Pre existing condition and self defense

Pre existing condition and self defense

This is a discussion on Pre existing condition and self defense within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; This is hypothetical. Would you be more justified, if there is such a thing, if you have some sort of condition and shot someone. This ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
Like Tree40Likes

Thread: Pre existing condition and self defense

  1. #1
    Member Array seanth468's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    S.E. Texas
    Posts
    128

    Pre existing condition and self defense

    This is hypothetical. Would you be more justified, if there is such a thing, if you have some sort of condition and shot someone. This is in reference to the fear of bodily harm. Couple examples.
    Broken leg or arm
    Injury requiring you to wear a neck brace
    Heart condition
    The reason I ask this is because I currently have a couple ribs that have popped away from the costal cartilage which connects your ribs to the sternum. I wouldn't want to get in a physical altercation of any sort.


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,570
    Disparity of force can come in many forms. Injured facing a non injured attacker, woman facing a male attacker, one facing a number of attackers, age difference, size difference etc. All depends on the situation at the time.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  3. #3
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,126
    The standard of justifiable force continues to remain the same. You feared for your life.


    The only thing that changes is your level of "fear" or what you perceive it to be.

    The fact that you are not as capable of self defense as you once were is not at question. The question is...did you fear for you life?


    Satisfy that and whatever other legal requirements there are for it to be considered a justifiable shoot and you should be good to go.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,570
    Yep Feared for your life or serious bodily harm. I think that is almost and maybe is the universal standard in about every state. Not counting some where you have to climb out windows with duty to retreat etc etc
    DoctorBob and WrongRecroom like this.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  5. #5
    Member Array seanth468's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    S.E. Texas
    Posts
    128
    I figured it was a fairly simple question. If you have a condition that you will make a full recovery from, your fear is higher because of the injury. Where you would normal not use the firearm, you would with physical condition. I've never thought about this until my injury. Ironically it happen on New Years day on a roller coaster named "Bullet".
    WrongRecroom likes this.

  6. #6
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    The standard of justifiable force continues to remain the same. You feared for your life.



    The fact that you are not as capable of self defense as you once were is not at question. The question is...did you fear for you life?


    Satisfy that and whatever other legal requirements there are for it to be considered a justifiable shoot and you should be good to go.
    I agree that at the time of your reaction to a threat "The question is...did you fear for you life?"

    But now that the fight is over and you did bring your gun into the fight you have to be able to articulate that feeling of fear to others.
    It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45

    "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    Disparity of force can come in many forms. Injured facing a non injured attacker, woman facing a male attacker, one facing a number of attackers, age difference, size difference etc. All depends on the situation at the time.

    Reasonable man standard, based on what you yourself know and justifiably believe at the time. Generally speaking, that's the standard for legitimate use of force in resistance of criminal force against you. If you know you have a heart condition and cannot get thumped upon, cannot run, cannot fight your way out of a "box," and you're faced with someone bringing heavy force to bear (in the classic disparity of force sense), then basically you should legally have all you need to justify withstanding such assault.

    Of course, the person committing the criminal attack upon you doesn't necessarily know of that heart condition (or whatever), doesn't know what you know about your vulnerability. But that's not part of the legal standard at play here. Would a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, make the same basic choice about the level of defense necessary to stop the violence?

    The only real trick is gauging accurately where that dividing line exists. It can be a vague, movable sucker depending on the whim of the DA and the jurors (your peers who get to judge your actions).
    StormRhydr likes this.
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array GentlemanJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    indiana
    Posts
    1,032
    The standard is a REASONABLE fear for your life. Whereas I could withstand a good bit of punishment without fearing for my life, my 85 y.o. dad could not, and neither could someone afflicted with a condition like hemophilia. Google "egg shell skull".

  9. #9
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hiding inside a bottle of Jim Beam Black.
    Posts
    17,590
    OP, I wouldn't want to bet the remainder of my life on it. It would come down to 12 "reasonable" jurors agreeing with you--and those odds can be pretty low.
    Retired USAF E-8. Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Array robhic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    595
    Get yourself a copy of Mas Ayoob's book "In The Gravest Extreme" and read it a couple of times. It's not too long and only a couple of dollars in paperback. It will give you an excellent basis for making some future decisions along these lines. Mas knows what he's talking about (he teaches it in his LFI school courses) so you'd be in good hands. And he covers this situation in some portion.
    seanth468 and ccw9mm like this.
    -- Robert
    NRA Life Member

  11. #11
    Member Array cop154's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
    Posts
    76
    You can never say someone would, or would not be good in a shooting incident. It always comes down to the totality of the circumstances. The aggravating factors are weighed with the mitigating factors. The small amount of facts would give a DA or jury no information. What was the attacker armed with? Was the attacker 70 years old with a walker?lol. Over the top, but you get my point. But I do now this, Obama says with pre-existing conditions you can get Obamacare!!!! Good luck healing up.

  12. #12
    Member Array cop154's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
    Posts
    76
    Not just you say you feared for your life, but that a jury would believe that the level of fear you claim to have had was reasonable under the circumstances. You saw how complicated this can become in the Zimmerman trial. Wouldn't want to test the waters myself.

  13. #13
    Distinguished Member Array Bill MO's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,523
    Guess it comes down to do you fear the guy standing in front of you with the means to kill you or the court system the most. But one thing I do know, you still have to be alive after the situation to even think about the DA, courts and the jury. If you didn't survive the first round the second don't matter!
    It's gotta be who you are, not a hobby. reinman45

    "Is this persons bad behavior worth me having to kill them over?" Guantes

  14. #14
    VIP Member Array WrongRecroom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    AZ moutain lands
    Posts
    4,743
    Esp with what you have all you would have to do is have a doctor show xrays and say did you think this man could fight off someone hand to hand ? He knew he could not and he was in fear of his life ...

    And yeah the key is your feared for your life .. Simply as that
    “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” H.L. Mencken
    "Vous ne les laisserez pas passer, mes camarades"
    "We're surrounded. That simplifies our problem of getting to these people and killing them."Chesty Puller

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,327
    Viewed another way: would a reasonable person, knowing of a deadly heart condition, believe he/she is likely to die if forced into a violently physical beating, in spite of what younger, healthier folks might be capable of who don't have such conditions?

    I'd say that, clearly, the answer is "yes."

    That is what the "reasonable man" standard is all about. Gets pretty simple, when the "condition" and "fear" is real and valid, can be easily articulated, and can be easily understood by others.

    Of course, the mere fact that our actions are lawfully subject to review by others makes it a bit tricky, at times. Better be standing on very firm ground, if you want to avoid being misconstrued, second-guessed and all the rest. Which brings us back to the whole "discretion is the better part of valor" thing. Withdraw, if possible; "run a way" if possible; whatever, to avoid something that just ain't worth it and which many (even most) will very probably misconstrue as unreasonable.
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •