GuyWithQuestions
Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 451
Here's an interesting article I read from Defend University. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it does make some good points about bringing a gun to a fist fight and having less-lethal options available. Here is a response to someone's question saying that they disagree with the law in Defend University's article "Bringing a Gun to a Fist Fight":
http://www.defendu.com/questions/quest49.htm
http://www.defendu.com/questions/quest49.htm
Q:
I disagree with the law in your article "Bringing a Gun to a Fist Fight". If I use a firearm as my means for self-defense and I am attacked by someone with his bare hands, I don't feel that I should have to take the chance of getting hurt by someone who took it upon himself to attack me... regardless of whether or not he has a weapon (That I can see). What if I cannot fight a lick and am attacked by a seasoned streetfighter? Why should I get hurt... HE made the decision to attack me.
If he gets shot, that was his decision when he aggressed me, while I was minding my own business. If I use a gun for self-defense and the bad guy does not want to get shot... don't attack me and he will be safe. Simple as that... the decision is his. I heavily disagree on the laws interpretation of this. What do you think?
A.
I don't disagree with your point. The examples you used are all valid and those points will be taken into consideration at both your criminal and your civil trials...
I think we both agree on the INTENT of the law -- you are allowed to use the degree of force that a reasonable person would deem necessary to prevent serious injury or death.
Traditionally, you are allowed to respond to a slap with a slap, a punch with a punch, etc. If there is a huge disparity of force (multiple attackers, difference in gender, size, strength and training) that will be taken into consideration.
What I am talking about is how prosecutors and police departments are INTERPRETING the law. By threatening or using deadly force against an UNARMED individual, you're probably going to jail. You might be able to avoid prosecution if you can show that you went up the ladder of the continuum of force, e.g. "I retreated, then told him to stop, then pushed him back, then sprayed him with pepper spray, then punched him and he STILL was pummeling me in such a way that I felt that he was going to kill me, I felt I had no other choice than to use deadly force to stop him."
The example I used of the hiker who shot the dog owner was taken because the prosecution specifically cited the walking stick the hiker was carrying as an intermediate force instrument that could have used before deadly force. Something else that has come to light in that guy's trial is that the hiker studied karate 30 years ago when he was in college (he attained a brown belt). That was also used by the prosecutor as another option that the hiker could have used instead of deadly force. When confronted about this on the stand, the hiker testified that he is in his 50s and has bad knees. The prosecution countered by asking why the hiker was on a 10-mile hike if he has such bad knees...
The reality is that there are a lot of people out there (citizens and governmental officials alike) who are anti-self-defense, anti-self-reliance and anti-gun. There is also a huge amount of ignorance regarding the realities of violence.
You might have seen examples of someone being prosecuted after shooting a knife-wielding attacker. "It was JUST a knife" is the comment that is heard. Incredible. But most people have never been in a fight -- not even to defend their lunch money, much less an all-out street fight with weapons.
Interestingly, noted use-of-force expert Massad Ayoob says he has recently noticed a nationwide trend in the courts treating civilian shootings more and more like law enforcement shootings. He noted that the courts were asking if the defendant explored all of the options available to him before using deadly force.
Don’t get me wrong here – I am a strong advocate of doing what it takes to win. And win is what you MUST do. You can’t afford to lose.
However, nothing makes a person a saint faster than killing them. And that will be used against you by the courts, the community and the victim’s family.
And I reiterate from the previous article: “Yes, train with your deadly force options. Train smart and train hard.
But, don’t forget your empty hand skills, your grappling skills, and your less lethal options like pepper spray, batons and flashlights. Odds are you are going to employ these more frequently than you will ever use your deadly force options.”
Remember, we are talking generalities here. For specifics, you should consult an attorney familiar with the use of force laws of your municipality, county and state if you have any questions about how you may or may not employ deadly force.
I totally sense your frustration and I agree. I wish it was different out there.
Brad Parker