Pulling a gun on a unarmed assailant?

Kleanbore · Dec 28, 2015

Posted by Evil-Twin:

His physical presents by itself constitutes a threat of physical harm...

Actually, his physical presence alone would not constitute a threat of any kind.

And remember, when it comes to what you do with that gun of yours, it's not a "threat of physical harm". What matters is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Consider ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion.

.... the bad guy figures he can intimidate me to the point of a knock out punch, ( by itself could cause me a heart attack )

The definition of deadly force--for purposes of evaluating whether he has the ability--is not about what it could do. The operative phrase is "substantial risk."

All I am saying is if I reveal my weapon to this guy, even with my hand on it.... it could be enough to dissuade further confrontation.

That, of course, is true.

It could also be enough to get you jailed, or even shot in lawful self defense.

I may have the right at this point to protect myself, but why go through the grief of shooting someone if the reveal would drive him away or back off, or think twice.

One more time (!), if you do not have the justification for defending yourself with deadly force, you do not have the right to threaten deadly force--to reveal your firearm to deter him. The fact that pointing your gun does not constitute the use of deadly force per se is not relevant.

A few states do differ, with a lower threshold for justification.

All of this has been dicussed at quite some length here. Is it that you have not yet understand it , or that you would prefer it to be different and think that saying so should change things?

Remember I am not menacing him.. he is menacing me.

That would be determined by others, after the fact.

I am now an old guy with a weapon. A much different situation. for the bad guy.

The "bad guy" just might be what you are judged to be.

Sam1911 · Dec 28, 2015

Bill, what you're describing doing is a assault in most states. It is showing someone that you are armed as a way of dissuading them from their current course of action. Doesn't have to be pointing at them. Doesn't have to be a big motion or something overt. Pulling back you coat could be such a an act. Putting your hand on the gun would almost certainly be so. Everyone knows exactly what that movement means and precisely why a person would do that under the circumstances you described. This is using an unspoken threat to make someone do something. (So we aren't talking about showing your cool gun off to your pals, here, or drawing it to clean it in your own home.)

THAT ACT MAY BE THE RIGHT ONE, THE BEST ONE. It may be perfectly justifiable under the law because of the articulable threatening actions of that other man toward you which lead you to believe his is able to, and GOING TO hurt you.

What Kleanbore is saying is that a lot of people feel they can use a flash of a gun to ward off folks who make them nervous, make them uncomfortable, scare them, say threatening things, get too close, and so forth. (Like, "See this gun? I wouldn't want to have to use it on you...you'd best be moving on, there, pal!" -- spoken or unspoken.)

If that person hasn't done something that rises to the point of an unlawful act against you, then you have no legal justification for what you just did. The gap between when you'd be justified in showing your gun to someone to ward them off and when you'd be justified in SHOOTING them is not a large one. In fact, in some states it could be almost nonexistent.

That's what Kleanbore's saying.

Evil-Twin · Dec 28, 2015

ONE MORE TIME... NO one is defending themself....just choosing to show that I am armed by reveali8ng my weapon in a State that allows open carry... Again , I carry concealed by my choice. At anytime I can choose to open carry.

Because you are a Moderator here, it does not give you the authority to place judgment on something you obviously can not comprehend.. I've had to explain that revealing a concealed weapon does not constitute menace... Ive said more than once that there is no draw and no pointing a weapon. This is why I say you keep saying the same thing, and spout incorrect information about the mere reveal of a concealed weapon in an Open Carry State puts anyone in jeopardy.

Ive also made is as clear as possible that A once 70 year old frail potential victim in the eyes of a bad guy.. is now " With a legal reveal " is now a 70 year old man with a weapon. Showing open carry in an Open carry State will " NOT ".. put me in jeopardy. Showing my weapon in an open carry State to a menacing adversary will not put me in jeopardy. Revealing open carry ( I said Carry ) - not drawing or pointing ) is not in itself an action of jeopardy. I Have the right to carry concealed or at anytime change my carry to open. If I choose to change my carry from conceal to open when entering a Mall, that is my choice. If I choose to change my conceal carry to open carry in a situation that I consider to be more appropriate , I can...

The One thing that concerns me here in this forum, is that some people tend to put the fear of the legal system into people who might otherwise be more concerned about the protection of themself and their family, instead of the repercussions of a legal defense and discharge of their weapon.

I also understand the Macho uneducated immature aspects of someone with a license to carry and not enough brains to keep it holstered. Being aware of repercussions is a good thing... but fearing the repercussions and winding up dead, or your wife being raped, because you were afraid to draw and fire because of civil or legal complications is promoted here way too much. Of course this is my opinion, from reading so much emphasis on the legal system...

It should be obvious to anyone that carries a weapon, that once discharged in self defense, their life will change forever. Whether they kill someone or not.

I took my first confirmed human life, May 13 1965.. and its with me everyday... 50 years later.

Evil-Twin · Dec 28, 2015

Sam1911 said:
Bill, what you're describing doing is a assault in most states. It is showing someone that you are armed as a way of dissuading them from their current course of action. Doesn't have to be pointing at them. Doesn't have to be a big motion or something overt. Pulling back you coat could be such a an act. Putting your hand on the gun would almost certainly be so. Everyone knows exactly what that movement means and precisely why a person would do that under the circumstances you described. This is using an unspoken threat to make someone do something. (So we aren't talking about showing your cool gun off to your pals, here, or drawing it to clean it in your own home.)

THAT ACT MAY BE THE RIGHT ONE, THE BEST ONE. It may be perfectly justifiable under the law because of the articulable threatening actions of that other man toward you which lead you to believe his is able to, and GOING TO hurt you.

What Kleanbore is saying is that a lot of people feel they can use a flash of a gun to ward off folks who make them nervous, make them uncomfortable, scare them, say threatening things, get too close, and so forth. (Like, "See this gun? I wouldn't want to have to use it on you...you'd best be moving on, there, pal!" -- spoken or unspoken.)

If that person hasn't done something that rises to the point of an unlawful act against you, then you have no legal justification for what you just did. The gap between when you'd be justified in showing your gun to someone to ward them off and when you'd be justified in SHOOTING them is not a large one. In fact, in some states it could be almost nonexistent.

That's what Kleanbore's saying.

Sam , thank you... my concern is that this forum ( THR ) is all about the law... people come here for advice. I'm a very seasoned veteran.. I promote civilian carry, I promote self protection, under the law. I train every week, even at 70 years old to keep my edge, my muscle memory, and also train on appropriate action.
My concern is that people might second guess what an appropriate action is.. because they might fear legal action even in a justifiable defense of their life. That second guessing might be the deference in life and death for the good guy.

I pocket carry, because in my experience over the years, it gives me a 1/2 step advantage over someone having to go for a weapon from a waist band holster. I like being able to put my hand in my pocket and around my Kimber, without telegraphing it. A gun in the hand is a 1/2 second faster than a gun in a holster. None of us can be responsible for someone's poor choice of fear of life. Its like that fact that some people " Think " because they are armed that they can provoke ( escalate or coerce someone into a life threatening attack ) just so they can shoot them ) Being armed does not make anyone a tough guy.. those who are armed and choose to be a tough guy because they are armed deserve anything they get.

Being armed is a last resort, being armed gives you a chance to survive, being armed does not insure your survival. Being armed allows you to walk in a more confident manner, which in itself can be a deterrent to an assault.

Just some thoughts of mine. still here after 22 months of combat, two armed civilian assaults and 70 years of life.,

Bill aka ET

Sam1911 · Dec 28, 2015

ONE MORE TIME... NO one is defending themself

Now hold on, Bill, don't be so quick to anger.

You actually said this:

All I am saying is if I reveal my weapon to this guy, even with my hand on it.... it could be enough to dissuade further confrontation.

If that's what you're talking about, then that is defending yourself by dissuading the bad guy from "further confrontation." How did you do it? By showing your gun to him. That is a deliberate act and it is an act which would be considered a form of assault in (almost?) every state. You're doing a deliberate thing to create an apprehension in another person and make them do, or not do, something.

It doesn't matter that the thing you are doing would be perfectly legal under other circumstances.

...just choosing to show that I am armed by reveali8ng my weapon in a State that allows open carry... Again , I carry concealed by my choice. At anytime I can choose to open carry.

You're being disingenuous to yourself, or us, or both. Your decision and action to "show that [you are] armed" is not a neutral act devoid of legal consequence. It is an act that is a recognizable threat.

Even little insects do this sort of thing and understand exactly WHY they're doing it. It is a force display, and whether you're a dung beetle or Bill the septuagenarian concealed carrying gentleman, you're doing it to force a reaction in someone else.

Forcing a reaction in someone else by display of a weapon is a felony crime and you can be sent to jail for it if you do not have a reason for that action which rises to the standard required by your state's law.

Period.

Because you are a Moderator here, it does not give you the authority to place judgment on something you obviously can not comprehend

Ahem. Stop with that poppycock. You are saying some things that are simply not true. You need to stop and listen, carefully, to what you're being told and understand the implications of those concepts. Stop telling others what you THINK the truth is.

.. I've had to explain that revealing a concealed weapon does not constitute menace...

Patently untrue. If it was true it could not possibly, "be enough to dissuade further confrontation." You are creating an awareness of danger in the other person's mind in order to make them do or not do something. That is the definition of a threat.

Ive said more than once that there is no draw and no pointing a weapon.

Irrelevant.

This is why I say you keep saying the same thing, and spout incorrect information about the mere reveal of a concealed weapon in an Open Carry State puts anyone in jeopardy.

This is easily demonstrated to be false by dint of the fact that people ARE put in jail for this sort of thing in any state you care to mention.

Sam1911 · Dec 28, 2015

Sam , thank you... my concern is that this forum ( THR ) is all about the law... people come here for advice. I'm a very seasoned veteran.. I promote civilian carry, I promote self protection, under the law. I train every week, even at 70 years old to keep my edge, my muscle memory, and also train on appropriate action.
My concern is that people might second guess what an appropriate action is.. because they might fear legal action even in a justifiable defense of their life. That second guessing might be the deference in life and death for the good guy.

Bill, I'm going to repeat myself from further up thread:

None of us here at THR is against the right of a private citizen to use lethal force to defend him or herself or their families against violence. Every one of us has spent great amounts of time preparing and practicing to use firearms (and blades, and OC, and hands and feet, and other stuff) in self-defense situations. We work for and vote for good, pro-self-defense laws and a society that respects those who choose to be ready for that terrible necessity.

None of us doubts any other member's desire to do the right thing, nor their willingness to employ weapons to protect life. (And certainly not their readiness to be "...judged by 12 rather than carried by 6." )

Our goal in all these discussions is to help our defense-minded friends here understand how the law works, and what things one needs to keep in mind when readying ones self for the possibility of killing another person out of gravest necessity.

Our goal is NOT to make anyone hesitate in the moment of NEED and thus fail to act. Our goal is to help folks walk this horribly risky path in the ways least likely to lead to legal and fiscal, as well as tactical, disaster. How to survive the shooting, and survive what comes after that, too.

Finding out how the law works AFTER you're eyeball deep in a criminal case is a terrible thing. We want to be prepared with knowledge and understanding, as well as with our guns and minds.

Evil-Twin · Dec 28, 2015

Quote:

I am now an old guy with a weapon. A much different situation. for the bad guy.
The "bad guy" just might be what you are judged to be.

All I can say is WOW..... because I am a licensed to carry old guy, IM the bad guy.
who are you ? Hillary... for all the good this forum does... its comments like yours that drive people away... you make is seem that carrying a weapon legally and using it makes them the bad guy... This is why comment like this are a very big concern of mine.

I try to educate people on their right to carry and defend themself, and you tear that down by saying things like carrying makes me the bad guy. time to back off this forum again...

Frank Ettin · Dec 28, 2015

Evil-Twin said:
...All I can say is WOW..... because I am a licensed to carry old guy, IM the bad guy.
who are you ? Hillary... for all the good this forum does... its comments like yours that drive people away......

From an article in today's Wall Street Journal on open carry in Texas:

...In Colorado Springs, Colorado, where open carry is legal, a woman called 911 in October to report seeing a man armed with a rifle.

According to 911 audio recordings released by the Colorado Springs Police Department, the dispatcher informed the woman that Colorado is an open carry state. According to police, the dispatcher subsequently designated the call as one that didn’t involve an imminent life threat. Shortly afterward, the man shot and killed three people before dying in a shootout with police.

denton · Dec 28, 2015

A few states do differ, with a lower threshold for justification.

What you have said is correct to the best of my knowledge. The folklore here is that in some states if your firearm even just "prints" through your shirt, it can be construed as brandishing or presenting a firearm, and you can go to jail. Here are the relevant parts of our code:

(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Dangerous weapon" means an item that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. The following factors shall be used in determining whether an item, object, or thing is a dangerous weapon:
(i) the character of the instrument, object, or thing;
(ii) the character of the wound produced, if any; and
(iii) the manner in which the instrument, object, or thing was exhibited or used.

(b) "Threatening manner" does not include:
(i) the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening; or
(ii) informing another of the actor's possession of a deadly weapon in order to prevent what the actor reasonably perceives as a possible use of unlawful force by the other and the actor is not engaged in any activity described in Subsection 76-2-402(2)(a).

(2) Except as otherwise provided in Section 76-2-402 and for those persons described in Section 76-10-503, a person who, in the presence of two or more persons, and not amounting to a violation of Section 76-5-103, draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon in an angry and threatening manner or unlawfully uses a dangerous weapon in a fight or quarrel is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

(3) This section does not apply to a person who, reasonably believing the action to be necessary in compliance with Section 76-2-402, with purpose to prevent another's use of unlawful force:
(a) threatens the use of a dangerous weapon; or
(b) draws or exhibits a dangerous weapon.
(4) This section does not apply to a person listed in Subsections 76-10-523(1)(a) through (e) in performance of the person's duties.

I do not know of any state that is so protective of concealed carry permittees. Evil Twin, you may want to consider moving to Utah. I'll take you to the range.

In the meantime, listen to what the attorneys on the site have said. I know of a very sad case in Washington, where the driver of a Corvette mistakenly thought another driver was the same one who had cut him off earlier. The Corvette driver proceeded to play freeway footsie with him, nearly causing a couple of crashes. The driver being harassed pulled to the side of the road, and the Corvette pulled up after him. Both drivers exited their vehicles. The harassed driver had a 45 in his hand. He ended up with a felony conviction and actual jail time.

Sam1911 · Dec 28, 2015

All I can say is WOW..... because I am a licensed to carry old guy, IM the bad guy.

Good heavens. If you really think any of what we have said translates into that line of bunk ... the mind wobbles.

Being licensed to carry does NOT define anything about what you may lawfully DO with that firearm beyond wear it in your pocket or holster.

You aren't a bad guy (setting aside your claim to be the Evil Twin

) but things you may do -- that you THINK are perfectly within your rights -- may put you on the wrong side of the law. Some folks consider a felony conviction to be a sign of being ... well, a bad guy.

As I said before, displaying your gun, and even drawing and pointing it!, may be the right solution to a developing hostile situation. But if that situation doesn't involve the elements needed to justify your acts you could go to jail, even though you MEANT to be "the good guy."

you make is seem that carrying a weapon legally and using it makes them the bad guy..

Remember, if you THREATEN (directly or by implication), HURT, or KILL someone you HAVE broken the law. Period.

Now, once you've done that, other people will decide if the circumstances that lead to you deciding to do that met the state's requirements for justification so that your guilt can be set aside.

So, to a very real degree, we want people to understand that these are VERY BAD ACTS, crimes in fact, and if your justification for doing any of them isn't in line with the state's law of self-defense, you ARE what most of society will consider to be a BAD GUY. A law-breaker, a felon.

I try to educate people on their right to carry and defend themself, and you tear that down by saying things like carrying makes me the bad guy. time to back off this forum again...

Wow.

Deaf Smith · Dec 29, 2015

Evil,

It's actually very simple.

If you are in a situation where another person, or persons, do something to indicate they mean to do you harm (verbal threats, physicaly menacing, waving weapons, etc), are in position to be able to carry out their intentions (they can reach you somehow), and have the means to do it (bigger than you, faster, in numbers, armed, etc), then you are in mortal jeopardy, i.e. in 'fear of your life'.

Now in some states you may have to retreat if you can (but not Texas.)

The trick with self defense is you will have to be able to articulate your reasons for having done whatever you did to defend yourself. First to the cops, then maybe the Grand Jury.

There is where you need to tell the cops a) you are the good guy (victim) and the others are the bad guys, b) you will co-operate 100 percent with the cops, and c) you need to speak with your lawyer after you calm down first (and say it politely but firmly.)

Deaf

Kleanbore · Dec 29, 2015

Posted by Evil-Twin:

....just choosing to show that I am armed by reveali8ng my weapon in a State that allows open carry... Again , I carry concealed by my choice. At anytime I can choose to open carry.

If you truly believe that uncovering a concealed weapon for the purpose of showing it to someone is lawful because open carry is lawful, you are deluding yourself.

If you want to do that, go ahead. The consequences could be life altering and could even result in the loss of your life. But we cannot allow you to mislead others here.

I've had to explain that revealing a concealed weapon does not constitute menace...

Your "explanation" is not based on any kind of legal knowledge, and it would only be true if the person doing it were justified in what is in some places referred to as the defensive display of a weapon. It would have to be lawfully justified by the specific actions of another person.

All I can say is WOW..... because I am a licensed to carry old guy, IM the bad guy.

Don't be ridiculous.

If you do display your weapon unlawfully, you will be a "bad guy" (that is, a person suspected and perhaps charged with the commission of a crime), and if you are convicted, you will not only not be licensed to carry a weapon in the future, yo will not be permitted to possess one--for the rest of your life.

I try to educate people on their right to carry and defend themselves,....

Click to expand...

"Educate"??? It is patently clear that you lack the basic knowlwedge necessary for that.

Or maybe not. Perhaps you are just being argumentative.

Ether way, you are entirely wrong.

....and you tear that down by saying things like carrying makes me the bad guy.

No, not carrying. It would be the unlawful display of a weapon that would make you a "bad guy".

That could have very serious consequences.

Those could involve prosecution. Or perhaps getting shot.

JDoe · Dec 29, 2015

old lady new shooter said:
Here in California at that moment someone not a member of your household "unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence" you automatically get the presumption of having been in fear for your life.

Reading the rest of the Penal Code reveals that theoretically the homicide you committed will be found to be justifiable and you will be acquitted at trial. Your trial. After being arrested and charged and spending money you may or may not have on your defense.

Frank Ettin · Dec 29, 2015

JDoe said:
old lady new shooter said:

Here in California at that moment someone not a member of your household "unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence" you automatically get the presumption of having been in fear for your life.

Click to expand...

Reading the rest of the Penal Code reveals that theoretically the homicide you committed will be found to be justifiable and you will be acquitted at trial. Your trial. After being arrested and charged and spending money you may or may not have on your defense.

The self defense laws in California are fairly good and pretty consistent with the laws of other States. In fact, there's no duty to retreat in California, either in or away from your home.

Depending on what happened and how it happened one can wind up having to establish his justification at trial anywhere in the country.

This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.
Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.
Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.
And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.

george burns · Dec 29, 2015

Here is what I would have done, I would have gone back in my house and called the police. If I was attacked in the process, I would have drawn my pistol, and detained the man or men. If they continued the attack, I would have shot the attacker.
Being disabled, I can't afford to be pummeled do to a spinal disk laying against a nerve. I have been told that even a good hit from behind, "in a vehicle" could severe my spinal chord, causing me to be a paraplegic or quadriplegic, or worse, and I won't allow some idiot to render me into a vegetative state or death.
I would try and make this person aware of this before there was no recourse, but had he attacked me, I would have shot him in my home, having no other recourse.
If you feel your life is in immanent danger, you may shoot.

Coop45 · Dec 29, 2015

Andrew Branca has written a good book about self defense.

Kleanbore · Dec 29, 2015

Posted by george burns:

Here is what I would have done, I would have gone back in my house and called the police. If I was attacked in the process, I would have drawn my pistol, and detained the man or men. If they continued the attack, I would have shot the attacker.

First, the OP was not armed.

But suppose that he had been. Why would you have tried to detain him? What would you have done had he not wished to be detained?

Being disabled, I can't afford to be pummeled do to a spinal disk laying against a nerve. I have been told that even a good hit from behind, "in a vehicle" could severe my spinal chord, causing me to be a paraplegic or quadriplegic, or worse, and I won't allow some idiot to render me into a vegetative state or death.

To the extent that that may be true, if you could present evidence to the effect that you kew it at the time, that would be a very relevant fact should you end up in a defense of justification, either for displaying you handgun or for using it.

You need to get some credible and verifiable documentation of that fact and send it sealed to yourself by by registered mail, so that you would have evidence showing that the fact had been known to you beforehand.

If you feel your life is in immanent danger, you may shoot.

Not exactly. You should need to have a basis for reasonably believing that you face an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that you had no reasonable alternative.

...and that you had not brought about the situation.....

george burns · Dec 29, 2015

You can suppose a lot of things. You were not there. In this case neither was I. But in 45 years of carrying a gun, I have had 3 instances where I needed to use it, so I will go with my judgment rather than a backseat driver. One cost me a thousand dollars, the lawyer took it personally and refused payment of any further money.
There are a lot of opinion here that are just that, opinions. Each case is different. My feelings and someone else's are completely different, as far as what I perceive a threat to be.
In My 3d interview by the NYPD, the Sargent asked me if I knew when I could use my gun, I said yes I believe I do, when some ******* threatens my life, in a way that I feel that he may kill me, I can shoot him.
He turned to the other officer and said you see, Mr xxxx understands the use of deadly force.
So don't over complicate it, unless you are there you have no clue as to how this is going to go down, get written up, or play out. All you seem to be doing is confusing the issue. And when the time comes that you are going to need your gun, unless you really should never have had one, you will know there is no other option, if not, then you screwed up, and that's going to happen from time to time, it's not a perfect world, and your nitpicking way at every word that someone says is not going to mean didly squat when a decision has to be made in a second, all you are doing is instilling doubt in peoples minds which can get them killed.

Kleanbore · Dec 29, 2015

Posted by george burns:

My feelings and someone else's are completely different, as far as what I perceive a threat to be.

That may well be, and what others, including perhaps jurors, believe that what a reasonable person in your shoes would have believed in similar circumstances, knowing what you knew at the time, will be the ultimate determinant. That, of course, will depend quite a bit on the evidence that you are able to produce after the fact.

In My 3d interview by the NYPD, the Sargent asked me if I knew when I could use my gun, I said yes I believe I do, when some ******* threatens my life, in a way that I feel that he may kill me, I can shoot him.
He turned to the other officer and said you see, Mr xxxx understands the use of deadly force.

What a police sergeant may have told you does not prove anything.

And what you "feel" will not be sufficient to support a defense of justification. What will matter is what you had a basis for reasonably believing.

Also, "may kill me" won't cut it.

All you seem to be doing is confusing the issue.

Not at all. If it confuses you, you have some homework to do.

A very good place to start is with Frank's Post #63 and the links therein.

...your nitpicking way at every word that someone says...

That "nitpicking" is provided because clarification is clearly needed.

...is not going to mean didly squat when a decision has to be made in a second, all you are doing is instilling doubt in peoples minds which can get them killed.

On that, read Sam's words in Post #85 and repeated in Post #106.

old lady new shooter · Dec 29, 2015

JDoe said:
Reading the rest of the Penal Code reveals that theoretically the homicide you committed will be found to be justifiable and you will be acquitted at trial. Your trial. After being arrested and charged and spending money you may or may not have on your defense.

First of all, there is now insurance for gun owners that covers the cost of legal defense.

Secondly, and Frank can correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK a trial is not mandatory, the government decides whether to pursue a case depending on their assessment of the odds of winning. Why would they pursue a case where some guy breaks into the home of an old lady with physical issues and she shoots him, given that she not only has that section of the penal code supporting her action but additionally the physical disparity?

Regardless of the answer to my second point, I'd way rather be alive and stand trial than be dead because I worried about the remote chance of being prosecuted for an action the law clearly allows.

chipcom · Dec 29, 2015

Best advice I can give to the OP and others that are overly-dependent on their firearm for protection is to

a. Work on your situational awareness and "planning for Murphy" skills.

b. Work on your hand-to-hand combat skills

c. Bone up on the identification and use of weapons of opportunity.

old lady new shooter · Dec 29, 2015

Frank Ettin said:
The self defense laws in California are fairly good and pretty consistent with the laws of other States. In fact, there's no duty to retreat in California, either in or away from your home.

Depending on what happened and how it happened one can wind up having to establish his justification at trial anywhere in the country.

This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.

Do you have a theory as to why it took the government there two months to decide not to proceed? While it's true the intruder was known to the woman and the current boyfriend, the woman had a restraining order against the intruder. Was the issue that they thought maybe it was the CB who shot him? If the CB was not a resident of the home but only visiting the woman and had been the one who shot the intruder, would that not have qualified as a legitimate use of deadly force? Or would he have just lost the castle doctrine defense and therefore had to proceed as if the event took place anywhere?

Lord Teapot · Dec 29, 2015

he threatened to kill me and i felt he could carry out his threat, and that's my story. /end.

Kleanbore · Dec 29, 2015

Posted by Lord Teapot:

he threatened to kill me and i felt he could carry out his threat, and that's my story. /end.

Necessary, but not sufficient.

See Post #63 and the links therein.

F-111 John · Dec 29, 2015

Frank Ettin said:
The self defense laws in California are fairly good and pretty consistent with the laws of other States. In fact, there's no duty to retreat in California, either in or away from your home.

Depending on what happened and how it happened one can wind up having to establish his justification at trial anywhere in the country.

This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.

Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.

Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.

Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.

Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.

And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.

A living advertisement for one of those concealed carry insurance companies.

Pulling a gun on a unarmed assailant?

Moderator

Moderator Emeritus

member

member

Moderator Emeritus

Moderator Emeritus

member

Moderator

Member

Moderator Emeritus

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Similar threads