What Kind of Advice Is This??

[The Rabbi]

This exchange appeared on another forum that I dont post to. Here is the question:

One question I have that has not been addressed thoroughly is this: Can you shoot a man that gives no impression of having a weapon but wants to fight? Let me explain further so there is no confusion about my question. Let's say the guy is your size, totally at fault for the arguement or whatever leads to the conflict and you have strongly expressed that you have no desire to fight, even at the point of trying to back away(not turning your back). What if you were pursued into a dark parking lot or alley?

Here is the answer of a relatively well-known person in the training community.


[QUOTE ]Your question is can you shoot him to avoid a physical contest? Not unless he has an advantage - bigger, stronger, you know he's a martial arts expert, there are three of them, etc.[/QUOTE]

And this:

If the adversary is greater in physical qualities to you, and he is physically capable of inflicting serious damage to you, or if he has advantages such as numbers, etc., sure go ahead and shoot. There is enough physical disparity to warrant it. However, if there is parity - or equal age, size, physical attributes, etc. and it begins as a fist fight, and you shoot him, I think you will have a hard time of it legally.

First, this is not to gang up on anyone or question their qualifications. Second, even if you know the people involved please dont mention who they are as it is unimportant.

But I was very disturbed by the answer. The whole point of carrying guns is to act as the "great equalizer." I have no desire to test my strength or street fighting ability against someone else--I dont care if he is a 50 yr old withered pipe-head with palsy. If such an individual comes at me in a clearly threatening way without provocation I'm going to pull the weapon and more than likely shoot. this is not the "shoot em all let Gd sort them out" school nor I am talking about two guys who go at it in a bar fight. But I dont think I have any obligation to develop fighting skills beyond the pistol. That might be a good idea and might give me other options but I dont think I need to do that.

 

[Oleg Volk]

If ANYONE wants to fight me, I will wonder why they think they can win. Do they have hidden weapons or non-obvious skills? I would not want to underestimate my opponent and get injured or killed for that. So a shrimpy girl who wants to fight a big, strong man might still be a "good shoot" because something gave her confidence of winning and promted her to initiate that fight...maybe she has a knife palmed, or some other hidden advantage.

 

[B36]

Retreat

retreat--if I can, as far as I can. Verbalize, so perhaps others can hear.

If above fails, act to preserve life and limb.

I am 73, 6", 165lb, sort of old and slow, but very able to defend myself with one of the three guns normally carried.

 

[spacemanspiff]

If such an individual comes at me in a clearly threatening way without provocation I'm going to pull the weapon and more than likely shoot. this is not the "shoot em all let Gd sort them out" school nor I am talking about two guys who go at it in a bar fight. But I dont think I have any obligation to develop fighting skills beyond the pistol. That might be a good idea and might give me other options but I dont think I need to do that.

then you will be labeled as 'trigger happy' and most likely face the wrong end of a team of prosecutors, anxious to make an example out of the crazy gun nut that thinks a handcannon is the answer to any threat.

it reminds me of a commercial i saw that had a bunch of overweight people saying things like "i chose surgery, not self control to lose weight!"

must it be said that the use of deadly force is the LAST RESORT?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The advice is going to depend on many things, especially local laws.

Can you shoot an apparently unarmed person who starts a confrontation with you and apparently wants to escalate the fight physically and even though you do not and retreat, the guy follows you?

That all depends. First may be that you would need to be in fear for your life or grave physical harm. The reply that there might be some real legal problems is very true, especially since there is no disparity of force (not obviously bigger than you and no apparently weapons). Even if there was a physical body size disparity of force, some states do not recognize such factors as legal criteria for justification in defense, although a jury might very well realize that it is. That would be after you are arrested, jailed, and then go to court.

No, you don't have any obligation to develop any fighting skills, beyond the gun handling or not even then. But you don't just get to use the gun as a great equalizer just because that is the reputation of what guns can do for you. You likely won't have a legal precedent of employing a gun as a great equalizer, especially if you still have other options available to you, such as additional flight.

What if you were pursued into a dark parking lot or alley? Well, why are you running into a dark parking lot or alley? That isn't very smart unless you know the lay of the land and can employ darkness of the parking lot or alley to your favor. Your best bet is to stay where people are present so that you have witnesses. If you do duck into an alley, then you have put yourself into an egress-limited option meaning that without hopping fences and what not, you are confined linearly.

Whether or not you feel you need to develop other defense skills is your call. Not developing other defense skills is very short sighted as not every form of confrontation needs lethal force or the threat of lethal force and in some cases, may possibly be illegal if you employ either.

If you don't have self defense skills beyond your great equalizing pistol, then I would suggest you opt for continually wearing a good pair of running shoes and work on your wind sprints and distance running because it would really be a good idea that you at least become good at running away.

Guns are only one type of option, but generally should not be your only option for conflict resolution.

 

[Browns Fan]

As Ayoob would say... create distance.

 

[Shootcraps]

You can only use deadly force if YOUR LIFE is threatened. That would mean they have a weapon that YOU CAN SEE, and they are threatening to use it against you.

You CANNOT use deadly force to avoid an ass kicking. Run.

 

[The Rabbi]

hen you will be labeled as 'trigger happy' and most likely face the wrong end of a team of prosecutors, anxious to make an example out of the crazy gun nut that thinks a handcannon is the answer to any threat.

Do you have any statute or case law to support that? No, I didnt think so either.
If someone yells obscenities across the street and I blast him then yes, guilty as charged. Once he moves in a threatening manner against me and presents an imminent threat that anyone would recognize then deadly force is a viable option.

You CANNOT use deadly force to avoid an ass kicking. Run.

Simply not true in this state. Here the law is "fear of death or serious bodily harm" and I would consider someone's fist to be capable of delivering that.

Y'know, for a bunch of guys who pride themselves on questioning authority the trial lawyers have made you all a bunch of sheeple.

 

[spacemanspiff]

Once he moves in a threatening manner against me and presents an imminent threat that anyone would recognize then deadly force is a viable option.

i hope you have a defense attorney on retainer. because by your logic, you are going to draw down and open fire on a guy that flinches at you.
can you give me your schedule so i know when to avoid the areas you frequent?

Here the law is "fear of death or serious bodily harm" and I would consider someone's fist to be capable of delivering that.

i wonder if you'd also feel under 'threat of serious bodily harm' if someone threw a plastic cup full of beer at you?

 

[The Rabbi]

i hope you have a defense attorney on retainer. because by your logic, you are going to draw down and open fire on a guy that flinches at you.

Winter frost must be setting in where you are. Would explain the lack of coherence.

 

[spacemanspiff]

you are embodying the mentality that if anyone makes a move that causes you to piddle yourself, you will use that as an excuse to jump to deadly force to 'save' yourself.

common sense, have a bowl, and please, come back for a second helping.

 

[Shootcraps]

Simply not true in this state. Here the law is "fear of death or serious bodily harm" and I would consider someone's fist to be capable of delivering that.

Y'know, for a bunch of guys who pride themselves on questioning authority the trial lawyers have made you all a bunch of sheeple.

Ok. Go ahead and blast away. We'll visit you in prison and bring you cigarettes. They're just like money in the big house.

 

[The Rabbi]

you are embodying the mentality that if anyone makes a move that causes you to piddle yourself, you will use that as an excuse to jump to deadly force to 'save' yourself.

How you manage to get that out of anything I have written is beyond me. On your logic someone needs to have a gun pointed at your head, fully loaded and functioning before you'll draw. I'll comfort your widow.

 

[victory]

You can shoot someone without a weapon if they pose a risk of grave bodily harm. All my instructors have told me to carry pepper spray as an intermediate step, however.

Ask a cop how man people he as shot, versus how many he has sprayed, then tell me carrying pepper spray is overrated.

If you can not retreat, and the intermediate steps haven't taken the fight out of him, step it up a notch. Pull your gun on him and yell at him to stop. Don't give me any BS about "don't pull your gun unless you intend to shoot" because that's not what i'm suggesting. Pull you gun with full intent to shoot...IF he fails to comply with your order to disengage. Don't bluff, shoot his dumb ass. Anyone who advances on a gun can be considered a deadly threat (even if they are really just a moron who thinks he's bulletproof) .As long as you were not the insitgator of the fight and you did everything possible to avoid it (retreating, intermediate steps such as pepper spray), you will be in the right.

 

[The Rabbi]

I go for my pepper spray and he goes for his knife. Not a good move.
The example of cops works for cops. I am not sure it transfers well to non-cops. Cops face a huge amount of scrutiny any time they fire their guns. They are also presumed to be trained in using degrees of force that the rest of us presumably dont have.
I agree that if you were somehow responsible or could be seen as responsible for starting the altercation then you will need some pretty good justification to shoot. I am envisioning the classic "just minding my own business and he came after me" scenario.

 

[Shootcraps]

You can shoot someone without a weapon if they pose a risk of grave bodily harm.

Yeah, and what threat would that be? There has to be a disparity of force. A 90 pound woman against a 250 pound man. That is a disparity of force. A 150 pound man against a 200 pound man is not.

 

[The Rabbi]

What is the source for this "disparity of force" doctrine? Maybe that is how it is in some states but certainly not all of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Tennessee Statute

Here is the TN statute laying out justification for using deadly force. Note there is no duty to retreat and no doctrine of "disparity of force." The threat does not even have to be real--it only has to appear reasonably so. So if someone pulls a toy gun and threatens me with and it appears to be real then I am justified.

<<It is important to realize that the concept of "justifiable use of deadly force" is a doctrine that developed under the common law of this country as a defense to a criminal charge of homicide, attempted homicide, assault, etc. That common law doctrine was subsequently enacted into a statutory form by the Tennessee legislature. In passing Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-11-611(a), the Legislature generally adopted the prior common law regarding the use of self-defense with one important difference--it adopted the "true man" standard which does not require a person to retreat, if safely possible, from an aggressor before resorting to the use of deadly force in self-defense.

Tennessee Code Annoated 39-11-611(a) provides:

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.>>

 

[victory]

I go for my pepper spray and he goes for his knife. Not a good move.

Carry your pepper spray weak side and your gun strong side. If you spray him and he pulls a knife. you create distance while he swings wildly in his (literally) blind rage and plug him.

The advantage of pepper spray is the fact that it is not a deadly weapon and is lower on the continuum of force than even swinging fists.

Disparity of force is simply a complicated way of saying "ability"

To articulate self-defence you must prove intent, ability and opportunity to cause grave bodily injury. In the above hypothetical case, the intent is proven by ones willingness to fight "i'm gonna kick your ass" etc. Ability is ones physical stregnth, availabitity of a weapon, etc (basically, you can't shoot a 4 year old girl or a 98yo lady because she says, i'm gonna whoop you silly, unless they are armed. This is where discression comes in). Opportunity is being in a situation where they could cause you that harm. If a 250lb linebacker "yells i'm gonna kick your ass" and pulls a legnth of pipe from 100 yards away, you can't plug him with your AR-15. If he does the same and pulls a firearm, you can. If he is within striking distance (the 21 foot rule) you can.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sorry. I dont see any duty to carry a pepper spray. If I am justified in spraying him I am justified in shooting him. If I am not justified in shooting him then I am not justified in spraying him either. And if you want to disagree, fine, but there is an assault charge waiting for you when the guy swears before the judge that you provoked him.

 

[victory]

that's where you're simply wrong. You are completely justified in spraying some who you are not justified in shooting.

For spraying someone you are held to a much lower standard than shooting. Remember that you will be defending yourself against misdemenor simple assault if it goes to court versus, homicide, and felony assault with a deadly weapon and so forth.

 

[JerryM]

Because my wife and I travel in our RV for several weeks each year, I have several CHLs.

In every state that I am aware of the laws, the only justification to use deadly force is because you fear death or great bodily harm to yourself or another.

You can apply that however you see fit, but if you shoot someone to avoid getting beat in a fist fight, you will probably be charged, and probably convicted. They will question you as to why you thought you were in danger of death, etc, why you were there, and why you did not retreat or use other methods of preventing your great bodily harm. They will try to make the case that you were looking for an excuse to shoot someone.
In some states, I understand, you do not have to retreat, but I have little confidence in that in today's environment.

As has been mentioned, disparity of force is a defense, and so a woman or old person can justify deadly force when an average male would not be able to.

If possible, stay away from likely places and situations where you might have to use deadly force.
Forget the macho stuff of "I'll go where I please, and no one better bother me." That won't seem very important after you spend $50,000 or so on a good lawyer, and spend time in court and possibly jail.

One well known instructor tells his students that when possible use the Nike Principle. When asked what that means, he replies, "Run like H.."

Excellent advice. Sure, it will eat at your guts, but it will beat the legal consequences even if you get out of it without being charged or convicted.

Jerry

 

[joab]

The prisons are full of people who ask for advice and got mad when it didn't agree with their predetermined position.

Define reasonable. The jury is going to be instructed that it means "what a reasonable person would consider to be reasonable".

Now you have 12 reasonable people to convince that it was reasonable to shoot an unarmed man so that he wouldn't give you a reasonably good butt-kicking. If in fact you can convince them that he was the aggressor since you were the one armed.

Shooting is the last resort, get some SD training, buy some pepper spray or some track shoes.

I dont care if he is a 50 yr old withered pipe-head with palsy. If such an individual comes at me in a clearly threatening way without provocation I'm going to pull the weapon and more than likely shoot.

I would love to see that one defended as fear for life and safety

And if you want to disagree, fine, but there is an assault charge waiting for you when the guy swears before the judge that you provoked him.

The purpose of deploying a weapon is to stop the threat nothing more. I could live with an assault charge alot easier than a murder charge

Cops face a huge amount of scrutiny any time they fire their guns.

And of course common citizens are never scrutinized when they shoot unarmed people

On your logic someone needs to have a gun pointed at your head, fully loaded and functioning before you'll draw. I'll comfort your widow.

And by applying your logic you will be comforting somebody alot less pleasant in your tiny little cell.

My opinion has little to do with questioning authority or trial lawyer sheepishness but more to do with respect for life and no desire to take one just it is the only way I knew to fight. Every problem a nail and all that.

If you spent more time absorbing what others have said and less time insulting those that disagree with you, you might actually learn enough to stay outta jail

I don't believe that the people here have stated a need to question authority unless it is unconstitutionally enforced authority.
I don't think that it is unconstitutional to require that some actually needs to be shot before allowing it to be done, nor is it unconstituional to review the facts afterward and assign blame and cell space accordingly.

 

[taliv]

rabbi, i hate to tell you this, but what you've missed is the court's interpretation of "serious bodily injury" here in TN.

I live in Cookeville, and recently watched the video for the carry permit again, and it states unambiguously that the courts in TN do not consider "a broken nose" to be "serious bodily injury".

Suck as that may, it means that if you shoot somebody because they broke your nose in a fist-fight, you're going to be on the wrong side of the law. (i.e. guilty of murder, not just civil judgements)

 

[pax]

Here the law is "fear of death or serious bodily harm" and I would consider someone's fist to be capable of delivering that.

Rabbi ~

Thanks for quoting the statute.

Here it is again, with the relevant parts bolded:

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.

You've made it plain that you really and truly believe a fistfight could be deadly to you. That's part of the standard, but it's not the entire standard. The entire standard comes in two parts:

1) you must really believe you need to use deadly force to protect yourself, AND
2) that belief must be a reasonable belief.

In order for your belief to be judged legally "reasonable," you will need to show, in court, that you had some actual reason to believe the threatened fistfight was likely to cause you to die or be maimed for life.

Absent a darn good (and articulable) reason to believe otherwise, a fistfight between equally matched opponents would not be considered a deadly force encounter.

If you cannot convince two or three dozen people on a gun board that pulling the trigger in such a situation would be a reasonable action, why would you think you'd be able to convince a dozen random strangers and a judge of the same thing?

pax