Use of Deadly Force

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK first of all, some gang of punks starts beating my kid up with baseball bats and concrete casts and I'm with the rest of you who's going to start shooting and give words of warning later.

Now on to the other points. Recently in TX there was a dude who shot a couple of 13-14 year old kids in his house who had been breaking into the house. Some of the kids did not get shot. He didn't know their ages until after the incident, as far as he knew they were adults sized people breaking into his house while he was in it, in the middle of the night, which makes for a justified home defense scenario any way you slice it. Except the kids who lived through this claimed they were "only breaking into the house to steal a glass of milk" or something like that. Anyway the dude is on criminal charges because the DA has determined that he should have known they were "just kids" and therefore he was maybe not justified to use deadly force on these helpless children.

Anyway I know that's not exactly the same scenario but it does make an interesting point, which is that in retrospect, DAs and maybe even juries and judges are likely to consider that an altercation between a minor child (or three) and an adult wherein the adult is armed with a gun and the child is armed with a bat is not necessarily justified self defense. Whether these charges hold up, who knows.

In TX, you have the right to defend yourself or a third party against crimes such as murder, attempted murder, assault, aggravated assault, aggravated kidnapping, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the night, and also to prevent the escape of an actor who has committed such a crime. However our CHL instructor, retired police officer, basically said that shooting someone who is fleeing is asking for trouble even though it is legally justified.

So given the scenario of the following:

1. it was just a group of "poor helpless children having a little squabble"
2. even if you drew a weapon the kids would likely flee and then finish their assault on your kid at a later date when no armed parent is present,

I would still figure you shoot to save your life, and figure that any survivors are likely to testify that you shot them while they were just doing nothing malicious and they only took up arms to defend themselves from you, the vigilante who is carrying 33 rounds of ammunition looking for an opportunity to go shoot some kids. C'est la vie. You'll land in court and the judged by twelve clause takes effect.
 
72. That's the point exactly. I' m not advocating opening up on them. Some of the threats will be deadly and some will not. You have to keep your head to deal with the situation in a fashion that doesn't land you in jail. To me that means taking them on one at a time by using distance to divide and deal with them as they are-armed and unarmed. It may not
be the best response, but it's the best I can think of. If one of them goes down and the rest leave, it's over.

I live in Florida, and the self defense laws are pretty liberal. But, there are limits. These gangbanging kids here are very dangerous, and I would not deal with them as if they were just children. Anyone who thinks a good beating doesn't justify the use of force may be kidding themselves.

My partner has a client who was the victim of a beating by multiple assailants. He is 33 years old, and at the time he was 6'3" and 240 lbs. No small man. He can no longer use his right arm. His mind can form words, but he cannot speak them. The words he does speak come out in jumbled order and are somewhat garbled. He cannot take care of his daily needs or work. He now permanently resides in a care facility because he will never recover. His attackers were all unarmed and could only be charged with and convicted of battery.

This is a tough scenerio. I appreciate the thoughts and ideas.
 
I would fire a shot into the ground(assuming not on blacktop) because 1 it would get there attention and they would run away
If they're not gonna run away from a warning shot ie come at me /pull their guns that gives me 100% legal ability esp. if they pulled guns

As far as them being "urban combat vets" if they are then shooting one first wouldn't cause them to run away anyway and you'd be in the same predictiment except you shot someone first. If theres that many and they're willing to get in a gunfight It's just not your day(esp if you only have a snubbie)
 
A gang of underage thugs approaches with bats and other non-firearm deadly weapons, I am going to draw when they get within about 30 feet of me or anyone I am charged with protecting, and if they don't make an immediate and hasty retreat, then they can expect to be shot. Aim at the biggest guy with the most lethal weapon first. The safety and welfare of my family is far more important than avoiding a legal hassle later on.
 
buck00 said:
... a warning shot would be the best way to neutralize the situation....
Click to expand...

A warning shot may be the best way to end up in jail yourself. It shows that you weren't in any imminent danger . If you really feared for your life, or that of someone else, then why were you wasting ammuntion like that? It also demonstrates recklessness; you are responsible for every round and where it ends up.
 
In NC you would be hard pressed to find any person "of ordinary firmness" that would not think lethal force was warranted in the scenarios presented.
I'm not going to waste one round on a warning shot, it sure would be a shame to need one more round in the end to make the attacker/s stop. Mentally I train to keep my weapon holstered unless use is justified. I understand training and reality are entirely different.
Just my .02.
 
In NC you would be hard pressed to find any person "of ordinary firmness" that would not think lethal force was warranted in the scenarios presented.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. The problem when using lethal force is that you are under an obligation not to cross the line into being an aggressor. Sometimes its clear cut, one attacker, fire until he or she stops the attack. If they continue to press, keep firing. Multiple attacker scenarios are much more complicated. If you put one down, all of the others may flee, some of them may flee while others continue the attack, they may stop the attack but not flee, etc.

There's also the complication of how badly your loved one has been injured. If they're lying on the ground with a bruised eye and bloody lip and the punks won't leave, it's one thing. If your loved one is lying on the ground bleeding out and in dire need of emergency first aid, then getting to them to render aid justifies continuing to fire until said punks do turn and flee.

That's what I said before, this is what S&T is all about, using your head to game through different scenarios before the fecal matter hits the oscillating air movement device. There are a number of ways this could go. Cookie cutter advice about emptying your magazine and letting the legal chips fall where they may is really taking the intellectually lazy way out. Your brain is as important a tool here as your gun is.

Different possibilities:

You hear screams from the front yard, run out on your porch with your gun and see the pack of thugs beating down your child.

1. On hearing your maniacal, blood curdling war cry and seeing you with your firearm at the ready, they flee. Well and good, call 911, get your child out of danger and to medical assistance if necessary.

2. On hearing and seeing you, they ignore you and continue their attack. (This could happen because they don't believe you'll shoot.) You shoot the one nearest your child until he drops, the rest turn and flee.

3. You recognize these punks as the hardcore gang bangers that have been terrorizing the neighborhood and you have prior knowledge that they carry guns. Address them all with one round as quickly as possible from a position of cover. Repeat as necessary until they flee.

If you can articulate a good reason for your actions in any of the above scenarios, you'll be ahead of the game.
 
Last edited:
I had reason to think this through quite thoroughly 2 1/2 years ago. The background can be found at http://nousfromspring.blogspot.com/2006/01/between-sow-and-her-cub.html

My youngest is now almost 20, and lives with his brother in a shared apartment across town. It's highly unlikely that, should another threat arise of that sort, that's I'd be around to deal with it. But it certainly served to clarify just how willing I am to escalate to deadly force to protect myself or my family.

Springmom
 
Even all of them unarmed could warrant lethal force, the disparity of force and multiple individuals showing they are completely willing to inflict injury as a group can lead you to believe action is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury.

Merely brandishing a firearm would likely succeed in stopping the attack, but if it did not, or they then focosed on you then lethal force is the right decision.
Of course merely brandishing also gives them the opportunity to pull a firearm or other weapon you do not realize they have, and keeping track of the actions of multiple individuals at once is difficult.
So nothing is perfect.

Individuals acting in concert with someone armed with a lethal weapon are just as much of a danger as the person armed. They can attack and be grappling with you or keeping your attention when the blow that disables you comes from another direction. Once you are down and semi conscious or unconscious your ability to choose between options is done. Whether they then proceed to hit you a few more times, stomp on your head, or pick up a rock or piece of junk nearby etc and kill you or disable you for life is all up to them.

The problem is not with the law, but the opinion of the community. In many locations parents and others would rally behind the kids "just being kids" who had a gun pointed at them (aggravated assault/assault with a deadly weapon felony if just pointing it is deemed unnecessary) or were shot.
If you allowed yourself to be seriously injured or killed those same "kids being kids" would be seen as criminals. If you prevent that from happening they were just kids you over reacted dealing with and you are the one criticized.

Another problem with such incidents, especialy involving a large number of people is that many witnesses will be a friend of one or more of the punks. Thier stories will be told from the angle that makes the friend as innocent as possible, or even involve lies to protect thier friend.
This happens with both kids, gangs, and other places like bars etc. If it is the attackers area or a place they frequent and know many people, then they will have witnesses that are partial to them.
 
1) To "UCVs" a warning shot would just be perceived as evidence that you don't have the cojones to shoot for real.
2) You have just launched a projectile which could injure an innocent party.
3) You have just wasted round you might need in confronting multiple assailants.
 
I also agree the use or threat of lethal force would be justified. I will not fire warning shots, given the opportunity to do so I would order them to stop with firearm drawn and ready to take action, that is the warning.

In my state there is a difference between presenting a firearm in self defense and brandishing, brandishing is presenting a firearm in a threatening manner while NOT necessary for self defense in the presence of two or more people.
 
in texas, use of deadly force is justiified for fear of life or serious bodily harm like being permanantly handicapped for the rest of your life.

i can't remember where i read this, a story where a bg was punching a driver through the car window. the car behind him had a concealment permit and shot the man in defense of another. because punching the head is lethal force. now, i'm guessin disparity of force played a role. probably the driver was elderly and the bg was huge.

if there are bats and cement and outnumbered, i think you would be covered under lethal defense. but i think you would still have to go to court. am i right?
 
Correct. If you pull your gun, but then act in a way that indicates that the danger to life and limb was not emminent, (firing a warning shot,) you have opened yourself to the idea that deadly force was not yet justified. This makes you MORE vulnerable to prosecution, not less.

Also, if an enemy sees you pull, aim, index, HESITATE, and aim AWAY from the target and fire, you have just shown the growling dog that he has more resolve than you do, thus inviting aggression.
 
Last edited:
What distance are we talking ? I get the idea we are within baseball bat range ... less that 10 feet. It seems to me at that distance 7-9 targets are real tough to get, if they are not scared by the shots. It certainly sounds to me like it is not a situation for warnings shots if one is really fearfull of lethal force, and if these are really toughened Urban warriors it is a 'Die with your boots on scenario', so why even be thinking about aftermath courtroom scenarios... it sounds to me as if you and your son will either be alive, or dead afterwards. If this is not the case, I doubt one is justified in drawing a firearm, let alone firing a warning shot.
 
Well, as one wise man has said: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...". If you don't wish to live and be a survivor, then I say "commit suicide by thug". If, however, you wish to be a survivor, then I say "stop the thug with whatever force is necessary up to and including lethal force, if the thug(s) has demonstrated the intent and ability to cause grave bodily harm and/or death to you and yours.
 
So what is the debate?

I NEVER want to kill another human being (well maybe a few terrorists), but I will NOT watch a gang of monsters kill my child.

They would be lucky if I miss them while they are running away!!! EF THEM!!!

Prosecute me... put me in jail... but my kid lives (period).
 
Consider this. The fact that your child is involved is not a legally relevant fact. It is considered a defense of a third party no matter who it is. The fact that it may be your child simply provides an emotional aspect to the problem. You have no greater right to use lethal force than the person being attacked.

There is a way to strategically deal with this scenerio without going to jail too, but you will need to be thinking to do so. Involving emotion just keeps you from thinking clearly. You don't want to answer yes to the question that you shot the unarmed kids as well as the armed.

I posed this question because this scenerio happens and raised questions about an appropriate strategy and the attendant legal consequences. If the strategy is sound and justified, the legal consequences should be minimal.

That's why I wanted to give this one some fore thought. How many times have we heard or made the remark "if only a CCW had been there"? We may as well train ourselves to think clearly too.
 
i had something similar happen a few years ago...

i cam home to my parents house one afternoon and as i pulled into the driveway i noticed that there were three very large, sopranos looking Italian guys in a heated argument with my little brother... they were all 25+ years old and my brother was 17... after i got out of the car, i found out that one of my brothers friends had ripped off a weed dealer for a couple hundred bucks and these guys were there to take payback out of my brothers ass for it even though he wasnt even in town when it happened... so i went inside got the old trusty 12ga and proceeded back to the front of the house...

these guys were making it quite clear that they were there to commit violence 1) to a family member, 2) on my mom's property... so i politely informed them that they needed to leave... the sound of the 12ga pump chambering the first shell was more than sufficient to add an exclamation point to my request... and they did indeed leave...

i would have used force if i had needed to, but simply having the gun visible did stop what was sure to be a violent beating...
 
I DO NOT CARE about your legal, clear thinking, mumbo jumbo IF MY CHILD is in danger...

Again... lock me up, but my child lives. That is not just emotional... it is also logical.

In MY state it "appears" to be justified if I fear for my childs life, and I would let the lawyers sort that out.

I am training myself right now to NOT hesitate when involving my child or any 3rd party I care about (not just any 3rd party because I do not care about everyone).

I am thinking very clearly right now... yep I would use whatever force or verbal notification neccessary to stop my child from being injured (even if you are on the jury)...
 
What good are you going to be to your child when for the next year or two you are embroiled in civil and criminal lawsuits that costs you everything you own even if you win. If you lose, you go to jail and still lose everything you own. It may not be fair, but that is the way of it.

But you are missing the point. The point is how to best strategically deal with the situation. Just like clearing a house or room or dealing with any other situation involving multiple BGs. There are ways to do it to increase your odds of not getting shot yourself or further endangering your family or innocent bystanders.

Shooting ability is only a small part of the equation. I'm certainly no expert on training, but mental preparation and prior training on how to deal with various scenerios effectively I believe is the largest part of the equation.

Blasting away at any perceived threat is not the way to go. Thinking through a methodology to deal with this circumstance is what I want. In that process, I want me and mine to walk away from the fight. If I have trained to think my way through it, I stand a better chance of doing that. These parents got into trouble because they were not thinking clearly-they just jumped in with no prior plan or strategy and ended up in the hospital without helping matters.

I'm pretty comfortable with my strategy at this point. I've thought my way through the problem and now have decided on how I would have to deal with it-my child or not. In that situation, I'll explain it to the jury. The justified use of deadly force is entirely dependant on the circumstances, and I want to explain it just as clearly as we've articulated here.

As I understand S & T, this is the point of the exercise. Train to win and give you and yours every advantage. By and large the BGs are not trained in any important aspect from shooting ability to mindset to strategy. But when you got your CCW you committed to those ideas and to use your firearm within the bounds of the law. No one need be facing criminal charges or civil actions provided the use of deadly force is justified by the circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Road rage scenario - what would you do?
2 3
Replies
64
Views
2K
Smoke
S
W
  • Locked
  • Poll
hypothetical poll
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
torpid
T
BringHomeTheBacon
  • Locked
Acts Justifying the Use of Deadly Force (AJDF)
Replies
3
Views
566
JShirley
JShirley
K
  • Locked
Defending (the Occupants of) your Vehicle
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
5K
swagbrdr
swagbrdr
R
  • Locked
Man dead in road rage incident
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
c_yeager
C
Back
Top