Crusader103
Member
This is an argument and does not necessarily reflect my opinion.
-------
In terms of lethal force it is not difficult to understand that the term "reasonable" implies that another person of sound mind and judgment would likewise feel the risk of death or serious physical injury existed at the time the force was applied.
But that is only half of reasonableness.
Have you considered this? The force used must be likely to overcome the resistance offered. Here's a theoretical case in point though the policies of many police departments are now in line with this thinking:
Suppose that a vehicle is headed straight towards you. We understand that a vehicle may constitute the use of lethal force, thereby warranting a response. However, even fast and accurate fire aimed at the driver of the vehicle is not likely to stop the threat. The vehicle will most definitely not immediately stop, instead continuing on its trajectory based upon momentum or perhaps veering out of control but still constituting a lethal threat. The discharge of a weapon at the driver/vehicle is unlikely to be effective or reduce the risk of death/serious physical injury to you.
In that regard, though the use of force may be justified as you faced a lethal threat, the force applied is not likely to be sufficient to stop the threat. It is therefore unreasonable to apply such force.
In order for force to be justified, it must be both reasonable and necessary. No doubt a vehicle being driven directly at you constitutes a threat, but is it truly reasonable to apply deadly force given that the force is not likely to stop the threat?
I already have my answer. I am not looking for input so much as provoking thought. I have testified in cases concerning this very issue. I will not offer my opinion as I have one pending now and it would be inappropriate. However, the context may help you make better decisions.
Many police agencies have modified their policies to either severely curtail the application of force against a vehicle or the driver of a moving vehicle, or prohibited it altogether, not based upon the lack of a threat but based upon the lack of reasonable effectiveness. Granted, police policy does not carry the force of law for a private citizen but the reasoning behind it goes to the argument that will be made for or against your assertion of reasonableness in self defense.
-------
In terms of lethal force it is not difficult to understand that the term "reasonable" implies that another person of sound mind and judgment would likewise feel the risk of death or serious physical injury existed at the time the force was applied.
But that is only half of reasonableness.
Have you considered this? The force used must be likely to overcome the resistance offered. Here's a theoretical case in point though the policies of many police departments are now in line with this thinking:
Suppose that a vehicle is headed straight towards you. We understand that a vehicle may constitute the use of lethal force, thereby warranting a response. However, even fast and accurate fire aimed at the driver of the vehicle is not likely to stop the threat. The vehicle will most definitely not immediately stop, instead continuing on its trajectory based upon momentum or perhaps veering out of control but still constituting a lethal threat. The discharge of a weapon at the driver/vehicle is unlikely to be effective or reduce the risk of death/serious physical injury to you.
In that regard, though the use of force may be justified as you faced a lethal threat, the force applied is not likely to be sufficient to stop the threat. It is therefore unreasonable to apply such force.
In order for force to be justified, it must be both reasonable and necessary. No doubt a vehicle being driven directly at you constitutes a threat, but is it truly reasonable to apply deadly force given that the force is not likely to stop the threat?
I already have my answer. I am not looking for input so much as provoking thought. I have testified in cases concerning this very issue. I will not offer my opinion as I have one pending now and it would be inappropriate. However, the context may help you make better decisions.
Many police agencies have modified their policies to either severely curtail the application of force against a vehicle or the driver of a moving vehicle, or prohibited it altogether, not based upon the lack of a threat but based upon the lack of reasonable effectiveness. Granted, police policy does not carry the force of law for a private citizen but the reasoning behind it goes to the argument that will be made for or against your assertion of reasonableness in self defense.