Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Have no problem drawing on someone who is advancing on me with a weapon. Have thought long and hard about that BG advancing on me "unarmed". I know that fists and feet can be deadly weapons but will a jury see it that way, just a thought. Anyway, I have tried to set some personal boundries within myself. I will try to avoid, defuse a confrontation by words, walking away etc. while keeping my hand on my weapon all the time trying to put space between me and the BG. However, if I am knocked to the ground, and they continue, I will draw and fire. Is this what you call a "disparity of force"? Once on the ground, the BG definately has the upper hand. just trying to do that balancing act of not "overacting" and staying alive. I live in Texas and am not quite sure how that plays out with the Penal Code.
Give some ideas about this. I thought the whole idea of carrying was to avoid a "beat down", do you have to take a "beat down" before you can employ deadly force? Like a similar thread, confronting an "unarmed" BG approximatly your same size id daunting. Like kids who hurt themselves, all they have to miss is a couple days of school. If I hurt myself, "twist a knee" for example, it is a real problem with missing days of work, pay etc. Using the same situation, if kids get into a "fist fight", they can recover a lot easier than I can!! I am older and can't recover near as well. Anyway, ideas and thoughts are appreciated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
I think you draw to avoid a "Beat Down" and you will go to jail, at least in Michigan.

If you think that the "Whole idea of carrying was to avoid a beat down." then I don't think you should be carrying a gun.

Just my opinion.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
50,603 Posts
Here in FL, I'm not taking an unprovoked 'beat down'...disparity of force (in my 60's) is all I'll worry about.

Stay armed...don't pick a fight with an old man...stay safe!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
Here in MN, I am fine/legal drawing (should follow up with a call to police with reason I presented my weapon), but if he still comes at you after you present your weapon, I think that is a different story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
In Florida: From what our NRA instructors said is if you're a woman and a guy just grabs your wrist, you can shoot to kill. If you're a guy and 10 guys are beating on you, ya better not pull your gun until your last breath to protect yourself. This was recently at a CCW refresher class.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,751 Posts
for some reason your instructor believes that 10 guys beating you down is not a threat of serious bodily harm? does he consider spitting up blood and permanent brain damage from multiple blows a good reason for allowing someone to beat you senseless and then possibly use your gun to kill someone else a good trade off?...i can't imagine waiting until i'm too weak to draw my gun and defend myself to actually defend myself...

sorry...i would have questioned that one...

from...

Lawful Self-Defense - Weapons - Division of Licensing, FDACS

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

* Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
I'm too weak to take on a young punk and too old to take a butt whipping. If threatened, I will draw and plainly state that I will shoot the aggressor if the aggression doesn't stop. Then, I'll call the LE and report the incident. And, probably my lawyer to ask his advice. Umm, probably not in that order. You know the old saying, it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,465 Posts
I don't carry a firearm to be beat down and have someone else take my firearm. That said I do not look for trouble but am SA and ready.

I believe I have a much better chance with 12 judging my actions than 6 good friends caring me after 5 or 8 took turns beating me down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
A beatdown? :hand1:No way! I've had 3 major surgeries the past year and was just told that the lens in my eye is not attached as well as it should be. The doctor told me to avoid jolts to the head at all costs. Nope, I'm too old to fight and too crippled to run.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
785 Posts
In SC, you are only allowed to draw if you're justified in pulling the trigger. For that justification you must "feel yourself to be in imminent danger of loss of life or grave bodily injury." Only you can make that choice as circumstances dictate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
749 Posts
Here is my mindset. In order for me to use my weapon, I need to feel that I or someone else that I have chosen to defend is in danger of great bodily harm or death.
Now the concern is how well I can articulate those thoughts to LE, DA etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
I think you draw to avoid a "Beat Down" and you will go to jail, at least in Michigan.

If you think that the "Whole idea of carrying was to avoid a beat down." then I don't think you should be carrying a gun.

Just my opinion.
So when do you think it's time to draw??? Maybe after you get 2, maybe 3 teeth kicked out. Or should you wait until one eye is gone and a rib goes through your lung??? Maybe if you just take it until you're unconscious they'll go away????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
.............. Have thought long and hard about that BG advancing on me "unarmed"............
Personally if a person is advancing on me I am going to shout, "What do you want?!", as simply a sign that I am on "fight or flight" based on their actions. If they continue approaching me I will change directions. If they change and continue towards me I will shout and point them away. If they continue I will draw. If they continue I will shoot when they are 20 feet away. I will not take a chance on they shooting or pulling a knife on me. I have been in a dozen street fights throughout junior high and high school but this isn't kiddie time anymore. Getting knifed or your head stomped on until you have brain damage is worse than jail time. And if that attacker is withing 20 feet of you then that is likely. If a person continues to approach you after repeated verbal and physical warnings and even after you draw on them then they are crazy and out for blood.

However I still have 90 days before I even get my CCW and I will be memorizing Missouri self defense law between now and then......... if I could just find it!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,765 Posts
To be able to use deadly force in TX, you must be in fear of death or serious bodily injury and it may not be used in response to verbal provocation alone...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
I carry a can of pepper spray and a knife just for those situations where lethal force might be over the top.A shot of Fox 5.3 and a good :buttkick: and the unarmed situation could be difffused without someone getting killed.

I believe everyone or at least CCW'ers should carry a non-lethal form of defense also. But that's just my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
I carry a can of pepper spray and a knife just for those situations where lethal force might be over the top.A shot of Fox 5.3 and a good :buttkick: and the unarmed situation could be difffused without someone getting killed.

I believe everyone or at least CCW'ers should carry a non-lethal form of defense also. But that's just my opinion.
I agree. I think I'll check into pepper spray.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
356 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
Very Long Post

CAUTION VERY LONG POST
JimTem, hope this helps,here you go.
Missouri revised Statutes Chapter 563 Defense of Justification (Use of force covered) Click the link below, or read below, did a copy/paste. According to the site, it was updated august 2009
~Steve

CHAPTER 563


Chapter definitions.
563.011. As used in this chapter the following terms shall mean:

(1) "Deadly force", physical force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he or she knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury;

(2) "Dwelling", any building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance of any kind, whether the building, inhabitable structure, or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night;

(3) "Forcible felony", any felony involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual, including but not limited to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, assault, and any forcible sexual offense;

(4) "Premises", includes any building, inhabitable structure and any real property;

(5) "Private person", any person other than a law enforcement officer;

(6) "Remain after unlawfully entering", to remain in or upon premises after unlawfully entering as defined in this section;

(7) "Residence", a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest;

(8) "Unlawfully enter", a person unlawfully enters in or upon premises when he or she enters such premises and is not licensed or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his or her purpose, enters in or upon premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license unless he or she defies a lawful order not to enter, personally communicated to him or her by the owner of such premises or by another authorized person. A license to enter in a building that is only partly open to the public is not a license to enter in that part of the building that is not open to the public.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41)




Civil remedies unaffected.
563.016. The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for such conduct which is available in any civil actions.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79





Execution of public duty.
563.021. 1. Unless inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter defining the justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when such conduct is required or authorized by a statutory provision or by a judicial decree. Among the kinds of such provisions and decrees are:

(1) Laws defining duties and functions of public servants;

(2) Laws defining duties of private persons to assist public servants in the performance of their functions;

(3) Laws governing the execution of legal process;

(4) Laws governing the military services and the conduct of war;

(5) Judgments and orders of courts.

2. The defense of justification afforded by subsection 1 of this section applies:

(1) When a person reasonably believes his conduct to be required or authorized by the judgment or directions of a competent court or tribunal or in the legal execution of legal process, notwithstanding lack of jurisdiction of the court or defect in the legal process;

(2) When a person reasonably believes his conduct to be required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his duties, notwithstanding that the public servant exceeded his legal authority.

3. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79





Justification generally.
563.026. 1. Unless inconsistent with other provisions of this chapter defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute any crime other than a class A felony or murder is justifiable and not criminal when it is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability of avoiding the injury outweighs the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the crime charged.

2. The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection 1 may not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. Whenever evidence relating to the defense of justification under this section is offered, the court shall rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a justification.

3. The defense of justification under this section is an affirmative defense.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79





Use of force in defense of persons.
563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

(3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony; or

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.

4. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41)




Battered spouse syndrome evidence that defendant acted in self-defense or defense of another--procedure.
563.033. 1. Evidence that the actor was suffering from the battered spouse syndrome shall be admissible upon the issue of whether the actor lawfully acted in self-defense or defense of another.

2. If the defendant proposes to offer evidence of the battered spouse syndrome, he shall file written notice thereof with the court in advance of trial. Thereafter, the court, upon motion of the state, shall appoint one or more private psychiatrists or psychologists, as defined in section 632.005, RSMo, or physicians with a minimum of one year training or experience in providing treatment or services to mentally retarded or mentally ill individuals, who are neither employees nor contractors of the department of mental health for the purposes of performing the examination in question, to examine the accused, or shall direct the director of the department of mental health, or his designee, to have the accused so examined by one or more psychiatrists or psychologists, as defined in section 632.005, RSMo, or physicians with a minimum of one year training or experience in providing treatment or services to mentally retarded or mentally ill individuals designated by the director, or his designee, for the purpose of examining the defendant. No private psychiatrist, psychologist, or physician shall be appointed by the court unless he has consented to act. The examinations ordered shall be made at such time and place and under such conditions as the court deems proper; except that if the order directs the director of the department of mental health to have the accused examined, the director, or his designee, shall determine the reasonable time, place and conditions under which the examination shall be conducted. The order may include provisions for the interview of witnesses.

3. No statement made by the accused in the course of any such examination and no information received by any physician or other person in the course thereof, whether such examination was made with or without the consent of the accused or upon his motion or upon that of others, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the issue of whether he committed the act charged against him in any criminal proceeding then or thereafter pending in any court, state or federal.

(L. 1987 H.B. 341)
(1990) Evidence of "battered spouse syndrome" admissible in claims of self-defense does not depend on defendant's marital status. (Mo.App.E.D.) State v. Williams, 787 S.W.2d 308.

(1995) Where wife looked for someone to kill her husband for over three months prior to murder, statute prohibits the battered spouse syndrome because defendant had not been able to raise the issue of self-defense. Anderson v. Goeke, 44 F.3d 675 (8th Cir.).





Use of physical force in defense of property.
563.041. 1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he or she reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.

3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41)




Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.
563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79





Private person's use of force in making an arrest.
563.051. 1. A private person who has been directed by a person he reasonably believes to be a law enforcement officer to assist such officer to effect an arrest or to prevent escape from custody may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3, use physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such officer's direction unless he knows or believes that the arrest or prospective arrest is not or was not authorized.

2. A private person acting on his own account may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3, use physical force to effect arrest or prevent escape only when and to the extent such is immediately necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed a crime and who in fact has committed such crime.

3. A private person in effecting an arrest or in preventing escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes such to be authorized under the circumstances and he is directed or authorized by a law enforcement officer to use deadly force; or

(3) When he reasonably believes such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest of a person who at that time and in his presence

(a) Committed or attempted to commit a class A felony or murder; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon.

4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79





Use of force to prevent escape from confinement.
563.056. 1. A guard or other law enforcement officer may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2, use physical force when he reasonably believes such to be immediately necessary to prevent escape from confinement or in transit thereto or therefrom.

2. A guard or other law enforcement officer may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only

(1) When such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the escapee will endanger human life or cause serious physical injury unless the escape is prevented.

3. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1983 H.B. 713 Revision)




Use of force by persons with responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others.
563.061. 1. The use of physical force by an actor upon another person is justifiable when the actor is a parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person or when the actor is a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor for a special purpose; and

(1) The actor reasonably believes that the force used is necessary to promote the welfare of a minor or incompetent person, or, if the actor's responsibility for the minor is for special purposes, to further that special purpose or to maintain reasonable discipline in a school, class or other group; and

(2) The force used is not designed to cause or believed to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious physical injury, disfigurement, extreme pain or extreme emotional distress.

2. A warden or other authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional institution may, in order to maintain order and discipline, use whatever physical force, including deadly force, that is authorized by law.

3. The use of physical force by an actor upon another person is justifiable when the actor is a person responsible for the operation of or the maintenance of order in a vehicle or other carrier of passengers and the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent interference with its operation or to maintain order in the vehicle or other carrier, except that deadly force may be used only when the actor reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.

4. The use of physical force by an actor upon another person is justified when the actor is a physician or a person assisting at his direction; and

(1) The force is used for the purpose of administering a medically acceptable form of treatment which the actor reasonably believes to be adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient; and

(2) The treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient is a minor or an incompetent person, with the consent of the parent, guardian, or other person legally competent to consent on his behalf, or the treatment is administered in an emergency when the actor reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent.

5. The use of physical force by an actor upon another person is justifiable when the actor acts under the reasonable belief that

(1) Such other person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself; and

(2) The force used is necessary to thwart such result.

6. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79





Accidents an excuse for crime, when.
563.070. 1. Conduct which would otherwise constitute a crime under chapter 565, RSMo, is excusable and not criminal when it is the result of accident in any lawful act by lawful means without knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical injury and without acting with criminal negligence.

2. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of excuse authorized under this section.

(L. 1983 S.B. 276, A.L. 1984 S.B. 448 § A)
Effective 10-1-84





Justification as an absolute defense, when.
563.074. 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 563.016, a person who uses force as described in sections 563.031, 563.041, 563.046, 563.051, 563.056, and 563.061 is justified in using such force and such fact shall be an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability.

2. The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense as provided in subsection 1 of this section.

(L. 2007 S.B. 62 & 41)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Here's an interesting case from Florida a few months back...it took a while and probably cost the shooter some money, but...

Stand-your-ground defense clears Thonotosassa bicyclist in fatal shooting - St. Petersburg Times
So in Florida if a person knocks you to the ground and jumps on you then you can use your firearm to defend yourself.

I think this is to far. The victim could have been dead by the time he got his gun out but I know this is a slippery slope. If less of a threat allowed a CCW'er to defend themselves we would surly see cases where simple arguments turned deadly.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top