This happened to someone in my city. Another man pulled him out of his car after words had been exchanged in a blockbuster. The man then threw the second man on the ground and commenced punching him in the face and other places then when the victim got up the attacker slamed his head into the car door, and then commenced punching him many more times. Some bystanders then pulled the other man away ending the fight. Is there justifiable cause to shooting the attacker. And when should you shoot him after he has thrown your head into a door. But after that are you mentally and physically capable of handling a gun in the proper manner.
Justifiable shooting
- Thread starter Glock22
- Start date
- Status
A question mark does wonders.
Depending on state and DA, yes you do have cause.
Whether or not you have the mental or physical control to draw, aim, and fire a gun at that point has a lot to do with individual toughness, where exactly the point of impact on your head is, and how hard you were hit.
However, I would say that you are at that point more likely to be killed with your own gun since there is absolute physical dominance by the attacker. I don't think he would allow the seperation needed to draw the gun, he is close enough and dominant enough to take the gun, and he will be even more pissed off. the attacker is already full of adrenaline and there is only one focus on his mind.
Depending on state and DA, yes you do have cause.
Whether or not you have the mental or physical control to draw, aim, and fire a gun at that point has a lot to do with individual toughness, where exactly the point of impact on your head is, and how hard you were hit.
However, I would say that you are at that point more likely to be killed with your own gun since there is absolute physical dominance by the attacker. I don't think he would allow the seperation needed to draw the gun, he is close enough and dominant enough to take the gun, and he will be even more pissed off. the attacker is already full of adrenaline and there is only one focus on his mind.
WeedWhacker
Member
"Another man pulled him out of his car after words had been exchanged in a blockbuster."
A soft word turns away wrath. Better to let some jerk cuss you out for a perceived slight with either no response, or a brief "I'm sorry", etc., than have to make a decision about whether or not to take another human's life (even if in defense of your own).
A soft word turns away wrath. Better to let some jerk cuss you out for a perceived slight with either no response, or a brief "I'm sorry", etc., than have to make a decision about whether or not to take another human's life (even if in defense of your own).
M2 Carbine
member
"Legally justifiable" will depend on your state's laws.
In Texas you do not have to wait until you are hurt to defend yourself. Deadly force can even be used to protect property.
In some states you are in trouble if you do hardly anything to protect yourself.
Personally, I will not be hurt. If the circumstances are such that I'm in fear of getting seriously hurt, someone is getting shot.
The first defense shooting in TX after the concealed carry law was passed was when a punk attacked a auto driver, punching him in the face through the side window and trying to drag him out of the car.
The driver shot and killed the attacker, who it turned out had a record for violence.
Ruled a "good" shooting.
In Texas you do not have to wait until you are hurt to defend yourself. Deadly force can even be used to protect property.
In some states you are in trouble if you do hardly anything to protect yourself.
Personally, I will not be hurt. If the circumstances are such that I'm in fear of getting seriously hurt, someone is getting shot.
The first defense shooting in TX after the concealed carry law was passed was when a punk attacked a auto driver, punching him in the face through the side window and trying to drag him out of the car.
The driver shot and killed the attacker, who it turned out had a record for violence.
Ruled a "good" shooting.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
I'd say it's not a clean shoot...
I'm not a legal expert but I'd say under those conditions to use a firearm or deadly force would not work. If you got into an arguement that worked up into a fight and the other person did not have a club or bat or weapon to draw a gun and shoot the attacker would not hold up in court(criminal and/or civil). CCW holders and armed professionals(security/bail enforcement/PIs/etc) should know understand the legal standards of the states where they live and/or work.
Bar talk, war stories and "good advice" are not going to help you deal with a REAL shooting incident.
As my state says in it's concealed carry documents:
Having a concealed carry weapon license is not a license to use it.
Rusty S
I'm not a legal expert but I'd say under those conditions to use a firearm or deadly force would not work. If you got into an arguement that worked up into a fight and the other person did not have a club or bat or weapon to draw a gun and shoot the attacker would not hold up in court(criminal and/or civil). CCW holders and armed professionals(security/bail enforcement/PIs/etc) should know understand the legal standards of the states where they live and/or work.
Bar talk, war stories and "good advice" are not going to help you deal with a REAL shooting incident.
As my state says in it's concealed carry documents:
Having a concealed carry weapon license is not a license to use it.
Rusty S
Warren
Member
Do you mean AFTER the bystanders pulled him away and the fight ended? Cause that is a big no.
While he is trying to bash your head in with your car door, I'd say sure. But then I'm not a lawyer. I say yes because if you alter the situation a bit and he is coming at you with a car door trying to beat your head in I'm sure it would be called a good shoot. So why not the other way around? The head is still being bashed on but the BG controls the head rather than the door.
It's a better situation all round to not let something get to this level at all. And while that is obvious and "everyone" knows it it needs to be said over and over again.
While he is trying to bash your head in with your car door, I'd say sure. But then I'm not a lawyer. I say yes because if you alter the situation a bit and he is coming at you with a car door trying to beat your head in I'm sure it would be called a good shoot. So why not the other way around? The head is still being bashed on but the BG controls the head rather than the door.
It's a better situation all round to not let something get to this level at all. And while that is obvious and "everyone" knows it it needs to be said over and over again.
TomFromTheShade
Member
Ending a fair fist fight by shooting someone just doesn't seem right to me. Ending a three on one butt whooping by shooting someone seems reasonable to me.
soutex50
Member
Third party walking up on this brutal beating? Maybe....after proper warning to cease and desist or deadly force would be used of course, situation allowing and head bashing continues.....
As for selling to a jury why you had to shoot someone after a mutually intiated altercation which could have been prevented? Fairly difficult. I've seen many cases in which LEO involved shootings have been scrutinized in every imaginable aspect(state of mind,physical advantage between shooter and shootee,other options of force available, etc) and that is with most states providing a "no duty to retreat" to LEOs. Not saying it couldn't be justified, but very difficult.
As mentioned before in the thread, I can't say this is a well defined "victim" shooting an aggressor situation as other cases mentioned.
In conclusion, 3rd party unaware of circumstances observing this potentionally fatal head bashing, by all means.
Getting your butt kicked after the other party gets the best of you, doable but be prepared to sweat the hot seat and civil damages that follow.
As for selling to a jury why you had to shoot someone after a mutually intiated altercation which could have been prevented? Fairly difficult. I've seen many cases in which LEO involved shootings have been scrutinized in every imaginable aspect(state of mind,physical advantage between shooter and shootee,other options of force available, etc) and that is with most states providing a "no duty to retreat" to LEOs. Not saying it couldn't be justified, but very difficult.
As mentioned before in the thread, I can't say this is a well defined "victim" shooting an aggressor situation as other cases mentioned.
In conclusion, 3rd party unaware of circumstances observing this potentionally fatal head bashing, by all means.
Getting your butt kicked after the other party gets the best of you, doable but be prepared to sweat the hot seat and civil damages that follow.
Probably depends on a lot of things not stated in the post, but based on what we've been given I think a case could be made for shooting in self-defense. The crux is that the victim was attacked and not engaged in a fight. According to the post, he was *dragged out of his car,* then beaten with fists and car door. Yes, they'd had words about the blockbuster (?), but the post doesn't state that they started a fist fight. One guy clearly was trying to walk away and got ambushed.
No, the other man didn't have a weapon, but he doesn't necessarily have to in order to be justified in using deadly force to protect yourself. If you feel your life is in imminent danger, you generally have a pretty good self defense case. Particularly if you have de-escalated from a sitaution, but the other guy is still escalating.
There are a lot of variables that could throw this case one way or another. How big are these guys? If the victims is a 220 pound Marine, and the attacker is an enraged pipsqueek who ambushed him--well, that might be perceived differently.
Of course the cynic in me says it's all going to boil down to lawyers...
No, the other man didn't have a weapon, but he doesn't necessarily have to in order to be justified in using deadly force to protect yourself. If you feel your life is in imminent danger, you generally have a pretty good self defense case. Particularly if you have de-escalated from a sitaution, but the other guy is still escalating.
There are a lot of variables that could throw this case one way or another. How big are these guys? If the victims is a 220 pound Marine, and the attacker is an enraged pipsqueek who ambushed him--well, that might be perceived differently.
Of course the cynic in me says it's all going to boil down to lawyers...
Again, it depends on the state, but as said the lack of a weapon by the attacker isn't always relevant.
The fact that he managed to drag the victim out of the car and commence an ass-kicking without any defence shows a large disparity of force. The attack may have been unprovoked, the story gave little details about what happened in the store.
The idea of a "fair fistfight" is laughable. There is no right to such a thing. There is no right to kill somebody that way. The imbalance of strength, speed, training, and sheer adrenaline/rage seems great. the attacker was strong enough to toss the victim on the ground and bash his head against a solid object unopposed.
Was the victim in reasonable fear of his/her life? How much brain damage must be sustained until it is reasonable?
A DA might even drop it because they don't think they will win.
There certainly are a lot of unanswered variables that will change the situation.
The fact that he managed to drag the victim out of the car and commence an ass-kicking without any defence shows a large disparity of force. The attack may have been unprovoked, the story gave little details about what happened in the store.
The idea of a "fair fistfight" is laughable. There is no right to such a thing. There is no right to kill somebody that way. The imbalance of strength, speed, training, and sheer adrenaline/rage seems great. the attacker was strong enough to toss the victim on the ground and bash his head against a solid object unopposed.
Was the victim in reasonable fear of his/her life? How much brain damage must be sustained until it is reasonable?
A DA might even drop it because they don't think they will win.
There certainly are a lot of unanswered variables that will change the situation.
dastardly-D
Member
Justifiable shooting.............
A heck of a question ! And just what is a fair fight ? One on one ?How about one big nasty MF picking on a young non aggressive type.Hey,that's one on one.Two guys who ''look'' evenly matched,that's just looks.Who's to say the one guy has a bad heart,or spine injury,blind in one eye,or breathing on one lung ? Do you have to take injury,possibly severe injury before you can shoot someone ?:banghead:
A heck of a question ! And just what is a fair fight ? One on one ?How about one big nasty MF picking on a young non aggressive type.Hey,that's one on one.Two guys who ''look'' evenly matched,that's just looks.Who's to say the one guy has a bad heart,or spine injury,blind in one eye,or breathing on one lung ?
Do you have to take injury,possibly severe injury before you can shoot someone ?:banghead:I now have more info. The attacker was a 6 foot 3 inch senior in highschool that is the running back, who obviously lifts weights. The victim was at blockbuster with friends and one friend not the victim made a crack about steroid use. The attacker mistook this comment as being from his eventual victim who is a sophomore. The attacker then waited in the parking lot for half an hour to attack. I hope the extra info helps.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Young, 6'3'' - probably 225# or more and pumps iron - that is someone able to do serious damage (quickly) if he has a mind to try.
I would say it is not justifiable. If the victim was an elderly man or woman or physically handicapped, then yes. Two on one, and it would be justified in my state. But where do you draw the line. I remember an incident at a hockey game where a father punched another player's father in the head and it killed him. There really wan't a size difference between them either. You could also throw in the fact that if some guy is hammering on your face/head, there is a good chance you will lose consciousness. If you are carrying concealed, this may give the attacker a chance to use your weapon on you.
933 people where murdered in assaults by hands and fists in 2004.
FBI Crime Report
The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified: 1. in response to verbal provocation alone or...
Arizona Revised Statutes 13-404.B
You draw the line where there is an assault and not a situation of mutual combat. You draw the line where there is disparate levels of force, like a 200 lb person attacking a 130 lb person. You draw the line when the acts of the attacker become criminal.
Its best not to shoot anyone and the rule is use the least amount of force needed to control the situation. In Arizona a person is justified in threatening or using physical or deadly force if necessary to prevent a specified list of crimes wich includes Agravated Assault and Kidnapping.
If the kid who was beaten was seriously injured (temporary or permanent), temporarily substantially disfigured, or had any broken bones the assailant commited agravated assault under Arizona law. The assailant also commited a violation of Kidnapping by restraining the victim to inflict injury.
In AZ you have the same rules for defense of a 3rd person as pertain to an individual.
RustyShackelford
member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2006
- Messages
- 4,018
Massad Ayoob magazine items about this subject
I'm not here to shill a gun magazine or push Ayoob articles but Massad Ayoob does put out some useful magazine reading about this very subject. He writes about real documented court cases and the legal/civil aftermath.
Rusty S
I'm not here to shill a gun magazine or push Ayoob articles but Massad Ayoob does put out some useful magazine reading about this very subject. He writes about real documented court cases and the legal/civil aftermath.
Rusty S
In mo opinion, the victims "friends" should've all stood up and defended him against the athlete, to the point of delivering unto him a severe beatdown. This should be the wages of starting an unprovoked fight.
Lacking that, if the situation is as presented, I'd have no problem finding the victim not guilty if he was to defend himself with a firearm in the early stages of the event...
Lacking that, if the situation is as presented, I'd have no problem finding the victim not guilty if he was to defend himself with a firearm in the early stages of the event...
carebear
Member
Google is your friend there Glock22.
This is the second item that pops up when you type "Massad Ayoob" into google.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/ayoob_index.html
There are a kazillion others, including links to his books, which would have popped up if you had typed his name into Amazon or Barnes and Noble, or even into the "Search" function on this very website.
As my Dad used to ask me years ago, "Did you even TRY before you asked for help?" :banghead:
This is the second item that pops up when you type "Massad Ayoob" into google.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/ayoob_index.html
There are a kazillion others, including links to his books, which would have popped up if you had typed his name into Amazon or Barnes and Noble, or even into the "Search" function on this very website.
As my Dad used to ask me years ago, "Did you even TRY before you asked for help?" :banghead:
FrogClan
Member
Doesn't sound to me like a mutual decision to engage in a "fair fight." In fact, it sounds like at least one participant was leaving the scene of the original confrontation.
The second he reached into the car I would have reached for the gun. What happened next would depend on whether or not I was allowed to drive away without further molestation.
Sounds to me like the steroid comment may have hit too close to home for the attacker. No reasonable person, and certainly not someone clean, would be so enraged as to wait in a parking lot for 30 minutes in ambush over a comment made. Someone in the midst of a 'roid rage is certainly capable of inflicting grevious bodily harm and/or death.
Sam
Sam
So enraged that he didn't even get the right guy, so the kid that was roughed up must have been extremely surprised.
You can blame his friends for not jumping in right away, but most people are in "Code White" and teenagers moreso. Let's face it, such things are shocking.
Really if he was pissed off enough to wait 30 minutes to fight, he is going to keep fighting until he is put down hard.
You can blame his friends for not jumping in right away, but most people are in "Code White" and teenagers moreso. Let's face it, such things are shocking.
Really if he was pissed off enough to wait 30 minutes to fight, he is going to keep fighting until he is put down hard.
dastardly-D
Member
I'm with you FrogClan,if you reach for me,you have a quick decision to make.A mutual agreed upon fight is one thing.....maybe. At some point in the fight you may realize your opponent is trying to cause you serious bodily harm or death.Should you wait on your opponents mercy ? I don't think so,there are cemetaries and hospitals full of those kind of victims .If you carry,you may some day come upon a situation like some of the above mentioned.If you carry,you better have already considered why you carry !
- Status
