When is deadly force justified outside your home ?

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 ...

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 53
Like Tree32Likes

Thread: When is deadly force justified outside your home ?

  1. #1
    Member Array Sharp07GT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    25

    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 ?
    pittypat21 likes this.
    Worms gotta eat, same as buzzards................


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member
    Array Sister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Coastal SC
    Posts
    1,862
    I would enlighten the intruders in the below manner if a weapon were pulled on me and/or my family in my home.

    Matthew 10:33

    But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.


    ~ Jesus ~

  3. #3
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    27,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Sharp07GT View Post
    When is deadly force justified outside your home ?

    I'm not sure if this differs state to state .
    Short answer: it most certainly varies from state to state, as to what the lawful standard is for use of deadly force.

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sharp07GT View Post
    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 ?
    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.

    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.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #4
    Member Array Texaszed4mc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    37
    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.
    Ghost1958 likes this.

  5. #5
    Distinguished Member Array shadowwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Ghost Ridge USA
    Posts
    1,982
    I will always protect my family and myself from harm no matter what state I am in, nuff said
    Ghost1958 and Eagleks like this.

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array Easy8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    N FT Myers, FL
    Posts
    2,994
    Short answer turn them into pencils
    GhostMaker likes this.

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array Gene83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    2,220
    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.
    GhostMaker, oromis and macg19 like this.
    "The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array Stirling XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    512
    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.

  9. #9
    Distinguished Member Array onacoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    1,329
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    the use of A.O.J. in judging the justifiability of a situation for use of deadly force.
    "A.O.J." you may wish to include a brief description as a NOOB may not understand!

    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

    tcox4freedom likes this.


    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

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array GhostMaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,959
    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.
    dben002, Gene83 and Snub44 like this.
    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)

  11. #11
    Distinguished Member Array sealteam20001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    wasilla alaska
    Posts
    1,350
    There dead in my book .

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array high pockets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Georgia for now
    Posts
    4,793
    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."

    - Anon

  13. #13
    VIP Member Array StormRhydr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Music City, USA
    Posts
    3,198
    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.

  14. #14
    Distinguished Member
    Array Str8upguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,492
    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

  15. #15
    Member Array kencss001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Posts
    15
    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.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

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.