Do you owe a criminal assailant a fair fight?

[MechAg94]

One of the early tests of the CHL law and self defense in Texas was a case in Dallas. A man who was a delivery driver ended up bumping mirrors with another truck in traffic. He jumped out and started getting information down. The other guy got <irate> and started wailing on the guy. The guy was able to reach a pistol on his seat and shoot the man, killing him. His lawyer demonstrated that fists can cause "serious bodily injury" and justify deadly force in self defense. I think also the guy was holding him against his truck and he couldn't get away from him. Anyway, he got off as he should have.

So yes, you can legally shoot some guy who gets <irate> at you in traffic and attacks you. It is not the joke it sounds like. Just understand that you need to be sure of your situation and know that there are lots of witnesses in traffic. You are not necessarily required to retreat but it would be good to try.

 

[alsaqr]

According to the man who decides such things in the county where i live, i am entitled to shoot an unarmed attacker. This is a recent Lawton, OK case. This is Comanche county where i live. That big dumb kid was 17 years old.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071027_1__LAWTO58228

"LAWTON -- A state prosecutor cited Oklahoma's "Stand Your Ground" law in announcing that no charges would be filed against a man who shot and killed a teen who appeared to be a burglar.

Comanche County District Attorney Robert Schulte said he plans to take no action against Jeffrey David Dorrell, 40, who shot and killed Frederick Stuever, 17.

Dorrell arrived at his father's home Tuesday afternoon to find Stuever leaving the home with the family's property. The back door had been kicked in, and officials believe the teen was attempting to take things from the home.

Items belonging to the homeowner were later found in Stuever's vehicle, police said.

Dorrell, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, held Stuever at gunpoint while he called the police.

While on the phone with dispatchers, Dorrell ordered Stuever to lay on the ground until the police could come. When Stuever would not comply, Dorrell fired five shots in his direction, but did not hit Stuever.

Dorrell told police that he shot Stuever when the teen charged at him. Stuever died at the scene.

Schulte said under the "Stand Your Ground" law that went into effect on Nov. 1, 2006, Dorrell was within his rights under the law.

The law broadened self-defense rights by removing the requirement that a person who is attacked has a "duty to retreat" before turning to deadly force.

It specifies that people can use deadly force if they believe they are in danger in any place they have a legal right to be. It provides immunity from criminal charges and civil liability.

Three other people, unrelated to Stuever or Dorrell, witnessed the shooting and backed up Dorrell's account, Schulte said."

 

[Jeff White]

ConstitutionCowboy said;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmoline
Under the codes of most states, police officers ARE allowed to use deadly force to assert control and enforce the law in situations where you and I could not.

Would you post a couple of those codes for us to see? As far as I know or have ever been able to find, the police only carry arms for their self defense.

Cosmoline is right. The police carry arms to assist them in doing their job. In every state that I know of, the police can use whatever force is necessary to effect an arrest. Here is the Illinois law:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/7‑5) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑5)
Sec. 7‑5. Peace officer's use of force in making arrest. (a) A peace officer, or any person whom he has summoned or directed to assist him, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest.He is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.
(b) A peace officer making an arrest pursuant to an invalid warrant is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the warrant were valid, unless he knows that the warrant is invalid.
(Source: P.A. 84‑1426.)

A civilian cannot use force to make his or her point. If you tell someone to step out of your way and they don't, you cannot put your hands on them and move them out of your way without committing battery. Now we could come up with all kinds of extenuating circumstances when you could do that and not get charged, but the point I'm making is that everywhere I'm aware of peace officers are empowered to use whatever force is reasonably necessary to do their jobs. Private citizens are not.

ClickClickD'oh said;

Quote:
The law very rarely grants you such powers.

The law absolutely grants you that power in every incident. The legal use of force in self defense is base on your perception of the level of threat. If I feel my life is in danger, I get to use lethal force.

Close but no cigar...You may be very familiar with the inside of a jail cell if you don't add another paragraph. The law requires your belief that your life was in danger to be reasonable. That means other people, the police, the prosecutor and possibly the grand jury and a trial jury will all look at your statement that you were in fear for your life, and look at the circumstances and what witnesses say...and they, not you will decide if your fear for your life was reasonable or if it was just an excuse you made up because you lost your temper and shot someone you had an altercation with.

Most self defense situations are not the kind of situation that gets written up in the Armed Citizen column of your NRA Magazine. Most of them stem out of fights where it's not clear who the aggressor was.

This:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...4A76EC7A8B4CBFD386257384000FC138?OpenDocument

No charges in bar fight, prosecutors say
By Shane Anthony
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
10/30/2007

St. Charles — Prosecutors said Monday that charges aren't likely in a fight outside a bar that cost one man an eye.

St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney Jack Banas said the evidence in the case isn't strong enough to file charges against anyone. He said police have inconsistent statements from each side in the fight.

"There's no way we can go forward until we can corroborate which version happened that evening," Banas said.

The news disappointed Rubin Stephenson, 40, of St. Charles, who suffered skull fractures and lost sight in his left eye in the fight.

"What kind of people could do that to a human being?" he asked. "I mean, what if I would've died?"

Stephenson had told police he was attacked outside Rookies Bar and Grill, 3721 South New Town Boulevard, about 11 p.m. Feb. 10. Stephenson, who is black, said the attackers had used racial slurs during the incident.

Police determined the fight involved four people, including Stephenson and a friend. Police interviewed the two other men, who said they never used racial slurs, didn't start the fight and acted in self-defense.

Police have said Stephenson and his friend had been kicked out of the bar after causing a disturbance, but what happened outside is unclear.

Stephenson now has a prosthetic eye and says he has chronic headaches. He said his injuries have limited his work as a house painter.

He said he never found out who beat him up that night. "I pray for those guys, and hopefully, one day, the good Lord will soften their hearts and make them understand, you know, that you just can't do that," he said.

Banas said his office isn't necessarily refusing to press charges, but it would take more evidence.

"Unless and until they have some other witness that hasn't come forward to substantiate either side or either version, it kind of is just going to have to sit there."

The FBI began an investigation in March about whether the fight was racially motivated. Officials could not be reached for comment Monday about the status of the case.

[email protected] | 636-255-7209

Is more representative of a self defense situation the police and prosecutors see. This be it off duty officer or a private citizen is much more rare:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...524B86FFECA3C48386257384000FC0D0?OpenDocument

ST. LOUIS: Man accused of trying to rob off-duty officer

10/30/2007

Demeco Whitcomb, 18, was charged Monday with attempted robbery and armed criminal action, accused of being one of as many as five men who tried to rob an off-duty St. Louis police sergeant Sunday.

The sergeant, 49, was returning home from a store when a Dodge Neon with Illinois license plates pulled into his driveway on Jordan Street in Baden.

The passenger got out, holding a weapon in his right hand, and asked, "Can I get that?"

The sergeant pulled his gun and identified himself as a police officer. The robber pointed a 9mm pistol at the sergeant, and the sergeant fired. The suspect fled, limping as he ran across the street.

The officer fired several shots at the vehicle, and the driver quickly backed up, striking the officer's unmarked police vehicle before escaping.

Whitcomb, who had been shot, was located about an hour later at Emerson and Lilian avenues, when passengers in a black Oldsmobile flagged down an ambulance. He was treated and released at a hospital and sent off to jail.

It's very easy to talk in bold generalities about self defense issues. The problem is, almost none of them is clear cut and easy to understand. If you say things like people have been killed by bare hands before so any attack on me by someone with their fists gives me the right to use deadly force, you're not only wrong, but you're wrong in a way that is going to cost you and your family a lot of money for lawyers at the best and cost you your freedom at worst.

Jeff

 

[.cheese.]

what's technically legal is not always the smartest course of action.

Why? It's simple really: You know it's legal, and without witnesses who are paying close attention to the situation - that's where the legality ends. You've got either a dead guy who isn't going to talk for obvious reasons or a guy who is now seriously ticked off at you and is incentivized to lie about what happened.

It doesn't matter if deadly force is justified. We all know the laws, and given that we know 100% of the details we can talk about whether something is legal. It doesn't make it advisable though.

If you have a situation where you can get out of there, you do that.

An unarmed man is going to be a tough case. You might win, sure, because your actions may very well be legal. You might also get charged and convicted of crimes you technically didn't commit (or maybe you did depending upon your state and the exact situation), and spend a considerable amount of time in jail.

I choose to run like a whiny little girl if I can. My gun is there for times I'm sure I'm going to die otherwise.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

However, he is justified in using force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or such other person, or when he reasonably believes both that:
(1) Such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape; and
(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.

That deadly force is only authorized in the defense of life, or to prevent imminent great bodily harm, or the possible escape of a person who would cause death or great bodily harm unless arrested immediately. I still say the police only carry arms for defense. The police don't carry arms for intimidation.

That said, I realize we are sort of splitting hairs here, but the fact remains that arms are carried by the police for their self defense, same as We the People. As for preventing the escape of or the stopping of a dangerous individual bent on murder - like in a school classroom for instance - an armed citizen could and should act in the same manner as an officer of the law in the same situation. The only difference is that as a citizen, a "civilian" has the right; a citizen acting in the capacity of an officer of the law needs to have the power granted to him by law.

Woody

You can live free holding the stock and possibly never have to pull the trigger, or you can try to live free at the muzzle. I prefer to hold the stock and live free. Those at the muzzle never seem to fare quite so well. B.E.Wood

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

...and they, not you will decide if your fear for your life was reasonable or if it was just an excuse you made up because you lost your temper and shot someone you had an altercation with.

I'm working off the assumption that we are in fact discussing legitimate self defense, and not ways to come up with excuses to get away with committing a crime.

I have never met a person who was legitimately in fear of their life that had an inability to epxress that.

The problem is, almost none of them is clear cut and easy to understand. If you say things like people have been killed by bare hands before so any attack on me by someone with their fists gives me the right to use deadly force, you're not only wrong, but you're wrong in a way that is going to cost you and your family a lot of money for lawyers at the best and cost you your freedom at worst.

Okay then, this should be a simple question to answer then. At what point does a person attacking you with empty hands become a life threatening attack?

Is it when he spikes your head off the concrete?
Is it when he crushes your trachea?
Is it when he jabs a finger in your eye
Is it when he lands a blow on your temple and knocks you unconcious?
Is it when he gets a boot on your knee and cracks your knee cap?
Is it when he gets bored with fists and pulls out a knife?

At what point?

Now, while you are trying to decide that... Remember that your on the street counterpart is getting the ever living hell beat out of him because he hesitated to use his weapon when the time came... and is probably regretting taking the time to make the decision instead of acting properly. All of those answers were too late for you to defend yourself.

For as much as people on this webiste rag on Mall Ninjas, I'm pretty dumb founded by the apparent belief here that you guys can successfully defend yourselves against attackers of unknown ability, strength, and determination. You must all be Chuck Norris.

Me, on the other hand, know that the guy trying to take my head off probably isn't giving out Hallmark cards, surely is beyond the point of reasoning or avoiding, and hasn't been kind enough to notify me of his intents, or capabilities. Plan for the worst hope for the best, eh? Yeah, the worst is right there in front of me. You guys know what my plan is. I've begun to wonder what your guys plans are. Run? Are you faster than him? Hope he doesn't kill you and just leaves you a little mangled? Easter bunny intervention? Seriously You guys saying don't use a firearm, what is your plan?

 

[Jeff White]

The laws restricting the use of deadly force by a peace officer go back to the USSC decision Tennesee v. Garner in which the court decided that the use of deadly force against someone fleeing from arrest was an illegal seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Prior to that decision it was common practice for officers to shoot at fleeing felons, it didn't matter if they we violent felons or not. At the time of that decision felony theft in Illinois was stealing anything worth more then $150.00 I don't remember exactly when the law was changed to make the threshold for a felony $350.00 but it was while I was working as a police officer. The USSC established the standard of only using deadly force to stop a person fleeing from a forcible felony. That's where the law came from. Like it or not, the law empowers an officer to use whatever force is necessary to make an arrest up to and including deadly force under certain circumstances. Under the law the person who committed a forcible felony doesn't have to be resisting with deadly force. All a forcible felon has to do is run. Granted we don't see cases where deadly force is used on fleeing felons much at all any more, regardless if they committed a forcible felony, however, the law would allow an officer to use deadly force to stop their escape if they were simply running away. (2) is the key here:

(2) The person to be arrested has committed or attempted a forcible felony which involves the infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that he will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.

Note the word or. That means all of the other factors don't have to be present. Someone who committed or is attempting to commit a forcible felony doesn't have to be using deadly force to resist. all he has to do is attempt to escape and deadly force can legally be used to stop him.

Deadly force can be used to apprehend someone who has committed or attempted to commit any of these crimes:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=4700000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/2‑8) (from Ch. 38, par. 2‑8)
Sec. 2‑8. "Forcible felony". "Forcible felony" means treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnaping, kidnaping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(Source: P.A. 88‑277; 89‑428, eff. 12‑13‑95; 89‑462, eff. 5‑29‑96.)

But yes, we're splitting hairs because the possibility of civil suits have caused many agencies to have policies much more stringent on the use of deadly force then the law requires.

As for preventing the escape of or the stopping of a dangerous individual bent on murder - like in a school classroom for instance - an armed citizen could and should act in the same manner as an officer of the law in the same situation.

Did you get a telepathic ring with your CCW permit? How does an armed citizen know that an individual is intent on murder? How does an armed citizen know what is a forcible felony and what isn't?

Many states have laws about citizens arrest. In a lot of cases a private citizen has the same powers of arrest and the same power to use force as a peace officer. But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to jump into a situation you know nothing about.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/7‑6) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑6)
Sec. 7‑6. Private person's use of force in making arrest.
(a) A private person who makes, or assists another private person in making a lawful arrest is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if he were summoned or directed by a peace officer to make such arrest, except that he is justified in the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm only when he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another.
(b) A private person who is summoned or directed by a peace officer to assist in making an arrest which is unlawful, is justified in the use of any force which he would be justified in using if the arrest were lawful, unless he knows that the arrest is unlawful.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

You may note here that the Illinois law on citizens arrest doesn't allow a private citizen to use deadly force to stop a fleeing forcible felon. A private citizen is restricted to only using deadly force in defense of himself or another.

There are different laws about these issues in every state. It's best to know what you can and cannot legally do before you jump in and start enforcing the law.

Jeff

 

[The-Fly]

Once deadly force usage becomes ethical and legal, use as much as it as you need to. Thats why my primary house gun is my 18" 870, not my 45 or 9's.

 

[mons meg]

I would like avoid any contentious debate on how this applies to LEOs and provide Cosmoline with an example of state law that explicitly addresses his comments. It's not just "in Texas in your house after dark". From Oklahoma's recent "Stand Your Ground" legislation, (which modified our "Make my Day" law to include areas not on your own property):

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Most reasonable people would agree this is supposed to mean I don't have to go the ER just because a guy doesn't present a weapon. As was indicated previously, there is the case in Lawton, OK that went favorably for the CCW holder. There is also a case in Tulsa where the DA decided to indict a CCW holder who shot an unarmed attacker under circumstances that most folks seem to think indicated a clear disparity of force. So, pretty soon we should have some case law to help us determine "reasonableness".

 

[AZRickD]

If you want a test bed, go to England where using an umbrella to ward off attack is frowned upon.

Read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Violence...5876629?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193807312&sr=8-1

 

[novaDAK]

One thing to remember. We don't shoot to kill. We shoot to stop the attack. If the attacker happens to die in the process, so be it.

 

[.cheese.]

Most reasonable people would agree this is supposed to mean I don't have to go the ER just because a guy doesn't present a weapon.

I think there could be a fair amount of debate as to what constitutes "great bodily harm"

a black eye = I highly doubt it

a broken arm = still doubtful

a broken neck = yeah that would probably be getting warmer

your arms being ripped out of their sockets and eyes gouged out = you're safe to shoot as much as you need I'd imagine

then again, INAL.... yet

 

[Snapping Twig]

One punch, done correctly, CAN kill.

We can not read minds or know what is in someone's heart. When we are peaceably minding our own business and are attacked, we know one thing - the perp thinks they can beat us.

Will the beating end or will it continue? Will the perp be satisfied when we stop resisting or will they kill us? We can not know.


I firmly believe that if we feel our lives are endangered, the Constitution gives us the right to fight back with whatever we have at our disposal. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are guaranteed.

If the perp dies, then who's fault is that? You didn't seek him out, he attacked you.

Socialist B.S. not withstanding, I personally understand that it's better to be alive to face a courtroom than to be dead.

 

[REOIV]

I was always taught aim for center mass and shoot to kill.

End of story. Shooting out knee caps, or hands etc is movie BS.

If you feel you need to shoot someone, there are very few legal situations where you can shoot them as a means of persuading them to stop.

If you shoot to kill and they survive, great.

If you shoot to wound and knee cap them etc, expect a court case where they are suing you saying how much of a threat they didn't really pose. That you didn't try to kill them to save your life but only wound them. Obviously if your life was really in danger you would have tried to kill them not just wound them.

I know that if an attacker I perceive as a big enough threat to shoot was coming at me with a knife, gun, weapon etc I would take the best option to make them stop and that is shooting center mass most likely killing them in the process.

When it comes to weapons and the law, don't use them unless you're in danger of great bodily harm or of being killed. To do otherwise makes your life going forward a legal pain in the ass.

I've let people pound away at me and even land a sucker punch before smiling and asking them to calm down and think this over, because the level of threat they posed to me was so minor it wasn't worth really fighting them over. Yeah it hurts getting tagged in the eye, nose and jaw but when a guy hits you with all they can and you take it and smile they lose the will to fight. And I'd rather deal with a fight where the police aren't involved, everyone walks away and the only injuries are maybe some bruised egos and a couple of bruises to my chest, arms or face. Then all of us getting arrested, having to goto court or the hospital etc

Luckily for me I am 6'8" and 350lbs so all I really have to do to end most fights is just stand up and look down into people's eyes. Plus if I am drawing a weapon it means they are using a level of force most people would have already drawn anyways. If my attacker is under 180lbs and at or under 5'10" I'm not all that worried unless they pull a weapon, it takes a big strong guy for me to have an even fight.

I worked in a kennel where I would toss 100 to 120lb dogs in and out of runs and bath tubs all day. And flung hay bales one handed for fun when I worked with large mammals at the Tulsa Zoo. I know I can easily fling 100 lbs 10 feet 8 hours a day all day long.

Knowing that most people are rag dolls to people my size, if a guy as big as me picks a fight with you, I'd wager that a jury wouldn't really have an issue with you drawing a gun on them as running from them could be tough to do. There is a reason they have weight classes in boxing. Big guys hit harder and can take more punishment. So if you have a featherweight going against a heavyweight how fair could hand to hand really be in that situation?

The whole reason people invented weapons is to even things out. I know that If I saw a guy who was 7'8" and 550lbs (As big to me as I am to the average person) coming to pound on me I'd draw and shoot his ass, if needed, and pray to God .45 acp does the trick...

 

[Jeff White]

ClickClickD'oh said;

I have never met a person who was legitimately in fear of their life that had an inability to epxress that.

Never had to interview both parties involved, take statements from witnesses and try to sort out a fight where one party was severely injured or worse have you?

Okay then, this should be a simple question to answer then. At what point does a person attacking you with empty hands become a life threatening attack?

Is it when he spikes your head off the concrete?
Is it when he crushes your trachea?
Is it when he jabs a finger in your eye
Is it when he lands a blow on your temple and knocks you unconcious?
Is it when he gets a boot on your knee and cracks your knee cap?
Is it when he gets bored with fists and pulls out a knife?

At what point?

At the point where a reasonable person knowing the totality of the circumstances and what you knew and felt at the time of the altercation, agrees with you that you were in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm at the time you used deadly force.....That's right. It's just that subjective. The people who are ultimately going to decide your fate are going to take all of the information available to them and sit in the safety of a police station, states attorney's office or jury box and decide if you, ClickClickD'oh were actually justified in feeling you were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm when you used deadly force. They are going to have at their disposal statements from witnesses, who may be related or friends with the guy you just shot. They are going to have things like toxicology reports on you and the victim. And then they are going to decide if you remain a free man or if it's going to cost 10s of thousands of dollars to keep your freedom. Things like your conduct before it came to blows are going to factor into it.

For as much as people on this webiste rag on Mall Ninjas, I'm pretty dumb founded by the apparent belief here that you guys can successfully defend yourselves against attackers of unknown ability, strength, and determination. You must all be Chuck Norris.

I'm pretty dumbfounded by the attitude here that because a member has a gun in his waistband, he is empowered to walk into any mess he wants to with the assurance that he can just shoot his way out of any confrontation he gets into. You all must be Bernie Geotz.

Me, on the other hand, know that the guy trying to take my head off probably isn't giving out Hallmark cards, surely is beyond the point of reasoning or avoiding, and hasn't been kind enough to notify me of his intents, or capabilities. Plan for the worst hope for the best, eh? Yeah, the worst is right there in front of me. You guys know what my plan is. I've begun to wonder what your guys plans are. Run? Are you faster than him? Hope he doesn't kill you and just leaves you a little mangled? Easter bunny intervention? Seriously You guys saying don't use a firearm, what is your plan?

The plan starts with avoidance. Don't hang out with people who live a criminal lifestyle. Don't go to the places people who live a criminal lifestyle hang out. Don't invite people who live a criminal lifestyle into your home. Those three measures will make the chance you'll ever be involved in a confrontation where you might need to use deadly force a very tiny one.

The next part of avoidance is to be aware of your surroundings and what's going on around you and when you see that kind of trouble heading your way, go the other way. Your CCW permit wasn't issued with blue tights and a cape nor did it come with a peace officers commission. You have no obligation or duty to rid the world of goblins, save damsels in distress or stop crime and/or evil.

If you aren't backed into a corner and have an out, go for it. Run. Again, that pistol in your waistband isn't some magic talisman that is going to ward off evil.

If you are backed into a corner or can't retreat because you have children with you or some other reason...then and only then is it time to fight. Start with verbally challenging your attacker. Shout it loudly and clearly so that any witnesses will be able to testify that you warned him that you were armed and he should back off. Present your weapon and announce you'll use it. Even if he's coming on you so fast you're pressing the trigger while you're yelling "STOP or I'LL SHOOT!!"

If you do all of these things to avoid trouble, you've already put yourself in a position to articulate how you took all those measures and still you were attacked and had to shoot your attacker. It's a lot more convincing then; "I didn't know what he was capable of, so I shot him."

Use some common sense. If your attacker is 135 pounds dripping wet and had a .28 BAC and everyone in the bar parking lot is going to testify that he could barely stand much less fight, it's probably not a good idea to shoot him. Don't get into loud verbal arguments, shoving matches or other conduct that is going to cast doubt that you in fact were the victim.

The police and the prosecutors see these conflicts all the time. They know that there are at least as many versions of what happened as there are people involved and witnesses. There aren't a whole lot of cases where someone was just minding his own business then brutally attacked. There usually is some sort of non-verbal cue, fighting words, then pushing, shoving and more fighting words before the fight is on. If you can, you need to be on your way somewhere else before it gets verbal. You want everyone around to be able to say, he did everything he could to get away and the guy just kept coming.

Avoidance is the best defense. If you're practicing avoidance and you have to shoot, it's going to be hard to be singled out as the aggressor.

Jeff

 

[smitty42]

Let me give 2c more.
Perchance, you get into a confrontation with a bad guy, reason unimportant.
You're carrying, he hits you, down you go. He then jumps on you and you try to pull your weapon, fearing for your life. He takes the weapon away from you because he is on top of you and you don't have room to draw it. Then he shoots you! Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
If a thief, bad guy gets within two feet of you; it will be very difficult to draw, aim and shoot without him attempting to stop you and maybe getting your weapon. I'm an old man and I fear for my life every time I go out into this mean world.

Smitty42

 

[jeep-2]

I'd rather be a live dirty fighter than a dead or hurt clean one.

 

[sacp81170a]

He takes the weapon away from you because he is on top of you and you don't have room to draw it.

All the more reason to be prepared by training in HTH, retention techniques, and buying a high quality holster with retention built in. Honestly, if you haven't considered these factors, you probably should rethink carrying a firearm. I always encourage my CCW students to get training above and beyond the CCW requirements, invest in quality equipment and above all, avoid being in stupid places at stupid times.

The police and the prosecutors see these conflicts all the time. They know that there are at least as many versions of what happened as there are people involved and witnesses. There aren't a whole lot of cases where someone was just minding his own business then brutally attacked. There usually is some sort of non-verbal cue, fighting words, then pushing, shoving and more fighting words before the fight is on. If you can, you need to be on your way somewhere else before it gets verbal. You want everyone around to be able to say, he did everything he could to get away and the guy just kept coming.

If you doubt Jeff's word, go to your local court and sit through a few trials. Better yet, have a chat with your local prosecutor. The real world is far more messy and confusing than a chat board. The one thing that I don't think that has been emphasized enough about the difference between a police officer on duty and a non-LEO: protection from personal liability.

Absent egregious violations, malice or extreme negligence, if a police officer gets sued for the performance of his duty, it's the government entity that he works for that's getting sued. He may or may not lose his job, but he will generally not be in jeopardy of losing his house, his car and his bank account. The non-LEO who gets sued is in this jeopardy.

 

[romma]

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

Or so I have heard here many times before.

My lesson was in JR high School fighting somebody off the property of said school. I had them down pinned and helpless and let them up after they begged for mercy. I stood up, shook hands, turned my back and got sucker punched when I turned around.

Lesson learned for good!

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Did you get a telepathic ring with your CCW permit? How does an armed citizen know that an individual is intent on murder? How does an armed citizen know what is a forcible felony and what isn't?

In the example I posted, it would be when the victims are lined up on their knees and the assailant is walking behind them putting bullets in their heads with an instrument capable of penetrating their skulls.

I'm curious: Do police officers get those telepathic rings? If so, I want one too!

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood

 

[jefnvk]

I'm pretty dumbfounded by the attitude here that because a member has a gun in his waistband, he is empowered to walk into any mess he wants to

There is the difference in what I am arguing. I'm arguing that I did nothing to cause this, it is a completely random and suprising act. I am talking about walking down the road, and some guy decides I am a target. I am not talking about a bar fight.

Certainly, if I start a fight, I am not pulling a gun and expecting to get away with it. If I am attacked, I have the gun, and it is apparent that it isn't a fight I can get away from or win bare handed, how much of a beating do I have to take before it is great bodily harm?

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Never had to interview both parties involved, take statements from witnesses and try to sort out a fight where one party was severely injured or worse have you?

Usually every night. You're confusing something. Most of the guys in your average scrape up aren't actually in fear of their lives. Remember, that's a condition I've been setting from my first post. Most of the time it's just, "Well durn heck, he swungd at mah."

Now revise and reconsider for the condition of, Actually in fear of their lives.

At the point where a reasonable person knowing the totality of the circumstances and what you knew and felt at the time of the altercation, agrees with you that you were in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm at the time you used deadly force.....That's right.

You can't even read that legaleese in the time necessary to make the proper decision, much less think about it and attempt to make a decision.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away? Heck, let's revise that too, "when seconds count, a good legal debate will still be going on tomorrow."

Either way, way too late to save your life.

I'm pretty dumbfounded by the attitude here that because a member has a gun in his waistband, he is empowered to walk into any mess he wants to with the assurance that he can just shoot his way out of any confrontation he gets into. You all must be Bernie Geotz.

I'd rather shoot my way out of any potentially lethal mess that comes looking for me and have to deal with the lawyers than take my chances with the undertaker.

The plan starts with avoidance.

That's a shockingly anti argument.

If you can avoid conflict so reliably, why are you carrying a firearm in the first place? You can just avoid conflict right?

If you aren't backed into a corner and have an out, go for it. Run.

That's great for Marion Jones. Not so great for everyone else.

Okay, you take off running. BG kicks your ankle. Now you're face first on the concrete with the BG standing abouve and behind you. I don't think there is a worse defensive position to put yourself into.

It's a lot more convincing then; "I didn't know what he was capable of, so I shot him."

If you were the prosecution on the case, I would love for you to present the case like that. Defense would tear it appart. Defense introduces the homicide records of the state paying particular attention to empty hands homicides, spends the next hour going over the gorry details with the jury, and pays particular attention to the fact that the defendant is intimately familiar with these crimes because of work association.

Then we introduce the previously established state case history showing the courts siding with the gun owner in cases of armed self defense against an unarmed attacker.

Prosecution better have something stellar up their sleeve or they're going home sore losers.

Use some common sense. If your attacker is 135 pounds dripping wet and had a .28 BAC and everyone in the bar parking lot is going to testify that he could barely stand much less fight, it's probably not a good idea to shoot him.

You're already in trouble down here.

What are you doing at a bar with a gun?

 

[Mr. James]

Jeff White has offered much wisdom here. Go back and re-read. If you think you will come away from one of these incidents as a shining paragon of probity, while the other guy will be seen truly as the villainous spawn of Satan, you dream. Also, with regard to peace officers versus the average citizen, the point about limited immunity from personal liability is a fairly key distinction.

But to those who suggest a bare-handed attack isn't a cause for fear of death or bodily harm, please think again. These things can bet bloody in a hurry, even unintentionally. I'll try to find the very recent story where two dads got into a fist fight at their sons' school over some alleged bullying incident.1 It was a fist fight, without any apparent murderous intent on anyone's part, but one of the dads is now in the ground. A well- (poorly?) placed punch knocked the man to the pavement where he smashed his head.

Let's set aside former special forces operators and martial arts ninjas crushing your hyoid process with a flick of the wrist. Just your common, every-day donnybrook can leave you in a heap of hurt.

So avoid these things. Choose better company, choose better places to hang out. Change your routine, as one poster says, if your neighborhood shopping area goes south. Run, if you are able. Hell, I've managed to avoid fist fights for nigh on twenty years, and I'm as disagreeable a cuss as walks the earth.

Someone said I'd rather be a live dirty fighter than a dead fair fighter. True enough, but I'd much rather be a winded and silly-looking non-combatant than a stand-and-fight defendant in criminal and civil actions.

1.Story, from Columbus Ohio, is here:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten.../16/MANDIES.ART_ART_10-16-07_B3_PU86PB6.html?

 

[Deanimator]

Do you owe a criminal assailant a fair fight?

I've had multiple ninnies in usenet say words to the effect of, "How do you know that somebody's going to beat you to death or maim you with their bare hands until they do it?"

To which I respond, "If you can't trust in the common sense, good judgement and better nature of somebody who inflicts unprovoked physical violence on others, what CAN you trust in?"

 

[Deanimator]

I've managed to avoid fist fights for nigh on twenty years, and I'm as disagreeable a cuss as walks the earth.

I've managed to avoid fistfights for longer than that, back to college ROTC in the '70s in fact. That having been said, I avoid situations and people which typically lead to violence. But if you DO put me in the position where I have to use violence to protect myself, NOTHING is off the table, PERIOD. The last guy to display that level of bad judgement came at me with a document spike in a work trailer. His feet scraped the ceiling as he went over in the gyakute-nage I used on him. I was completely indifferent to whatever other acts might be needed to neutralize the threat, as well as the physical consequences to my assailant. Hegelian scholar that he was, he later tried to throw my paycheck away, but I found it. He eventually left for "other opportunities"...