What Kind of Advice Is This??

[insidious_calm]

Pax I certainly hope you're not referring to what I wrote. I've not attacked anyone, not said anyone was a wimp or wussie. I have said that I believe some on here have never been in a bad fight(not a minor fist fight). I stand by that as both accurate and relevant based on the naive position that an unarmed person is incapable of deadly force. That simply is not true. As I said though, YMMV.



I.C.

 

[joab]

I don't think anyone here believes that an unarmed man is incapable of inflicting grievous injury.

I think the main point of contention is this

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

Which seems to imply that you don't need to assess the situation you just have to pull your blaster and take care of them and every one invloved will see things your way because you have learned the mantrs "I was in fear for my life and safety"

It would be irresponsible for anyone here to allow that assertion to go unchallenged, for the sake of newbies and the easily influenced.

Comparing an old crackhead with palsey to a knife fight in a barroom or trying to restrain an inmate os like comparing apples and oranges.

Luckily most self protectionists don't feel the need to shoot at any confrontation, or the streets would be red with blood, as was predicted back in '87

And for the record I have been in some of those real knock, down drag out, ear biting, throat stomping, nad grabbin fights.

And I've got the scars and arrest records to prove it

 

[The Rabbi]

Fortran,
Yes, the Frazier case shows that merely raising the defense wont guarantee it will work. If someone phones me and yells he's gonna kick my tuchas next time he sees me and I spot him across the lot, shoot him and then claim self-defense, I'll go to jail. There was no immediate fear of death or bodily injury. If I go track the guy down and confront him and things escalate and I shoot him I'll probably go to jail as well. I suspect this was what happened in Frazier. It is not an ironclad defense.
But Jerry M and not a few others wrote:

In any state where you shoot someone, it is going to be the shooter's burden of proof to prove that it was a justified shooting.

This is simply incorrect. The appelate court in the Frazier decision wrote explicitly: "Once properly raised, the state bears the burden of negating a claim that the accused acted in self-defense." They can do it in all kinds of ways but they will have to overcome the defense.

 

[Texian Pistolero]

The problem with this discussion is that people ASSUME that your fate depends on reason, law, or common sense.

Fact is, if you go to jury trial, your fate is a 50/50 crap shoot, at best.

I reside in Texas, and 99.99 % of little blue haired old ladies who patriotically show up for jury duty believe that the accused is guilty, or HE WOULDN'T BE HERE !

For get about just or fair, just focus on mondo reality.

 

[joab]

"Once properly raised,

Define "Once properly raised"

 

[Mute]

I don't think anyone suggested that an unarmed person can't present a deadly threat. I think everyone is saying that an attack alone, by an unarmed person, may not necessarily meet the legal definition of such and could place you in legal jeapordy if you have no response other than to shoot your attacker. That's from a legal perspective.

From a tactical perspective, it's short-sighted and possibly dangerous to oneself to have no other skills other than with a gun because many violent encounters often turn into up close fighting and grappling even when firearms are deployed. To deny the need for other fighting skills is a denial of reality. You may well survive with just a gun, but what good reason can you present for not expanding your fighting skills to other areas outside of shooting proficiency?

 

[insidious_calm]

Not sound advice....

What you are implying, or at least what I'm reading, is strategically unwise though. To say that you should have more tools in the toolbox is fine. You never know. That's not what you are saying though. Some of you are actually suggesting going to physical contact with an assailant as opposed to drawing your weapon as part of some "force continuem". It's tactically unsound advice. I am not a cop. I have no duty to attempt to apprehend someone. My one and only objective of any confrontation is to survive. De-escalate, disengage, RUN, whatever it takes. If, however, the time comes to use force it WILL mean drawing my gun. Whether or not I shoot is up to the assailant. I'm not going to willingly engage in physical combat while carrying concealed.

This business about some 50yr old crackhead is ridiculous. If someone of any age presents a credible threat I will attempt to disengage, etc. but I'm not fighting anyone unless I have no other option. If the assailant is so frail as to not present a serious threat then I should have no trouble outrunning them. In any case, someone who advances on someone who is holding a gun and yelling "STOP!, I don't want to shoot. Leave me alone!" while attempting to tactically withdraw must be seen as a lethal threat. You may be foolish enough to think otherwise, I am not. Obviously things would be different if you were protecting someone from an assailant because withdrawl becomes less of a dependable option. Again, YMMV.



I.C.

 

[only1asterisk]

Comparing an old crackhead with palsey to a knife fight in a barroom or trying to restrain an inmate os like comparing apples and oranges.

That's why nobody buy you has compared it!

In bringing up telewinz's being attacked, I was only trying to illustrate the how alert, aware person can suddenly be rendered helpless (not to mention severely injured) by an unarmed attacker. It just so happened to come along at about the same time as this thread. It saved me from typing up a similar account.

PS The inmate was restrained after the damage was done, and this really has no bearing.

David

 

[joab]

That's why nobody buy you has compared it!

Well you did

In bringing up telewinz's being attacked, I was only trying to illustrate the how alert, aware person can suddenly be rendered helpless (not to mention severely injured) by an unarmed attacker

When a discussion involves fear of rogue palsy crackheads and yopu bring in an example of an inmate attack as justification for that fear you have made that comparison.

and this really has no bearing.

Pretty much the point I was trying to make

 

[cxm]

Self Defense

Some comments re self defense by paragraph: PAX wrote:

Claiming self-defense in court is the equivalent of saying, "I stipulate that I did the act, and here is my reason for doing the act." This is known as an Affirmative Defense.

You must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had a legally appropriate reason to do what you did.

You must note here that the burden of disproving a claim of self-defense rests on the prosecution. Whilst asserting self defense relieves the prosecution of proving one actually did the shooting, it does NOT relive the prosecution of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the act was not justified.

This means that your mere words are no longer sufficient; you must have some level of proof. You must be able to articulate why it was reasonable to believe that your life was in danger at the moment you pulled the trigger -- and you must be able to document the reasons for your belief.

Again, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, though it is generally desirable to refute the prosecution's evidence, there is no burden of proof on the defendent.

Example of documenting reasons for belief: If you believe you are in mortal danger if a man threatens you with a knife from clear across the room, it will serve you well in court if you can document that someone once taught you the Tueller Drill -- and that you learned it before your deadly encounter. Having read it on the internet somewhere probably isn't proof enough. Better would be if you had written documentation of participating in the drill at some point, and what you learned from it -- or if you could point to an authoritative book or magazine article addressing the question which has your dated signature in the margin.

A good idea.. it would also be good to have some training/education in the amount of damage an unarmed person can do with fists etc. alone.

On the face of it, your assertion that you would be in mortal danger if a man of the same age, weight, and general physical condition were to attack you is not a reasonable assertion. No jury is going to believe that assertion based merely on your own words. If you persist in believing so, you would do well to find some authenticable research which asserts the same thing, and set about documenting that you knew this information before you gunned down an unarmed man.

You seem to assert here a person must allow themselves to beaten senseless or worse simply because a person is of similar ability. I don't think this is the case. Keep in mind, a court will review the incident in it's totality. Did the vicitm try to avoid the affray? Did the victim retreat (whether requried by law or not) Did the victim appeal to the attacker to ceast the assault? The actions requried by law are those of a "reasonable man." Of course that is the kicker...what is a reasonable man?

So consider the question in it's entirity. Consider:

1. Otherwise innocent person who has done nothing to provoke an attack is the victim of battery by another of similar size age etc.

2. The victim attempts to dissuade the attack repetedly.

3. The victim attempts to retreat.

4. The victim unable to abate the attack or escape the attack draws a sidearm and several times demands the attacker cease the attack at once.

5. The attacker continues to attack in the face of the threat of force to stop the attack.

6. The victim shoots the attacker.

Now, how does that sound to the jury? Does that statement of the facts sound like a crazed killer looking for an opportunity to shoot someone?

It is all in how the facts are presented.

FWIW

Chuck

 

[cxm]

Powder Man:

I may have misunderstood...but I understand you to be saying a person who is armed must submit to beng the victim of illegal force in your view? May I ask you a couple of questions?

1. Being a police officer, I assume you have seen the damage bare fists can do? What sort of damage can they do to a peson?

2. Same question but now add boots used to kick/stomp?

3. What is your jurisdiction's definition of "great bodily harm (or serious if that is what is used in your jurisdiction?)

4. Can fists/feet cause great bodily harm?

5. Have you ever been in a REAL serious fight? If so what injuries did you suffer?

6. Have you seen other people who have been in SERIOUS fights? If so did you see any who suffered great bodily harm?

7. Have you seen people who have suffered broken limbs, damaged eyes, serious bleeding, loss of teeth in a serious fight?

8.. Are broken ribs common in serious fights?

9. Can broken ribs and other bones cause death?

10. Can a serious fight result in blindness?

Thanks for sharing your insight.

/r

Chuck


And, I respectfully recommend that you search in your state's statutes for the definitions of the following:

Murder
Negligent Homicide
Aggravated Assault
Reckless Endangerment
Mayhem
Brandishing

as you can be smacked with some or all of the above if you pull the trigger.

Bottom line is this:

If you can not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were in IMMINENT danger of death or serious bodily harm; or

That someone in your close proximity was not in the same amount of danger; or

That you were not aiding a sworn police officer who was in danger of the magnitude stated above; or

That you were shooting to stop a person who had just committed a crime of such a heinous nature as to be "shocking to the conscience" and who posed a grave danger to the surrounding community should they be allowed to flee (here, state statutes can vary greatly, check with your local prosecutor)

you WILL be in for a hard ride.

Here's my course of action, from the viewpoint you are talking about, and which you have discussed:

If I am dispatched to a shooting under the circumstances you are talking about, where the shooter and the assailant were of similar build, both in apparent good health, and no deadly weapon was visible in or around the assailant, I would then place you under arrest (possibly at gunpoint) for the crime of Murder, in the appropriate degree. and admonish you concerning your rights as directed under the Miranda v. Arizona ruling.

As, I believe, any other officer on this board would do.

Check with your prosecutor before you ruin your life. Please.

 

[Powderman]

CXM, thanks for asking.

I may have misunderstood...but I understand you to be saying a person who is armed must submit to beng the victim of illegal force in your view? May I ask you a couple of questions?

Absolutely not. What I am saying (and perhaps not making clear) is that the person using or employing deadly force must be able to demonstrate that the attacker was employing force that would result in death or serious bodily harm; that the person was in position to carry out the attack, and that the threat was imminent.

As far as the attack itself goes, it is entirely within the letter of the law--AS FAR AS I KNOW--to use deadly force against an unarmed attacker if those criteria are met.

However, by doing so, you will open a can of worms that are best left closed--if you have any choice in the matter. An ounce of prevention and common sense goes a long way here. In most cases, keeping out of areas that have a high likelihood of attack, or criminal activity, being aware of your surroundings and some other common sense precautions can help.

Being a police officer, I assume you have seen the damage bare fists can do? What sort of damage can they do to a peson?

I've seen persons being hit by extremely heavy objects and walk away. I've also seen people hit by one well-connected punch that shattered their faces and broke bones. And, your next question involves boots. Multiply the damage accordingly.

Have you ever been in a REAL serious fight? If so what injuries did you suffer?

Without getting into too many details that would take up serious bandwidth, I grew up in the geographical center of the City of Chicago. Did I suffer serious injuries? Fortunately, no--because I learned how to run. REAL fast, especially since in a lot of cases it was at least three or four to one, with the one being me.

Have you seen people who have suffered broken limbs, damaged eyes, serious bleeding, loss of teeth in a serious fight?

I've seen people killed over the words, "Yo' mamma". And the other things you mentioned.

What is your jurisdiction's definition of "great bodily harm (or serious if that is what is used in your jurisdiction?)

See the first paragraph. As a matter of fact, it's pretty well universal--at least in the United States.

The best that I can tell you is this: ALL self-defense scenarios are individual. It is folly to say that (x) amount of force should be used in any given situation, and that such a situation will be the same between any two people. Unless an obvious disparity of force exists (much larger attacker, or one who is well trained in fighting when such a fact is KNOWN before the fact by the person using deadly force in defense), or the severity and savagery of the attack is of such a nature that deadly force is the only way you will walk away from that attack, then using deadly force will place you in a very unenviable position.

And remember, the fact that you KNOW that this person could hurt you really bad with one punch does not negate the fact that you can very well end up spending a good portion of your life savings proving this fact to a grand jury. And consider that you might be in a political climate where guns are not everybody's favorite tool.

There is one more thing to consider before strapping on ol' roscoe; this is the fact that even though your individual situation might well be so clean that you are not even arrested (much less charged), you will also have to deal with the civil suit that is sure to follow.

 

[Model520Fan]

There is one more thing to consider before strapping on ol' roscoe; this is the fact that even though your individual situation might well be so clean that you are not even arrested (much less charged), you will also have to deal with the civil suit that is sure to follow.

Wrong. That is one more thing to consider immediately AFTER arming oneself, and to disallow as influencing a decision on whether to submit to mayhem or potential mayhem.

 

[rbernie]

IIRC, the first shooting after Texas enacted their CCW/will issue statutes involved a traffic altercation in Dallas that started over a traffic fender-bender.

The middle-aged CCW holder was belted in his car and was being assaulted thru the drivers window by a larger younger man. He shot and killed his attacker. The CCW holder suffered permanent vision loss from his beating. He was booked for murder, had to post bond, but was no-billed by a grand jury. This man paid tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to deal with the fact that he took another man's life.

Was he justified in his shoot? Probably. Could he have found another way to deal with the situation. Who knows?

But even if I don't care about maybe shooting someone who's having a bad day and is acting out of character (as opposed to shooting a truly bad MoFo who'd rather kill me than look at me), I sure don't want to place my family in that situation unless I perceive no other possible option.

 

[insidious_calm]

I just don't get it.....

I don't understand this notion that you need to be so paralyzed by fear of being sued that you would allow yourself to be beaten senseless. I mean noone wants to shoot someone. I sure don't, but where do you draw the line? . You state that you don't want to put your family through thousands of dollars of legal fees and a grand jury hearing. How about feeding you minced carrots and changing your diaper for 40 years because you let "mr. having a bad day" get just one more swing at your head? I wonder how many thousands that would cost?

I'm certainly not advocating we all go out with hair triggers and big egos. Quite the contrary. What I'm saying is that each of us has an obligation when we got out with a concealed weapon. We have an obligation to not let that weapon be taken from us and used against us or someone else. If you get knocked out you cannot fullfill that obligation. If you are within contact range of an assailant and cannot retreat you are in grave danger.

Your defense strategy should include a plan of what to do in the event you need to defend yourself, but I won't allow a fear of "ruining the rest of my life" to ruin the rest of my life. A better legal strategy may be to take a proactive approach. What I did the second time I had to draw a weapon was to file suit first. After all, I was the victim not the assailant. I sued not for money, but for injunctive relief, a restraining order. That put him on the defensive and made him defend himself rather than the other way around. Yeah it cost me $3000, but I got a lot for that 3K(like knowing the two girls I was protecting didn't get beat up). In the BG's resulting criminal trial he was banished from the state(sent to texas) for 10 years. YMMV.



I.C.

 

[Kilgor]

If you are pointing a firearm at someone and telling them to leave you alone and they advance on you, then isn't then enough for a reasonable person to be in fear for thier life?

 

[Powderman]

Fellas, fellas, fellas! No one is saying that you have to be a punching bag, a door mat, or a tameshigiri stand.

Here it is, in a nutshell:

LOTS of people (as well we all know) carry firearms for defense. Human beings have the right to defend themselves, and the people they love.

Unfortunately, the society in which we live has determined that we the people should be we the sheeple, and put sometimes unreasonable restrictions on our right to self defense.

Know the laws of your area, and know the legalities of self defense using deadly force in your area, OK?

IF YOU HAE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LAW IN YOUR PARTICULAR AREA, then contact the person you're going to have to face IF you do shoot someone...your local prosecuting attorney. Get the facts, and get the name.

If there is ANYONE out there, who thinks for one second that you're going to be treated like a king or queen if you shoot an unarmed attacker, you are dead wrong. The first responders will treat it like an on-view homicide--which it is--and will assume, FOR THEIR SAFETY AND YOURS that you have just committed a murder.

You WILL be relieved of your firearm, at least temporarily. Depending on the circumstances and the environment, you might well be proned out.

When the po-po arrives, trust me--it is NOT the time to start arguing about your Second Amendment rights. The thing to do is two fold.

1. Be courteous, and respond positively to the officers.

2. KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT AND GET A LAWYER. RIGHT NOW. YESTERDAY WOULD BE FINE.

Please don't read into that. If you're smart enough to carry a gun, you're smart enough to know what I mean.

As for the civil suit, or financial liability:

Your defense strategy should include a plan of what to do in the event you need to defend yourself, but I won't allow a fear of "ruining the rest of my life" to ruin the rest of my life. A better legal strategy may be to take a proactive approach. What I did the second time I had to draw a weapon was to file suit first. After all, I was the victim not the assailant. I sued not for money, but for injunctive relief, a restraining order. That put him on the defensive and made him defend himself rather than the other way around. Yeah it cost me $3000, but I got a lot for that 3K(like knowing the two girls I was protecting didn't get beat up). In the BG's resulting criminal trial he was banished from the state(sent to texas) for 10 years. YMMV.

That by far is one of the best ideas that I have ever heard! Don't be passive, take the fight to them! I have heard of police officers suing their attackers. A proactive defense is much better than a passive one.

 

[Powderman]

Oh, and by the way...

You might all want to take a look at this. It's not mine, but is copied from a post from TFL. Read and heed, folks!

"I'll tell you how so. Its actually quite easy. Who do you think I am? I am a police officer, looking to retire fairly soon. Right now, as a "side job," I testify as an expert witness in court for officer involved shootings. What do you think I am going to do when I retire? Still need to make the house payment, kids braces, etc.

Please don't think I am the only one like this. There are THOUSANDS of people, all across the country, doing the samething I am. I know about these boards and, you can be GURANTEED Johnnie Cocharan and his law firm know about them. His law firm and OTHERS, routinely send out partners, etc to Gunsite, Blackwater Lodge, and all of other shooting schools out there. Not to mention, they log on and read these message boards too. Like him and the others or not, they aint stupid.

So its simple. Mr Jones is involved in a shooting. As a criminal investigator, I will write a search warrant for your house. In my search warrant I will request your computer, hard drive, floppy disks, CD's, DVD's, et al. Those will be ALL looked through by the FBI's crime lab. Your "anonymous" name will come up (don't believe that Cleanwash BS, doesn't work, they can still find it) and the fact of ALL of the nice gun sights you belong too.

Oh, did I forget to tell you, I will take a picture of, "Insured By Smith and Wesson" on the front of your house? Oh, and don't forget the nice, "Better tried by 12, then carried by 6" bumper sticker. And, when I collect all of your nice SWAT Magazines (your not a SWAT Team Member are you?), your James Bond Bible and all the other cute books from Paladin Press, etc and then all the nice posts on the internet how your going to give the bad guy "a mouth full of Glock." Yep, paints a pretty bad picture for your in court, now doesn't it? I've only scratched the surface of how nasty it can get.

I've suggested it before, so I will again: don't come up with fancy screen names and be careful about what you post and to whom. No warning stickers, no bumper stickers, no cute t-shirts, none of that junk. One thing, in and of itself, means nothing. But start getting it ALL and it paints a picture of a wannabe, psycho, who is out to kill someone. And that sir, is how I just made 5 grand in about 40 hrs worth of work..."
***************

So much for our kinder, gentler court system.

 

[rbernie]

I don't understand this notion that you need to be so paralyzed by fear of being sued that you would allow yourself to be beaten senseless.

I don't think that I, or anyone else, advocated or suggested that. What I suggested is that the knowledge of the ILL THAT IS ABOUT TO FOLLOW should always be a filter onto the ego when evaluating the threat. Sure, I'd rather pay the legal system than the funeral home. But I'd damn sure rather de-escalate and/or disengage that place myself into the situation that demands my drawing and using my firearm.

Less than a week ago, I was confronted by someone who came to my car while I was stopped at a traffic light (no ready escape) and in so many words invited me to dance. We'd had a difference of opinion in traffic a few miles back, and evidently he decided to show his girlfriend what a big man he was. He was standing at my open passenger window, screaming at me and at one point he actually tried to open the locked passenger door. Now, I could have looked at that situation and seen the worst in it - I was trapped, and frankly he had the advantage of being bigger, younger, and of being in an aggressive state of mind. He was clearly and very loudly vocalizing the desire to visit extreme violence upon my body, and in his state of mind I had no idea where it would end. I also have to admit, my temper was getting up at his aggressiveness. So, do I draw on him or not? Had I done so, Rabbi probably would see me as correct - I was being threatened by an intimidating figure who had actually tried to enter my vehicle with the intent of doing me harm, all in front of multiple witnesses.

I also knew that the light would turn green at some point, and I surmised that as long as he remained on the outside of the passenger side of the car I was in no imminent life-threatening danger. So I simply stayed put, stared at him, and let him vent. The light turned green, he called me a few more choice names, and I drove off and left him standing there. Fortunately, he didn't follow me, but had he done so I would have simply would have called 911 and placed myself into a position to keep the vehicle moving until such time as either the police could intervene or I was forced to take alternate action.

Sure, this confrontation ruined my evening. I felt powerless and wished that there had been a way to exert my manhood in some fashion. But that's not the reason that I carry, and so as much as it hurt my ego I was forced by my definition of morality to just let it go. Would Rabbi have done the same? Dunno - that's the question that we've been trying to resolve for 117 posts now. But the point to this discussion should be how, for example, I managed to NOT place myself into a position to take another life (both ruining his and largely screwing up mine) SO LONG AS THERE WAS ANOTHER OPTION.

I've always lived by the idea that I should avoid the fights that I can and survive the fights that I can't. But the first part of that concept is the idea of AVOIDANCE. It's not a hard concept.

 

[The Rabbi]

Powderman,
What DA's office has the resources to hire private investigators for 4 grand for 40 hours of work to prosecute routine cases? The only case that immediately comes to my mind where that happened was here. A guy was seen aiming an AK at the Orthodox synagogue in town. He was chased back home and when police (note: police) searched the house they found the usual right wing racist clap trap and leads to other illegal gun sales.
I agree your story feeds the latent paranoia a lot of people here seem to exhibit but could you substantiate cases where this actually happened?

Oh yeah. You quote that Johnnie Cochran routinely sends out investigators. Johnnie Cochran does not work for any law enforcement agency. He does not have powers to order a search warrant. He could compel through discovery in a civil case, but thats a different matter. Story just doesnt hang together.

 

[Kamicosmos]

What DA's office has the resources to hire private investigators for 4 grand for 40 hours of work to prosecute routine cases?

So....a CCW involved in the shooting of an unarmed victim is now a 'routine case' not worthy of investigating?

The only case that immediately comes to my mind where that happened was here. A guy was seen aiming an AK at the Orthodox synagogue in town.

So, you're referencing a case where somebody brandished a weapon at a BUILDING and fired NO SHOTS, then continue to say his home was searched.

 

[Tamara]

"I don't know why we even practice shooting while standing up..." -Survivor of two gunfights.

I loathe the idea of fisticuffs and knuckle-jousting even more than you do, Rabbi, but (despite being a crippled chick and all) I have no illusions that the world is going to present me with clear-cut challenges that I can respond to by drawing my pistol while the threat is still outside seven yards.

Train hard, because your future opponent is.

http://www.canadas-best.com/images/ISRPM_clipDSL.wmv

 

[buzz_knox]

What DA's office has the resources to hire private investigators for 4 grand for 40 hours of work to prosecute routine cases?

I don't know about private investigators, but the DAs (and public defenders for that matter) in Tennessee that I worked with have investigators on their payroll, and the DA has the resources of the police and TBI to boot. As for "routine cases," you realize that aggravated assault with a deadly weapon or (attempted) homicide aren't routine cases? Right?

Once again, you really need to speak to a lawyer before acting on your own interpretation of the law. It isn't what they teach in law schools here in Tennessee, nor what they teach to cops.

 

[WEPS]

I no longer fight since i carry a weapon and the reason is simple. I just can't allow someone to get a hold of my firearm. Fighting someone when you have a loaded firearm is stupid. Im not saying you neeed to pull it or shoot them, im just saying it is stupid. If i was sitting on a jury and a man told me that he had to shoot the man even though he was unarmed because he was affraid he would get a hold of his firearm and there was no where he could go, i would be inclined to side with him.

 

[junyo]

My $0.02:

Rabbi, I think I know where you're coming from. If I've got a gun, why should I even think about taking a punch or two? The problem is there's the actuality of being in the right and the perception of being in the right and they don't always coincide. You can do everything correctly and a jury can see it different than you. You have to use your judgement to factor the probability that a group of reasonable people will see things the same way as you, and if they don't, whether the anticipated consequences of the current situation will be better or worse than the consequences of your propoed action. Yeah, a guy might be a threat, and I might not be all that skilled at hand to hand combat, but if I think I can put him down without killing him, if I can talk my way out of it, if I can run from it, even if I think I might have to take a punch or two (which technically is grounds for self-defensive action), I'm probably not going to draw. Why? Because by not doing so I've effectively limited the number of personally unfavorable outcomes. Once I shoot/kill someone, I've expanded the number of personally unfavorable outcomes exponentially, and for the sake of not taking a punch now run the very real risk of far worst treatment in jail. I think the original respondants and most of the people here are simply factoring that into their answer. Self defense isn't always about the immediate actions needed to protect your existence, therefore you have to factor in consequences, perceptions, and the logical resultants of your actions. There's not a cut and dry rule, just risk/benefit calculations.