Less Than Lethal Attack - Page 3

Less Than Lethal Attack

This is a discussion on Less Than Lethal Attack within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; you don't shoot someone because you don't want a black eye or a bruise, hand to hand....

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: Less Than Lethal Attack

  1. #31
    Member Array gotammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    443
    you don't shoot someone because you don't want a black eye or a bruise, hand to hand.


  2. #32
    Member Array *SA-XD4ME*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    AR
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by gotammo View Post
    you don't shoot someone because you don't want a black eye or a bruise, hand to hand.
    i totally understand, but like i have said. i take blood thinners, so a typical black eye or bruise would be life threatening.
    Also, I don't understand this 50's mentality of people squaring off with someone. This doesn't happen anymore. There is not a 10 count KO rule. If someone gets you down, they will come down with you, and try to kill you.

    The laws have got to be changed, and people need to know that if you intend to harm someone in anyway physically then you are putting your life in danger. People should not have to fear, even a black eye, if you wanna give a black eye you need to know you might get a bullet. This would help to put things back in order.

  3. #33
    Distinguished Member Array SonofASniper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,248
    So, basically what this is all coming down to is this:

    After you have tried to avoid the situation all together and the attacker is still coming:

    1. Worry about legality and don't draw until after you are getting your arse kicked, by then it is probably too late and you are in definite risk of blacking out, getting permanently injured, and possibly killed. Also you hope that in the attackers rage, he doesn't manage to grab ANY OBJECT that could be used as a weapon to finish you off.

    or

    2. Draw and stop the fight before your attacker makes physical contact. Go through the paces of commanding him to stop, warning him, and eventually firing if the attacker does not stop as circumstances dictate. Let the attorneys sort it all out later.

    Thats what it all comes down to. Irregardless of your health, physical well being, or abilities a physical fight can turn ugly and out of your favor instantly. No bystander is going to help you. No one is going to be referee and come in and stop the fight. The police will show up afterwards to fill out the reports. You are alone, and only YOU can make the decisions that will effect the outcome.

    $50,000 in hospital fees vs. $50,000 in attorney fees. Its up to you.

    Assault is still assault. There are varying degrees, but it is still a crime. Only you can make the decision whether or not to defend yourself and how you will go about defending yourself.


    I know what my decision will be.
    I will support gun control when you can guarantee all guns are removed from this planet. That includes military and law enforcement. When you can accomplish that, then I will be the last person to lay down my gun. Then I will carry the weapon that replaces the gun.

  4. #34
    Member Array FIREARMZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    250
    So, basically what this is all coming down to is this:

    After you have tried to avoid the situation all together and the attacker is still coming:

    1. Worry about legality and don't draw until after you are getting your arse kicked, by then it is probably too late and you are in definite risk of blacking out, getting permanently injured, and possibly killed. Also you hope that in the attackers rage, he doesn't manage to grab ANY OBJECT that could be used as a weapon to finish you off.

    If he grabs an object or you are to the point of not being able to defend yourself then the weapon could very well be a option.
    or

    2. Draw and stop the fight before your attacker makes physical contact. Go through the paces of commanding him to stop, warning him, and eventually firing if the attacker does not stop as circumstances dictate. Let the attorneys sort it all out later. While you have spent $50,000.00 in attorney fees and still got 25 to life for manslaughter.
    If I am not mistaken there is no law on the books in any of the 50 states that says you can shoot someone for a fist fight.

    Thats what it all comes down to. Irregardless of your health, physical well being, or abilities a physical fight can turn ugly and out of your favor instantly. No bystander is going to help you. No one is going to be referee and come in and stop the fight. The police will show up afterwards to fill out the reports. You are alone, and only YOU can make the decisions that will effect the outcome.

    $50,000 in hospital fees vs. $50,000 in attorney fees. Its up to you.

    Assault is still assault. There are varying degrees, but it is still a crime. Only you can make the decision whether or not to defend yourself and how you will go about defending yourself.

    Assault is assault, then there is aggravated assault, armed robbery, battery and manslaughter, then there’s murder.

    Here is my states law about use of deadly force:
    Defense from a forcible felony; A person is justified in using force which may harm or kill 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. You are not justified if you were the aggressor or you are/were/on-the-way-to committing a felony. (The state has pre-empted local cities and counties from further restricting this defense.)(16-3-21)Defense of habitation; (here habitation means dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business) A person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
    1. A person is breaking\has broken into your home in a violent and tumultuous manner, and you think that the intruder is going to assault you or someone else living there.
    2. A person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters the residence and you know it is an unlawful entry.
    3. The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
    (16-3-23)
    Defense of property other than habitation; Lethal force cannot be used to protect personal property unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.(16-3-24)
    (Stand Your Ground/Shoot First/License To Murder - went into effect July 1st, 2006) If you have determined you need to use lethal force (as stated in one of the underlined "Defense" sections immediatly above) you do not have to try to retreat before using that force. If your defense is valid, you are immune from criminal procecution (unless it is illegal to carry that weapon where you used it) and civil liability actions.(16-3-23.1, 16-3-24.2, 51-11-9)



    I know what my decision will be.

    Bottom line is, You can do what ever you want as long as you can convince a jury of your peers that you were right.
    Ken Forbus Owner of FIREARMZ
    FIREARMZ FORUM

  5. #35
    Member Array Erik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    415
    Ahh, the law came into play.

    I strongly recommend folks familiarize themselves with their applicable laws and instead of relying on their opinion of what things like "serious bodily injury" or "grave bodily harm" consult someone for the actual answer.

    Folks go to jail over over-thinking things all the time, like say, extrapolating fist fights into lethal force situations.

    But again, as someone already posted, if you think you can sell it to the police, DA, the jury, and unfortunately more often the general pulic, go right ahead and shoot.

    ---

    For me, a thirty something, 6 footer fit guy with documented less than lethal training- I expect to to get to the point of hospitalization or near black-out "in the hypothetical fair fight" before I'm able to opt into lethal force. Bummer, but how it is.

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,336
    Quote Originally Posted by Erik View Post
    I strongly recommend folks familiarize themselves with their applicable laws and instead of relying on their opinion of what things like "serious bodily injury" or "grave bodily harm" ...
    Very good suggestion. It's the underlying suggestion of most folks that post comments relating to hypothetical scenarios. These terms do indeed have a literal legal meaning. It's quite simple and doesn't vary by opinion.

    Folks go to jail over over-thinking things all the time, like say, extrapolating fist fights into lethal force situations.
    Folks get killed by, say, waiting too long when the threat of death or crippling injury is real and not some imagined "mere" fist fight. One person's "fist fight" is another's route to the morgue, since not everyone has H2H skills sufficient to withstand a determined attack. Even H2H "experts" will grant that you can't call it right every time. In laymen's terms: there's always a bigger fish.

    Search any local newspaper from any major metro U.S. city in the past 12mos and you will find a dozen instances of where someone got clopped upside the head as the opening shot to a fight that turned deadly. Speak with any bouncer at the most popular bar in town, and you'll hear of dozens more such incidents, no doubt. The point is: assuming a "fist fight" is merely something benign is very risky and will almost certainly, given most folks' H2H abilities, lead quickly to a point at which zero ability to defend exists. It's hard to believe anyone thinks that laws demand one wait until that point before defense is justifiable. The actual text of the statutes simply don't bear this out.

    Don't believe for a second that a well-aimed blow cannot cause serious and debilitating injury. BTDT, on both ends of the scale. Let alone kicks, which don't even need to be well-aimed to be seriously dangerous. It's not a rare occurrance that someone loses an organ or brain function due to hard kicks when down.

    No laws I'm aware of (in the U.S.) legally demand someone to actually first go through a near-death pummelling prior to being allowed to defend himself. Know the laws that apply to you, sure; but, know them, and fully appreciate that those laws don't (generally) require you to actually sustain deadly blows before refusal. Why? In simple point of fact, any single such blow can deliver death. It's that simple. And the laws generally recognize this. (In my state, thankfully, though not everywhere, sadly.) Most states realistically allow that a credible threat of such injuries or death is sufficient cause for taking up your own defense, even to the point of using deadly force as needed even for an attack that may have begun as a "mere" fist fight. So long as you yourself have not contributed to starting or escalating the attack, the circumstances of the engagement are largely overshadowed by the simple imperative: the threat involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik View Post
    I expect to to get to the point of hospitalization or near black-out ...
    Great! For some. Laudable, if you're able, given the value of life ... even an felonious attacker's.

    Most folks, though, would be hard-pressed to assume they'd be able to effectively fight at the point of "black-out" or having already sustained sufficient injuries that demand immediate hospitalization. It's hard to argue that the intent of "use of force" and self-defense laws is to purposefully require people to subject themselves to near-death experiences prior to lifting a finger; rather, the intent is to afford people a way of avoiding exactly that. Got the ability to finely time your defense to the point prior to dying or blacking out? Superb! Most folks don't have that ability. The laws simply don't support the notion that everyone does.


    Folks in this discussion aren't making this stuff up. For example, consider Oregon's wording in some of its relevent laws pertaining to the use of force. Such wording is typical:

    ORS 161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]
    In other words, you'd better truly believe the degree of force used is reasonable and justifiable, and be able to justify that to others. "Mere" fist fights of the "elementary school yard" variety are one thing, and those only (obviously) justify a given level of response. However, attacks by healthy and aggressive young males that are highly likely to also involve other weapons ... those are something else entirely. Out of simple common sense and rationality, one must assume such an aggressive and strong attack can easily turn deadly.

    ORS 161.200 Choice of evils. (1) ... conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:
    ...
    (b) The threatened injury is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.
    ...
    In other words, one is not barbarically required by the state (Oregon, in this case) to actually sustain death, nor sustain crippling injury. Rather, the credible threat and urgency of avoidance of the threat can be considered sufficient justification. If you live in such a place that does require you to go through that, well ... sux to be you, I guess. Nicely, justifiably so, most places don't require that one actually sustain such attacks prior to having something to say about it.

    ORS 161.055 Burden of proof as to defenses. (1) When a “defense,” other than an “affirmative defense” ... is raised at a trial, the state has the burden of disproving the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

    (2) When a defense, declared to be an “affirmative defense” ... is raised at a trial, the defendant has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
    ...
    Acknowledged, that claims of justified self-defense make such a defense tougher, as one must actually prove his/her innocence and the justifiability of one's actions. So, yes, it's in one's best interest to be sure of that before taking such actions.

    Which brings us to such discussions as this, to afford upstanding and serious people an opportunity to kick around and weigh relevant pros/cons in a variety of hypothetical situations.

    * None of my opinions or comments, above, should be construed to assume I fail to recognize the obvious, that there are indeed varying degrees of threat and legally-allowable responses to such threats. We're all on tap to learn about and know the laws that apply to each of us. None of this is meant as legal advice (that shouldn't need to be said, but there it is), nor general advice that anyone do anything. Nor is any of this a suggestion that one meekly progress up some mythical use-of-force continuum nor blindly sidestep all consideration of such gradations of force; the point is, the situation will dictate the necessary response. These are my own guidelines for surviving in a turbulent and violent world, and my own interpretations of the laws that apply to me, as I see them. Nothing more.
    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.

  7. #37
    Member Array gotammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    443
    XD4me I agree that with every one the circumstances are different my statement was in general, health problems change things I think that someone with a heart condition should escalates things immediately but a healthy person should do everything possible to defuse the situation prior to it coming down to a shooting.
    I personally believe that regardless of your situation no one should have to deal with that kind of behavior.

  8. #38
    Member Array bigdog21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by skvinson View Post
    Personally, there is no way I could just stand there and watch. There is just too much chance of serious injury resulting - even from a fist fight. That then raises, the question, what is the best way to intervene? Drawing and firing is definitely out. The law states you can prevent a felony, but remember, it did not become a felony until he kept beating him. I would act before it got to that stage. Drawing and challenging is a possibility. I know there is often a debate, about 'don't draw unless you intend to fire,' but there are many instances where drawing has stopped an encounter. The BG beating the other man definitely shows he already has intent to do harm, and is not just mouthing off.

    Perhaps the best option is to have a non-lethal means of defense. I carry an ASP Defender (pepperspray keychain). I think I would spray him w/o any warning. He is already causing injury to a person. Since PS is non-lethal, I don't think there is a need to challenge/command him to stop. There is a potential problem with PS though. My CCW instructor (who recommended we purchase an non-lethal means of defense to supplement a gun) said one blast would clear the room we were in (which was much larger than the pizza lobby). That in itself is not bad, but what if it begins to affect me? I don't want to hinder my ability to continue to defend myself.

    I think this is a very good scenario to discuss. Maybe start a new thread using this video??
    Pepper foam or gel could be an option there

  9. #39
    Member Array riverkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Washington's Olympic Penninsula
    Posts
    283
    ccw9mm thanks again for investigating and providing useful and very relevant info which BTW is similar and more verbose than Washington's.
    Old testament....Shooting to Live 1942
    http://www.gutterfighting.org/files/...ng_to_live.pdf
    Newer testament... Kill or Get Killed 1976/1987
    http://www.gutterfighting.org/files/...Get_Killed.pdf

  10. #40
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    i will shoot the SOB.

  11. #41
    Member Array Wheel-man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    63

    Just my $.02

    Has anyone here gone over the using disparity of force when dependents are a factor.

    In other words, you get into a fist fight and win/lose/draw you may be hurt. (busted lip, eye swollen shut, bruised/cracked/fractured bones)

    would you be justified in drawing if by going into the hospital, you could not take care of your young children/elderly parents/disabled relative.
    If anti-gun legislators truly believed that guns kill people, the guns would be on the witness stand and the assailent would be holding the "Exhibit A" sign.

  12. #42
    VIP Member
    Array Betty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Nashville-ish
    Posts
    3,238
    I'm a bit over 100 pounds soaking wet, with spinal fusion. I can't afford to let myself get pounded. I'm going to draw.
    "Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." - Yoshimi Ishikawa

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Less Lethal Defense
    By Rollo in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: February 24th, 2010, 05:24 PM
  2. Thoughts Regarding the Lapse Between Lethal and Non-Lethal Force
    By littlejon126 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: October 9th, 2009, 06:34 AM
  3. Who carries non lethal?
    By gwlammers in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: September 21st, 2008, 09:11 PM
  4. lethal force?
    By titleist in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: May 31st, 2007, 09:14 PM
  5. Does PA law allow ANY Less than Lethal?
    By djturnz in forum Related Gear & Equipment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 26th, 2007, 11:04 AM

Search tags for this page

conceal carry response to non-lethal attack
,
fayetteville nc flaming mug
,
flaming mug dare to bare
,
flaming mug fayetteville nc bare to bare contest
,
less lethal shoot dont shoot scenario
,
marty flaming mug fayetteville nc
,

the flaming mug fayetteville nc

Click on a term to search for related topics.