What Kind of Advice Is This??

[Kamicosmos]

I think Pax nailed it.

I just took the MO CCW qualification. Supposedly we have the toughest CCW requirements. We have to actually go over the law, and shoot a qualifing test. Some states you just pay a fee and strap on the roscoe. After taking my course, I actually believe that anyone CCWing should have to at least sit down with an approved person and go over their state and local laws. My instructor was a cop, so I got both the legal aspect, and the 'what will happen when The Cops show up' side of it.

In MO at least, we have an 'obligation to retreat'. (Except in our homes. And even that has a loophole) We also have the 'Reasonable Man' Argument that has been described here. We also went over what happens in basically your situation. What if a verbal argument escalates to physical. As a CCW, you have an obligation to 'Stop the Fight'. Yell loud and clear "WHOA. I'm done. I'm not fighting you.' If the person persists, well then you have to retreat. If it persists, well, that's why there's court. Depending on what goes down, and who says what, you may or may not be criminially responsible. Will you be responsible in the civil suit? Most assuredly.

Now, all this is in MO. Texas as we all know is different. California I'd imagine is also different. There are what, 46 states with some form of CCW now? That means there are 46 different set of laws out there.

My advice is to get a copy of your state law, and learn it. Carry a copy in your car as well, cause the cops may or may not know it that well. (Not cop bashing, they have to keep a heck of a lot of law stuff in their heads.) If you are fuzzy about any of the law....seek out a lawyer or a cop to help you with it.

 

[neoncowboy]

I'm a gun nut.

I see RKBA as the pivotal issue of politics and attribute my right to self defense to sovereign God.

If I was sitting on your jury, and found out that you drew your carry piece and shot a guy who punched you in the mouth (nevermind that your standard for whether or not to shoot was 'comes at me in a clearly threatening way without provocation')...I'd laugh at your 'I-believed-I-was-in-danger-of-death-or-serious-bodily-harm' defense and be ready to vote to convict in about the first 90 seconds of deliberation.

You have a moral obligation not to kill people. The only time you are morally justified in taking life or using deadly force is to stop deadly force from being used against you or someone else.

 

[only1asterisk]

neoncowboy,

YOU may have some "moral obligation" not to kill, but rest assured that many of us do not. I have a slight problem with murder, which (to me anyway) is not same.

To the original question,
The difference between a good ass kicking and being dead is smaller than most folks understand. (edit to add link) A fellow members recent experience with an unarmed attacker. Do you trust a thief in you house? Why trust someone who intends you harm to stop at an ass kicking? If a unarmed idiot pursues a physical alteraction with a armed individual that wants no part of it, I see nothing wrong with removing said idiot from the gene pool. A person who does should be ready to go to jail unless the idiot be sufficiently scary to a jury, the law be damned.


David

 

[joab]

In telewinz's scenario the attacker was

a rather large and powerful inmate

(he is BIG)

and

I had two supervisors with me and they with the aid of my secretary were able to subdue him until the calvary arrived.

As opposed to The Rabbi's boogeyman

I dont care if he is a 50 yr old withered pipe-head with palsy.

It's the whole disparity of force thing again

 

[cracked butt]

Anyone who thinks that someone of equal size or even smaller couldn't easily kill or seriously disable them with fists and feet, don't have a grip on reality.

People are beaten to death all the time. Once you are unconscious or otherwise disabled, you are at the mercy of your attacker and if you can claim to know his intentions, you must be psychic. A boot or a fist swinging toward your temple or neck might be the last thing you ever see.

 

[spacemanspiff]

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.

i suppose you are completely unfamiliar with the concept of De-Escalation.

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.

no, on my logic, i will have a better sense of when my life is endangered. i wont have perforated that 90 year old grandma in her walker just because she shook her fist at me while within 21 feet of my person.

and by the way, my widow eats pieces of mall-ninja like you for breakfast. that is, when i get a widow, she will.

dont worry, i'll keep your wife company while you are serving a life sentence for murder.

 

[only1asterisk]

joab,

Our frind telewinz had a couple of correctional officers(?) with him and maybe a secretary as well. I read that as 3 (maybe 4) on 1. Sounds like disparity of force to me!
What if telewinz's attacker had been smaller than he? It doesn't take a 300lb man to stomp and kick you to death after knocking you stupid with a well placed blow to the head. Substitute skill or an unseen weapon for size and rather unassuming people can be quite dangerous.


David

 

[Model520Fan]

I would do my very best to retreat, but if push comes to shove, he would be shot until he's incapacitated enough that I can retreat. I wear glasses and have one good eye. I'm not giving him a shot at it. In some states, my attitude is defensible. I don't know what the law is in each state, and don't really care. I'm not going to doing anything I don't have to, but I'm not giving up anything but money or apparent dignity for the law.

 

[joab]

only1asterisk
You posted the incident as a "fellow members recent experience with an unarmed attacker".
Lets take the badge and bars out of the equation for just a minute, so that it will apply to the majority of us.

4 men, through coercion and intimidation try to force 1 man to go somewhere with them that he does not want to go .
In that case the 1 man would probably be justified in using deadly force and could probably convince a jury that he was in definite fear for his life.

 

[only1asterisk]

Joab,
To the situation you present, I would say that you have the right to resist as forcefully as required any time you are threatened will serious injury, regardless of the number of attackers or what they look like. A jury may not agree. F#@I< a jury


David

 

[c_yeager]

According to the scenario indicated at the start of the thread the "bad guy" hasnt actially done anything violent at this point. Yes, it says that he "wants to fight you". The first question is how do you KNOW he wants to fight you? And secondly how do you convince a judge and jury of your peers that you had so much insight into this guy's mind that you knew this without question?

Its questionable if you could use deadly force even if the guy hit you. If he is just standing there and you drop him with your side arm? forget it, unless your handicapped or a small woman/VERY small man your going to jail, period. Many states have a legaly established "duty to retreat" and even those that don't have an implied expectation to make every effort to avoid deadly force. If you end up shooting the guy you had better have done everything you can to avoid the encounter in the first place (and that includes running away).

Now, if you have tried to escape to the point of finding yourself in a blind alley that changes the situation. You don't have to get beat up if you have done everything else you can to avoid it. However, bear in mind that drawing a weapon is itself a use of force and that alone can often deter an attack. Drawing and firing are two seperate steps. If you draw and this guy presses on the attack and you have done everything you can to retreat then you are out of options and I feel you are in a situation that justifies lethal force. But, its still a sticky area once the lawyers get involved.

 

[NavajoNPaleFace]

The laws in Arizona are quite clear: you have the right to the use of lethal force if you fear for your life or if you believe your person is in threat of severe bodily harm or if you perceive someone else to be in that imminent danger.

There are a good handful of cases on the books where the prosecutors and courts have ruled that someone is quite capable of inflicting death or serious injury with his/her hands alone backed up by cases where people have been beaten to death or placed in intensive care by one person no bigger than themselves.

No one can crawl inside a person's head to get the real feel for how that person might have felt at the time when he/she decided the need for lethal force was warranted. Most often that job, though, is deligated to a Judge and jury with a team of 'legal experts' sitting on the sideline waiting for the blood to be drawn.

That's often just as scary as the initial threat incident itself.

Most often you will have to not only justify your actions but defend them in a legal arena.

Quite often even those who act within the laws are still scrutinized in the courts and some have even been penalized for their actions.

There are many more cases where there was an obvious threat (i.e., the threat of use of a weapon, etc.) that ended up in the courts with the victim becoming a defendant.

I'm not promoting the idea of someone standing, or lying, there and take a beating and I'm sure I wouldn't tolerate it.

What I am promoting, however, is everyone who has ever pondered if he/she were prepared to use legitimate lethal force if it were ever to come to that also has to ponder the strong possibility that those legal actions may result in them looking at the justice system from the 'other side of the fence' for a period of time. Whatever that unfortunate length might be.

 

[Intune]

AND IN THIS CORNER...

Just thought I would print these out for you folks who like a bit of the “rough & tumble.â€

The Queensbury Rules

1. To be a fair stand-up boxing match in a twenty-four foot ring or as near that size as practicable.
2. No wrestling or hugging allowed.
3. The rounds to be of three minutes duration and one minute time between rounds.
4. If either man fall through weakness or otherwise, he must get up unassisted, ten seconds be allowed to do so, the other man meanwhile to return to his corner; and when the fallen man is on his legs the round is to be resumed and continued until the three minutes have expired. If one man fails to come to the scratch in the ten seconds allowed, it shall be in the power of the referee to give his award in favour of the other man.
5. A man hanging on the ropes in a helpless state, with his toes off the ground, shall be considered down.
6. No seconds or any other person to be allowed in the ring during the rounds.
7. Should the contest be stopped by any unavoidable interference, the referee (is) to name the time and place as soon as possible for finishing the contest, to that the match can be won and lost, unless the backers of the men agree to draw the stakes.
8. The gloves to be fair-sized boxing gloves of the best quality and new.
9. Should a glove burst, or come off, it must be replaced to the referee's satisfaction.
10. A man on one knee is considered down, and if struck is entitled to the stakes.
11. No shoes or boots with springs allowed.
12. The contest in all other respects to be governed by the revised rules of the London Prize Ring.

Pretty clear eh? Just hand the aforementioned rules to your assailant and all is well. There will be none of the gauche eye-poking, nut-crackin’ or windpipe crushing that goes on with combat amongst heathens. In addition, when one ends up with their own ccw screwed firmly in their nostril wielded by an understanding gentleman who took no great offence to the fact that you just attempted to put his shorts and their contents up around his ears, multiple handouts of the rules will in fact prevent displacement of bone and brain matter.

You will end up grappling. Your ccw, unless in deep concealment, will either be discovered, lost, used by you or used against you.

Anyone who advances towards a loaded weapon pointed com is either insane or literally has something up their sleeve. Are you willing to find out which it is?

 

[The Rabbi]

I appreciate those of you who posted that ANY assault, armed or unarmed, by any person can lead to death or serious injury.

In considering those posting that I am likely to go to jail, at first I thought they were merely terminally stupid. Then it occurred to me that maybe our experiences were different and therefore our conceptions of danger were different too. I admit I have never been in a fight. Not even in school. I am very adverse to fighting. Thus any threat against me which is unprovoked and likely to escalate is one I consider a deadly threat.
For those who are regularly in bar fights or have a history of having their asses whooped over girls, bikes, cars, or just because its a slow Saturday night I suppose the same rules wouldn't apply. For them a good fight is just cheap entertainment--something to do when the car is out of gas and the paycheck is spent. For folks like that I guess a fist-fight is no big deal so deadly force wouldnt be warranted.
Thanks for clearing this up. Hope not to see the second kind on any jury.

 

[Ktulu]

If you pull your gun on an unarmed man with no reasonable disparity of force, you have already lost. With your gun in your hand you've escalated the encounter to the point that there can only be two outcomes. You've gone from almost infinite options down to just two. Shoot or don't shoot. If the guy walks away, like you probably should have done in the first place, great. If he calls your bluff and you have to shoot him, you better be damned sure that there was no point in the encounter that you could have done something else to deescalate the situation.

If you end up in a fistfight with your gun on you, you've made some very big mistakes somewhere along the way. If you have to swallow your pride and walk away then so be it. If you have to run away, then do it. Carrying a gun is not protection for your ego.

There are a lot of "ifs" in these scenarios. There are so many variables that the answer can't be as black and white as "yes you can" or "no you cant." The best advice is to be aware and avoid these kind of confrontations as best you can. Damn your ego and pride and deescalate the situation whenever possible. Then when you have to pull your gun you, and more importantly a jury, will be sure that you had to.

 

[pax]

Rabbi ~

You won't be able to choose who is on your jury, and the law is not on your side.

Nice ad hominem, but I've never been in a fight in my whole life (unless you count a shin-kicking spat when I was in 3rd grade).

Believe what you want.

pax

Murder is always a mistake. One should never do anything that one cannot talk about after dinner. -- Oscar Wilde

 

[spacemanspiff]

For those who are regularly in bar fights or have a history of having their asses whooped over girls, bikes, cars, or just because its a slow Saturday night I suppose the same rules wouldn't apply. For them a good fight is just cheap entertainment--something to do when the car is out of gas and the paycheck is spent. For folks like that I guess a fist-fight is no big deal so deadly force wouldnt be warranted.

yeah, cause i'm always getting in fights just cause i ran out of gas and am broke. i'm always looking for a bar fight. i'm always looking to fight for the honor of my trailertrash girlfriend.

i bid you good day, sir.

 

[XLMiguel]

I'm 6'3", 260+# and I'm thoroughly capable of doing grave bodily harm or worse with my bare hands. I'm also 56 and have a blown-out knee and fused ankle. I can't run away (though I can hobble with alacrity when properly motivated), and I don't start fights.

In the unlikely event that I found myself in a bad situation, I would apologize, back down, do what ever I could to de-escalate and try to leave. I have done so in the past. I have been a few dust-ups, a couple of brawls, and got stomped once (not fun). I have never been in a fight I didn't regret later, even in the cases where I was in the right and clearly dominent.

If my adversary continued to press the issue after I had tried to de-escalate or get away and I was armed, I would defend myself and neutralize the threat, as I would sincerely believe that that individual was intent on doing me serious harm or worse. I have not filed the front sight off any on my handguns.

Anyone who advances on an armed man who wants no trouble is clearly intent on doing evil in my mind. I just hope that if I ever find myself there, I can adequately articulate and substantiate my fear and resulting actions.

 

[The Rabbi]

Mike,
That might be the most reasonable post to date on this. I dont think any of us who CCW go looking for problems--the very opposite. At the same time there is no reason to endure physical violence of any kind or verbal threats that are seconds away from becoming physical violence. Add in the presence of drugs/alcohol in someone who is threatening and I doubt many people would not be in fear at that point.

 

[carpettbaggerr]

I appreciate those of you who posted that ANY assault, armed or unarmed, by any person can lead to death or serious injury.

Any assault can lead to death, but it is unreasonable to assume an unarmed man of similar size and age will kill or maim you with a single blow of his bare hands.

Harold Fish was facing a far younger and much larger man ,but he was indicted for murder in Arizona. Anyone know if he was convicted?

 

[rbernie]

Anyone who advances on an armed man who wants no trouble is clearly intent on doing evil in my mind. I just hope that if I ever find myself there, I can adequately articulate and substantiate my fear and resulting actions.

Doesn't this say all that needs to be said?

 

[Kilgor]

Question: Is there a difference in the standard of justification between assault with a deadly weapon and homicide?



Answer: I would think so, but do not know for certain.



Scenario: You pull your weapon and point it at someone after they have shown the intent, ability, and opportunity to harm you. They then leave the area and call the police. What can you reasonably be convicted of? Assault with a deadly weapon.



Scenario: You pull your weapon and point it at someone after they have shown the intent, ability, and opportunity to harm you. They continue toward you while daring you to shoot them. You shoot them for fear of your life. At this point they have shown that they are not deterred by a show of deadly force and a reasonable person would then be in fear of their life. What can you reasonably be convicted of? Assault with a deadly weapon. Their actions have justified homicide. Correct?





Just curious.



I carry pepper spray as I have no intent of getting into a fist fight while carrying a firearm. That is asking to get shot with your own firearm.

 

[Island Beretta]

Some time ago an incident happened in my neighbourhood where a man was attacked at his gate. Thinking he could manage the attacker he got into a fight when to his surprise the attacker pulled an ice-pick and stabbed him nine times in quick succession. The guy pulled his weapon from concealment and shot the attacker twice in the abdomen. The attacker collapsed instantly (we were later to learn from psychological effects of the shots as the shots were not fatal).

Needless to say, my neighbour was arrested and charged with attempted murder. The fact that he was all bloodied and messy did not matter, as all the prosecution argued was 'ice-pick against gun was a grave disparity of force'. My neighbour settled the case out of court but I knew he had to dump some money, the amount he will not say up to today.

More recently I posted about a friend who was killed by a knife-attack. To this day his killer has not been found and the relevant authorities do not seem in a rush to track his killer down.. but I can bet if he was the one who had survived the knife-attack and killed the attacker then he would have been taken through the mill..

..nevertheless what's that saying 'rather to be tried by 12 than carried by 6', damn if we do, damn if we don't.. the criminals have all the rights..

 

[Intune]

Needless to say, my neighbour was arrested and charged with attempted murder.

Needless my butt! What state do you live in? Holy cow!

 

[gunsmith]

2 chickens in every pot

And an ice pick in every Trot.

Thats an old rhyme describing how Trotsky was bumped off,an ice pick is a deadly weapon and the case described by I B must have been in England or NY or someplace like that,here in San Francisco,CA he would have walked.

I recently had knee surgery and even though I appear fine,I cant run or even walk that fast and could be seriously hurt in a "reasonable ass kicking"
I would do my best to avoid a fight and use pepper spray (like I have done with great success in the past) but I would make it clear I was armed (if I was) & if the bad guy persisted he would get 2 "c.o.m" & 1 in the head