CCW question. Is this justified?

[DerringerUser]

Im no CCW holder, because i live in California, and this is a question that always bothered me.

What if, you use lethal force to save your life from imminent danger, but the person trying to kill you has no control over the situation. For example, you remember that Weller guy in the Santa Monica market crash that was convicted? Ill bet a lot of you dont, but there was this old guy driving, and IMO he made an honest mistake and pressed the gas intead of the brake. He mowed down the marketplace and killed 10 people, injuring many more. He was convicted of manslaughter, but IMHO he was innocent.

Lets just say he was innocent, if you were a CCW holder and the car came straight at you, and you were about to die, would you be justified in shooting the driver to save your life, even though he was only making a mistake, and not purposfully trying to hurt you.

Another example would be if, uh, i dunno. Lets say a hunter thought you were a deer or something, and his gun was pointed straight at you, and his finger on the trigger. Would you be justified in shooting him to save your own life, even though he was not engaged in any criminal activities, and, it was nobody's fault, and you werent a willing participant. Do you see what im saying?

And BTW, don't criticize my awful comparisons, you get the point, and its the best i could do .

 

[Just_a_dude_with_a_gun]

shooting at a car speeding towards you would not be the answer, because you're not going really going to stop the car, and there is not indication as to why this car is headed your way. getting out of the way would be good though.

People accidentally lose control of their cars everyday, for innocent reasons, and yes sometimes people get hurt or killed as a result.

There is not, however, a reasonable explaination as to how a thug could accidentally jam a screwdriver between your ribs and holler "wallet and watch, mothergf&*$%r".

 

[Double Naught Spy]

In the scenarios described, the CCW person is being given the power of total situational awareness, something not present in the real world. How do you know the guy in the car is not purposefully trying to kill you? How do you know the hunter isn't trying to kill you?

As for the hunter incident, how can you imply that he wasn't even breaking any laws and that his attempt to shoot you was nobody's fault? Let's see, depending on the state, he might be considered criminally negligent in attempting to shoot you because he did NOT identify his target and hence did not know you were not a deer (unless maybe you were wearing a deer suit during hunting season, while out in the woods). Even if not criminally negligent, he was being careless, stupid, and he is at fault for not knowing his target.

Do you see what im saying?

 

[strambo]

The hypotheticals are irrelevant and only confuse the issue. In any situation if a reasonable person in your shoes would have felt in danger of serious bodily harm or death than deadly force is authorized. All use of force laws are written very similar to that. So the how's and why's of what made that person in fear for their life are irrelevant so long as they were "reasonable". That's why cops or citizens don't get convicted when they shoot idiots with replica pistols. Turns out the person didn't have a deadly force ability at all...but a reasonable person in that situation would have thought so.

True insanity is an affirmative defense for murder...yet you can certainly protect yourself from an insane individual trying to kill you. He is innocent by reason of insanity...yet you still retain your right to keep breathing nontheless.

 

[Guncrazy45]

The Justification of the Use of Lethal Force Is...

...at least in my state, that you reasonably fear that there is an immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured.

Yes, the wording of the law leaves you a bit too open to persecution (no, not a typo) by rabid district attorneys, but the motivations of the attacker are not important.

 

[hso]

If your best option is to shoot to protect yourself from death or grave bodily harm then you may be justified. But it seems improbable that shooting is your best option.

While I understand that you don't want your examples picked apart they are essential to bounding your question and bear examination. In both cases your best option probably isn't to shoot. Diving to the side or dropping to the ground would probably be more effective at protecting yourself. This would be the case in most accidental homicides. If you see that somenone is about to make such a fatal mistake you don't have any reasonable expectation that they will contintue to make the mistake once you dodge. You also know that your actions to get out of the way are faster than pulling a weapon or bringing a weapon to bear and firing.

It is not probable that the gun is the solution in the problem you pose.

 

[DerringerUser]

I see. Thanks for the info. And even though i told people to not make fun of my stupid comparisons, you get the point. If someone was making an hones mistake, like playing airsoft in a legit and legal way, but you thought they were real guns and you shot, even though what they were doing was completely legal. Or, if you were in danger for your life, but the person on the other side is not breaking any laws.

 

[strambo]

you thought they were real guns and you shot, even though what they were doing was completely legal. Or, if you were in danger for your life, but the person on the other side is not breaking any laws.

As long as another "reasonable" person would have been in fear for their life in that situation, technically you would be OK. That doesn't mean politics wouldn't have an effect and you could be prosecuted anyway and convicted. If you aren't convicted or charged criminally, the burden of proof in a civil trial is less.

 

[JohnKSa]

For what it's worth, TX penal code does not specifically include the intent of the attacker as a requirement for the use of deadly force by the defender.

However, I think a jury would take a dim view of someone shooting someone else to prevent what amounts to an accident unless the circumstances were truly egregious.

 

[Sawdust]

Im no CCW holder, because i live in California

Huh?

CCW permit is *very* possible in California.

Im no CCW holder, because i live in one of the counties in California with an unenlightened Sheriff

There, I fixed it for you.

Sawdust

 

[Waywatcher]

What if, you use lethal force to save your life from imminent danger, but the person trying to kill you has no control over the situation. For example, you remember that Weller guy in the Santa Monica market crash that was convicted? Ill bet a lot of you dont, but there was this old guy driving, and IMO he made an honest mistake and pressed the gas intead of the brake. He mowed down the marketplace and killed 10 people, injuring many more. He was convicted of manslaughter, but IMHO he was innocent.

Firing on him would not be the best option, but if it was the only one (for instance in an alley) it would be justified. IMHO he is 100% responsible for his actions, and got what he deserved.

 

[mrelijahgardner]

I think a better scenario might be if some kid had been at a party and had been slipped some drugs. He doesn't know what he's doing but he goes out on the street and charges you or a familly member with a weapon (bat, knife, gun, etc...) A justified shoot may be necessary.

You'd still have prosecution telling the jury about that he was just a kid and was innocent.

 

[ChristopherG]

I think it's an interesting question, and the correct answers given (i.e., you are justified in shooting to protect your life regardless of the criminal intent of the 'attacker') highlight the fact that we do NOT possess CCW in order to administer JUSTICE. Not our jobs. In the instances suggested, stopping the threat CLEARLY does not overlap with meting out due punishment.

Our right to CCW is only and exclusively about keeping our own sorry skins (or the sorry skins of others in our care and/or vicinity) together--which might steal some of our would-be thunder, I guess. But there it is.

 

[Sistema1927]

I will avoid the deficiencies of the hypotheticals, but will say this:

If you are required to first analyze the motivation behind every attack before acting, you will never defend yourself.

 

[Valkman]

That old guy made no honest mistake and that's why he's going down for many counts of vehicular manslaughter. After coming to rest with a corpse on his windshield he said "They should have gotten out of the way!" and has continued with that attitude ever since. It was totally his fault if for nothing else than driving with no skills left, but he's by no means innocent.

I doubt you'd have time to draw and fire as it would happen very fast and be totally unexpected. I'd think your first priority would be to move and find shelter.

 

[Geronimo45]

I don't think you'll be shooting at a car coming towards you. I don't know of any cars with a deadman's switch, and the car's got a lot of momentum, even if you take your foot off the gas.
You are not psychic. You can't tell whether the guy running towards you with a knife is doing it to cut that loose thread on your shirt or take a scientific sample of your liver. Act accordingly.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You are not psychic.

I knew you were going to post that.

 

[Geronimo45]

"I knew you were going to post that."
Witchcraft! Burn him at the stake!

 

[Jeff White]

One thing about shooting at cars, threat or not....Unless you're carrying a 90 mm recoil less rifle or an M72A3 LAW or two in a custom concealment rig, you don't have anything you'll reliably stop a car with. Perhaps if there was no escape as alast ditch effeort, but I would think that if the car had room to veer away after you shot the driver, that you would have room to maneuver.

Jeff

 

[kengrubb]

What if, you use lethal force to save your life from imminent danger, but the person trying to kill you has no control over the situation.

The standard to use deadly force is not the same as that which is required in criminal proceedings. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone intended to harm you is not required in order to shoot them. Immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

I agree with Jeff White's assessment about cars, but a 25mm cannon might be favorably inclined to induce a "stop effect" against the average automobile. Unless my kids were playing in the middle of the street, or some loon were driving up onto the sidewalk to run them down, or some other extremely extraordinary situation, I cannot think of many situations in which when faced with a charging automobile I would stand my ground and shoot as opposed to moving off the line of attack.