Shooting an unarmed man?

[Owen Sparks]

You see it in movies where some cowboy gets hung because he shot an unarmed man. But is that realistic? Suppose some thug twice your size and half your age simply wants to beat you unconcious?

Or maybe he is about the same size and age you are, but you just don't feel like fighting with a mugger. Are you supposed to give him a "sporting chance"?

Do you owe an assaiant a "fair fight" when he is the one who insists on fighting?

 

[General Geoff]

Long as he's a deadly threat, it doesn't matter if he's armed with a gun or bare hands.

 

[moi_self26]

I could be wrong, but I think that "disparity of force" is a federally accepted defense in such a case. (I could be wrong, it might be on a state to state basis).... but I know at least here in New Hampshire the disparities of force include

1)Force of Numbers (you are heavily outnumbered)
2)Able bodied vs. Disabled
3)Male vs. Female
4)Physical Size/Strength (your attacker is much bigger/stronger than you)
5) Known to be highly trained (you must KNOW for a fact that the person you are up against is highly trained in defense via. military, martial arts)

 

[Owen Sparks]

So if he is an even match you have to let him beat on you?

 

[moi_self26]

You don't have to let him beat you, you can defend yourself with equal force or flee..... but no, you are not allowed to use deadly force.

 

[kingpin008]

Long as he's a deadly threat, it doesn't matter if he's armed with a gun or bare hands.

This.

So if he is an even match you have to let him beat on you?

How is one to determine whether or not they're an "even match"? I certainly don't know what training or natural skill or drug-induced strength or hidden weapon the guy trying to attack me has. In most places, along with disparity of force, there is the issue of "did they stop when ordered to stop". Meaning, did the person persist in their aggressive actions even when warned away, and given the option to cease being a threat?

If you've done all you can to avoid a confrotation, attempted to de-escalate the situation, and/or finally warned the individual to quit or face violent force in return, there's not a whole lot left that can be argued against you if you are forced to use deadly force against another person.

In short, I guess the answer is - if there is a disparity or force, there is the ability to use deadly force. But even if it's a seemingly "even match", there is a finite line which once an agressor fails to comply and cease their aggressive actions, deadly force is also a legitimate option.

 

[george29]

You don't have to let him beat you, you can defend yourself with equal force or flee..... but no, you are not allowed to use deadly force.

Myth and completely untrue. A police officer is obligated to equal force or no more than the force necessary to subdue, whatever the situation requires. A civilian does not have that obligation. As for fleeing? Depends on the state laws for one. Yes, you ARE allowed deadly force when there is an objective opinion that deadly force was warranted. This objective opinion is reviewed by the subjectiveness of a jury or the D.A

 

[moi_self26]

Sadly, what it really boils down to is that ANYTIME you use lethal force, whether rightfully so or not...... you WILL be arrested, and more times than it should happen people have to defend those actions in court. Your actions will be judged by (how many comprise a jury 12?) random strangers. There are plenty of times you may well be justified in your mind, but can you trust that you will be in theirs? Using your gun should be your last resort.

 

[Owen Sparks]

After taking just one good punch in the eye or kick to the crotch, the largest, strongest man is no match for a twelve year old girl. Allowing ANYONE to put their hands on you in mallice can turn deadly. My 4 year old nephew totally incapacitated me for a good 60 seconds one time when he accidentaly hit me in the eye. How much more dangerous is a grown man who is intent on causing you bodily harm? One good shot and you are down. Then he is free to beat on you until HE decides when you have had enough.

 

[bang_bang]

If this man is in my home, I don't care if he is 3 foot tall and walks with a limp, he's probably going to get some lead thrown at him. In the dark, I can't tell if he has a gun in his pants or not, or even one laying on a table while he's throwing stuff about trying to find the goods. It's my right to protect myself, he's just outta luck. I'm a little guy anyways, so anyone 6 feet tall is cleanly looking over my head.

Jeff Cooper said some stuff that applies to this I think:

“Remember the first rule of gunfighting... ‘have a gun.’"

"Bushido is all very well in its way, but it is no match for a 30-06."

"The purpose of the pistol is to stop a fight that somebody else has started, almost always at very short range."

“The police cannot protect the citizen at this stage of our development, and they cannot even protect themselves in many cases. It is up to the private citizen to protect himself and his family, and this is not only acceptable, but mandatory.”

 

[Duke of Doubt]

State law varies. As a general thing, in my jurisdiction you are expected to avoid him, to retreat (though not from your own home) and to defend against non-deadly force using non-deadly force. In your home, you are privileged to use non-deadly force to eject him from the premises without causing serious injury after he refuses to leave (I've done exactly that, and used almost exactly those words to the responding officers after the assailant called them. The assailant, and not I, was arrested). However, if you reasonably fear imminent serious bodily harm in a situation you cannot retreat from and where you cannot reasonably eject the assailant who uses non-deadly force to inflict serious bodily harm from your home using non-deadly force yourself, you generally would be privileged to use deadly force to stop the attack in my jurisdiction. Meaning, if he sees the gun and stops his attack, you may not then legally shoot your assailant, even if he smirks at you and says he'll "see you later." That's when you call the police. If only so that when he and his buddies return to be disassembled, you will have a record of it for your defense.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

moi self26: "Sadly, what it really boils down to is that ANYTIME you use lethal force, whether rightfully so or not...... you WILL be arrested ..."

Nope.

 

[moi_self26]

Forgive me if I take the word of Massad Ayoob over yours.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Massad Ayoob, he of the abominable accursed ankle holsters, does not live in my town.

 

[moi_self26]

Owen Sparks:
After taking just one good punch in the eye or kick to the crotch, the largest, strongest man is no match for a twelve year old girl. Allowing ANYONE to put their hands on you in mallice can turn deadly. My 4 year old nephew totally incapacitated me for a good 60 seconds one time when he accidentaly hit me in the eye. How much more dangerous is a grown man who is intent on causing you bodily harm? One good shot and you are down. Then he is free to beat on you until HE decides when you have had enough.

I agree, and if I were on your jury, there is not a chance in hell that I would find you guilty..... but plenty of people would and have been convicted for situations just like that.

 

[bang_bang]

I agree, and if I were on your jury, there is not a chance in hell that I would find you guilty..... but plenty of people would and have been convicted for situations just like that.

I, for one, would rather take my chances going to prison than to be killed by gunfire, knife, or even his bare hands. After all, the situation of this unarmed man is vague, but lets see:

1) My house- dead BG, or at least a very scared and lucky one running away.

2) Public- if he doesn't comply to my orders to stop posing a threat and continues to feed the fire behind the fight, he might get it. I'm not going to get on the ground and brawl with a guy if I have a gun. What if he gets it?

I'll trust my instincts over Ayoob or whoever any day.

 

[Harold Mayo]

You're not necessarily arrested if you use deadly force. Take Ayoob's word, if you like, but it isn't a GUARANTEE that you will be arrested. It may be a likelihood, depending on jurisdiction and circumstances, but it isn't an absolute certainty.

 

[Rockwell1]

Forgive me if I take the word of Massad Ayoob over yours.

You say Massad Ayoob like Kim Darby said J.Noble Daggit.

Ayoob isn't God and he isn't always right. I suspect you could google up a hundred self defense cases in which no charges were filed in less than 5 minutes.

 

[moi_self26]

I, for one, would rather take my chances going to prison than to be killed by gunfire, knife, or even his bare hands. After all, the situation of this unarmed man is vague, but lets see:

1) My house- dead BG, or at least a very scared and lucky one running away.

2) Public- if he doesn't comply to my orders to stop posing a threat and continues to feed the fire behind the fight, he might get it. I'm not going to get on the ground and brawl with a guy if I have a gun. What if he gets it?

I'll trust my instincts over Ayoob or whoever any day.

I'm not disagreeing with you. If I honestly felt like my life was in jeopardy, to where using my gun was my only option, I would absolutely risk going to jail to save my life.

I am just pointing out that that IS a risk you take. The OP was asking whether or not there could be legal ramifications in that instance, and the answer is yes. Which is why lethal force should be a last resort.

 

[Jeff White]

moi self26: "Sadly, what it really boils down to is that ANYTIME you use lethal force, whether rightfully so or not...... you WILL be arrested ..."

Nope.

Duke of Doubt is right. I have first hand knowledge of three incidences where deadly force was used and the person who used it was not arrested. I personally investigated one of them.

In the first case a farm services company owner in Patoka, IL fired at three men who were stealing anhydrous ammonia from the tanks in his storage yard. Two of them were injured, one seriously. He was not arrested. Reports were filed with the states attorney and no charges were ever brought against hime, even though nothing in Illinois law gave him the legal right to shoot those people. The states attorney was sending a message that it was dangerous to steal anhydrous.

In the second case, a kid hopped up on meth began tearing up the satellite dish in an older man's yard then attempted to break the door door down. The man fired through the door several times with a .22 hitting the kid. The kid then proceeded to fight with the responding officers and had to be sprayed with OC to subdue him. It wasn't until then that it was discovered he was hit. The shooter was not arrested, no charges were ever brought against him and there was discussion at the PD about taking up a collection to buy him a .45.

The third incident happened when a fight between two drunken friends turned into a stabbing. Since the person who was stabbed chose to go into the bed room to continue the argument that had started earlier at another location after the other person had withdrawn, everyone including the states attorney saw it as self defense. I personally investigated that incident.

If you have to use deadly force it's always a good idea to prepare for the fact that there is a very good chance you will be arrested, that way you aren't totally shocked if it happens, but it's not always the case. But just because you aren't arrested at the scene, don't think you are free and clear, you still may be arrested later as the investigation progresses.

 

[Rockwell1]

Sadly, what it really boils down to is that ANYTIME you use lethal force, whether rightfully so or not...... you WILL be arrested,

That is a very absolute statement that has been proven false in the very recent past right here on this forum. I believe in a discussion about a drunk man who was shot attempting to enter a home in Colorado, no charges filed.

I think that's what people are taking exception to.

 

[moi_self26]

Forgive me, I DID misspeak..... I thought I said, and should have said.... you WILL face being arrested. I did not meant to assert it as an absolute, but rather that the police do have the right to arrest you, regardless of the situation, until they can verify 100% that you were within your rights to shoot the person.

 

[Rockwell1]

No worries

 

[Kind of Blued]

Forgive me if I take the word of Massad Ayoob over yours.

Type the following into a search engine:

"Self defense shooting no charges filed"

 

[rondog]

Any s.o.b. that attacks me is going to get fired on, whether he's armed or not. I'm too old and physically disavantaged to try and fight it out or run, I'm lucky to walk without a cane. That's WHY I have a CWP, to protect myself!