no ref to step in and stop the fight and the attacker is free to kick and stomp? I am 57, give me one clear shot to the side of your head and then let's see what you can do.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[bsms]

...Even with professional fighters use to taking punches, ONE good punch to the head is all it takes...If ONE punch stops the effective defense of a professional fighter so the fight has to be called, what happens to Joe Average...

I have no doubt that a professional 120 lb boxer could destroy me in a fight, or choose to take me out with one punch. That said, I've taken multiple blows to the head with the only result being anger. Very few people know how to throw a good punch...most do it TV style. IN the OP, we have "punching and kicking him until he fell to the sidewalk".

[ep1953]

Thank God the victim had a gun with sufficient knock down to save his life!

[9MMare]

Sounds like Grady might of been in Seattle,age has nothing to do with disparity of force,you can be killed or permanently injured with one blow to the head,not to mention being knocked out and then being totally defenseless,there have been cases where individuals were stabbed and never even saw the knife until it was too late

In Bellevue, WA (a suburb of Seattle), in 2001, a veteran cop was killed by a naked mentally-ill man he was trying to peacefully remove from an intersection. Shot with his own weapon. Afterwards, the police dept determined he made tactical errors (possibly due to compassion, but ok). But if that had been a civilian male, same age or so....and he had shot the naked man....he'd have one heck of a time convincing a jury that he was in fear of his life/facing a deadly threat.

[9MMare]

Here is the problem. Your whole arguement is based off being disarmed. If you didn't have a gun, would you still feel a threat on your life was imminent?

Absolutely. Altho I'm a woman, but if a woman had gotten me on the ground and was beating me...I'd definitely be in fear for my life too. I could be killed, crippled, disabled so I could no longer earn a living. Feet are extremely lethal...and the best weapon against someone on the ground.

[9MMare]

If you reverse things, as in do what it takes to stop the threat, even in that addled person's mind, when his victim was down and beaten already, any threat he MAY have mistakenly percieved to himself was over. When he continued to pummel the man on the ground is where that victim obtained the right to shoot and stop the threat to HIMSELF. That would apply to any age, whether armed or not. And to address him being mentally ill ( of course ) and not in control of his faculties,the victim would have no way of knowing this and even if he did, it would'nt matter as far as the threat goes. An immediate threat of severe bodily injury or death can be defended up to and including lethal force in MOST states. Unfortunately, some states are a little confusing and confused in this matter. My opinion is that the shooting was perfectly justified

Excellent point in bold.

[9MMare]

Having lived in New York State for decades, I can honestly say that most of what you described is very localized to that particular place of residence, especially the last two sentences.

The last 2 sentences:
"I have friends who really can't comprehend why you shouldn't aim for an arm or leg rather than COM if you are trying to stop an attacker! Scary to think about that mentality judging me."

I dont think it's that location at all. I'm here on the opposite coast, at a party with a bunch of western lifestyle folks, raised in Weiser, ID and Jackson Hole , WY...and myself and a few others are explaining why that is wrong. Tactically and legally. (Someone had mentioned that they would attempt to shoot a home invader in the legs to stop them).

[ctsketch]

I have no doubt that a professional 120 lb boxer could destroy me in a fight, or choose to take me out with one punch. That said, I've taken multiple blows to the head with the only result being anger. Very few people know how to throw a good punch...most do it TV style. IN the OP, we have "punching and kicking him until he fell to the sidewalk".

And many people have taken multiple GSWs. doesn't mean they aren't lethal. if someone is beating you on the sidewalk even after you are down and defeated. its more than some boxing match, they either intend to cripple you (deadly force justified) or kill you (deadly fore justified).

[yoyomeng]

This was my point from before, even tho this might not have been the exact scenario of the OP, but it was the way the thread was going. If you're on the ground after loosing the stand up then it's a different ball game. Glad someone else sees it the same.

[jonconsiglio]

I know some 60+ year olds that can whoop some serious butt. It sounds to me like someone with little education on the matter made an uneducated comment while trying to pass it off as fact...then, had to back that statement though proven wrong early on.

Once it becomes Felony Assault in most places (and no retreat in the worst of states...ie., on the ground getting kicked), the use of your firearm IN MMOST STATES is justified and obviously appears to be in Seattle, Washington. If both were on their feet, there may be an argument here, but this is clear cut.

I live in Corpus Christi, Texas and if you're on the ground here, shooting is justified, and in some cases, less is needed to use your weapon though it may not be recommended. My Father, an attorney in Los Angeles and was a District Attorney for many years for Los Angeles County, said he's seen many cases like this where no charges were sought....and that is in Los Angeles County.

So, the moral here is this - Before commenting on THE LAW you must do one of a few things....

A. GET A LAW DEGREE

B. Know a lawyer and speak with them about that specific scenario

C. Have been through the EXACT or very similar scenario yourself

D. Have intimate knowledge of your state's law and views on self defense and have actual case studies to reference. The DA's or State's Attorney's opinion on such things will suffice.

Otherwise, it's an OPINION and if it's a WRONG OPINION, expect many others with knowledge on the subject to jump in and correct the statement. What I can say that applies to almost every state, if not all, is that once someone commits a forcible violent felony against you or a loved one (death or sever bodily injury) and you can not walk or run away (you cannot retreat) and risk being killed or severely injured, you can use lethal force. I say this having 3.1 of the 4 items above. Though I'm not an authority on the matter, I know for a fact that what I state in reference to the law, otherwise I don't say anything.

Now, GIVING BAD ADVICE on a scenario like this could end up getting someone hurt down the road....or in jail, depending on the bad advice. I know that we ALL have opinions and they can't always be right. That OK when discussing which magazine is best for 1911's, but is detrimental and down right stupid when discussing what is legally right and wrong in a self defense scenario.

KNOW FOR A FACT THAT YOUR STATEMENTS REFERENCING LAW ARE 100% CORRECT AND HAVE PROOF TO BACK THAT UP.........OR STATE - "IN MY HUMBLE OPINION", People actually believe what they read on the internet and a newbie looking for advice may actually believe some of this crap....and get themselves in a world of hurt.

I'm 30 years old and proficient in Krav Maga (a little) and other self defense techniques. If a 50 year old with no training and a pair of boots has me on the ground kicking me, there is a disparity of force in my favor. It has nothing to do with size, build, ability, being out numbered, etc. Once you are on the ground, the disparity of force applies to you, even if it's a sickly 80 year old in a bad mood. If he's attacking and winning, that means you are losing, regardless of everything else. Do what needs to be done to STOP THE ATTACK.

[ZombieShoot]

the school of common sense. apparently something that can be practiced in all the states... though some never took that class I see..

If someone of similar weight and height were to knock you to the ground and start kicking you, what would you do?

Shoot him.

When you're on the ground and he's still standing and beating and kicking you he's not trying to win a fight he's trying to seriously hurt or kill you.

A kick to the head is way more deadly then a punch to the head.

In a fight you are at a serious disadvantage when your on the ground and the other guy is kicking you.

Unless you've got some serious training in self defense while fighting hand to hand your gun might be the only thing that keeps you alive.

[gunsite]

You realize this is only justified because of the age of the two men and likely the disparity in health conditions.

I am 24, and if an unarmed 25 year old randomly attacked me and knocked me to the ground, I would have a real hard time proving that I was justified in shooting the person.

You can't just fall to the ground and claim self defense.

Not including all states laws and statues... if your in a fight and taken to the ground by falling or by force, your testimony and mind set is your defense. If i'm in physical fight and i'm in fear of being over-powered i will shoot. What that statement i will also say in my statement to police that my target threaten to kill me with rage, again surroundings and witnesses play a part. I do feel and stated before and teach... its never a good situation when you have to shoot an unarmed target, that's a rule, and there's always exceptions to rules. You can't be expected to take a beating and not protect yourself with the hope of not being killed. Be careful because these type of situations are not cut and dry solutions, state laws and guide lines need to be applied. Court is not about the truth, its only about what you can prove. Good Luck.

[shockwave]

In a fight you are at a serious disadvantage when your on the ground and the other guy is kicking you.

Just a quick note on strategy and tactics: If you're on the ground, you're in a good defensive position from which to kick upward at an attacker. You have the ground at your back, which is from a horizontal perspective a solid wall. A kick upward from the ground has the same powerful force as a stomp. Depending on where your attacker is standing in relation to you, you might piston-kick up into his groin, kick out at his knee, or go for a sweep.

In the OP, the victim was able to draw and fire, but that's a real last-resort move, since the attacker might be able to either kick the gun away or pin the arm that's drawing. Weapon retention is not a given. If possible, I'd try my best for a combative that gives me a chance to regain my footing prior to drawing and firing.

once someone commits a forcible violent felony against you or a loved one (death or sever bodily injury) and you can not walk or run away (you cannot retreat) and risk being killed or severely injured, you can use lethal force.

In Florida (gotta love Florida self-defense laws), SB-436, the "Castle Doctrine" (Chapter No. 2005-27), establishes 3 critical points:

1. You can use lethal force to defend yourself when in your home or vehicle,
2. There is no "duty to retreat" from any place where you are legally entitled to be, and,
3. Those using force authorized by law cannot be prosecuted for using such force, nor can they be sued by the criminals or family of same for having used such force.

To clarify how 1 and 2 work, the meaning of 1 is that you are allowed to interpret unlawful entry into your home or vehicle as a deadly threat justifying lethal force, and 2 means that you can respond to a deadly threat with lethal force without having to defend against charges that you did not make every attempt possible to flee. Nevertheless, getting ground up into the court system is something to be avoided and even with Castle Doctrine backing you up, it's always better to evade or de-escalate confrontation where possible.

[ctsketch]

If you're on the ground, you're in a good defensive position from which to kick upward at an attacker. You have the ground at your back, which is from a horizontal perspective a solid wall. A kick upward from the ground has the same powerful force as a stomp. Depending on where your attacker is standing in relation to you, you might piston-kick up into his groin, kick out at his knee, or go for a sweep.

Fighting on the ground is A LOT messier than this. also technically speaking, kicking up from lying on your back does not generate the same force as a stomp.

[yoyomeng]

Just a quick note on strategy and tactics: If you're on the ground, you're in a good defensive position from which to kick upward at an attacker

Just wondering if you've sparred to prove this theory out. When I used to spar and wound up on the ground it was because I got smashed good and was the last place I wanted to be - there was no opportunity to position for "up kicks".

It can very quickly be a do or die situation