unarmed attacker vs armed would be victim??

Status
Not open for further replies.

thrashthis56

Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Messages
32
Location
missouri
hi, this is my question. if you are being attacked by a person who is unarmed and you are armed, by law can you draw your weapon and use deadly force if needed? i live in missouri and cannot find anything about it. if this has already been asked would you be so kind and post a link? thanks!
 
Most states do not specific allow it, a few do.
Texas I believe considers display of a lethal weapon like a firearm to just be use of force, not use of lethal force.
Most states however consider display or use of a firearm only legal when the actual use of lethal force is. So it must meet the criteria to use it, just to legally draw it, you can't just draw it to try and keep the situation from getting to that point.



In most states it is a highly discretionary situation after, frequently judged by a jury.
There is things like a disparity of force, being that if you are a woman vs a man, small, injured, elderly, or half the size of the individual you may get more benefit of the doubt.
Also if there is multiple of them, and one or a lot fewer of you.
If however you are of similar size, or similar in number, and not just what you think is similar size or numbers, but other people do, then it is much less likely to be judged in your favor.

Other things change the scenario too, like if you are 'mutual combatants'.
If you said things, or challenged someone, you can be seen as no longer an innocent victim but a participant in a mutual fight, even if they attack first.
If you did anything to keep your ego in tact it can be used against you after to show you were not doing all you could to avoid confrontation.
If however you made it quite clear you want no problems, did all you could to back down from any challenge, and still got attacked, that counts in your favor.




In most states people cannot really give you legal advice on it, because it will be entirely discretionary after the fact. A jury will get to decide if what you did was reasonable.
A lot of people with little to no real life experience with violence think things are a lot more like the movies or the school yard playground.
Where you can exchange blows and defend yourself without using a weapon, and that by pulling a weapon you took it to another level and are the one that went too far.
Such people can then determine your fate.

There is plenty of real life examples you can read about with nightmare scenarios.

We had a good thread on one not long ago in Arizona, where a guy was attacked by 2 women in his driveway. At some point a third guy joined in. They had him on the ground and were kicking him If I recall correctly, on his own driveway, he pulled a gun and shot.
I don't think anyone died, yet he still spent a lot of money, and had a hung jury, and I think more were in favor of guilty than in favor of acquittal.
So the prosecution tried him again, and I seem to recall he didn't get a not guilty verdict that time either, but wasn't convicted.
He had a restraining order that prevented him from even going home to his house for the length of the trials because it was too close to the attackers' home, and his wife had to ferry belongings back and forth while he paid to rent another place.
This guy had expert witnesses, including the respected Mas Ayoob, testify on his behalf, and he still barely missed going to prison for using a gun in gun friendly Arizona to defend himself from multiple people kicking him while he was down in his own driveway.


So nobody can tell you that you won't go to prison.
Likewise nobody can tell you that its not a good decision to use a weapon.
It is not a duel, and you are not honor bound to suffer any temporary or permanent injuries for a fight you didn't even want to be in. Yet the culture of the jurors may feel otherwise.
Many grown men can also do serious damage resulting in lifelong injuries in a matter of seconds.
Once you are down or unconscious you also no longer have the option to decide you actually do think your gun might be necessary.
Many street fights today end with the loser being stomped to death, or kicked or stomped in a way that leaves someone with long term injury or disability.
Even conscious, once grappling with someone deploying your firearm is a lot more difficult, keeping control of it, not letting it get taken from you, etc
The other individual may very well not have any such inhibitions, and if they get you down, unconscious, or get your firearm will kill you.


So its your judgment call, and a jury gets to tell you if it was acceptable to them after the fact.
 
Last edited:
As stated above ^^^ this is in no way any legal advice !!!! Talk to an attorney in your State that knows the laws!!!

Some States do have a "Stand Your Ground" Law, where if you are in fear of your life, that of your loved ones, or in some cases that of someone else, or if you feel that you are going to suffer severe bodily harm. Then it is possible sometimes, that you can use deadly force.

BUT you never know what will play-out in the eyes of the court system.

Learn and understand the laws of your State before you do use any type of a weapon to defend yourself in any situations!!!

Checkout this web sight as a point of reference, it is updated regularly.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/

Again ... Talk to an attorney in your State that knows the laws of your State!!!
 
The scenario that always frightens has to do with teenage hoodlum gangs that are everywhere these days. My fear is that I encounter them vandalizing say my mail box or similar that can be a gang initiation for some kids from the wealth side of town. You go out to stop them and several punks could get out of a car to beat you up. So what do you, watch them destroy your property and everyone else's or intervene perhaps seriously injuring them or killing them with a gun or getting badly injured by the punks. These kids can have well heeled parents and jail time and being sued for what you have is possible.
 
We had a good thread on one not long ago in Arizona, where a guy was attacked by 2 women in his driveway. At some point a third guy joined in. They had him on the ground and were kicking him If I recall correctly, on his own driveway, he pulled a gun and shot.
I don't think anyone died, yet he still spent a lot of money, and had a hung jury, and I think more were in favor of guilty than in favor of acquittal.
So the prosecution tried him again, and I seem to recall he didn't get a not guilty verdict that time either, but wasn't convicted.
He had a restraining order that prevented him from even going home to his house for the length of the trials because it was too close to the attackers' home, and his wife had to ferry belongings back and forth while he paid to rent another place.
This guy had expert witnesses, including the respected Mas Ayoob, testify on his behalf, and he still barely missed going to prison for using a gun in gun friendly Arizona to defend himself from multiple people kicking him while he was down in his own driveway.

I don't believe this. There has to be more to the story.

People have gotten away with dubious claims of self defense in more restricitve states. I simply can't believe this happened until more evidence is summoned.
 
There certainly is, a lot more.

Here is the story:

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey Booklet.pdf


Example:

Blows from both sisters rain down on the crown of his
head and his arms as he blocks their fists. Hickey ducks down, and while
blocking the blows with his arms, he tries unsuccessfully to activate a remote
control to open the garage door so the couple can run to safety. The
front door to the Hickey’s home is securely locked, limiting their options.

As the neighbor women renew their attack, screaming at Hickey and
hitting him with their fists, Hickey hears the sound of running feet and glass
breaking in the street. Through the narrowed field of tunnel vision, Hickey
senses only a flash of movement and then feels a staggering impact to the
side of his head.
Loud voices and Hickey’s struggle to fend off the women have drawn
the attention of the boyfriend who had recently arrived home from work, removed
his dress shirt, and poured a glass of wine in the house across the
street. Hearing the fracas, this man ran across the street, dropping the wine
glass enroute, and jumped into the fight, slugging Hickey hard on the left
temple. That blow changes Hickey’s decision to try to get through the attack
by just blocking the blows. When the other man nails his temple, Hickey’s
vision blurs to white, his legs buckle, and he staggers back, nearly passing
out. In court, Hickey will testify that when “the new attacker showed up, then
it went from scary to terrifying, just like that the whole dynamic just changed
in a split second.”

Here is the thread discussing it:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=7324139


He barely stayed out of prison after more than one trial.
He also had better expert witnesses than most people who go to court will, and he also got a lot of financial assistance.
Many people won't have the money or the expert witnesses he did, and he still barely escaped prison for using a gun while being attacked by multiple unarmed people in his driveway, in Arizona one of the most gun friendly states in the country.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe this. There has to be more to the story.

There is. Search for "Lawrence Hickey".

ETA: Zoog put up a link.

People have gotten away with dubious claims of self defense in more restricitve states. I simply can't believe this happened until more evidence is summoned.

Well, if you read the whole story you'll see a shocking failure on the part of the police, the prosecutor, the judge... the system failed in so many ways in this case it's not even funny. Perfect storm of incompetence.
 
The truth is, every situation is different.

It is entirely possible that someone can point a gun at you and you weren't in legitimate fear. If say, you were in a domestic altercation with a woman, she grabbed a gun you knew to be unloaded, (safety rules aside,) and had done so many times, in front of witnesses, and you had laughed at her and told her she didn't have the guts. The police find her dead, because you shot her, with an empty gun in her hand, and you try to say you were afraid of her, you might have an uphill battle on your hands.

On the other hand, if a petite female is attacked by a man who she knows from the past to be violent, and is twice her size, and the police find them behind a bar, him dead on the ground with red stuff leaking out of him, unarmed, her with a gun, she would have an easier time convincing the DA she was in legitimate fear of her life.

Understand that these two entire fictional situations are contrived to demonstrate the difference. In real life, you are going to be judged based on the totality of the circumstances. If you carry, it is YOUR responsibility to make your life as uncomplicated as possible. The guy in the first situation shouldn't have had a girlfriend who is bat-poop crazy. The girl in the second situation shouldn't hang out alone behind the bar with a guy she knows is dangerous. But it is impossible to say that every time someone points a gun at you, you are allowed to shoot them, or that there aren't situations where the unarmed person is still able to cause serious injury or death to the defending party.

I'm not looking up Missouri law, but most states have laws that allow the use of deadly force to either A: prevent serious bodily injury or death; or B: To prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
 
Oh I think it also came out at some point that one of the women attacking Hickey was a pretty good martial artist that liked to fight and was known for fighting.

It was inadmissible in court I believe and so not part of the story.
And why I cannot recall the exact details of that part.
 
It was inadmissible in court I believe and so not part of the story.
And why I cannot recall the exact details of that part.

The judge ruled it inadmissible since Hickey couldn't have used that information to assess the danger because he didn't know it at the time of the incident.

I think this was around the time of the law change after the Fish case.
 
Well, if you read the whole story you'll see a shocking failure on the part of the police, the prosecutor, the judge... the system failed in so many ways in this case it's not even funny. Perfect storm of incompetence.

There's the problem. Failure of the initial investigating process. The police didn't even interview him.

Two hung juries.....what kind of people live in Tucson? Former californians probably? Jeez...

On another note, the part in which one of the attackers lied to the judge in order to get a restraining order on the defendant to purposely have him lose his guns gave me the chills. That's disturbing.
 
"On another note, the part in which one of the attackers lied to the judge in order to get a restraining order on the defendant to purposely have him lose his guns gave me the chills. That's disturbing."

I thought the same. Incredible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top