[coalman]

Recent coverage of (claimed) self-defense shootings got me thinking about how people may hold different views on the significance of being physically assaulted (e.g. getting beaten up), and what is and is not an appropriate response to stop it (when you don't know the outcome and/or when it will end). For example, for some people fighting and/or beating up another person (or getting beaten up) may be more commonplace and no big deal. And, the younger you are, especially for males, the less significant and/or more common it may be. Cultural norms around aggression may play a part making an assault more or less significant, even defining what an "assault" is. Even differences within the individual home environment may have an influence on views. Plus, there is the role of gender and how it may relate (e.g. male assaulting female vs. male assaulting male). It may even be(come) more significant as you get older and/or if you have always been (or become) less robust. For others, it's a huge deal always and regardless. See poll.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by coalman: Recent coverage of (claimed) self-defense shootings got me thinking about how people may hold different views the significance of being physically assaulted, and what is and is not an appropriate response to stop it. For example, for some people beating up another person may be common and no big deal. And, the younger you are, especially for males, the less of a big deal it may be. Culture may even play a part. Plus, there is the role of gender and how it may relate (e.g. male assaulting female vs. male assaulting male). For others, it's a huge deal always, and maybe even more so as you get older and/or become less robust. I'm not at all sure what you mean about the "views on the significance" of being physically assaulted or whether it is "common and no big deal" or "a huge deal".

On the question of "what is and is not an appropriate response to stop it", people may hold different views, but unless they become very conversant in the view of the law and conduct themselves accordingly, they run a real risk of failure in a defense of justification.

If your question is one of when deadly force may be justified in defense against an attacker who is not reasonably believed to possess a weapon, the commonly accepted constructs of a justifiable disparity of force are as follows:


Female defender, male attacker
Large attacker, significantly smaller defender
Fit attacker, infirm defender
Attacker known by the defender to possess superior fighting skills
Outnumbered defender


Even in such circumstances, a successful defense can be an uphill battle.

The old adage, "a single punch can kill", though very true, is not a defense.

Culture has nothing to do with it, and differing views don't really matter except (1) in discussions on the Internet by people who think that their view of the way things should be defines the way things are, and (2) in what leads to the critical decision of whether to use deadly force. That decision could be right, or it could be very wrong.

[Loosedhorse]

for some people beating up another person may be common and no big deal. And, the younger you are, especially for males, the less of a big deal it may be. Culture may even play a part. Plus, there is the role of gender and how it may relate (e.g. male assaulting female vs. male assaulting male).I think you have said everything right here. I don't think there is (or should be) a clear recipe for a "clean shoot". Circumstances of a SD shoot are as unique as the persons involved.

I have said before, I don't ever what to shoot someone in SD; but I am prepared to do so if I must. If I ever do, I sure don't want to say to a jury, "well, you see, I was legally justified in shooting him because..." I'd much rather say, "I had no choice: I was convinced that if I didn't fire, if I tried anything else, I would be killed or crippled in the next few moments, and here is why I was convinced of that:..."

In the end, we must convince either a prosecutor or a jury that we were justified. And we must realize that firing because we feel we were justified (or because we feel we had no choice) is not a perfect bar to being convicted; just as waiting "until the last moment" to shoot is no bar to being killed.

Still, (as Rory Miller puts it) we should be careful that we don't "train to go to jail" by deciding we'll shoot too soon. It's a very tough balance to hit; the only advantage we have as defenders is the famous recognition that "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife." And that is counter-balanced by a whole lot of disadvantages.

[we are not amused]

There is a difference between when two men square off for a fight, and when one is assaulted out of the blue.
Different states, have different laws, and more importantly, differing case law.

Still, an physical attack can be quite deadly, and I would have no problem using deadly force to stop such an attack if I felt my life or physical well being was threatened.

I would much rather explain it to a jury of twelve, than be carried by six. There is no point in not defending one's self, if one ends up dead or crippled because of it. Neither is there usually time or opportunity to ask the assaulter if he intends great bodily harm or if he just wants to leave a few bruises and take your wallet (and gun if he finds it).

[Owen Sparks]

A criminal assault is not a duel or a sporting event because you did not agree to perticipate. Therefore you have no moral obligation to fight fair or give your assailant a sporting chance. After all, more people are murdered with bare hands and feet than with rifles!

[Shoobee]

That's right, we briefly talked about all this before.

I remember Kleanbore's list.

Wasn't Goetz in NYC the poster child for this issue?

[Kleanbore]

Still, an physical attack can be quite deadly, and I would have no problem using deadly force to stop such an attack if I felt my life or physical well being was threatened. You may have no problem at the time, but how you "felt" is only part of what will determine whether others will have a problem with it after the fact.

I would much rather explain it to a jury of twelve, than be carried by six.You are assuming that you will have a favorable jury instruction that permits you to do that.

... more people are murdered with bare hands and feet than with rifles!That is completely irrelevant to the outcome of the aftermath, and it does not enter into established law in any way.

A very enlightening story on the subject of the disparity of force defense is that of Larry Hickey. Some salient points:


He was attacked by three unarmed people, and was losing consciousness before he drew and fired his firearm.
He was unable to escape.
He was charged, tried twice, spent the better part of three months in jail, and lost his personal fortune before he was finally released.
The fact that he was armed and the attackers were not was the main issue that caused the jurors to not acquit him
The tenor of some training material he had did not help in terms of determining mens rea; be careful about what you post on the Internet--it can have the same effect.
The attackers successfully pursued civil damages; remember that the burden of proof is much lower than in the criminal case.
This occurred in a "gun friendly" state with a "stand your ground" law.


See his sobering story here (http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey%20Booklet.pdf); bookmark and read it a couple of times.

Lest anyone assume otherwise, this is not the only case of this kind on recent record that should cause one to reconsider some of the simplistic views that we often see here on this subject. However, its enough reading for most people, and I'm not going to take the time to dredge up others.

[Cemo]

+1 on "We are not amused" response.

[Kleanbore]

Perhaps it would be helpful to take Post #2 and turn it around.

If you are a male, and you are not infirm, and if a person threatening you is not significantly larger or known by you to possess superior fighting skills, and you are not outnumbered, you would have little if any chance of prevailing in a defense of justification after having used deadly force against someone you did not have reason to believe to be armed.

Heck, it is unlikely that it would even be allowed to be treated as a self defense case.

And should that one unarmed attacker survive, which is likely, and testify that he had had no intention of killing you or inflicting crippling bodily harm or serious disfigurement, it would be your word against his in an already very bad situation.

[JR47]

And should that one unarmed attacker survive, which is likely, and testify that he had had no intention of killing you or inflicting crippling bodily harm or serious disfigurement, it would be your word against his in an already very bad situation.

Sorry, but that won't fly. If you are attacked without warning, you, as a reasonable and prudent man have absolutely no way of knowing to what ends the attacker will go to prevail. Truthfully, if the attacker weren't considering crippling you, at the minimum, how did he intend to prevail?

Forget the "possibility" of him being believed by a jury until after you have prevailed, by any means that you think necessary. To be quite honest, I have NEVER seen anyone claim such a thing that competent defense couldn't throw right back on the attacker.

You have no legal duty to be injured on the off chance that your attacker(s) might only want to deal you a minimal injury.

This is counter to logic, and case law.

[jcooper9099]

It is true that you can only judge an attacker's will by his or her actions. By attacking you they are asserting the intent to do you harm.

The circumstances are really what matters in any SD case. Blows that are likely to give a concussion are serious matters, but are part of a normal "fist fight". My personal view is do not participate in any exchanges of words when violence is an imminent threat, just avoid the situation. The person screaming at you looks foolish and will soon realize it and if they continue to violence your will not to participate needs to made clear. If you are hit with a punch, defend with a punch. If they are just yelling at you, let them yell and you can go home and laugh about it. If you can, just get away. You may have "stand your ground" on your side but think about if it is really worth it. Personally, I'd rather take a black eye than go on trial. I can always sue the person who gave me the black eye.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JR47: Sorry, but that [should that one unarmed attacker survive, which is likely, and testify that he had had no intention of killing you or inflicting crippling bodily harm or serious disfigurement, it would be your word against his in an already very bad situation] won't fly. If you are attacked without warning, you, as a reasonable and prudent man have absolutely no way of knowing to what ends the attacker will go to prevail.

Truthfully, if the attacker weren't considering crippling you, at the minimum, how did he intend to prevail?

Your not knowing what he will do does not justify the use of deadly force. Nor does what he might be considering justify the use of deadly force. Nor is it likely that anyone will buy the argument that an attacker cannot prevail in physical battery without crippling you.

Your obligation will be to provide at least some evidence on each of the following: (1) you reasonably believed that the attacker had the ability and the opportunity to kill you or cause serious bodily harm; (2) you reasonably believed that you were in imminent jeopardy of being killed or seriously injured; and (3) that you had no alternative other than the use of deadly force.

Your inability to support a basis for reasonable belief that the attacker had been armed and the absence of a demonstrable disparity of force will undermine your defense very seriously. That is established law.

What he may have been considering and what you reasonably believed that he intended to do are two different things. Your ability to convince a court that he had actually intended to kill you, cripple you, destroy an organ, or inflict serious permanent disfigurement would be very much weakened by testimony to the effect that he intended to twist your arm or knock you down and take your wallet.

Prerequisite to your trying to do so is a favorable jury instruction that sets up a self defense trial.

Forget the "possibility" of him being believed by a jury until after you have prevailed, by any means that you think necessary. "Whatever means you think necessary" would not cut it. Others will judge, on the basis of evidence provided by you, whether you had reason to believe that all the elements necessary to justify the force that you used were present, or whether the force that you used was excessive.

To be quite honest, I have NEVER seen anyone claim such a thing that competent defense couldn't throw right back on the attacker.I have no comment on that.

You have no legal duty to be injured on the off chance that your attacker(s) might only want to deal you a minimal injury.You have it backwards. You must be able to demonstrate a basis for a reasonable belief that the attacker would have undertaken to deal you a serious injury, that he had the ability to do so, and that you had no alternative to the action that you took.

This paper (http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=4710), written by an attorney for attorneys, is worth reading.

[Owen Sparks]

What some of you are not taking into consideration is the difference between voluntarily participating in a fight and being attacked without provocation.

Fighting is dangerous, even in a padded ring between highly conditioned athletes with rules, gloves and a referee. Even under those conditions there are several deaths every year in boxing. Outside on the pavement with no one to stop it after one fighter can no longer intelligently defend himself it can turn deadly. The pavement is after all a deadly weapon and it is really easy to use on a stunned victim. You cannot bet your life on the good intentions of your assailant to stop when he thinks you have had enough. Again, over TWICE as many people are murdered in the US each year with bare hands than with rifles.

Allowing a stranger to lay hands on you in malice can be a deadly mistake.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Owen Sparks: What some of you are not taking into consideration is the difference between voluntarily participating in a fight and being attacked without provocation. That has been brought up, but it is an important point. A self defense claim will not prevail in the event of mutual combat except under the rare circumstance in which the defendant can demonstrate rather convincingly that he or she attempted to break off combat and that the other party continued.

Again, over TWICE as many people are murdered in the US each year with bare hands than with rifles. And again, that is completely irrelevant to a defense of justification for the use of deadly force against an unarmed individual.

Allowing a stranger to lay hands on you in malice can be a deadly mistake.Unquestionably true, but for a fit male individual to resort to the use of deadly force, and in most jurisdictions even to the threat of deadly force, against an unarmed person can easily result in the loss of his fortune, his record, and his personal freedom.

There are alternatives, and it is a very good idea to avail oneself of one of them.

[Owen Sparks]

The average "fit male" has probably not been in a real fight since highschool and will become totaly unfit after just one good punch, kick in the crotch or thumb in the eye and will be at the mercy of the attacker.

Why should you have to play your attackers game?

[Shoobee]

I am coming back again over and over to my theory of shooting someone else in the foot first, and then backing away, so that he/they cannot follow you, very easily.

Never tried it, yet. But it is making more and more sense all the time.

I have stomped them on the foot, which made them limp really badly, and then backed away, and after that their attack was quickly over. Motorcycle boots work quite nicely for this.

[Loosedhorse]

will become totaly unfit after just one good punch, kick in the crotch or thumb in the eye and will be at the mercy of the attacker.
This is especially true if you get hit by a sucker punch--a completely unexpected, untelegraphed punch. After one of those, you could be completely unable to defend yourself--probably as good as dead.

So, in order to make sure you don't allow anyone to sucker punch you...you should shoot anyone who you don't think is about to attack you--because those are the folks that could really surprise you! ;)

Hey, do whatever you want; understand you will have to explain why you shot someone to a jury. If you think your explanation of, "Well, if I didn't shoot him, he could have possibly maybe killed me with a single punch, even if I had tried to block it or get away" will fly, no one can prevent you from trying it.

Two things I know: having a gun in a fight doesn't mean you can't get killed; and shooting someone in self-defense does not mean you can't be convicted. So I tend to spend more time figuring out how to stay out of fights than figuring whether I can shoot someone if I think he's going to punch me.I have stomped them on the foot, which made them limp really badly, and then backed away and after that their attack was quickly over.Since that worked...why exactly do you want to switch to shooting them?

[Odinforever2000]

Personally, If I've drawn my gun, shooting a person anywhere but center of mass doesn't make much sense.Shooting an assailant in the foot may look odd to a jury of your peers, especially since it means you had the extra time to consider at hat shot,which could lead to a jury not believing that you felt threatened.. I mean..you felt threatened enough to draw your gun and you "chose" to shoot at a their foot (smaller target to shoot and it moves)? On top of that fight or flight syndrome which removes all your fine motor skills would make that a difficult target. You also have to consider where your bullet may go after its struck that persons foot and the possibility if they died and you were nowhere to be found.

I personally have seen people miss at the 5 yrd line 15rnds on a standard torso target.

Basically..If you draw a gun is you must be willing to use it in a manner consistent with "self-defense".

[Odinforever2000]

I tend to spend more time figuring out how to stay out of fights than figuring whether I can shoot someone if I think he's going to punch me.

Exactly

[Cesiumsponge]

What we really have here are two schools of thought.

The first being a line of thought of what is acceptable, which has been established by experts, expert witnesses, case law and rulings, and various laws across the jurisdictions across the land which dates back to common law and the doctrine of the reasonable man. This is a good way to judge what is acceptable and what is unacceptable.

The other is personal opinion which can vary wildly. I can tell you one holds more water than the other in a court of law. I see a lot of people seem ready to bring lethal force into an assault situation on the basis of a remote "what if?" There are more levels of forces between pacifism and lethal force and you are lawfully bound to meet force on equal force, and articulate your actions are that of a reasonable and prudent individual. I would suggest folks educate themselves before making decisions in the real world. I've had this discussion in the past on THR and some folks earnestly believe they can shoot someone because they might get punched. I'm sure they've convinced themselves its okay to counter assault by escalating it to lethal force, but you'll have to convince police, a judge, and a jury. Luckily this line of thought holds little bearing with reality or we'd have justifiable shoots every time someone spilled a beer on someone or stepped on their toes.

You're not going to get hit by a completely untelegraphed sucker punch out of the blue with enough force to render you unconscious, from an assailant out of left field with no other precursors or evidence of conflict escalation unless you're completely oblivious to your surroundings and prancing about in condition white and meet with a subset of criminal that will simply jump into physical confrontation without "asking you nicely" first to avoid risk to their well-being. A criminal doesn't care about your safety but they don't particularly like to get unecessarily dirty or injured. That is a boogeyman and I hope your defense has more articulate exculpatory evidence. I've trained under one of the individuals who served on the defense team of the aforementioned Larry Hickey case, as well as talk with, and keep myself familiar with several well-known expert witnesses in the industry. I really suggest folks do some reading to get a better idea of the law as it exists, not as they perceive it exists. I had a lot of misconceptions too until I started realizing what I thought, and what is, are two different things.

[henschman]

The one and only question that matters when it comes to the application of deadly force in self defense is this: WAS THE DEFENDANT REASONABLY IN FEAR OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY AT THE TIME HE USED DEADLY FORCE?

Those lists of fact patterns are nothing but supposition. In reality, you have no idea how a jury will rule. You can be sure that they will not see any lists of the sort that Kleanbore posted. The only thing they will see is a statement of the law they are required to apply the facts to, and it will be more or less verbatim to the question I posed above.

The jury will be instructed that they can take into account all evidence presented at trial in answering that question. Naturally a good defense attorney will introduce evidence of any sort of disparity of gender, size, physical ability, etc., but none is legally required in order to successfully maintain this defense. A 280 lb. body builder who was attacked by a scrawny little 120 lb. punk can successfully assert self defense, as long as he shows that the attacker put him reasonably in fear death or serious bodily injury. The odds of that fact pattern occurring nonwithstanding, the bodybuilder is just as entitled to the defense as anyone if he proves its existence to the trier of fact (the jury).

Also, when a man is charged with a homicide, the only one who gets to decide whether it is "a self-defense case" is the Defendant. He has the right to claim any legal defenses that he wishes to the crime he is charged with, and to marshall any admissable evidence in his defense.

[Cesiumsponge]

The key points that people tend to ignore or gloss over are REASONABLE and AT THE TIME (or immediate). A frightening amount of folks I've interacted with simply believe all that is required is "a fear of".

[Kleanbore]

Posted by henschman: The one and only question that matters when it comes to the application of deadly force in self defense is this: WAS THE DEFENDANT REASONABLY IN FEAR OF DEATH OR SERIOUS BODILY INJURY AT THE TIME HE USED DEADLY FORCE?True fact. And that question will be decided by a jury on the basis of the evidence.

The operative word is reasonably. It has little to do with the threshold of trepidation of the defendant, and everything to do with what a reasonable person, knowing what the defendant knew at the time, would have believed.

Those lists of fact patterns are nothing but supposition. In reality, you have no idea how a jury will rule. You can be sure that they will not see any lists of the sort that Kleanbore posted. The only thing they will see is a statement of the law they are required to apply the facts to, and it will be more or less verbatim to the question I posed above. That is almost true. They will also hear expert witnesses explain how an attacker is likely to be able to cause death or serious bodily harm--or not. The list is a fairly reliable description of what may (yes, may) succeed. The jury, of course, will ultimately decide. But absent a weapon (or perhaps a furtive motion giving rise to the belief of the existence of a weapon) or clearly articulable indications of a disparity of force, the defendant's case will be questionable at best.

The jury will be instructed that they can take into account all evidence presented at trial in answering that question.True fact. But the defendant--and that is what he or she is, at that point--must introduce some evidence supporting a claim of self defense.

Naturally a good defense attorney will introduce evidence of any sort of disparity of gender, size, physical ability, etc., but none is legally required in order to successfully maintain this defense.The jury will have been instructed to decide, among other things, whether the defendant, knowing what he or she knew at the time, had been reasonable in believing that the alleged attacker had had the ability to cause death or serious bodily harm. That will boil down either to a weapon (an indisputable indication of such ability) or to disparity of force (often not so great).

A 280 lb. body builder who was attacked by a scrawny little 120 lb. punk can successfully assert self defense, as long as he shows that the attacker put him reasonably in fear death or serious bodily injury.Theoretically true, but fat chance, as they say.

The odds of that fact pattern occurring nonwithstanding, the bodybuilder is just as entitled to the defense as anyone if he proves its existence to the trier of fact (the jury).Of course, but the odds will likely enable one to predict the outcome rather well in most cases.

Also, when a man is charged with a homicide, the only one who gets to decide whether it is "a self-defense case" is the Defendant. He has the right to claim any legal defenses that he wishes to the crime he is charged with, and to marshall any admissable evidence in his defense.He has the right, provided that he presents sufficient evidence that he acted in self defense.

I am quite sure that the poster, as a criminal defense attorney, understands all of the above quite well.

[gpjoe]

I've been thinking about this in light of the Florida situation, and have been wondering:

A "legal expert" on one of the cable news channels said immediately after charges were filed in the case "Well, if Zimmerman started the fight and then found out he was losing, that doesn't justify the used of deadly force".

Well, we don't know what happened but imagine any person in a similar situation, armed, on a neighborhood watch, where he/she may have confronted someone and questioned them. Suppose that the person being questioned became agitated or frightened and attacked the armed individual. In this scenario the weapon has not yet been drawn and the attacker does not know about it. If the armed individual were indeed "losing the fight", could he not claim that he feared being disarmed and killed with his own gun?...does this not meet the requirement of fearing for one's life?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by gpjoe: If the armed individual were indeed "losing the fight", could he not claim that he feared being disarmed and killed with his own gun?...does this not meet the requirement of fearing for one's life?If you don't mind, lets take "losing the fight " out of the discussion and concentrate just on the lawful defender with a gun being overcome by unarmed attackers and fearing losing his firearm.

That's what happened in the Larry Hickey case, and whether any of us here think it reasonable or not, he was unable to gain acquittal in either of two trials.

Again, reasonable is the operative word, and someone else determines that.

[gpjoe]

That's what happened in the Larry Hickey case, and whether any of us here think it reasonable or not, he was unable to gain acquittal in either of two trials.

OK, now I'll do what I probably should have done already: go to the link in post #7 and read about the Hickey case. Thank you. :)

[Kleanbore]

I think that when many people consider subjects such as these, they see themselves on the proverbial white horse, wearing the proverbial white hat, able to provide the equivalent of a staged moment by moment evidentiary record of everything relevant that happened, and certain to be believed.

Thus, they cannot conceive of themselves as being regarded as anything other than the "good guy".

Let's dial back to reality:


Though it may not occur to the lawful defender, the authorities and the system routinely encounter cases in which criminal actors claim self defense, and their reaction to a claim of self defense may well be dubious at best.
The case will be judged only on the basis of such fragmentary evidence that can be brought forth after the event.
There is no reason for at all for anyone to believe that the actor, now a defendant in a criminal trial, is the "good guy".
In a trial involving the kind of scenario framed in this thread, the resounding accusation, which will not be arguable, will be "he shot an unarmed man".


I hope that provides some useful perspective.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Shoobee: I am coming back again over and over to my theory of shooting someone else in the foot first, and then backing away, so that he/they cannot follow you, very easily."Your theory" has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, which is whether oe when deadly force may be lawfully justifiable in the event that an individual is threatened by an unarmed robber.

It has been explained to you numerous times that shooting someone with a firearm constitutes the use of deadly force, period--regardless of where you intend to hit them.

Never tried it, yet.Good. Don't.

But it is making more and more sense all the time.No, it is not. No qualified SD trainers suggest it.

Here's what Lisa Steele says about it in her white paper for criminal lawyers on the NACDL website:

There are two problems with shooting to wound. The first is actually hitting the target. Under life-threatening stress, some trainers say that the client’s aim will be diminished by stress hormone affects on his or her fine muscle control and vision. Even if the client is an expert shot on the range, he or she may not be able to reliably duplicate that feat in a dim alleyway. As discussed above, there is a small reaction gap between deciding to fire and doing so. In that time, the torso can turn 180º; a hand, arm, or leg could move anywhere.

The second problem is over-penetration. The client is responsible for every shot fired. Bullets recommended for police work and self-defense are generally designed to reliably penetrate 12” of flesh covered with light clothing. Limbs and hands are much thinner. A bullet which strikes a limb or hand is likely to pass through with enough force to penetrate any standard building material behind the aggressor — which endangers the public at large.

No, it is not a good idea.

Let us not hear more of this nonsense.

[Zoogster]

It is very subjective.


What the law specifically allows also is not guaranteed as what will be allowed if you find yourself in the same situation, because others involved may view things differently.

There is a lot of discretionary interpretation by various people involved in the legal process. From the perspective of investigators, police reports, whether charges are pursued, as well as what the incident is viewed as.

Critical key components can also be prevented from being mentioned in Court.

We had a great example of the Arizona man attacked in his own driveway by two women and a man who was never found not guilty after 2 trials in firearm and self defense friendly Arizona.
Being attacked and down on the ground getting hit by three people and still not determined justified in court when he drew and fired. Even with expert witnesses like Massad Ayoob, and a a lot of legal financial help from others for a good defense. Things most people won't have available to them.
There is very specific details of what happened in the process in a PDF and we talked about it before all this Zimmerman stuff happened.

One of the women was a known martial artist, known for fighting, liked to fight, quick to pick fights and initiated the attack. All that background was prevented from even being mentioned to the jury (not relevant in his decision to shoot.)
Expecting a jury to have all the facts is itself a big stretch, expecting them to see it your way is even more difficult.


A large portion of the public views a unarmed physical attack little different than a fight on the playground between kids or brothers getting into a fight at home. Where a bruise, black eye, or busted lip, and maybe a bruised ego is all that is the common result.
Ring fighting, from boxing to MMA and other popular sports reinforce this perspective. They have rules, referees, and participants don't have to worry about the other guy killing them or doing permanent damage once they are down or unconscious.
Stomping on someone's head is pretty common on the streets with gang members, but never happens in the ring.
You probably won't know it is a fight for your life until you are down and just don't wake back up. Until then it was 'just a fight'.

Jurors are more likely to have lived a life sheltered from real physical violence.
Probably have limited or no experience with violent streets, and won't have been in prison either. Most will not have had experience with the type of people that are capable of and willing to do serious damage in a matter of seconds with their bare hands.
This means they will see your use of a gun as what escalated it from a mere fight to a deadly encounter.
Like they would the kid that pulled a knife in a playground fight.


Inevitably this legal scenario does favor those able to be very effective with unarmed physical violence. Because they can succeed before a victim will be sure any legal justification for producing a gun has been met.

There is some exceptions, like when clearly outnumbered by multiple attackers demonstrated to be intent on harm (of course multiple attackers is also multiple witnesses that may claim a false version of events and paint you as the bad guy so you may still get charged.) Or women tend to get a break when they pull or use a firearm on a male aggressor in discretionary situations.
But if you are a man, don't expect the law to give you a break against any lone unarmed attacker, and maybe not even against several.

[JR47]

Case law is misleading when applied to different venues, as across the board. In many states, the outcome of a physical attack, unprovoked, upon a subject by three healthy males, is going to throw the onus of proof on the attackers.

While the police may initially not believe anyone, as the investigation proceeds, it will become obvious who was the attacker(s), and who was the victim.

Nothing about such actions is clear cut. The investigating officers, and the DA, may well have decided for personal, or political, reasons, that the subject who fought back violated some personal creed. They weren't there, and didn't witness the fight, it's immediate results, or even as it unfolded.

Just making absolute statements on-line may sound like legal advice. I had an attorney review this thread. His opinion, which holds the same weight as the posters, was that there is much more to be discussed before ANY advice given could possibly be useful. So...................

[Kleanbore]

Posted by JR47: While the police may initially not believe anyone, as the investigation proceeds, it will become obvious who was the attacker(s), and who was the victim. Maybe, maybe not--that will depend in large part upon witness testimony and upon other pieces of evidence that can be found and pieced together after the event.

But that is not the question at hand here. The question is, under what circumstances (again, as indicated by the evidence) might the use of deadly force by a lawful defender against unarmed attackers be determined to have been justifiable by the investigators, by the charging authority, and should it come to that, by the triers of fact.

The Larry Hickey case and several others that have been discussed here illustrate that it may be difficult for the defender to win against the charge, "he shot an unarmed man (or woman)".

[Owen Sparks]

Why do we even have laws?

Why not just let the bigger, stronger and most violent people have their way?
That is the way packs of wild animals behave. The strongest and meanest just take what they want from the others.

If some thug decides to use you for a punching bag should the law require you to play his game and not "cheat" by using a weapon?

[Frank Ettin]

...If some thug decides to use you for a punching bag should the law require you to play his game and not "cheat" by using a weapon?

Nonetheless:

[1] Our society frowns on one person intentionally hurting or killing another. It is generally a crime to do so.

[2] If you have intentionally hurt of killed another person (even if you will be claiming that you did so in self defense), you have prima facie (on the face of things) committed the elements of a crime. You have intentionally hurt or killed another human.

[3] Your act will initially be treated as a criminal act. It will be investigated as a crime. Evidence, both physical and witness (including any statement you give) will be collected and considered.

[4] Now our laws do recognize that there are circumstances in which it is justified to intentionally hurt or kill another. And the law defines certain elements that will need to be present for your act of violence to be found to be justified. Justification is a defense to the crime, so it is established that you were justified under the applicable legal standards, you will be exonerated of any criminal liability.

[5] The exact standards vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But in general, if the evidence shows that a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances and knowing what you knew would have concluded that lethal force was necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable immediate death or grave bodily injury to an innocent.

[6] If as a result of the investigation, the prosecutor concludes the the evidence he has shows that you met the legal standard for justification, you will not be prosecuted. But if that's not the case, you will be prosecuted.

[7] It may well be that you were justified, but the evidence didn't establish that. Now you will have to put on evidence establishing that you did meet the legal standard. The legal standard is a "reasonable person" standard, and if the jury agrees, you go home. If the jury does not agree, you will go to jail.

[Paladin38-40]

As a general rule deadly force can be used to stop an attack likely to cause death or great bodily harm. There is no statutory definition of great bodily harm. The generally accepted levels of injury are those injuries likely to cause broken bones, require stitches, cause permanent disability, permanent disfigurement, unconsciousness/concussion.

The encounter will be second guessed by the police, prosecutor (persecutor sometimes) , and perhaps a jury based on their perceptions of the "totality of the circumstances", colored by their preconceived biases and agendas.

Any "persecutor" can indict a dead pig for becoming a molded ham sandwich if they want to. Juries are a crap shoot, and the defender will not have a jury of their peers. All the defender can do at the time of the encounter is make a split-second decision based on their perception of competing harms and hope for the best.

[Owen Sparks]

The danger of an unarmed physical assault depends on two things; the skill of the attacker and his judgment to know when to quit. If your assailant is a stranger you do not know his intent or his potential and you can not bet your life that he will quit.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Owen Sparks: If your assailant is a stranger you do not know his intent or his potential and you can not bet your life that he will quit.That would seem to be true, but, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

That is, it has little if anything to do with the question of whether the use of deadly force by a fit male defender against an unarmed and fit male attacker of roughly the same size will be found to have been justified under the law.

That has been true for hundreds of years.

[Deanimator]

The bottom line is that it is 100% absolutely GUARANTEED that virtually everybody who tells you that you should be willing to take an unprovoked beating from a stranger can be counted on to NOT:


help with your medical bills
support you when you can't work (maybe for the rest of your life)
support your family if any
care for you if you cannot care for yourself


People talk about "internet tough guys", but the counterpoint is the "internet compassionate"... who only have "compassion" for violent aggressors. You can be sure that NONE of them is going to be there to change your diaper if you follow their advice and allow yourself to be beaten into a drooling vegetable.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Deanimator...virtually everybody who tells you that you should be willing to take an unprovoked beating from a stranger can...I do not know anyone who would do that.

You can be sure that NONE of them is going to be there to change your diaper if you follow their advice and allow yourself to be beaten into a drooling vegetable.How many will support your family while you are awaiting the result of a trial, or in prison?

Life is full of decisions. The decisionmaker will be a lot better off from the outset if he or she can make informed decisions.

Within the sometimes overlapping scopes of the Legal forum and ST&T, such decisions may involve a wide spectrum, such as


How to keep intruders out of the house
Where to go, and where not to go if it can be avoided, and when
Whether and how to carry a defensive weapon, and what to carry
Whether and how to carry a less than lethal defensive device, and what to carry
Whether to carry a cane
Where to park
With whom to train, and in what skills
How to make the best use of situational awareness
What to do in the event of an encounter with dangerous persons, including how to deescalate, when to draw, and when to use force of whatever kind when necessary
What to do afterward
And so on.


On this board, we try to educate people on such subjects.

The right decision for one person under one set of circumstances may not be the right person for someone else, even under the same circumstances.

On the subject of the discussion at hand, the gender, age, physical size, fitness of the defender, and the nature of the attack, will likely influence the uncertain outcome in what is almost guaranteed to be a most unpleasant aftermath, should it come to that.

And so might what the defender has stated before the event.

[Deanimator]

Posted by Deanimator...virtually everybody who tells you that you should be willing to take an unprovoked beating from a stranger can...
I do not know anyone who would do that.
I've seen it repeatedly, including explicit admonitions to "take your a** whuppin'", as if physical violence was some sort of every day, mundane occurrence. In their world, it might be. But not in mine.

Nobody's EVER going to convince me that the risk of a jury trial is worse than the risk of blindness, paralysis and death.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Deanimator: Nobody's EVER going to convince me that the risk of a jury trial is worse than the risk of blindness, paralysis and death.Is there something demonstrable about your condition and physique that would make the likelihood of the latter risk significantly higher for you than for the 'ordinary' healthy, fit, male defenders who have gone down that jury road and into prison over the years?

For me, the answer is yes, and I can prove it. For that reason, for me, I agree with your statement.

I would not want others to jump to the same conclusion for themselves without understanding the subject thoroughly.

[Jim K]

It is rarely mentioned in these discussions, but in a criminal trial, especially one in which self defense is offered as an affirmative defense, the court will take into consideration ALL of the actions of both parties, not just the action that resulted in the use of deadly force.

Contrary to what too many folks believe, "stand your ground" does not mean going about armed and looking for trouble, confronting or challenging "suspicious" persons, or deliberately placing oneself in situations where you believe you will be justified in using deadly force. Defending yourself against an attack that you in no way provoked is one thing; "going hunting", looking for someone to shoot, is quite another.

Jim

[Deanimator]

Is there something demonstrable about your condition and physique that would make the likelihood of the latter risk significantly higher for you than for the 'ordinary' healthy, fit, male defenders who have gone down that jury road and into prison over the years?
Yes:

54 years old
5'7 1/2" tall
overweight
two bad shoulders
diabetic

People have indeed told me to "just take that a** whuppin'". I have in turn told them what they could take.

[Frank Ettin]

...People have indeed told me to "just take that a** whuppin'"... The bottom line, however, is:

[1] It is a crime to intentionally hurt someone else -- unless your act of violence satisfies the applicable legal standards for the justified use of force in self defense.

[2] Wherever you are and whatever the legal standards for justifying the use of force in self defense, if you intentionally hurt someone and claim you were justified, you will need to be able to articulate why and how those standards were satisfied. If you can't, you'll bear the criminal penalty.

[Owen Sparks]

I fail to understand how being a fit healthy male can obligate you to perticipate in a fight that you do not want to be involved in.

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Owen Sparks: I fail to understand how being a fit healthy male can obligate you to perticipate in a fight that you do not want to be involved in.It does not.

[Frank Ettin]

I fail to understand how being a fit healthy male can obligate you to perticipate in a fight that you do not want to be involved in. Nothing requires you to participate in a fight you don't want. But you just might need to find ways to avoid the fight, other than shooting the other guy.

If you are healthy and fit, and the other fellow is not significant larger/stronger/fitter than you, as a practical matter you might have a good deal of trouble convincing a DA/grand jury/trial jury that a reasonable and prudent person could have concluded that shooting him was necessary to prevent him from immediately killing you. You'd of course be welcome to try, and we do know that unarmed combat can lead to the death of one participant.

But under the circumstances posited, making a convincing case that lethal force was justified will be a very tough sell.

[Owen Sparks]

Nothing requires you to participate in a fight you don't want.


Isn't that what this thread is about?

If some thug decides to wail on you but he is slim enough that you can't out run him what other option do you legally have?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Owen Sparks: If some thug decides to wail on you but he is slim enough that you can't out run him what other option do you legally have?I think it's a good idea to carry one of these (http://www.kimberamerica.com/pepperblaster).

[Loosedhorse]

The law (I think) does not seek to make it "perfectly safe" for a "law-abiding" person to get into an argument or angry exchange by allowing that person, as soon as it gets physical, to shoot his unarmed opponent. It instead does wish to discourage getting into (or failing to get out of) such pre-violence exchanges, by saying, "Yes, if you allow yourself to get into a fight, you may have to take a whooping, and press charges later. You will only be allowed to shoot if you were about to be predictably crippled or killed in the next moments." And we have evolved standards for that, which have to do with disparity of force (including for example a standing attacker who continues to kick an opponent after he goes down).

To the extent the counter-argument is "a jury should allow me to shoot an attacker rather than be exposed to any risk of death-by-punch", I think the "should" doesn't match what is. To the extent that the counter-argument is "I should have a legal alternative (other than taking a beating and pressing charges afterward) if I am attacked by someone using non-lethal force", well, that's why they make OC spray.

OC's not perfect, but it is more dependable and way cheaper than a jury trial.I think it's a good idea to carry one of these.I've tried out those pepper-blasters, and I think they may have less to offer than an old-fashoined OC spray can.

[Frank Ettin]

,,,If some thug decides to wail on you but he is slim enough that you can't out run him what other option do you legally have?looks like you'll need some less than lethal option -- pepper spray perhaps. Or maybe you had a chance to avoid getting yourself in that position in the first place. Avoidance is always the first line of defense.

But if you shoot him, you'll be going to jail, unless you could convince a jury that he was a credible lethal threat. Good luck.