Do you owe a criminal assailant a fair fight?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I look at this way. I carry a gun for several reasons, the foremost being that I'm a middle age man with rheumatoid arthritis and have enough problems with doing day to day tasks, let alone try and defend myself against someone.

If I'm attacked I'm going to use everything I can to defend myself. Gun, rocks, teeth, you name. Fair fight goes right out the window the instant someone attacks you. What is their intent? I don't care. I'm going to do everything in my power to end things to my favor. If that means shooting someone, biting an ear off, strangling them, whatever, I'm going to do it. Your right to me being "social" with you ends the instant you start being physically aggressive.
 
And the assailant being drunk and high on meth wont always do you any good either

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070928_1_A1_hAret63781

Fatal shooting was OK by state law, attorney asserts


By DEON HAMPTON World Staff Writer
9/28/2007
A retired security guard killed a man who reportedly threatened him in a parking lot after a road-rage incident.
The attorney for a retired security guard who is charged with first-degree manslaughter said Thursday that his client was justified when he fatally shot a man during a road-rage dispute.

Larry Johnson, a defense lawyer representing Kenneth Ray Gumm, 67, said his client will turn himself in to Tulsa police at 9 a.m. Friday.

The charge, filed Wednesday by Tulsa County District Attorney Tim Harris, stems from a June 10 altercation that ended with Gumm, who is CLEET-certified and has a concealed-carry license, shooting Dale Turney, 47, once in the chest.

An autopsy report shows that Turney's blood-alcohol level was 0.08 -- meaning he was legally too drunk to drive -- and that he had methamphetamine in his system.

Harris filed the charge against Gumm at the conclusion of an investigation in which he interviewed witnesses, looked at photographs and researched toxicology reports.

Unlike Johnson, Harris said Gumm's actions were not justified and aren't protected under Oklahoma law.
The fact that Turney pushed Gumm was not enough to trigger the Oklahoma "Stand Your Ground" law's authorization for an assaulted person to "meet force with force," Harris said.

"Pushing someone is barely an assault and battery," he said.

The Stand Your Ground law, which went into effect Nov. 1, allows people to use deadly force under certain conditions in which they have "a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm," according to the state statute.

If Turney had been holding a gun or knife, the situation would have been different, Harris said.

Johnson disputes this claim, citing parts of the Stand Your Ground law that grant immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for using such deadly force.

He also referenced another section of the statute that says law enforcement officials may not arrest someone for using force unless probable cause exists that the force used was unlawful.

"The police interviewed Gumm following the incident and let him go," Johnson said.

"There's no question that he is innocent," he added.

According to a police affidavit, the confrontation began when Turney received a call from a friend, Charles Geltz, who asked for a ride home from a Brookside bar because he was too drunk to drive.

Lettie Geltz, Charles Geltz's mother, disputes these claims, saying her son wasn't drunk and that Turney had called her son -- not the other way around.

If her son was drunk, "the police would have arrested him after he filled out his incident statement," she said.

Turney picked up Charles Geltz, and as Turney was driving north on Riverside Drive, Gumm pulled out in front of him at 26th Street, according to the affidavit.

Turney followed Gumm for seven blocks before Gumm turned into a River Parks parking lot near 19th Street, the document says.

After Gumm parked, Turney parked his car behind him, blocking Gumm's vehicle, according to the affidavit.

Turney then walked toward Gumm, who got out of his car holding his .38-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver, the affidavit says.

Gumm described Turney as being in a rage and told police that Turney said, "You're history," according to the affidavit.

Johnson said his client backed away from Turney, walking twice around his car with the revolver pointed at Turney, who followed him around the car and pushed him before the shooting.

When you make a statement such as "You're history," that's a threat, Johnson said Thursday.

Kenneth E. Gumm, 42, said his father acted in self-defense but didn't intend to kill Turney.

"I would have reacted the same way," the son said. "My father isn't a violent person."

Lots more on the Tulsa world website in this story.

in my opinion the DA, Tim Harris is a being pressured politically.
 
You are not morally obligated to give anyone a "fair" opportunity to do you bodily harm.

Period.

Full stop.

This must be tempered with reason, as there are many responses that would be both gratuitous and excessive .

Period.

Full stop.


As the man on the spot, you must balance these.

Geek, very concise and well put.

As a law-abiding person you are the only one with such restraints. This
person by attacking you has shown a disregard for civil and criminal law
and is unknown as to what point he or she shall stop at.

There is no such thing as a fair fight. No "thug" says to himself...
"I bet that guy can kick my butt" or "I bet we are an even match" then walks
up to him and announces his intent while waiting for his victim to prepare himself.

3 Laws.....

1. There is the law of the land (what will or will not get you incarcerated).
2. Personal moral law (maybe legal but still does not sit right with you).
3. The law of survival (automatic, kicks in when TSHTF).

For myself..... Unknown assailant (or one I know that seeks to do more than
bust my nose)? Unknown intentions (or intentions that don't sit well with me)?
If I start to lose? I'll do what ever is needed to win but when I win, I win and it
ends there.

I'm not going to end a life if unneeded nor will I let mine be taken away.
 
Unlike Johnson, Harris said Gumm's actions were not justified and aren't protected under Oklahoma law.

Not wanting to be the cause of thread drift, but the above passage begs me to point out how mis-characterization of law (not THE law, but law in general) is used to "justify" the DA's actions here. Gumm's actions don't have to be protected by the law. His actions were either against the law or no law against what he had to do is involved at all. In the simplest terms, you don't need a law authorizing you to breath the air anywhere else but on the property you own. Unless acting in self defense is against the law, Gumm broke no law. The DA is all wet here, and it may be on purpose so that Mr. Gumm has a way out of this.

Woody
 
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. Since I know that people are easily and readily killable using empty hand techniques, I consider any serious threat from a person using such metods to be potentially lethal.


Not a lawyer, but you will have to convince a jury that your actions were self defense and it is based on their perception of the threat. From what I have seen, they get to decide whether a “reasonable person” would feel threatened. Lots of times, they don’t agree with the plaintiff.

There are lots of paranoid people out there who are totally convinced that their lives are in danger 24/7. That’s their perception. That does not mean society gives them free rein to kill, and kill again.
 
Not a lawyer, but you will have to convince a jury that your actions were self defense and it is based on their perception of the threat. From what I have seen, they get to decide whether a “reasonable person” would feel threatened. Lots of times, they don’t agree with the plaintiff.
This is why I always tell people that their ability to operate within the constraints of the law is primarily based upon their ability to articulate.

You could have the most clean shoot in history, but appear as a slobbering idiot to the grand jury and you are in for hard time. On the flip side, a well articulated individual who can cleanly and clearly communicate his beliefs to the jury is likely to have a much better result, even in much murkier circumstances.
 
In New Jersey?!?!? Good luck with that.

From New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice (emphasis added, but make sure you read the limitations carefully!):

2C:3-4. Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

b.Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.

(1)The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

(a)To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer in the performance of his duties, although the arrest is unlawful, unless the peace officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest; or

(b)To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(i)The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;

(ii)The actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 2C:3-6; or

(iii) The actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm.

(2)The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

(a)The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(b)The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(i)The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

(ii)A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

(3)Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

c. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:3-5, N.J.S.2C:3-9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion.

(2)A reasonable belief exists when the actor, to protect himself or a third person, was in his own dwelling at the time of the offense or was privileged to be thereon and the encounter between the actor and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the actor to act instantly and:

(a)The actor reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the actor or others in the dwelling; or

(b)The actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so.

(3)An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

L.1978, c.95; amended 1987, c.120, s.1; 1999, c.73.
 
Sounds to me like "rules of engagement". I thought only the Democrats in Washington would come up with such a gem.

The rule in school (where I work) is that you may defend yourself with "equal force." So, If a child comes at you there is no justification doing more than holding him/her at arms length. If it is a teenaged boy, more is needed. (no weapons) But on the street, in real life, there are no rules of engagement, especially if it occurs in your home and/or by surprise.

"I will fight hard. I will destroy the evil of their attack."
 
Remember these words. Disparity of Force. They will keep you out of a jail sentence if you "think" the assailant was going to possibly kill you, especially if he said he was and is bigger, stronger, or even younger than you or is with another assailant.


It isn't illegal to use deadly force if you feel you or your family or porperty is in grave danger. And bTW, most attackers will kill you if you fight, so it's you or them......
 
Unlike a lot of other states, the DA in OK has the option not to take the case to a grand jury.

The Comanche county DA recently opted not to send a self defense shooting case to a grand jury.
 
To those of you that live in a state that require you to take a beating; I feel sorry for you. To those willing to risk your well being or possibly your life; you’re on your own. I wouldn’t risk serious injury because of what might happen legally. Once someone throws a punch at me (barring the obvious 98 pound weakling scenario) or comes at me with a weapon I plan to protect myself. Our laws here allow us to do it and protect us from civil liability.

Am I going to walk around the local projects trolling for a fight? Hell no! I do everything possible to stay out of ANY place that trouble might be waiting. Unfortunately I don’t live in Utopia. Trouble can pop up where you least expect it. I’m 54, out of shape, and haven’t been in a fight since I was in high school. And, I wasn’t much of a fighter then. Perhaps I should go to the local gym to ‘buff up’ and learn to box just to give some criminal POS a ‘fair fight’. Not in this lifetime. I haven’t the time or the desire.

Would I be castigated by the bleeding hearts, press, and members of the perps family? Of this I have no doubt. Would I be prosecuted? It hasn’t happened yet to my knowledge. Texas is rather liberal in its views on people protecting themselves (and their property, for that matter). Be it in your home, in your car, or anyplace you are legally allowed to be. We are not required to retreat from criminals or their actions. Will I retreat if possible? Absolutely, provided I can do so without putting myself in greater jeopardy. I see no plausible reason to fight if flight is the better option but only if I can do so safely.

The bleeding hearts, press, and members of the perps family can all take a flying leap. Unless I do something stupid I won’t be prosecuted. If I do commit a stupid act then I deserve what I get. However, I have done a good job of avoiding stupid acts over the last 54 years. I plan to continue this in the future.
 
Gumm's actions don't have to be protected by the law. His actions were either against the law or no law against what he had to do is involved at all. In the simplest terms, you don't need a law authorizing you to breath the air anywhere else but on the property you own. Unless acting in self defense is against the law, Gumm broke no law.

Of course, acting in self defense IS against the law if you use excessive force. Or more properly put, you lose the justification of self defense if you use lethal force to defend against a non-lethal threat

The line between deadly and non-deadly is often about as clear as mud in real life, but the law nevertheless takes a dim view of crossing it prematurely.
 
OK, heres something else I just thought of.

Say you do decide to give the guy a fair fight. Fight starts going bad for you, you pull a gun and shoot him. How is that going to look? Would it not look like the situtation was a non-deadly, in your opinion, situtation to begin with, then when it escalated, again partly due to you, it became a deadly situtation?

I believe MI has (or had, maybe it went out the window with stand your ground) a provision that self defense becomes much harder to prove, if you had a hand in escalating the situtation. Could fighting back be construed to imply that you escalated the situtation? Could it imply that it wasn't a good shoot, if you decided not to use the gun from the get-go?
 
Once someone throws a punch at me

You might want to look at your code again. Unless the punch is going to present you with an objectively reasonably threat of death or very serious bodily harm, it's unlikely to give rise to a justification for deadly force.
 
"Pushing someone is barely an assault and battery," he said.
Unless it is done to a cop. Then the aggressor could well find himself in prison.

Edit: This is not intended to be anti-cop. Just pointing out the disparity in the way the powers-that-be view the law.
 
Last edited:
What is your definition of fair? My definition is to survive regardless of what I happens to my assailant. If it looks like I can subdue him with my hands I will but if it looks like I'm up against a doped up lunatic then a .45 slug to the head will be what he gets.

We can all spout what we think the laws say or what a jury may rule but our opinions aren't what counts its the laws of the particular state we live in. Here in Alabama the law states:

"Section 13A-3-23
Use of force in defense of a person.
(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:
(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.
.........."

**NOTE: I added the underlining.

Buel
 
(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.
(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

These are what you need to show in order to get the presumption of justification. It's a good law in general.
 
You guys are right I will just go toe to toe withem since I'm not a police occifer and my life is only worth 1/10 as much.

Besides we all know that a single blow can't hurt ya or kill ya just give the criminals what they want let em hit ya a little and you'll be good to go.
Just like the college student in this story:

Rowan student
By MEG HUELSMAN, The (Cherry Hill, N.J.) Courier-Post

Posted Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 6:02 am

Donald Farrell
GLASSBORO, N.J. -- Donald "Donnie" Farrell, a 19-year-old Rowan University student beaten Saturday night, died as a result of a ruptured blood vessel from either a punch or a kick to the neck, according to an autopsy report released Tuesday.

The force of the blow to Farrell's neck caused a cut to the right vertebral artery, a major blood vessel that carries blood to the brain, Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office spokesman Bernie Weisenfeld said.

The death is classified as a homicide by the county medical examiner, Weisenfeld said.

Farrell was attacked shortly after 9 p.m. by four or five men while walking with his friends to a convenience store near Bowe Boulevard on U.S. 322, the main highway that bisects the campus.

The assailants asked Farrell for directions to a party, Prosecutor Sean F. Dalton said. As Farrell stopped to indicate Beau Rivage, the same apartment complex where he lived, at least one man punched him in the face, knocking him to the ground. He then was kicked as he lay on the ground.

Ninety seconds later, emergency medical technicians and police officers arrived to find Farrell bleeding and unconscious on the ground.

He was taken to Cooper University Hospital in Camden, where he was placed on life support and died Sunday afternoon.

There have been no arrests. The prosecutor's office interviewed about 20 people Tuesday following "scores of calls" from parents, students and anonymous tipsters, Weisenfeld said.

Police are searching for a "person of interest," described as a man in his early 20s, about 5 feet 10 inches to 6 feet tall with a thin build. He had a medium skin tone with "scruffy" facial hair and acne scars or pock marks on his cheeks. He appeared to have corn rows worn beneath a red baseball hat. He was clad in a hooded sweatshirt with a gray front and a red hood and back. The front of the sweatshirt had an emblem of the British flag.

Police distributed a picture of the man taken from a security camera at the same convenience store on U.S. 322 shortly before the beating.

Police are careful to say the man is not a suspect, but a "person of interest" who was at the scene at the time of the beating.

Rowan University President Donald Farish, who was with the Farrell family in the hours following the attack, announced a list of 14 safety initiatives in response to the fatal beating.

"Anyone at the all-campus meeting (Monday) saw a range of emotions from our students: fear, anger, a sense of being violated, and a genuine concern for their safety," Farish wrote in a letter to the media. "Although we believe that our campus is safe, we recognize also that perception is often reality, and if our students believe they are not safe, then that is a reality to which we need to react."

Farish suggests several immediate solutions, including improving lighting on the 200-acre campus, expanding the university escort service to include off-campus housing and immediately hiring additional security guards to patrol parking lots and pathways.

Other initiatives, such as hiring five additional police officers and possibly creating a campus K-9 unit and installing on-campus security cameras, are intended for the long term.

With Halloween tonight, and the expectation for holiday parties, Rowan and Glassboro police departments are beefing up security on and around campus, Glassboro Police Chief Alex Fanfarillo said.

Rowan University switched from being an unarmed security force to a department with full police powers, including the authority to carry weapons, about two years ago, Public Safety Director Tim Michener said Tuesday.

There are 14 armed and trained police officers, along with 15 unarmed security officers and eight unarmed security guards on campus, Michener said.

"Crime is actually down at this point," he said. "If we continue on this trend, this will be the third year of decreased crime."

So far this year, there have been five major incidents, including Farrell's death, and an armed robbery in which three students were robbed at gunpoint by three assailants on Oct. 2, Michener said.

The teenager's death has shaken the campus community, inspiring several petitions to Farish and the Rowan University police department.

"I'm really scared, because I walk out to my car and I'm in the parking lots on the commuter lots," senior Kristen Kendra of Cherry Hill said. She commutes to school each day and often takes late-night classes.

"They need more security and they need to be driving around the parking lots and the campus at night," she said. "We need to make sure the security phones work, and I think each lot should have at least one security guard or policeman patrolling the parking areas at night."

More than 1,000 students attended a campus meeting Monday afternoon and fired questions at university officials, prosecutor's office detectives and Farish.

Robert Alvarez, a 22-year-old university senior and a next-door neighbor of Farrell's at Beau Rivage, started a petition following the attack to demand increased security and more armed police officers.

So far, he says he has collected nearly 1,000 signatures.

Kendra also said she joined a Facebook.com community forum, called "Enough is Enough: Petition to Dr. Farish for our Safety."

"I am definitely in support of the petition, and the effort to increase security," she said. "My mom is a mess, and my dad is really upset. They bought me pepper spray, and it's in my pocket right now."
 
To those of you that live in a state that require you to take a beating; I feel sorry for you.
Ohio requires me to retreat if I can do so without danger to myself. If I take a few steps away from you, and you pursue with intent to inflict upon me great bodily harm, things will end badly for you.
 
Besides we all know that a single blow can't hurt ya or kill ya just give the criminals what they want let em hit ya a little and you'll be good to go.

Well let's break it down. According to the report the victim was sucker punched and fell to the ground. Now how would you, in his situation, have used a firearm to prevent that? Do you throw down on anyone asking for directions? At anyone who's winding up for a punch?

Of course, after he was down and they were kicking him in the head and neck, he was facing imminent deadly peril. So he would have been justified in using deadly force to protect himself. Maybe it was too late, but it would have been neither practical nor lawful to draw and fire prior to that point.
 
Farrell was attacked shortly after 9 p.m. by four or five men while walking with his friends to a convenience store near Bowe Boulevard on U.S. 322, the main highway that bisects the campus.

The assailants asked Farrell for directions to a party, Prosecutor Sean F. Dalton said. As Farrell stopped to indicate Beau Rivage, the same apartment complex where he lived, at least one man punched him in the face, knocking him to the ground. He then was kicked as he lay on the ground.

His friends could have used a firearm to save him, or maybe not.
The point isn't whether he had the opportunity to deploy a firearm.

As I recall we are discussing whether a firearm would be justified if someone just hit you with their hands or feet.

Here is an instance where one or two blows killed a healthy 20 year old who according to some here could take a blow or three with no problem.

This is in South Jersey, so you can get a License to carry from your local township police there, if you are 21 unlike the more socialist areas like Newark.
 
Anytime someone puts their hands on you in malice there is a risk of serious bodily injury or death. In 2004, 7.1 percent of homicides were perpetrated with bare hands. Even one moderate blow to the eyes, throat or groin can render the largest and strongest man unable to defend himself from the beating to come. And the beating will continue until the assailant decides you have had enough.

Never let anyone put their hands on you in malice.

There is an old Chinese martial arts saying: "It is not the one who throws the first punch who is wrong, It is the one who insisted on fighting who is wrong."
 
An observation . . . if you're in one of those states that require you to take a beating rather than kill or seriously injure an attacker, consider: if there's nobody around to nab your assailant for attacking you, there's nobody around to nab you for making a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.

My late uncle - a Chicago PD supervisor - told me that every year there were quite a number of instances of people shot dead at close range, from the front, but not robbed . . . people with criminal records, often extensive. They figured many of these were instances of defensive gun use - illegal, but with the dead guy being a bad guy, they really didn't look too hard for who did it.

If you want a typical story of what can happen in a state like Texas, do a google search for "Kenny Tavai" and "Gordon Hale."

You might also look at the case of "Paul Saustrup" which shows what can happen when the local DA is a purely poltical animal like Ronnie Earle in Austin, TX.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top