What do you do when you are carrying concealed and you're attacked by someone who is unarmed?
What do you do when you are carrying concealed and you're attacked by someone who is unarmed?
Can't possibly know if a violent attacker is unarmed. He's currently not got a man-made tool in his hand? So what. He could easily have a knife, gun or other ugly tool in reserved.
The point is this: if I'm reasonably in fear of losing my life or limb, the statutes (thankfully) where I live support my every right to defend myself, even to the point of using deadly force, no matter what the cost to the attacker ... even if it kills him. It's irrelevant whether he has a man-made tool in hand, or not. The yardstick is: is my life at risk of loss. 'Nuff said, really.
As well, most states have "disparity of force" recognized in the statutes. Me, I'm a bit disabled. Due to a severe and degenerating problem in my hip/leg, I am not capable of facing a prolonged violent attack and surviving it. I can't run very far, before it locks up and collapses. That means, I'm forced to stand my ground and take whatever the BG dishes up, and that won't be much before I'm on the brink. So. I'll use my judgment. And I'll stop the violence before I'm knocked out for good. The statutes support this, essentially.
This however is not a defense situation that I would feel secure in presenting to a jury.
I won't EVER feel "secure" in having to explain my actions to others, in which the law supports their ability to have their perspective become the justification, instead of mine. Fact is, in an attack on me, I am the one who was there. Not a jury member, not a district attorney, not any other of these folks who legally get a shot at claiming I'm lying. So, there will never be comfort or security in the situation of having to get another to see it through my eyes, 'cause if they fail to do so then I'm strung by the toes because of their failure.
Still, better that than dead. So, I'll continue to rely on the legal yardstick that exists, and my own internal gauge of what's right, honorable and just. It's far more accurate and likely to determine when I'm at reasonable risk of losing my life than any written words in a book of statutes in Salem, Oregon.
In short: if I feel my life is at risk, I'm defending it. If you're attacking me and that's the level it has reached ... beware of my wrath, 'cause I'm going to stop you if I'm able.
What does Oregon have to say about all of this? Basically the same thing. Oregon recognizes the "reasonable man" standard and puts the initial judgment into the hands of every citizen to make the call, though afterwards the D.A. and attorneys get a shot at helping twist the minds of a jury of my peers into failing to see it that way.
Basically:
161.205 Use of physical force generally.
The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
(1) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person. A teacher may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the teacher reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order in the school or classroom or at a school activity or event, whether or not it is held on school property.
(2) An authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional facility may use physical force when and to the extent that the official reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is authorized by law.
(3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
(4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart the result.
(5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1]
161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.
Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
Essentially, I'm lawfully supported in my physical defense of my life in all circumstances. Nobody has a right to attack another, and everyone has a right to stop an attack. A person is also I'm legally supported in the use of lethal force in defending life, recognized legally as having every right to do so when a person has a reasonable belief that the life is about to be lost. Fairly simple, really, other than the wrinkle than (a) there's a presumption of guilt in the statutes, and that (b) others, who weren't there, get to judge the need, and their judgment is what goes into the books as being true, whether true or not. But then, this is a
legal system we have, and it's not always just. Either way, better than Mogadishu in the summertime.