crofrog
Member
NOTE: I'M NOT A LAWYER
Arresting someone is very dangerous and is in my humble opinion counter productive to my survival. Are there times I'd consider doing it, perhaps, but they are _very_ limited.
I'd always retreat if I have the option to do so safely, and that is in fact the way I've had duty to retreat explained to me before. You only have to retreat if retreating doesn't place you in further jeopardy.
To the point where a reasonable peer would feel that he was in threat of death or great bodily harm. The defining points for whether deadly force is usable are intent, ability and opportunity.
* Does he have the intent to cause death or GBH?
* Does he have the ability to cause death or GBH to you? This can be weapons or disparity of force such as him having multiple friends or the ability to harm you. With your back condition there is no longer a "fair" fight in the eye's of the law for you IMHO.
* Does he have the opportunity to cause death or GBH?
Agreed.
That's the way I see it.
I feel that with almost all self defense situations you are at the whim of the police, DA and jury.
You should _defiantly_ consult an attorney and I'd personally ask a cop or DA you can trust who they wouldn’t want to see in court and go talk to him, and find out how to contact him in the event of you defending yourself.
I believe there is something like the competing harms which does help put the law on your side.
Like I said I'd always retreat if safe to do so. Sure smiting the bad guy and standing your ground might feel good for your pride, but your wallet will surely suffer.
One thing that is relevant to keep in mind at all times. You have to win the fight to even begin to consider the post-fight. If I believe the safest way for me to win the fight is do something illegal, I will.
I'd like to go over the reasons you can use deadly force again and break it down to your situation.
Intent: By ramming your truck I feel he clearly showed an intent to cause you harm.
Ability: He was at the wheel of a deadly weapon. Combine this with the fact that your back injury leaves you more susceptible to damage from impacts; he has taken a situation that a normal fit male would be authorized to use deadly force in, and escalated it beyond a shadow of doubt.
He also stepped out of the car looking for a fight, considering a one on one fight could cause you more easily than most death or great bodily harm, I feel you where justified there as well.
Opportunity: He clearly was in a place where he could have caused death or great bodily harm.
If you would have killed him I personally feel it would have been justified. However remember what the first thing I said in this post was, I'm not a lawyer.
Chris
So, at what point, then, does a person who carries a concealed pistol have the right to make citizen's arrest?
Arresting someone is very dangerous and is in my humble opinion counter productive to my survival. Are there times I'd consider doing it, perhaps, but they are _very_ limited.
Thus motivation to stop the attack, and requiring one to exit the vehicle? To what extent does one have to "retreat"?
I'd always retreat if I have the option to do so safely, and that is in fact the way I've had duty to retreat explained to me before. You only have to retreat if retreating doesn't place you in further jeopardy.
To what extent does one have to permit subjection to risk of permanent bodily harm or death?
To the point where a reasonable peer would feel that he was in threat of death or great bodily harm. The defining points for whether deadly force is usable are intent, ability and opportunity.
* Does he have the intent to cause death or GBH?
* Does he have the ability to cause death or GBH to you? This can be weapons or disparity of force such as him having multiple friends or the ability to harm you. With your back condition there is no longer a "fair" fight in the eye's of the law for you IMHO.
* Does he have the opportunity to cause death or GBH?
Does an elderly man with a concealed weapon have a lower standard than a healthy, 21-year-old who is a 3rd degree Black belt in TKD, and who has a concealed weapon? Yes.
Agreed.
The age and physical ability w/o the weapon still weighs. If he looses the weapon, the elderly man is dead. The young healthy man still has his TKD, youth and health.
That's the way I see it.
The answer, it seems, is not so simple. In fact, it is very cloudy and leaves one to the mercy of a prosecutor's whim.
I feel that with almost all self defense situations you are at the whim of the police, DA and jury.
Or, does the problem persist that I am not sufficiently informed as to the standard? We come back full circle to the need to ask an attorney what is the standard?
You should _defiantly_ consult an attorney and I'd personally ask a cop or DA you can trust who they wouldn’t want to see in court and go talk to him, and find out how to contact him in the event of you defending yourself.
One point is clear--that the state of Michigan considers his action to be a felony, means that the law, even if over-stepped to some degree on my part, would still be more on my side than on the side of the one who caused it.
I believe there is something like the competing harms which does help put the law on your side.
But, do two wrongs make a right? And is that the rationale behind the common law V. statute and the requirement to retreat where and when possible?
Like I said I'd always retreat if safe to do so. Sure smiting the bad guy and standing your ground might feel good for your pride, but your wallet will surely suffer.
One thing that is relevant to keep in mind at all times. You have to win the fight to even begin to consider the post-fight. If I believe the safest way for me to win the fight is do something illegal, I will.
I'd like to go over the reasons you can use deadly force again and break it down to your situation.
Intent: By ramming your truck I feel he clearly showed an intent to cause you harm.
Ability: He was at the wheel of a deadly weapon. Combine this with the fact that your back injury leaves you more susceptible to damage from impacts; he has taken a situation that a normal fit male would be authorized to use deadly force in, and escalated it beyond a shadow of doubt.
He also stepped out of the car looking for a fight, considering a one on one fight could cause you more easily than most death or great bodily harm, I feel you where justified there as well.
Opportunity: He clearly was in a place where he could have caused death or great bodily harm.
If you would have killed him I personally feel it would have been justified. However remember what the first thing I said in this post was, I'm not a lawyer.
Chris