Things to Not Do

[aaaaa]

Should one person attack one equally able person with non-deadly physical force, the victim would be justified in defending himself with proportional non-deadly physical force.

Again it goes back to the fair fight thing. Should I have to risk a shattered jaw because it has to be a fair fight when I could have used my pistol to stop the attack before I suffered severe injury? I know, the court system, jury, prosecuting attorneys, etc. don't see it my way, and probably don't want to see it my way.

 

[Kleanbore]

Again it goes back to the fair fight thing. Should I have to risk a shattered jaw because it has to be a fair fight when I could have used my pistol....

It has nothing to do with a "fair fight".

Yes, there is a risk of harm. There is possibly a chance of death. But deadly force is reserved for use against a deadly force attack. A deadly force attack is one in which there is a foreseeable likelihood of death or serious harm.

This has been the case at least since Geoffrey Chaucer wrote "The Tale of the Man of Law".

 

[Balrog]

It has nothing to do with a "fair fight".

Yes, there is a risk of harm. There is possibly a chance of death. But deadly force is reserved for use against a deadly force attack. A deadly force attack is one in which there is a foreseeable likelihood of death or serious harm.

This has been the case at least since Geoffrey Chaucer wrote "The Tale of the Man of Law".

I get what you are saying, but there are things that can be different between two people who are physically equal that might make an attack more likely to be deadly, or give one of the apparently equal people a distinct advantage. One of them is mindset. Another would be rage. Another would be the element of surprise.

If I am sitting on a park bench feeding the birds popcorn, and an enraged person comes up behind me and punches me as hard as he can, I probably am at a disadvantage combating him from that point on, even if we are physically equal. Also an attack like that can quickly go from being non-deadly (ie, a punch), to deadly (ie, repetitively punching and kicking me once I am down). At some point, a physical assault with fists and feet becomes a lifethreatening attack.

 

[Gordon]

I get what you are saying, but there are things that can be different between two people who are physically equal that might make an attack more likely to be deadly, or give one of the apparently equal people a distinct advantage. One of them is mindset. Another would be rage. Another would be the element of surprise.

If I am sitting on a park bench feeding the birds popcorn, and an enraged person comes up behind me and punches me as hard as he can, I probably am at a disadvantage combating him from that point on, even if we are physically equal. Also an attack like that can quickly go from being non-deadly (ie, a punch), to deadly (ie, repetitively punching and kicking me once I am down). At some point, a physical assault with fists and feet becomes a lifethreatening attack.

being non-deadly (ie, a punch)
Lots of people die from a single punch to the right pace in the head, or even over the heart. A punch in the nose with a proper openhanded strike is extra deadly FWIW

 

[Kleanbore]

Lots of people die from a single punch to the right pace in the head, or even over the heart. A punch in the nose with a proper openhanded strike is extra deadly FWIW

That is absolutely true.

One does not want to get into a fight. Avoid, avoid, avoid.

The courts do not see a punch in an altercation between equals as deadly force, but as Old Dog posted out, the courts will (should) consider such things as disparity of force.

They may not always do so, however. Here's a case in which a man attacked and overpowered by three people went to the gun to keep it from being taken. No one was killed. The defender, who had a corrections officer background, knew what he was doing. I cannot begin to see his actions as anything but justified.

But he was tried twice, and he spent time behind bars--in gun-friendly Arizona.

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey_Booklet.pdf

 

[wayneinFL]

I get what you are saying, but there are things that can be different between two people who are physically equal that might make an attack more likely to be deadly, or give one of the apparently equal people a distinct advantage. One of them is mindset. Another would be rage. Another would be the element of surprise.

If I am sitting on a park bench feeding the birds popcorn, and an enraged person comes up behind me and punches me as hard as he can, I probably am at a disadvantage combating him from that point on, even if we are physically equal. Also an attack like that can quickly go from being non-deadly (ie, a punch), to deadly (ie, repetitively punching and kicking me once I am down). At some point, a physical assault with fists and feet becomes a lifethreatening attack.

The fact is that almost any adult, and most teenagers CAN kill you. The problem is recognizing an attack before it happens and avoiding it or stopping it.

There may be clues. There may be absolutely no clue it's about to happen.

 

[Kleanbore]

This started with a discussion woman who presented a firearm in a parking lot in Tennessee, and who was judged to have acted unlawfully.

This is pure speculation, but I think it likely that the did just what she thought she had been told, or trained to do: observe what she took to be a dangerous threat approaching, warn him to stop, and when that didn't work, draw.

The problem is that she misjudged the situation.

We've had some good suggestions here--read body language, step away, use the grocery cart....

I hope we can learn from this.

 

[The Night Rider]

I've already said it doesn't matter if you think you're justified. What matters is if you can convince The Court that you were justified and your actions were reasonable.

We don't have the whole story but if all the other guy did was ask for a light and maybe not back off when asked without displaying any weapon or taking any aggressive action I don't see how her actions can be considered reasonable and commensurate to the threat.

I don't even think OC would have been an appropriate response here

 

[ojibweindian]

The only thing I've learned is that "a jury of your peers" isn't comforting. Too many stupid ******.

 

[Old Dog]

Here's a case in which a man attacked and overpowered by three people went to the gun to keep it from being taken. No one was killed. The defender, who had a corrections officer background, knew what he was doing. I cannot begin to see his actions as anything but justified.

But he was tried twice, and he spent time behind bars--in gun-friendly Arizona.

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey_Booklet.pdf

Excellent case to bring up.

Even in some more conservative jurisdictions, it's worth remembering that a prosecutor's job is to obtain convictions, not serve justice. This was clearly a biased prosecution (and in the current political climate we are seeing this over and over) with a white shooter and minority "victims." The lies of the one side were bought while the defendant's truthful testimony was purposely discredited by the prosecution and the narrative of one armed male vs. three unarmed females swayed the jury in the first trial.

 

[Scrapiron45]

After this thread opened I discussed the subject of parking lot confrontations with a friend who is a security supervisor for a couple big box stores locally.
His suggestions,
Plan your shopping, use their online shopping service, have your groceries delivered or they'll load them for you in the parking lot. Even our farm supply stores are offering this service now.
Shop with a friend or spouse.
If having small children is complicating your shopping use sitters, grandparents, or friends to watch them. Don't outnumber yourself in the store. He also suggested (eye roll) leave the pets at home, they're just another distraction.
If you find yourself concerned about returning to your vehicle ask the store to have someone walk you out. Evidently they do this quite often even escorting employees to their cars after a shift.

 

[aaaaa]

The only thing I've learned is that "a jury of your peers" isn't comforting. Too many stupid ******.

Oh if only it were of my peers. But I don't fit in with most of the people here in the Detroit tri-county area.

 

[Kleanbore]

The only thing I've learned is that "a jury of your peers" isn't comforting. Too many stupid ******.

If you are referring to the Murfreesboro case, where was no mention of a jury trial, and the evidence seems to tell us that the woman did not act lawfully.

If you are referring to the Arizona gas, I think the problem was with the prosecution.

One other thing: the idea of a jury if one's peers is a British concept--lords nay not be judged by commoners. in our country, we are to have a fair and impartial jury.

 

[ojibweindian]

If you are referring to the Murfreesboro case, where was no mention of a jury trial, and the evidence seems to tell us that the woman did not act lawfully.

If you are referring to the Arizona gas, I think the problem was with the prosecution.

One other thing: the idea of a jury if one's peers is a British concept--lords nay not be judged by commoners. in our country, we are to have a fair and impartial jury.

I was referring to the Arizona case.

And making a bit of a snide comment about the cluelessness of people, in general.

 

[Kleanbore]

I was referring to the Arizona case.

Neither jury convicted Hickey.

 

[ojibweindian]

Neither jury convicted Hickey.

Neither did they acquit; hung jury isn’t necessarily encouraging.

 

[Kleanbore]

Neither did they acquit; hung jury isn’t necessarily encouraging.

Do you know what evidence was admitted, and what testimony they heard?

 

[plainsdrifter]

Scenario's where open carry could have been an advantage. If your open carrying at an ATM or in a parking lot I seriously doubt anyone's going to mess with ya

 

[Gordon]

After this thread opened I discussed the subject of parking lot confrontations with a friend who is a security supervisor for a couple big box stores locally.
His suggestions,
Plan your shopping, use their online shopping service, have your groceries delivered or they'll load them for you in the parking lot. Even our farm supply stores are offering this service now.
Shop with a friend or spouse.
If having small children is complicating your shopping use sitters, grandparents, or friends to watch them. Don't outnumber yourself in the store. He also suggested (eye roll) leave the pets at home, they're just another distraction.
If you find yourself concerned about returning to your vehicle ask the store to have someone walk you out. Evidently they do this quite often even escorting employees to their cars after a shift.

So much for liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the "American Way" , I'm for eliminating whatever brought us to this point.

 

[The Night Rider]

Scenario's where open carry could have been an advantage. If your open carrying at an ATM or in a parking lot I seriously doubt anyone's going to mess with ya

Don't bet on it.

Detroit cop fights off two men trying to steal his gun at gas station

The Detroit Police Department is still searching for two men who tried to steal a gun off the hip of a cop as he was buying fuel at a Detroit gas station. FO...

youtu.be

Then went after an on duty cop. Do you really think they wouldn't go after you?

 

[wayneinFL]

So much for liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the "American Way" , personally Im fr eliminating what ever brought us to this point.

What liberty do you not have? The liberty to commit an aggravated assault?

You're still free to go to the store or not. Hundreds of millions of people do this every week. In 35 years of weekly grocery shopping, I have never been robbed, hit over the head, knockout gamed. I've never ran off an aggressive panhandler. I've never pulled a gun on anybody, had to testify in court over it, been prosecuted, taken a plea, or had to go in front of a jury.

If one case of a woman overreacting to a situation 8 years ago scares you that bad, stay home and order everything online. But don't say it's society's or the government's fault you're taking the news media way too seriously.

 

[The Night Rider]

The only thing that I go to Walmart to get is fresh fruit and the only reason I do that is because I want to pick out my own bananas.

My Walmart happens to be in a strip mall. When I go in I park up against the curb next to one or the other stores.

There are no signs outside any of the stores that say that parking in front of them is exclusively for patrons of that store.

I go in, I get my bananas and I leave.

Everything else we get delivered to our house. We have Walmart membership that cost us $90 a a year. 10 bucks a month is less than gas would cost.

 

[Kleanbore]

If one case of a woman overreacting to a situation 8 years ago scares you that bad, stay home and order everything online. But don't say it's society's or the government's fault you're taking the news media way too seriously.

I shouldn't try to speak for Gordon, but i think he was referring to the recommendations of the security adviser that Scrapiron45 mentioned. They are sound, prudent recommendations, but we remember a time when people would not find themselves discussing such things.

In 35 years of weekly grocery shopping, I have never been robbed, hit over the head, knockout gamed. I've never ran off an aggressive panhandler. I've never pulled a gun on anybody, had to testify in court over it, been prosecuted, taken a plea, or had to go in front of a jury.

Good for you--and 35 years does represent a lot of exposure. But as they say, past performance is not indicative of future results. And don't forget--it's not the odds, its the stakes.

We have almost everything delivered. Our reason is convenience, but it has the benefit of reducing risk.

 

[ojibweindian]

Do you know what evidence was admitted, and what testimony they heard?

I do not.

I can only say with certainty that the jury was hung.

 

[ojibweindian]

I shouldn't try to speak for Gordon, but i think he was referring to the recommendations of the security adviser that Scrapiron45 mentioned. They are sound, prudent recommendations, but we remember a time when people would not find themselves discussing such things.

Good for you--and 35 years does represent a lot of exposure. But as they say, past performance is not indicative of future results. And don't forget--it's not the odds, its the stakes.

We have almost everything delivered. Our reason is convenience, but it has the benefit of reducing risk.

At some point, though, someone has to stand up.