Pulling a gun on a unarmed assailant?

[shafter]

In order to legally use deadly force you must be able to articulate that you were in fear of great bodily harm or death.

I think in most instances one grown man threatening to punch another in the face does not rise to that level.

Losing could be fatal if the weapon is taken.

True, however law enforcement gets into fights all the time with at least one firearm present (the officer's). Just because an assailant could attempt to grab the gun doesn't mean deadly force is justified. Deadly force may be justified if the assailant is actively trying to grab the gun.

 

[Sam1911]

You know, the principles of the law and how it helps society handle the serious problem of conflict and violence have not changed very much in western society in hundreds of years. The only possible way that "minority rights" have some how been implicated in a change in our values and systems of justice is that we now try very hard, here in the US at least, to apply the same rights and human value to all persons of all cultures, sexes, races, and social standing equally. And if you feel that is a negative thing, I'd invite you to go share your brand of (hardly) independent thinking elsewhere.

Unless the idea of our slide into a third world country is ridiculous. I am not able to close my eyes that tight, although I wish I could.

I probably shouldn't directly respond because, honestly, I can't quite decipher what you're even ranting about, but we live in a more just, more equal, and less violent, safer country now than at any point in history. If you're saying that this resembles a "third world country" you simply sound foolish. It's like some of "our side" who throw out claims of Naziism or communism. You're unhappy about something but don't have the ability to describe what it is you think is wrong and so revert to using grossly misapplied terms to fluff up the point you haven't managed to sustain.

I kind of wish we wouldn't do that.

 

[hdwhit]

I want to say a big, "Thank you!" to the attorneys who patiently took the time to explain this subject to us in such clear and easy to understand terms.

 

[Art Eatman]

Casefull, I'll add to danez71's comment: I really doubt that our members are unaware that we have problems with societal decay. This website is not the place in which to vent.

 

[Casefull]

I did not realize I was ranting and apologize for coming across that way. I have observed life in America and around the world for much of my 64 years. I have lived a wonderful life from humble beginnings. It is impossible to have a fair argument when my opinions are treated as though I am inferior intellectually. Any problems I have expressing myself Sam, was an attempt to avoid upsetting you. I am glad you see the country as you do and may I be wrong and you right. This is not my forum and I will keep my thoughts to myself in the future. The last thing I want to do is upset anyone.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It is impossible to have a fair argument when my opinions are treated as though I am inferior intellectually. Any problems I have expressing myself Sam, was an attempt to avoid upsetting you. I am glad you see the country as you do and may I be wrong and you right.....

The point is that here in the Legal Forum our purpose is to understand what the law actually is and how it actually works in real life in the real world. Therefore opinions not solidly grounded in what statutes say or how courts have ruled, really don't further our purposes. Our focus is not what folks might personally think is right or wrong, or how things ought to be. It's on what actually is.

As we say in The Legal Forum Guidelines at the top to the Legal Forum:

Note: The Legal Forum is for the discussion of the law as it is and how the law actually applies in RKBA matters, not the way we think things should be or the way we wish they were. Comments and opinions should be based on legal principles and supported where appropriate with reference to legal authority, including court decisions, statutes and scholarly articles. Comments based on wishful thinking may be openly refuted or simply deleted by the staff.

Remember also that this board is a "public" place and that nothing posted here should be considered confidential....

 

[Shaq]

In order to legally use deadly force you must be able to articulate that you were in fear of great bodily harm or death.

I think in most instances one grown man threatening to punch another in the face does not rise to that level.



True, however law enforcement gets into fights all the time with at least one firearm present (the officer's). Just because an assailant could attempt to grab the gun doesn't mean deadly force is justified. Deadly force may be justified if the assailant is actively trying to grab the gun.

I heard a judge explain "One Punch Homicide" where someone dies as a result of a punch. The victim may fall & suffer a fatal head injury or he may have an issue with a blood vessel in his brain (known or unknown) that causes death.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I heard a judge explain "One Punch Homicide" where someone dies as a result of a punch. The victim may fall & suffer a fatal head injury or he may have an issue with a blood vessel in his brain (known or unknown) that causes death.

"One Punch Homicide" is, at best, a freak occurence.

Unless you have a pretty good disparity of force going on, claiming fear of a "One Punch Homicide" as a defense in a self-defence trial simply ain't gonna cut it.

 

[danez71]

It seems "One punch homicide" has fallen into the 'negligent homicide / involuntary manslaughter' catagory according to the abundance of articles and references I've seen.

My understanding of their definition doesn't lend well to claiming you feared for you life from the possible negligent/unintended result of aggressors actions.

ETA: I mean that from the sense that a single punch doesn't seem to be enough.... but if in the totality of circumstances the guy that was punched can articulate a reasonable fear of being killed because of other actions made by the puncher, then maybe has got a defense that might work.

 

[joem1945]

I'm old, crippled up and have a bad ticker and a bleeder. I always carry and I believe I would have pulled my firearm.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

after carefully reading though six pages of comments....I come to the conclusion...that a law abiding citizen...has less rights in a stress filled situation...than a potential criminal....

Yeah I'm kind of getting that. Before I show a gun to someone who plainly is threating physical harm to me, I need to guess his age, height, weight and his best bench press?
And determine if I can stop him from bashing my head in?

 

[Carne Frio]

I'm 70. So between the age thing, disparity of force
and Alaska castle doctrine, I would have done the
two to the chest one to the head. I would rather have
to pay for a lawyer than my family having to be doing
a funeral.