When Are You Justified in Using Deadly Force Against an Unarmed Assailant?


June 10, 2009, 01:25 PM
It's always seemed to me that if you are confronted by an aggressor with a gun, knife or club, defending yourself with a gun is likely to be viewed as justifiable. On the other hand, while roughly one out of twenty homicides is caused by unarmed assailants, the use of deadly force against someone who's punching or kicking you may be viewed as excessive.

I understand the law in an abstract sense--here, for instance, the use of deadly force is permitted if you are in imminent fear of death or great bodily harm, or if you are acting to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony." The difficulty for me lies in the question of how and at what point it is justifiable to use a gun against someone who's using his hands and feet to attack. In my mind, it's a difficult question--on one hand, most attacks of that sort simply result in scrapes and bruises. On the other hand, there is always the potential for serious injury or death, and it's damnably hard to predict when an attack will result in serious harm.

How do you feel about this question? At what point would you feel it appropriate to use your gun to defend yourself against an unarmed assailant or assailants?

If you enjoyed reading about "When Are You Justified in Using Deadly Force Against an Unarmed Assailant?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
June 10, 2009, 01:32 PM
depends on ALOT of factors. It will be different for each person. I'm 6'2" and weigh close to 200lbs. A man coming at me swinging may not have the same threatening presence to me as to say a woman who is 5'3" and weighs 102lbs in a soaked wool sweater.
Also number of assailants is a factor. The assailant's actions, words (or lack there of), attitude, volume etc; will have much to do with how high the treat level rises in my mind.
How aggressive do they appear to be? Do I have an escape route? Are there others in my group that are smaller and weaker that cannot get away fast and if so how many (ie.... kids in tow)
I could keep this up for another page or two if i really wanted to stretch it... .
you get the idea... every situation is unique in this regard....
No Formulas

Buck Snort
June 10, 2009, 01:59 PM
The courts take a look at disparity of size, age etc. For example, I'm 5' 7", 170# and 66 years old. Just about ANY attack from a younger person would put me in fear of great bodily harm. However, its academic, I live in the PRC and getting a CCW is next to impossible in my county.

June 10, 2009, 02:02 PM
If you're asking the question in legal context (hence the forum), then you've already answered the question.

The law will justify...
the use of deadly force is permitted if you are in imminent fear of death or great bodily harm, or if you are acting to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony."

If an unarmed attacker has crossed those lines with you, the legal system has little to blame you with.

June 10, 2009, 02:02 PM
The difficulty for me lies in the question of how and at what point it is justifiable to use a gun against someone who's using his hands and feet to attack.

First, know that volumes have been written on this subject and laws vary from place to place. With that in mind:

Broadly speaking, the short answer is the "reasonable person" test: "Would a reasonable person be justifiably afraid of losing their life or sustaining grievous injury?" under the circumstance in question.

Here comes the moral/spiritual (not legal) advice: Even though you may not have a "duty to retreat" under the law, your life will be better if you can find a way to retreat and avoid having to use lethal force against an unarmed attacker.

(With ammo prices being what they are these days, this is a real money saver, too!)

Now, a word from the shameless commerce division: We cover this topic extensively in our online self-defense (http://OurSafeHome.net/index.php?szLP=thr) and CCW (http://OurSafeHome.net/index.php?szLP=thrccw) class. Contact me for a Discount Code before you enroll.

June 10, 2009, 02:03 PM
If you have to ask, you're not.

Seriously, if you really think somebody's going to die or be seriously injured if you don't shoot, shoot.

June 10, 2009, 02:39 PM
There was a case in Dallas a few years back where a martial arts instructor attacked I believe his brother or brother in law. Anyway the man ran outside to his car with the attacker hitting him the whole way, and shot the attacker with a gun he had in his car. Because the attacker pursued the fleeing man the man was not charged. The whole thing came down to the fact that the man had tried to get away from the attacker and the unarmed attacker pursued him. So I think if you first try and back away and the attacker pursues then I would think that would at least demonstrate he was a danger to you and you might need to take appropriate measures to defend yourself. I mean how do you know when a well intended ass whipping will turn into a brutal killing?

June 10, 2009, 02:42 PM
If you're asking the question in legal context (hence the forum), then you've already answered the question.

True enough, but the difficulty always lies in actually applying the law to your situation.

Broadly speaking, the short answer is the "reasonable person" test: "Would a reasonable person be justifiably afraid of losing their life or sustaining grievous injury?" under the circumstance in question.

Here comes the moral/spiritual (not legal) advice: Even though you may not have a "duty to retreat" under the law, your life will be better if you can find a way to retreat and avoid having to use lethal force against an unarmed attacker.

I agree . . . and luckily retreat is something that comes naturally to someone as cowardly as I am. :D

It is always difficult to predict what a jury might later find "reasonable." I'm a former LEO and I've been a prosecutor for many years (though I've been prosecuting white collar crime, and not violent offenses, for some time). Those experiences have taught me (1) that your advice about retreat is wise, and (2) once a fight is imminent, the situation can turn deadly in a heartbeat.

This second point is not necessarily something that every person understands. Indeed, it's not something the assailant even appreciates in many cases--there are innumerable instances where a shove or a less than heavy blow has resulted in a deadly fall. Which gets back to my second point, built on many years of experience.

What I'm attempting to do in posting this question is to arrive at a reasoned and reasonable method to approach this question. My thoughts are this:

-Whenever it's possible to do so safely, retreat is the way to go.

-If retreat is not feasible, I'd consider the emotional state of the assailant, his size and apparent capacity to inflict harm, the setting (I once had a crazy guy stare me down and start doing kung fu moves when I was steps away from an electried third rail), whether he had accomplices, and my then-present ability to defend myself without weapons.

-Having said all that, it seems preferable--indeed life-preserving--to at least consider the worst case scenario, in terms of what might befall you and your loved ones if you do not react with deadly force.

Reciting the law is the easy part. Deciding how to apply it when some nitwit starts swinging at you is the difficult part.

June 10, 2009, 02:43 PM
1. Disparity of Force - Meaningful differences in age, sex, physical condition, numbers, etc. of the parties. Two similarly built 21 year old males: probably not justified. A 210lb. 18 year old male attacking a 110lb. 50 year old woman: probably justified. Right after CCW was made legal in Texas, a huge Samoan guy attacked a much smaller guy in his vehicle, after fleeing the scene of an automobile accident with the smaller guy. He started savagely beating the smaller man while he was trapped in his vehicle. The guy told him he'd shoot if he continued. He continued and was shot. No-bill.

Recently on a newspaper blog, a person tried to argue me into believing that there should be no legal distinction between the attack of a 250lb. man on a 115lb. woman as opposed to mutual combat between 250lb. men. That person was of course an ignoramus.

2. "Castle Doctrine" and similar legislation - In Ohio, f you forcibly enter my home, or try to carjack me, the presumption is that I was in reasonable fear of life and limb and was justified in shooting you. That presumption can be overcome, but I get the benefit of the doubt. Don't like it? Don't be a home invader or carjacker. They're hazardous occupations. Find something safer... like digging for hidden stockpiles of Japanese mustard gas in Manchuria.

June 10, 2009, 03:04 PM
Disparity of Force

That's an excellent way to summarize the principle. The only thing I think it misses is consideration of the setting (see my "third rail" anecdote): If I'm a 280-lb. body builder standing on the peak of Mount Everest with a 130-lb. pipsqueak who starts slapping me, do I have to rely on my greater strength to subdue him, or may I shoot him, believing that he may otherwise, at any moment, cause me to fall 29,029 feet to my demise?

June 10, 2009, 03:29 PM
Reteat is more of a tactical move than one of fear. Space means time. Time to Think, Assess, Move and Act. People with fighting trainng know that a step back may be just what is needed to gain the upper hand in a fight.
I believe that if you are going to carry a firearm that you need to do so responsibly. That means being aware of where you are and who is around you. Letting yourself get caught between a live rail and an attacker at a station is your fault! You turn what could be a simple walk away into a life and death decision.

That comment about the mental state of the assailant reminds me of a joke about liberals I read about!! Ha Ha Things happen very fast. You need to be anticipating what might happen and make sure you can get out of it safely. Never let an potential attacker get withing arms reach of you before you either warn him or draw. That is just carelessness. The simple fact is that if you are in a situation where you believe someone is about to cause you bodily harm to the point that it could cost you or one of your loved one's thier life then you need to stop them by what ever means is at your disposal. You need to have played that seanario out in your mind and when it happens you'll know what to do. Everyone who picks up a firearm needs to do this. The goal should always be to protect your self and others. Sometimes the "other" is the wacko that is bothering you. You protect him by paying attention to where you are, flashing a smile, trying not escalating the situation and just walking away. Then if he pursues you need to shoot the guy dead and just hope that you got him before he got into the gene pool.

Dr. Fresh
June 10, 2009, 03:47 PM
Also, keep in mind your weapon my be compromised in a hand-to-hand fight. That scares me more than getting hit.

June 10, 2009, 03:51 PM
Letting yourself get caught between a live rail and an attacker at a station is your fault!

Geez, now you've gone and hurt my feelings. I'll elaborate briefly, but this is more of a topic for Strategies and Tactics. This happened about 30 years ago. No concealed carry (for me) at that time. I was on a platform of an subway station in Boston--just my wife, me and a smallish guy who looked "normal," standing about 15 feet away. Without any apparent precipitating event, he gives me the evil eye and starts with his kata. I realize at that point that he isn't normal . . . he's nuts. Keeping an eye on him, I reposition my wife and me, so that he's now the one between me and the third rail. He stops his little act and goes back to just standing there. Train comes. We get on. End of story.

It did make an impression on me, though--this happened in 1979 or 1980 and I still remember it vividly. An unarmed man. Acting like a nut. In a dangerous place. I've reconsidered my actions over the years and have come to believe I didn't make any mistakes. But, regardless of whether or not I did, the legal issue that I raised in my OP remains: Had you been in my shoes and had you been armed, at what point would you have been justified in shooting the guy?

June 10, 2009, 04:02 PM
Sounds like you did the right thing. Why would you need to shoot him?

June 10, 2009, 04:40 PM
Since this is all just for what ifs. Then I'll give you a sceanrio and you tell me what should have happened.

two years ago I drove to a restarant in Houston by myself. It was late at night and I was just getting something to eat after day of meetings. The parking lot was located behind the bulding and was lit but not well lit. As I entered the parking lot I noticed that there seemed to be a street person wondering around between the cars. My first thougth was that he was just checking doors hoping to steal something to sell. I figured that my driving up would scare him off. It didn't. I drive a pickup and I usually back in. As I finished bacing into a spot the guy was now at my window. He started begging for some money. I rolled the glass down about a quarter of the way and told him that I didn't have any money for him. At that point his attitude changed. He looked strait at me and said. "I know you got money. You need to give me some of your money or your not going anywhere." It was at this point I noted that he had both hands in his pockets. I told him well yes I do have some money for him and if he would put out his hands I would give it to him.

So at this point what did I do?

Did I have the right to shoot him at that Point? Probably. He was big. Dirty. Scarey and I should have been in fear of my life.

Did I shoot him? No. Why? Because I knew he couldn't have a gun. How? His pants were too thin and a gun would have been obvious. Besides he would have sold it by now. I knew if he had a knife he couldn't have hurt me because my window was not down far enough to allow him to stab me. So becuase I was in control of the situation I did not have to shoot him.

What I did do was produce from my side a very loaded 45 kimber auto with a laser site which I promptly set right on his chest.

I yelled at him to back up and get down on his stomach and interloch his hands behind the back of his head. Obviously he knew the routine and complied.

I got out of my truck and proceded to walk around him keeping my site on his torso as I started to call police from my cell.

Didn't have to. The police rolled up about that time. Seems some inside the
restarant already had. As they pulled up I saw them, Planced my gun on the ground. got down on my knees and interlocked my hands behind my head.

They come up stood me up, patted me down got my licence and CHL from me and began asking me what happened.

Seems the guy had been there a couple of times and robbed people getting out of their cars. As I said He was a very big guy.

So That is real world. That is how it happens. When you least expect it, expect it. I have played that through my mind a dozen times and each time I play it a little differnent. But I can tell you this. Had that guy started towards that window rather than back off and get down on the ground. He would have been dead.

June 10, 2009, 05:12 PM
It's interesting that a broken nose or knocked out tooth are both considered aggravated assaults, along with getting hit with a beer bottle of course. Seems to me retreating is pretty cost effective. However, if the victim were to fight back wouldn't both parties be the victim. (I guess it depends)

June 10, 2009, 06:57 PM
What I did do was produce from my side a very loaded 45 kimber auto with a laser site which I promptly set right on his chest.

Gawd I'd love to have seen the look on his face

Jim K
June 10, 2009, 07:09 PM
There is no obligation in the law to allow oneself to be beaten into a bloody pulp just because the assailant is "unarmed." That would be even more true if the assailant were also an intruder in your own home.

But there may be questionable justification if a 300 pound NFL lineman is attacked by an 80 pound 14 year old girl. I can't conceive of any court ruling that he would be justified in shooting her. The reverse would be a very different story.


Hungry Seagull
June 10, 2009, 07:46 PM
An anklebiter does not get shot. Only kicked.

Now if said person is ... some kind of 300+ pound muscle man out of heavy weapons company nutz recently deployed to zombie wars and has mental issues and advances on me with fists clenched and displaying unmistakeable intent to pound me into death? Hmm.. gotta think about that one. /sarcasm.

Now if said person is Dennis the Menace bothering me because he has nothing but time and boredom on his hands.... well I cannot go shoot the tyke.

I have had my fair share of... nut cases present to me a situation that is bizarre but not enough to shoot on.

I had one stick his finger into my dinnerplate (Deep into the fries and gravy) and asked me if I was done with my meal. He was filthy and dirty.

The whole place went quiet and I sit there and processed mentally the present problem. My hand reached for the back of my belt and a big driver grabbed it and told me nuh, uh... not worth it for this little S*** and 5 dollars of food.

I was not in a good state of mind and was physically seperated from the little punk. Good thing too. They arrested and took away that kid too. Otherwise it would have been me. The Manager replaced my meal with a much better fare as compenstation on the house. Much appreciated.

I dont shoot unarmed people. Not unless certain things are met and satisfied.... the previous poster's example of third wire on the subway platform is one good example.

June 10, 2009, 08:16 PM
Remember also that "reasonable" is in your eyes and you are allowed to explain your reasoning to the jury who then considers if they feel it was reasonable, not in their eyes, but in the eyes of a theoretical person, knowing what you know, in your position.

If you happen to know that, for example, a solid blow to the temple can cause blindness in a statistically significant number of cases, that blows to the chest can cause heart attacks, again in a statistically significant number of cases, or similar facts and you present that information as part of your state of mind while facing the attack the jury is required to take that into account.

Informing the jury of the realities of "unarmed" violence can do much to dispel the "you were afraid of a punch?" attitude of less-knowledgeable individuals.

June 10, 2009, 08:32 PM
The 17 year kid was a big guy and unarmed. That dumb kid had everything to look forward to. He was a senior at Cache High School and was training to ge a firefighter at VoTech. Who knows why he did a break-in.

Comanche county, OK prosecutor Robert Schulte declined to take this case to a grand jury.


10/27/2007 1:34 PM

LAWTON — A state prosecutor cited Oklahoma’s “Stand Your Ground” law in announcing that no charges would be filed against a man who shot and killed a teen who appeared to be a burglar.

Comanche County District Attorney Robert Schulte said he plans to take no action against Jeffrey David Dorrell, 40, who shot and killed Frederick Stuever, 17.

Dorrell arrived at his father’s home Tuesday afternoon to find Stuever leaving the home with the family’s property. The back door had been kicked in, and officials believe the teen was attempting to take things from the home.

Items belonging to the homeowner were later found in Stuever’s vehicle, police said.

Dorrell, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, held Stuever at gunpoint while he called the police.

While on the phone with dispatchers, Dorrell ordered Stuever to lay on the ground until the police could come. When Stuever would not comply, Dorrell fired five shots in his direction, but did not hit Stuever.

Dorrell told police that he shot Stuever when the teen charged at him. Stuever died at the scene.

Schulte said under the “Stand Your Ground” law that went into effect on Nov. 1, 2006, Dorrell was within his rights under the law.

The law broadened self-defense rights by removing the requirement that a person who is attacked has a “duty to retreat” before turning to deadly force.

It specifies that people can use deadly force if they believe they are in danger in any place they have a legal right to be. It provides immunity from criminal charges and civil liability.

Three other people, unrelated to Stuever or Dorrell, witnessed the shooting and backed up Dorrell’s account, Schulte said.

June 10, 2009, 08:33 PM
I've worried about this for years. I've decided that i will not get drawn into a fight. the last fight I allowed myself to get in, I was stabbed in the neck with a neck from a broken beer bottle,just 5mm from my jugular .
What has always confounded me are the facts that HE wanted to fight SO BAD and he outweighed me by about 100 lbs and towered over me at 6'3 vs my 5'10.
I wouldn't have though a person with an obvious advantage ,that WANTED to fight , would have stabbed me. I've decided i will not fight anyone .A simple fight could end up with him bumping his head and dying or me getting killed either by accident or design. I will not trust someone to only give me an a@# whoppin and not badly hurt me. Also, I decided that i can't let someone overpower me while carrying. they could get your gun and kill you with it.
I bet a jury would /could believe you were threatening with your gun and bad guy was defending himself when he grabbed it from you and shot you.
As for me, I don't want any trouble ,they can win the argument or cuss all they want...if they move on me, i will draw and warn. if they continue,they won't for long.I know i will be in a world of trouble if it comes to that, but I'm not trusting anyone to "play fair" again. NEVER WIN AN ARGUMENT,NEVER LOOSE A FIGHT

June 10, 2009, 08:34 PM
Where do you live? What are the relevant laws governing the lawful use of deadly force where you live?

In California state the Office of the Attorney General has a .pdf file titled "California Firearms Laws Summary Booklet" available for viewing and download on the Bureau of Firearms part of the state website.

Website page: http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/

Booklet page: http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

The introduction reads:
This pamphlet contains a general summary of California laws that govern common possession and use of firearms by persons other than law enforcement officers, firearms dealers, or members of the armed forces. It is not designed to provide individual guidance for specific situations, nor does it attempt to summarize federal law. The legality of any specific act of possession or use will ultimately be determined by applicable federal and state statutory and case law. For more information on specific state statutes, please refer to the full text of the California Penal Code sections referenced herein, available via the Internet at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/. Persons having specific questions are encouraged to seek legal advice from an attorney, or consult their local law enforcement agency or law library. The California Department of Justice and all other public entities are immune from any liability arising from the drafting, publication, or dissemination of this pamphlet, or any reliance upon it. (Penal Code § 12080.)"

It starts with this statement:
"The question of whether use of a firearm is justified for self-defense cannot be reduced to a simple list of factors. This section is based on the instructions generally given to the jury in a criminal case where self-defense is claimed and illustrates the general rules regarding use of firearms in selfdefense."

It's only about a page and half long. It makes for interesting reading. Here's something contained within it ...

"Self-Defense Against Assault
It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend himself or herself from attack if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer bodily injury. In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury.

It is lawful for a person who has grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that great bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon another to protect the victim from attack. In so doing, the person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent the injury. Deadly force is only considered reasonable to prevent great bodily injury or death.

NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal penalties."

Does your state offer anything similar in the way of generalized information regarding the relevant laws of your state?

LE can receive a lot of training in how to interpret statutory law and case law when it comes to investigating suspected violations of law, including ongoing in-service training to help them keep current with any statutory changes or new case law decisions affecting how they perform their enforcement responsibilities. How much of the general public may make the effort to stay as well informed is anybody's guess.

A career spent in LE work has often revealed that a lot of folks have a lot of different interpretations of what they think the law means ...

It's arguably a better idea to become acquainted with these things before finding out the hard way that everything you think you know is either wrong or doesn't apply how you think it does (or should) ... and not have to find this out during a criminal and/or civil court proceeding.

I don't practice law. I used to enforce it as a career in ONE state. That certainly didn't make me anything even remotely approaching being any sort of an 'expert' by any stretch of the imagination. Not even close.

I'd think questions of this sort might be better answered by sources other than public forums on the internet ... but that's just me.

June 10, 2009, 08:49 PM
Read the book Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob it is a very good read on the subject

June 11, 2009, 09:35 AM

Words to live by.

Well said, sir.

June 11, 2009, 10:01 AM
This kind of question keeps the lawyers and prosecuters in business. "I" believe that a fight WILL result in great bodily injury. After all, we are not school children anymore, we are much heavier and stronger even if we remain otherwise sound.

Where I work, everyone is stocky as heck. I'm about 200lbs, and every last person I work with is 180 min, most over 200 lbs, and they handle steel all night. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what kind of damage WILL result from a fistfight there.

Out on the streets, same thing. Unlike the movies, people get teeth knocked out, noses, cheekbones, and jaws broken, eyes lost, etc. There's a very real risk of death - some teenagers killed an illegal immigrant not long ago nearby in a fight. Do you want to risk getting knocked out - unless we're professional boxers its quite likely we could go down in 1 punch - and your attacker getting to your wife and kids? Even if I didn't, why should I suffer a nasty beating because of someone else's felonious behaviour?

Nope, not I. Draw, warn, and then fire if necessary. Holster and walk away, and call an attorney. So my response to the OP is "whenever you are in fear of being assaulted (which will of course result in serious injury at the least) and may not retreat safely"

June 11, 2009, 11:58 AM
"What I did do was produce from my side a very loaded 45 kimber auto with a laser site which I promptly set right on his chest.

"I yelled at him to back up and get down on his stomach and interloch his hands behind the back of his head. Obviously he knew the routine and complied."

What if he hadn't complied, but instead commenced walking away?

Art Eatman
June 11, 2009, 12:24 PM
dapster, if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his rump every time he jumps. We can play "What if?" until the Devil goes to selling ice cubes.

However, if the threat is ended, the need for deadly force is likely ended, as well.

June 11, 2009, 12:38 PM
What if you dropped the santimonious tone?

Clearly if the threat is over, deadly force is not justified. But, given the heat of the moment I think it's interesting to consider one's reaction to the "perp" not following commands.

June 11, 2009, 01:36 PM

The only command you are legally authorized to back up with the threat of violence is for your assailant to come no closer. You are no more legally authorized to hold someone at gunpoint and prevent their retreat than you are to demand their wallet. Simply put, if the immediate threat has been deflected, there is no further lawful use of your firearm.

June 11, 2009, 03:16 PM

Well said, thank you.

June 11, 2009, 03:55 PM
But, given the heat of the moment I think it's interesting to consider one's reaction to the "perp" not following commands.


In the respect of learning whether that 'reaction' land's one in county jail or state prison, or turns them into a debtor after they lose a civil suit, or worse?

Acting in 'the heat of the moment' without some knowledge of what's allowed by law (statutory or case) ... and the ability to effectively make proper decisions under stress using that knowledge ... can potentially change the course of someone's life for the worse, or risk ending it prematurely.

Knowledge, combined with some training in how to apply that knowledge within variable circumstances, can potentially be useful.

Unfortunately, people don't always make the right decisions, even if they have received some knowledge and training. Hence, even someone who has been trained and sworn to work as LE can sometimes make the wrong decision 'in the heat of the moment' and find themselves hearing those dreaded 5 words ... "Will the defendant please rise?"

If more of the public had the opportunity to experience something like FATS training they might have their eyes opened a little more about the decision making process as it occurs under stress. You can sometimes hear of folks who have done this while attending a citizen's academy, for example.

I remember reading about how an attorney was invited to experience some FATS training with a local PD. Unfortunately, he discovered to his dismay that he made the wrong decision and 'shot' someone in a FATS scenario who should not have been shot.

Training to make difficult decisions correctly under stressful situations isn't as easy as some folks might think, even if you have an understanding of the required knowledge.

Decisions made under stress may be carefully examined afterward and judged at the leisure of someone else ...

June 16, 2009, 09:12 AM
A perfect example of how an unarmed man can kill you and leave your loved ones at your killers mercy


Print this page Close
Man accused in fatal assault indicted Monday
By Valerie Lough
Staff Writer
8:29 AM Tuesday, June 16, 2009

SPRINGFIELD — A man accused of hitting and killing another man was indicted by a Clark County grand jury Monday, June 15.

Khristerpher E. Robinson, 45, of 135 Omega St., was indicted on charges of voluntary manslaughter and robbery, according to court records.

He is accused of killing Warren S. Williams, 36, of 5584 Ridgewood Road June 2.

The two men allegedly had a confrontation in which Robinson hit Williams, who was reportedly knocked unconscious.

Robinson allegedly hit a woman who was with Williams and took her purse.

Williams was taken to a Dayton hospital where he died days later.

Robinson is in Clark County Jail.

June 16, 2009, 01:09 PM
You can read all the various laws and case law decisions in the world and still not find a definitive answer. The exact same actions in one jurisdiction will be ruled justified and in the next county over the person may very well be arrested and prosecuted. It is all up to the prosecutor(s) of your particular jurisdiction. Perhaps the best advice I can give is trying to get a feel for the elected prosecutor in your area.

June 16, 2009, 07:20 PM
That is the reality of it. I was prosecuted in NW Wisconsin for murder when 3 men broke into my home. There is no castle doctrine here. The prosecutor charged me where in the next county I may not have been. A judge exonerated me. I feel I acted reasonably but the prosecutor chose I didn't. A prosecutor can charge anyone with a crime. It just comes down to lawyers arguing their truths.

June 16, 2009, 07:28 PM
My last CHL class had a cop explain the use of deadly force. He said that regardless of whether you are a cop or a civilian that use of deadly force is used when you are in fear for your life.

Sorry, for the run on senctence. I goto go do my errands now.

June 16, 2009, 09:45 PM
Prisons across America have many people who feared for their life and then injured or killed someone and went to prison. If a prosecutor does not believe self defense was justified he will throw the "would a reasonable person have feared for their life" into the mix. Some lawyers could sell ice cubes to eskimos and I would hate to have my freedom threatened based on the arbitrary and capricious whims of some prosecutor looking to make a name for themself. Most prosecutors are good folk but there are some who's decisions are infleunced far to much by politics (gun control). I have never had to shoot/kill anyone and I hope I never have to make that decision. First, I have no desire to shoot/kill anyone. Second, once that trigger is pulled the decisions or right/wrong or proper is out of your hands from that point on. It sure gets twisted out there!

June 16, 2009, 10:11 PM
For myself, I have to use a ROE (Rules of Engaement). I'm 25 years old, 6ft tall, 240lbs, fairly strong, a veteran, and trained killer. I also happened to be white which automatically pits me at a disadvantage against any assialant not of my skin color (God Bless America). With out a verifiable proof of intent to harm or kill, I would not stand up well in the courts if I discharged a firearm on an assaliant. I recognize this unfortunete truth so therefore, I created my own personal ROE based on my characteristics which, if followed as planned, should keep me out of hot water. Just because some one bucks up on me doesn't mean I can pull my weapon. My first rule is to difuse through diplomatic means....even if I have to swallow my pride. I'm even willing to go so far as to by the man a drink if it will divert a conflict. My next step is to inform the aggressor that I am armed and capable. Then, if that don't work, I show them. If that don't work, I will aim for the lower portion of the leg (below the knee) and hopefully I will miss an artery. I carry FMJ's only, my goal is to use the least amount of force neccesary to difuse the situation. I stay away from JHPs since they have a better chance of actually killing an unarmored target.

I skip the warning shot for obivous reasons. When engaged in a conflict, you are usually focused on the aggressor and are unaware of your surroundings. An intentional warning shot in the air or at the feet of the aggressor could bounce and hit a bystandard.....that is unacceptable for more since I know how to use a weapon. So, I skip the warning shot. Plus, if a springfield XD-45 in your face isn't enough motivation to stop, then a warning shot will probably not have any effect either.

To my credit, outside of combat, I have never needed to brandish a sidearm. I hope it stays that way too.

Everyone needs to develope their own method. One that they could live with if they were ever forced to carry out the full action.

If you enjoyed reading about "When Are You Justified in Using Deadly Force Against an Unarmed Assailant?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!