I don't get it.. self-defense debate

[ka50]

Ok I joined this forum with a purpose of getting more opinions about this.

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/961.html

this is the video that started a rather active debate on ktog forums

At first it looks like it might've been a defensive use of a firearm. The shooter is chillin on the porch, his wife is outside the porch. The shooter is being approached by an individual, while the shooter is on the porch holding a gun. The shooter fires a gun on his own porch and kills a man.

Later it has been revealed that the shooting was intended by the shooter, cuz he lured the man in and shot him, thus making this a murder.

Now my question is this: you can use deadly force vs deadly force on the street (at least in most states), but do things change on your property? A person is trespassing with hostile and/or violent intent onto your property. Can you open fire, even if the trespasser is unarmed, but is trying to "fight you" or attempt to incapaciate you with his "bare hands" or advancing towards you with obviously hostle intent? What would you do if you're attacked with "bare hands" on the street? (you don't have a pepper spray or a tazer or other means of non-lethal defense other than your fists) What if there were multiple individuals?

Please provide elabroate answers, rather than "yes" and "no".

Thanks.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Those are worthy questions; their answers, however, vary greatly from state to state. We'll need to know where all this happened.

 

[jsalcedo]

They both look and act drunk.

The person who was shot was definitely looking for trouble.

I'm not sure why those people are milling around during and after the gunfire.

Why isn't someone calling 911?

 

[WT]

In my state ........ the law allows an innocent person to use deadly force in self defense if the innocent person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. That's a pretty broad description. The jury gets to decide if such was the case.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

All self-defense cases depend very heavily on the facts of that particular case. However, I'd wager that there are relatively few fact sets that would allow to shoot someone who was unarmed and in your yard just because they were trespassing.

Now my question is this: you can use deadly force vs deadly force on the street (at least in most states), but do things change on your property?

Most states don't allow you any special privileges regarding lethal force in self-defense until someone has unlawfully entered your dwelling (the place you live).

A person is trespassing with hostile and/or violent intent onto your property.

Hostile or violent intent isn't enough. He must have both intent to seriously injure or kill you, the means to do it, and be in a position to carry out the attack.

I.e., a guy who means to kill you and has a knife; but is standing 100yds away on your property may be a legal problem if you shoot him.

What would you do if you're attacked with "bare hands" on the street? (you don't have a pepper spray or a tazer or other means of non-lethal defense other than your fists)

Retreat and do all I can to break off the engagement. If you get put in a place where the choices are shoot the guy or let him grab your gun, you are going to be in a very bad legal situation.

What if there were multiple individuals?

Retreat and do all I can to break off the engagement. If I get in a position where I can no longer retreat, I think I can articulate to a jury why I feared multiple attackers presented a threat of death or serious bodily harm that justified me using lethal force.

Any time you have an option to safely retreat in a self-defense scenario, you should take it. Take a look at the Strategies & Tactics section. We have discussed the legal aftermath of several real-life self-defense shootings there. There are multiple cases where retreating would have saved a guy from a charge of manslaughter.

 

[hillbilly]

ka50, you ask some fair questions.

I teach concealed carry for the state of Arkansas.

Here's what the attorneys and the law enforcement officers who come to my class to teach the "Self Defense and Arkansas Law" section of the ccw class.

They have all said that there is what the law of any given state says, then there are the specific details of each case.

There are cases that look on the surface to be clear-cut examples of illegal gun use that juries find no fault with, or that prosecutors actually don't file charges on because of the specific, unique facts particular to that case.

There are also cases that look on the surface to be clear-cut examples of perfectly legal gun use that juries convict over, or that prosecutors file charges on.

Basically, all the attorneys and law enforcement officers who have come out to cover self-defense and the law at my CCW classes have told all my students that there is no such thing as a "clear cut" case, and that no determination can really be made without knowing all the specifics and details of a given case.

hillbilly

 

[ka50]

Thanks guys! Finally some rational, knowledgeable and smart people.

I do see your points and I do believe they are fair.

 

[Graystar]

There is no difference between self-defense at home and self-defense on the street. The only time you can use deadly force against an attacker is 1. a life (not necessarily your own) is in imminent danger, and 2. the attack upon the person is not the direct result of an illegal assault perpetrated by that person.

That said, however, the law will generally provide a presumption that any person that forcibly enters a dwelling is placing the lives of lawful occupants in imminent danger. THAT is what allows a home owner to ambush and shoot an intruder. In this instance, it is not necessary for the home owner to be the object of a direct attack. The perp could be in your kitchen making himself a sandwich and you can still shoot him. The reason, of course, is that we don’t know what he’s going to do once he finishes that sandwich.

But again, having said that, every instance of a shooting is investigated so that the facts and circumstances can be determined. If a home owner shoots a person and claims he climbed in through the window, but an investigation finds the dead guy’s clothes and personal effects in the guest bedroom, I think that home owner will probably go to jail.

 

[The Tourist]

After being a member of several self-defense, knife and martialist forums, I quit the entire genre' as being completely worthless.

First is just the practical aspect. Most of the guys are not lawyers, judges or LEOs. Any information they give in a forum could get you sued or arrested and convicted.

The forums are just a focus point for the owner to polish his ego. If he is a fan of karate, then karate is the secret to success and safety. If he is an IPSC shooter, then 1911s are the defining enlightenment. If the guy is a fish-monger, then slapping a perp with a trout is the height of prudent self defense.

If you are a serious student, then act like you would in any other quest for knowledge. Start at a library, learn some history. Buy a few guns, talk to the owner of a dojo in your area that has a good reputation--especially with kids.

Know the laws in your area. Know the laws in your area. Know the laws in your area.

And finally, use some common sense. My Dad was a safety and security expert for 42 years. He designed and patented many of the locks made by Master Lock.

The biggest improvement you can make in your safety is to upgrade the quality of your doors and windows.

Of course, no body wants to hear that. There isn't a good chop-sockey movie where Bruce Lee portrays a locksmith.

 

[Medusa]

Well, here the BG would get a chance to surrender and stay put with hands visible, if found on private property with unclear intents. If armed and dangerous and acting in hostile manner, then shot at.

What would you do if you're attacked with "bare hands" on the street? (you don't have a pepper spray or a tazer or other means of non-lethal defense other than your fists)

Kick the BG in the nuts, then a face-knee connection and breaking the contact.

 

[The Tourist]

If armed and dangerous

Medusa,

This is my point. We tell fellow shooters to act in a certain fashion, but that circumstance is not always correct.

Have you seen the old training films called "Shoot, Don't Shoot"? Very eye-opening if for no other reason than to illustrate that life is not a black/white issue.

Quite frankly, if I suspect that anyone unknown to me (and for the purposes of this debate that could mean an uncover LEO), then my proper directive is to grab my wife and back up, hopefully out of range and behind cover and concealment.

I am not a sworn officer. It is not my duty or directive to engage.

I love IPSC and my custom guns. But I think that in some circumstances we confuse the purpose of that game (that is, score the most points in the shortest time) as being some type of a mandate for life.

Besides, it's just common sense. Do you want to be standing over the body of a misguided child holding his plastic gun--that you just Mozambiqued--and mumbling to the real LEOs that this 'perp' made a 'furtive motion'?

When our only tool is hammer, the whole world looks like nails.

 

[Medusa]

The Tourist,

I also noted that "AND acting in hostile manner", i believe that kids with toy guns are not acting in hostile manner, my though was that IF somebody runs in your back garden armed and hostile towards people, say, with wielded gun (shooting stance-like) then it can be considered armed&dangerous&acting hostile (and also if the fellow doesn't explain why he/she is in the backyard with weapon). As ever, one must always assess the threat before acting, ie training should be mandatory, not to shoot blindly. Accidents DO happen, but most of them are made by trigger-happy fellas, who think themselves as Wyatt-Earp or Rambo.

I never justify blind shooting (shoot-ask-questions-later), most of people do have some common sense to tell a thug from playing kid and there's enough time to tell that. If the situation is hairy, after all, and you are shot at then this is not a kid with toy gun, right? And which one it was - "ALWAYS be sure of your target"?

 

[Drysdale]

In Texas, after dark, if the perp (or suspected perp) is on your property and you are in fear for your safetly, or the safety of your property, you may defend with deadly force.

Here, I found the leagalese:

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
~ ~ (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
~ ~ ~ (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
~ ~ ~ (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
~ ~ (3) he reasonably believes that:
~ ~ ~ (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
~ ~ ~ (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

And for Self Defense:

The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS


"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

Self Defense Statutes
(Texas Penal Code)

(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,1994.
Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Deadly Force in Defense of Person

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."

Defense of Another Person

"A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death."

 

[22-rimfire]

I don't know the rules of my state particularily in regard to self defense issues. My general approach is to use deadly force as a LAST resort only and generally only INSIDE the home. The front yard generally does not qualify as your home. I would run if it were possible regardless of my pride. Legal bills. Questions about your sanity? Issues at work after the fact? All these things can greatly affect your life not to mention the "small" emotional problem of getting over your decision to use deadly force if it is legit.

 

[Graystar]

Legal bills. Questions about your sanity? Issues at work after the fact? All these things can greatly affect your life not to mention the "small" emotional problem of getting over your decision to use deadly force if it is legit.

Yes, but in order to have these problems you need to be alive. Better to have these problem while alive and well, than to be dead, or have worse problems because you've been disabled for the rest of your life.

Retreat is an option that should only be taken if you know, absolutely, that you can do so safely. Frankly, a little reasoning on this point should make anyone realize that if you can retreat in complete safety, then your life was never in danger to begin with.

Always err on the side of life...YOUR life.

 

[MechAg94]

Also in Texas, getting beat up with bare fists has been shown in court to be a cause of "serious bodily injury", and rightly so. The attacker does not have to be armed with a weapon or be three times your size.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Also in Texas, getting beat up with bare fists has been shown in court to be a cause of "serious bodily injury", and rightly so.

Could you provide me with the cite to that court case? The only case I am aware of that made a finding even remotely similar to that involved a CHL who was sideswiped by a van. The owner of the van was a bodybuilder and the CHL holder was your typical, not-so-fit 40+yr old man. The bodybuilder pulled him partially through the window of the truck he was in (where he was still sitting with his seatbelt on) and began punching him in the face with his head held against the metal frame of the truck. In that particular case, with those particular sets of facts the CHL was able to successfully claim self-defense when he grabbed the pistol in his truck and shot the man, killing him.

It is real dangerous to make assumptions based on the facts in one case. Chances are good that your case isn't going to be exactly similar to previous outcomes and the little differences in facts can have a big change on the outcome of the trial.

 

[bachman1961]

Texas Laws .. ..

self defense debate ka50 Texas is cited often in terms of gun laws and various instances using lethal force. Also mentioned often and more to the point is knowing the local laws of your area with regard to use of force. To me, the term Deadly Force in the context of protecting PROPERTY is of major importance because I don't believe that this particular standard is very widespread among the 50 States. More universal is a situation where you cannot retreat to a safe area and you are shooting to stop what you believe to be a lethal threat. If the jurors feel the decison was resonable under the conditions described (lots of possible variables ie. lighting, kids in home to protect, intruder access to other weapons in a gun cabinet or ? ?).. .. you may found justified.

 

[71Commander]

Wonder how they got the video?

 

[Graystar]

A short time ago there was a case in Florida...this was in the national news.

Woman A pissed off woman B with some traffic move and woman B chased woman A and would not relent. Woman A finally got off the highway, pulled over, and just sat in her car. Woman B also pulled over, jumped out of her car, and headed straight for Woman A.

From inside her car, woman A pulled out her gun and shot woman B before she reached woman A's car. It was ruled self-defense.

And rightly so, imho.

 

[TarpleyG]

Wonder how they got the video?

That's my thought too. Was the camera there to catch the altercation and any subsequent action (including the shooting if that were to happen) or was the camera there for a few days trying to monitor this "bully's" activities and just happen to catch the shooting?

Greg

 

[Grey54956]

It does strike me as odd that there is a video in the first place. I don't have any security cameras mounted on my porch...

That being said, the shooter appears to have the weapon concealed from line of sight of the victim and doesn't appear to bring it into play until after the victim is well on the porch. No warning is issued, even though the shooter has the drop on the victim. Shots are fired from the hip, no attempt is made to keep the victim from closing distance with the shooter. I do find it interesting that the shooter fires the weapon, then taunts the victim with "you want some more", and "I will kill you". I am also confused as to the people just milling around.

Frankly, the whole thing looks like murder 1 to me.

 

[Lemon328i]

Laws on self-defense or "justifiable homicide" vary widely from state to state. In most states, you cannot use lethal force to defend property. In most states, lethal force is only allowed when there is imminent threat to life. While on the street, most states have "duty to retreat" laws i.e. if you can run, you must try to first. On your own private property, however, the "castle doctrine" applies in most states i.e. you have no duty to retreat from your own home. Florida recently changed their laws to allow lethal force without a duty to retreat provided there is imminent danger to life.

It looks like the case in the video is not going to be clear cut and does not sound like a self-defense case. The key will be whether the jury believes that the defendant lured the other party onto their property with the intent to shoot/kill him (first degree assault/murder) or whether it was a basic argument that rose to the level of lethal force once the other party got too close (probably simple assault / manslaughter). The defendant did not appear to do anything to de-escalate the situation (saying "you want some more?" after shooting will not sound like he felt a threat to life). There may also be the problem of "disparity of force". The defendant used a firearm while the other party appears to be unarmed. They do not appear to differ physically. Even if the other party has a history of violence with the defendant, this does not appear to be a justifiable shoot.

Were I the district attorney in this case, given the evidence shown just on that little video clip, I'd be filing for first degree murder (if the other party died) or first degree assault (if the other party survived). Very sad.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

IIRC, the shooter set up the video camera so that when he lured the guy over it would prove his case of self-defense; but it didn't work out that way.

 

[71Commander]

IIRC, the shooter set up the video camera so that when he lured the guy over it would prove his case of self-defense; but it didn't work out that way.

Not very bright, was it?

I bet he acts as his own attorney as well.