Defensive Carry banner

"Reasonable Force"

3K views 30 replies 26 participants last post by  Precision 
#1 ·
Hey Everyone,
I just took my CCW class and wanted to get some insight on the term "Reasonable Force." What is confusing about this for me is if I'm in a parking lot and some 350lb brute is going to attack me with his fists and I shoot him dead because I feel my life is in danger, is that reasonable? I'm a pretty good scrapper and I would always go pound to pound with someone if I felt I could hold my own, but where does that line get drawn in the sand? I know that if someone comes at me with a knife or a baseball bat then there is no question about it I'm gonna use "deadly force" but what do you all think about it?
 
#2 ·
That reminds me of a video I saw on TV. This cop pulls a guy over for a traffic violation. The person gets out of the car and goes on a rampage and starts wailing on the cop. The guy is built like like a freight train. The cop fears for his life and had exhausted use of mace and a taser. He then pumps about three rounds into the perp's chest and he still continued to fight, but it did slow him a bit. Other police did get involved to help end the scuffle, but I think it does show that something is stronger than a fist in a situation with a much more powerful aggressor.
 
#4 ·
If you could show a disparity of force between you and the bad guy,I wouldnt care. Not everyone can handle a hand to hand confrontion. OMO.
 
#5 ·
The use of deadly physical force is justified if you reasonable believe physical force sufficent to cause serious injury or death is about to be inflicted on you. After the fact a jury will have to be convinced that your believe was reasonable. In my opinion if 150 lb individual is punched in the face by a 350 lb individual he very well might suffer serious injury or death.
 
#6 ·
Height, weight, physical condition, age, mobility, ability to retreat, training, and mindset will all play in this arena. Dependent on how you honestly answer those questions may give you an answer. Disparity of force is the key.

My CHL instructor was 6'8", 295 pounds of muscle. He'd have a hard time convincing anyone he'd feared for his life if a 70 year old grandmother attacked him with an umbrella, but my 4'8" 85 pound sister. at age 60 might not.
 
#7 ·
If a reasonable reasonable man, in the same or similar circumstances would have used deadly force to protect himself, you too would likely be justified in using deadly force.

Less-than-lethal modes of defense combined with verbal commands will go a long way to convince a jury that you were justified in your actions in the type of scenerio you discussed above.

Verbal commands (hopefully heard by witnesses that will testify on your behalf), followed by the use of OC spray (evidence at the scene will prove this), and then finally the use of deadly force will help convince a jury that you acted reasonably.
 
#8 ·
I'm in my sixth decade...I have had several 'parts' removed...I'm a peaceable man and wish no one harm.
Screw with me or my wife in a parking lot, my car, or my home, and any response with my firearm will be both justified and reasonable.:comeandgetsome::yup:
 
#11 ·
Better tried by twelve than buried by six ...
A strong man, especially if he has some training, can put you in a hospital for a long time and cripple you for life, or worse.
Most states have "disparity of force" provision, but your scenario is not the place to ponder legalities ... it is a survival situation.
 
#15 ·
I life in MI and no longer have a duty to retreat but I think that, in the example you provided, I would if the situation allowed. If I was confronted by a 350lb man W/O a gun then I would much rather back/run away or get an obstacle (car, etc) between us if able, key word being able. I would not want it on my conscience for the rest of my life that I killed someone in a situation that I could have deflated by simply getting some ground between me and the attacker. I mean, how fast can a 350lb man run? :smile:

However, if I am in a situation where I am unable to get away then my response would be more in line with many who have already posted and would show or draw my gun depending upon his overall demeanor. From what I have read thus far, simply showing a firearm is likely to defuse most situations like this, especially when showing/drawing on someone who is unarmed. Bad guys are cowards and look for weakness in prey, not strength. When confronted with strength their first reaction is often to flee.
 
#16 ·
My thoughts Re the thread: Given potential jury make up today,:rolleyes: anything is possible. What we might see as defensive action could go either way, for or against you. As a 70 YO guy I would defend myself however necessary.........I sure 'ain't gonna' exchange fist blows with anyone.:smile:
oldogy
 
#17 ·
... the term "Reasonable Force." What is confusing about this for me is if I'm in a parking lot and some 350lb brute is going to attack me with his fists and I shoot him dead because I feel my life is in danger, is that reasonable?
That's up to a jury of your peers and your state's laws on what constitutes "reasonable." The reasonable man standard is used in many states. Essentially, if it can be agreed that a reasonable person would have seen and done things much the same as you, then your actions may well be deemed reasonable. Big comfort, eh? Welcome to the wonderful world of concealed carry.

Because it's open to interpretation, you'd better be darned sure that you're in dire need of using that degree of force. That's what it's for. And in a state that demands a fairly high degree of certainty that your actions have been reasonable, you should at least be aware of what it's going to take to get others around you to also see that your actions were reasonable. Meaning, do everything you can to be seen as the good guy, else you'll be the last one standing and presumed to be the bad guy. If a threatening person continues overt threats and comes inbound, loudly demand the person stay away, state that you don't want trouble, back up to maintain distance ... and, if need be, draw when it's clear your demands to be left unassaulted go unheeded. KNOW your state's statutes (aka, the standards by which you're going to be required to act, and by which you'll largely be judged).

In Oregon, it's up to the person who feels threatened with violence, essentially based on the reasonable man standard. If the defensive actions are deemed by others to have been unreasonable, though, it can result in charges of intimidation or menacing. A bit vague, and therein lies the power against you. But it's a balancing act between your community's empowerment of the individual and the ability of the community to be able to have a say as to what's reasonable on a case-by-case basis. Fair or not, that's the way it is in many states. Still, your goal is to survive a situation. Use the force you reasonably deem necessary to defend your life, or not. Them's the choices.
 
#18 ·
Some states have a "stand your ground law" or other laws that say you do not have to "take a beating" and can meet force with force to include deadly force w/o retreat. Your state may have a different law. Just read your state laws to know when you can use deadly force.
 
#19 ·
IMO, out in the world, when threatened in general, as a matter of course, it is prudent to always, take cover/ retreat to the furthest extent of one's abilities. At the same time, while doing so, advise the assailant that you "do not want any trouble and to back off/ cease", in a voice loud enough to be overheard by any potential witness or possible aide. Finally, respond with lethal force, only upon reaching the limit of one's ability to retreat, and having a reasonable belief that a threat, sufficent enough to cause serious injury or death is imminent. Of course, as previously stated, the variables of "retreat" will be different for a given individual.
 
#20 ·
Arkatect,

Take another and _different_ class taught by a different and _better_ instructor.

You should not be having this question muchless doubt as a newly minted information still fresh in the brain student of such a course. Your question and scenario is a basic item of self defense, judgment, and law.
For clarity on the subject reference this posting I'd made in '07 which directly addresses your query as in regard to function and legality;

http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbull...ccw-rules-know-memorize-avoid-hard-times.html

And very seriously seek out a second class on this subject matter as an investment in yourself.
The height, weight, strength, and whatever else of your attacker is not a hard rule toward whether or not you may defend yourself and to what degree.
Further going toe to toe with anyone regardless of their physical stature is taking a high risk. We've had post upon post in the crime and criminality news area ('Good, Bad, And Ugly') that demonstrate this real world.

A 350 lb. male victim being attacked by a 150 lb. male victimizer can be just as justified to defend himself with lethal force as if the scales of the tale were reversed. Further the victimizer does not have to have a weapon at all either to do you very serious injury and be an _imminent threat_ to your life and ability to live in a real way.

Do your self a huge favor and increase your degree of education, and thus understanding, on the subject by seeking out trained persons and instructors better than the one you recently graduated from.

- Janq
 
#22 ·
Janq, thank you very much for the advice. I may have to take another class, the reason I wanted to clarify a lot of this is because the two instructors were very hesitant on what kind of advice to give. I think they were scared of a lawsuit themselves, but who knows. I will continue my education on this matter and again thanks for the advice.
 
#23 ·
This is where I have a hard time coming to terms with "duty to retreat" states.
Being in NC, the law basically implies [as I've been taught and interpret it] that unless confronted with a weapon, I have to retreat until I am engaged hand to hand to a point where I fear for my life.
In my opinion, I'm now disadvantaged against an unarmed aggressor while CC as I now have to defend my weapon and myself while engaged.
I'm basically forced to give the BG one opportunity to gain control of myself or my weapon before I can use lethal force.
That may be all the opportunity needed, and that concerns me a great deal. One well placed elbow while I'm defending my weapon rather than my melon and the story may not have a happy ending...
 
#24 ·
#1 Duty to retreat means that if you have an opportunity to withdraw from the situation with complete safety, you must do so; not that you must run at the cost of turning your back on an opponent.

It's practical effect on your tactics should be nil. If possible, you should be withdrawing from any engagement at the first onset. It's the safest thing you can do.

It's also the cheapest, because if the situation ends with a police report and the word "Firearm", "Knife" or weapon of any kind is associated with you, the cost is going to START at about a $5,000 retainer and go up from that point.

(As me how I know this...:image035:)

#2 For information on self defense and the legal requirements, see Criminal JI - Part 2: General Instructions and read section 2.8 in the entirety.

...before a defendant uses physical force upon another person to defend (himself/herself/a third person), (he/she) must have two "reasonable beliefs." The first is a reasonable belief that physical force is then being used or about to be used upon (him/her/a third person). The second is a reasonable belief that the degree of force (he/she) is using to defend (himself/herself/a third person) from what (he/she) believes to be an ongoing or imminent use of force is necessary for that purpose.

Reasonable beliefs
Once you have determined whether the defendant has used deadly or non-deadly force, you must then go on to consider whether the defendant justifiably acted in (self-defense / defense of others).

The test you are to apply is a subjective-objective test, meaning that it has some subjective aspects and some objective aspects. You must first consider the situation from the perspective of the defendant; that is, what did the defendant actually believe, as best as can be inferred from the evidence. This is the subjective aspect of the test. The statute requires, however, that the defendant's belief be reasonable, and not irrational or unreasonable under the circumstances; that is, would a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances have reached that belief. This is the objective aspect of the test.]

Each of the reasonable belief requirements of the statute requires you to ask two questions. The first question you must ask is, simply, as a matter of fact, whether the defendant actually -- that is, honestly and sincerely -- entertained the belief in question when (he/she) acted as (he/she) did. The second question you must ask is whether the defendant's actual belief was reasonable, in the sense that a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances at the time of (his/her) actions, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's point of view, would have shared that belief. A defendant cannot justifiably act on (his/her) actual belief, however honestly or sincerely (he/she) held it, if that belief would not have been shared by a reasonable person in (his/her) circumstances, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's point of view. Therefore, the defense of (self-defense / defense of others) has four elements:3

1. The defendant actually believed that someone else was using or about to use physical force against (him/her/a third person). If you have found that the force used by the defendant was deadly physical force, then this element requires that the defendant actually believed that the other person 1) was using or about to use deadly physical force against (him/her/a third person), or 2) was inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm upon (him/her/a third person).

2. That belief was reasonable because a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's perspective, would have shared that belief.

3. The defendant actually believed that the degree of force (he/she) used was necessary to repel the attack. Again, if you have found that the force used by the defendant was deadly physical force, then this element requires that the defendant actually believed that deadly physical force was necessary to repel the attack.

4. That belief was reasonable because a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's perspective, would have shared that belief.

The defendant has no burden of proof regarding any of these elements. Instead, the state bears the sole and exclusive burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in (self-defense / the defense of others), a burden it can meet by disproving at least one of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. I will go over each of these elements again in detail.

Element 1 - Actual belief regarding use of physical force by other person
The first element is that when the defendant used defensive force against <insert name of other person>, (he/she) actually -- that is, honestly and sincerely -- believed that the other person was using or about to use physical force against (him/her/<insert name of third person>). The word "using" has its ordinary meaning, that is, the other person has already begun to use force. The word "imminent" means that the person is about to use physical force at that time. It does not encompass the possibility that an act of physical force may take place at some unspecified future time.

If you have found that the force used by the defendant was deadly physical force, then you must find that the defendant actually believed that <insert name of other person> was not only using or about to use physical force upon (him/her/<insert name of third person>), but that the other person was either using or about to use deadly physical force against (him/her/<insert name of third person>), or inflicting or about to inflict great bodily harm upon (him/her/<insert name of third person>). "Great bodily harm" is not limited by the definition of serious physical injury and may encompass other acts such as sexual assault or the threat of sexual assault.4 The term "great" has its ordinary meaning and indicates a bodily harm that is substantially more than minor or inconsequential harm.

The act of <insert name of other person> leading to the defendant's use of defensive physical force need not be an actual threat or assault. The test is not what the other person actually intended, but what the other person's act caused the defendant to believe was the intention of the other. In other words, the danger to which the defendant was reacting need not have been actual or real. In judging the danger to (himself/herself/<insert name of third person>) the defendant is not required to act with infallible judgment. A person acting in (self-defense / the defense of others) is sometimes required to act instantly and without time to deliberate and investigate. Under such circumstances it is possible to perceive an actual threat when none in fact existed.

Element 2 - Reasonableness of that belief
The second element is that the defendant's actual belief about the force being used or about to be used against (him/her/<insert name of third person>) was a reasonable belief. This means that under the circumstances of the case, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's point of view, the defendant's actual belief that <insert name of other person> was using or about to use physical force or deadly physical force against (him/her/<insert name of third person>) was reasonable because a reasonable person in the defendant's situation at the time of (his/her) actions, viewing the circumstances from the defendant's point of view, would have shared that belief.

Element 3 - Actual belief regarding degree of force necessary
The third element is that when the defendant used physical force upon <insert name of other person> for the purpose of defending (himself/herself/<insert name of third person>), (he/she) actually -- that is, honestly and sincerely -- believed that the degree of force (he/she) used was necessary for that purpose. This applies whether you have found that the defendant used deadly physical force or not. The question is whether the defendant believed that it was necessary to use the degree of force that (he/she) used to defend (himself/herself/<insert name of third person>) from the attack.

Element 4 - Reasonableness of that belief
The fourth element is that the defendant's actual belief about the degree of force necessary to defend (himself/herself)/<insert name of third person> was a reasonable belief. This means that under the circumstances of the case, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's point of view, the defendant's actual belief that the degree of force used was necessary to defend (himself/ herself/ <insert name of third person>) was reasonable because a reasonable person in the defendant's circumstances at the time of (his/her) actions, viewing those circumstances from the defendant's point of view, would have shared that belief.



The general doctrine is usually the same state to state.
 
#27 ·
Depending on the scenario I think any Jury would be hard pressed to convict someone who was defending themself firearm or not (in the majority of cases).

Our laws in NZ are similar in regards to self defence and "reasonable force" and there have been some high profile cases in recent times where innocent people have had to resort to violent means (including firearms) to defend themselves. In 99% of these cases the innocent person had to go through the court system at great cost (personal and financial) but none were sentenced and charges were dropped.

Sure there may be legal costs and a lengthy case to go through, but at the end of the day youre alive and you cant put a price on that.

Its just a pity the criminals have as much if not more rights than the victim.
 
#29 ·
I know I cannot fight worth a darn, never could. I never got into any fights as a kid, although I have had others try and provoke me into a fight, I even got bullied around often. The fact that I have a bad hip joint makes it even worse for me, and I am not a big person (5'9" 180 lbs). Getting into hand to hand defense increases the chances of you being disarmed in a scuffle.

I would retreat if I can, but if there is no other alternative, I will resort to deadly force to show I do not want to fight. I am not risking my safety and the retention of my handgun.

I do plan to buy a small canister of pepper spray to add to my carry system. I just haven't got around to it yet, I keep buying ammo instead LOL!
 
#30 ·
I do plan to buy a small canister of pepper spray
You can also make your own from rubbing alcohol and chillis. Pretty effective I hear and cheap to make.
 
#31 ·
reasonable force is the amount of force that I used that allowed me to escape the situation.

I live in a state that has no such ideology. So in that sense I am lucky, but even if I didn't, I'll take my chances with an "unreasonable force" response as I only get on go at this thing we call life.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top