Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Although this is a gun forum and I know this folder is primarily about using guns in self defense, lets say Im in a situation where I don't use a gun to stop a bad guy. Lets say I inflict serious damage on a bad guy but I don't use a gun to do so, for instance I use my bare hands. Although bare hands are generally less deadly than guns they can nonetheless inflict serious injury and can even kill.

So anyway I would think in court the fact that I used my bare hands instead of a gun would carry some weight in my favor. If I seriously injure or even kill a bad guy with my bare hands, and by bad guy Im obviously talking about somebody who attacks me first or who otherwise instigates, I could say in court that I didn't use any weapons and that I certainly didn't use guns, I would hope that would help me out in court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,591 Posts
The laws that regulate homicide and assault do have variances in certain jurisdictions for armed vs not armed, however, your justification for using force must still fit within the perimeters of those laws.
It may be a moot point all together if you think you can stop an attacker with your bare hands and end up with brain damage or on a slab.
 

·
Registered
Pistoleer
Joined
·
664 Posts
Personally, I have been investing in a few different melee weapons to have as alternate options for defending myself. From what I understand here in Texas melee weapons or unarmed combat to defend oneself from a direct attack is not an issue even if it results in serious damage to the attacker but that may not be the case in other areas of the country.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,670 Posts
Towed artillery, tank, rifle, pistol, old Barlow pocket knife, or pinky fingers, the same principles apply to any use of force:

1. Was the use of force reasonable and necessary under the circumstances?
2. Would a "reasonable person" react in a similar manner, given what is known about the situation?
3. Was any degree of force used beyond the minimum required to neutralize the threat?

No matter what you may do there will be those who criticize your thoughts, decisions, and actions. There will always be a thousand liability lawyers ready to engage in a dance on the head of a pin for the entertainment of a jury of your peers.

The best answer will always be "I was in fear for my life and I was forced to defend myself. I have nothing further to say until I am represented by an attorney". Shut up, lawyer up, remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, never admit anything, never get up on the head of the pin to dance with the lawyers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,036 Posts
Towed artillery, tank, rifle, pistol, old Barlow pocket knife, or pinky fingers, the same principles apply to any use of force:

1. Was the use of force reasonable and necessary under the circumstances?
2. Would a "reasonable person" react in a similar manner, given what is known about the situation?
3. Was any degree of force used beyond the minimum required to neutralize the threat?

No matter what you may do there will be those who criticize your thoughts, decisions, and actions. There will always be a thousand liability lawyers ready to engage in a dance on the head of a pin for the entertainment of a jury of your peers.

The best answer will always be "I was in fear for my life and I was forced to defend myself. I have nothing further to say until I am represented by an attorney". Shut up, lawyer up, remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, never admit anything, never get up on the head of the pin to dance with the lawyers.
And always be the first to call 911.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,357 Posts
...And if you are schooled in "unarmed" self-defense, then a court might believe your well-trained bare hands to be weapons, in and of themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,023 Posts
How different do you think the jury's perception would be if you fire a single shot that resulted in another person's death than if you choked that same person to death?

I am not speaking about the George Floyd case here. A few years back in the Houston suburbs we had a case where a deputy's husband went MMA on a guy who had relieved himself in public outside a Denny's. Both he and his wife were charged in the death. He was charged for killing the guy and she was charged for not stopping him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,066 Posts
Why would that make a difference in court? The law is still the law. If you are concerned about that then you probably did not have a justified use of force to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bad Bob

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,789 Posts
Although this is a gun forum and I know this folder is primarily about using guns in self defense, lets say Im in a situation where I don't use a gun to stop a bad guy. Lets say I inflict serious damage on a bad guy but I don't use a gun to do so, for instance I use my bare hands. Although bare hands are generally less deadly than guns they can nonetheless inflict serious injury and can even kill.

So anyway I would think in court the fact that I used my bare hands instead of a gun would carry some weight in my favor. If I seriously injure or even kill a bad guy with my bare hands, and by bad guy Im obviously talking about somebody who attacks me first or who otherwise instigates, I could say in court that I didn't use any weapons and that I certainly didn't use guns, I would hope that would help me out in court.
However you apply potentially lethal force, if you continue the application after the threat has ended (he's down, has quit fighting, tries to retreat, etc.) you'll probably be deemed to have committed aggravated or felonious assault.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,724 Posts
Although this is a gun forum and I know this folder is primarily about using guns in self defense, lets say Im in a situation where I don't use a gun to stop a bad guy. Lets say I inflict serious damage on a bad guy but I don't use a gun to do so, for instance I use my bare hands. Although bare hands are generally less deadly than guns they can nonetheless inflict serious injury and can even kill.

So anyway I would think in court the fact that I used my bare hands instead of a gun would carry some weight in my favor. If I seriously injure or even kill a bad guy with my bare hands, and by bad guy Im obviously talking about somebody who attacks me first or who otherwise instigates, I could say in court that I didn't use any weapons and that I certainly didn't use guns, I would hope that would help me out in court.
If deadly force is authorized you can use a Buick. The force you use has little to do with the instrument.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,724 Posts
Personally, I have been investing in a few different melee weapons to have as alternate options for defending myself. From what I understand here in Texas melee weapons or unarmed combat to defend oneself from a direct attack is not an issue even if it results in serious damage to the attacker but that may not be the case in other areas of the country.
In Texas;

Anything in the manner of its use that is capable of serious injury or death is a deadly weapon"

An intentional strike to the head with a beer bottle is deadly force.

Check out your state laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,002 Posts
🤨




 
  • Like
Reactions: Bad Bob

·
Registered
Joined
·
681 Posts
...And if you are schooled in "unarmed" self-defense, then a court might believe your well-trained bare hands to be weapons, in and of themselves.
You mean like some who claim to be black belt martial artists saying "My hands are registered as lethal weapons"?

I can see that a lawyer might use any certification a defendant might have in hand to hand combat against him in trying to make a case for excessive use of force. In reality I think those who were truly proficient in those disciplines would also be the least inclined to demonstrate their ability unless it was absolutely necessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,041 Posts
Towed artillery, tank, rifle, pistol, old Barlow pocket knife, or pinky fingers, the same principles apply to any use of force:

1. Was the use of force reasonable and necessary under the circumstances?
2. Would a "reasonable person" react in a similar manner, given what is known about the situation?
3. Was any degree of force used beyond the minimum required to neutralize the threat?

No matter what you may do there will be those who criticize your thoughts, decisions, and actions. There will always be a thousand liability lawyers ready to engage in a dance on the head of a pin for the entertainment of a jury of your peers.

The best answer will always be "I was in fear for my life and I was forced to defend myself. I have nothing further to say until I am represented by an attorney". Shut up, lawyer up, remain innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, never admit anything, never get up on the head of the pin to dance with the lawyers.
Exactly. Says it all.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,056 Posts
Why always trumps how.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5lima30ret

·
Registered
Joined
·
39,995 Posts
FL law covers use of "deadly force," not use of deadly guns. Deadly force is deadly force, regardless of weapons used.
 
1 - 20 of 65 Posts
Top