When is deadly force justified outside your home ?
This is a discussion on When is deadly force justified outside your home ? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I'm not sure if this differs state to state . enlighten me please .
I'll use this scenario . Two assailents confront you and your ...
July 11th, 2013 01:52 AM
When is deadly force justified outside your home ?
I'm not sure if this differs state to state . enlighten me please .
I'll use this scenario . Two assailents confront you and your wife and small child asking for money. You tell them you have no money . They then threaten you or yours bodily harm and pull a weapon, ie: Knife, gun , bat . Hell any weapon. Do you then have the right to give them a double tap each ?
Worms gotta eat, same as buzzards................
July 11th, 2013 01:52 AM
July 11th, 2013 01:59 AM
I would enlighten the intruders in the below manner if a weapon were pulled on me and/or my family in my home.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
~ Jesus ~
July 11th, 2013 02:47 AM
Short answer: it most certainly varies from state to state, as to what the lawful standard is for use of deadly force.
Originally Posted by Sharp07GT
Generally speaking, one can get the idea from: the Deadly Force Triangle, the use of A.O.J. in judging the justifiability of a situation for use of deadly force. While certainly not applicable law, it's a reasonably high standard that generalizes what most of the states essentially require: that the justified use of lethal force requires that the innocent be in immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm.
That's armed robbery with stated and apparent manifest intent to kill. Game's on, in every single state I'm aware of. You need to know your own state's use-of-force and use-of-deadly-force statutes cold, in that regard. Can't imagine you'd be lawfully disallowed from treating this scenario for what it is, in every way.
Originally Posted by Sharp07GT
Though the statutes will indeed vary from state to state, such as in terms of first requiring an attempt to retreat/withdraw if possible, most anyone is going to legitimately and reasonably believe one's life is at dire risk of loss (along with those of the kids). Myself, I'd bloody well hope to have been already preparing against the possibility, as I saw such unknowns approaching so deliberately and closely, such as being in a position to draw quickly, attempting to maintain as much distance as possible. I've had a few extremely aggressive "panhandler" types who've tried getting fairly close, aggressively so, and I've generally used "command" voice, hands, backpedaling, demands to keep distance and stop bothering me/us (as much to warn others nearby I was under threat from the assailant and clearly the victim).
Now, whether it's tactically prudent to simply attempt to draw down on someone (or a pair of someones) that has got me "covered" with a weapon, that'll depend on proximity, demeanor of the assailant(s) (does he mean it, truly, or just puffing the chest?), my ability to leverage subterfuge (ie, going for the wallet but instead drawing the gun), my skills/abilities, etc. Depending on the person or realities, it might be best to disarm the assailant (if extreme proximity allows, though not likely if multiple assailants); or to comply and hope to survive it.
Last edited by ccw9mm; July 11th, 2013 at 09:12 PM.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
July 11th, 2013 12:29 PM
Texas has the "right to be present" and if any person tries to assault you and cause harm to you or your family harm, you have the right to use deadly force to stop that threat.
July 11th, 2013 12:42 PM
I will always protect my family and myself from harm no matter what state I am in, nuff said
July 11th, 2013 12:48 PM
Short answer turn them into pencils
July 11th, 2013 12:51 PM
For me personally, it is when I have absolutely no other choice to prevent myself from being seriously injured or killed. Give you my money? No problem. Give you the keys to the car? No problem. Run like a fraidy cat? No problem. Give you my life? We're going to fight over that one and I'll have a gun.
"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius
July 11th, 2013 01:08 PM
Some states have a duty to retreat from a threat if possible. But an attempted retreat does not always guarantee safety. Some people are much better at retreating than others. You may be able to turn and run in a fraction of a second, but your wife kid are like deer in the headlights. If you have physical limitations, paraplegic, amputee, broken leg, bad back, bad heart, overweight, etc., a safe retreat becomes more difficult, especially if your attacker is in good shape.
But in the stand-your-ground states, a threat is a threat and you can deal with it accordingly. Keep in mind, most people here would still advise retreating if you have if you can easily and safely do so. Why go through the hassle through the hassle of shooting someone if you can avoid it.
The short answer to your questions is to read and understand your state's laws.
July 11th, 2013 01:15 PM
"A.O.J." you may wish to include a brief description as a NOOB may not understand!
Originally Posted by ccw9mm
A= Ability to inflict grievous bodily harm or deadly force
O= Opportunity to inflict grievous bodily harm or deadly force
J= You must be in immediate JEOPARDY of grievous bodily harm or deadly force
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm and three or more is a congress. -- John Adams
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! -- P.J. O'Rourke
July 11th, 2013 01:26 PM
Well, you are going to get a mixed bag of responses with this question that's for certain! When I went through my firearms instructors course as a police officer we were presented with the Royal Canadian Mounted PO-lice's definition, which I particularly like. It states that...(paraphrased since I don't have it in front of me right now)
"the decision to employ deadly force on another is valid when the actions of another must be stopped and stopped immediately to preserve and protect life. The issue of whether or not that person lives or dies is of no real consequence, only that their actions which caused you to utilize such force have ceased."
Alot of folks will likely quote their individual state laws, and they would be correct in doing so. However, in your scenario I thought this definition was most appropriate.
U.S. Army Desert Storm Veteran
Certified Police Firearms Instructor
Former US Customs Blue Lighting Strike Force Commissioned Officer
Advanced Highway Drug Interdiction Specialist
Graduate Regional Counter Drug Training Academy
Graduate of Bullet Proof Mind Course - (Dave Grossman Course)
July 11th, 2013 01:28 PM
July 11th, 2013 01:43 PM
Georgia Use of Deadly Force
The code sections are all Copyright © 2012 by The State of Georgia
O.C.G.A. § 16-3-21
Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
I asked the District about the definition of "forcible felony" and that is another whole can of worms.
"If you make something idiot proof, someone will make a better idiot."
July 11th, 2013 01:47 PM
Sounds like that person should have worked on his situational awareness some more. Ideally, having your gun drawn before they closed the gap with you would be the way to go, in addition to warning them off with a firm verbal command, or even (said in command voice) NO THANK YOU!
As far as a duty to retreat, thats nonsense in this fact scenario. You have a small child and wife with you. You cant retreat fast enough with all three.
As far as everyone saying that the muggers are dead, or whatever, well best of luck with that one. They have you cold in this scenario.
I can easily see giving up the wallet, or whatever, THEN, depending on the circumstances, perhaps if their attention was on what they had just gotten considering drawing.
Or, of course, if I was convinced that they were after more than money, well all bets are off. BUT, I wouldnt go into it all thinking that it was going to go all my way. I would HOPE that it did, but design my tactics not assuming that it would.
July 11th, 2013 01:57 PM
What you described makes it kind of a simple answer. The assailants have stated their intentions, they have proved to you that they have the means (a weapon), they are certainly within a proximity that would allow them to attack you with little effort. Given all these points, you would probably have a good case for self defense. Hope it never happens to you, or me for that matter. good luck
July 11th, 2013 02:19 PM
Well, as a relative "newbie", I could be 100% off target, but I've spent the past six months (while waiting patiently for my Indiana handgun license) going to the range, studying the law, and reading these forums. First, I take the responsibility of carrying a loaded firearm VERY seriously. Before I even applied for my license, I thought (and prayed) long and hard about why I needed to carry, and if I would be able to use my weapon against another human being, if it became necessary to defend myself or my family. Having made that decision, I carefully read the handgun-related laws for my state, including Indiana's version of "Stand Your Ground". I then went to the range often enough, that I am relatively certain that I can hit what I'm aiming at. Given all of that - my answer to the original question, assuming I believed that the lives of my family or myself were in imminent danger, is an absolute YES! Just my opinion for what it's worth.
Search tags for this page
civilians unjustified using deadly force in nj senerios
deadly force triangle
texas deadly force outside your home
two women bodily harm whitesboro texas july 2013
Click on a term to search for related topics.