What would get you to shoot?

[Cosmoline]

I follow the statute. The keys are whether I or another is faced with the threat of IMMINENT and UNLAWFUL DEADLY FORCE. Each of those three factors is critical, and no deadly force in self defense is permissible* without each of those three factors in place. The threat must be DEADLY, or at least going to cause very serious bodily harm. That means more than the usual brawls and punchups. The threat must be IMMINENT, which means a generalized threat to kill me is insufficient. And the threat must be UNLAWFUL, which is usually not a major factor but it's important nonetheless.

*There are some exceptions in some states which permit you to PRESUME the presence of one or more factors, but these are often subject to misunderstanding.

"If I fire this shot, am I going to save a life?"

Close, but not quite there. The problem is you could "save a life" by killing someone who might present a FUTURE threat. That's not legitimate self defense. I would rephrase it this way:

"If I do not fire this shot, will I or someone else be murdered in the next minute?"

The imminence is there, as is the unlawful nature of the force (which is why I say murdered, not just killed), and of course we're talking about an impending death.

And of course the states have various positions on the duty to retreat. Though in reality if you're about to be murdered in the next minute, you probably can't get out of there safely. If you're about to murdered in the next FIVE minutes, the duty to retreat issues become more pressing. That's when you need to know your state law very well. If you see goons in your driveway and you have good reason to believe they're coming to kill you unlawfully (I'm not talking about LEO's coming to arrest you who may shoot you if you attack), then you have to know if you need to find a way out the back of if you can make your stand in a defensive position.

In general it's critical to know your own state's self defense code and any pertinent case law. It can be confusing. For example some states don't have an "imminence" requirement in the code, but the courts have inserted one anyway. IIRC Pennsylvania may be one, but I could be mistaken.

As far as warnings go, I'm generally against them. If you have time to banter things probably haven't reached a shooting point. And by hollering you make yourself an instant target. I'd advise using 100% of your eyes, ears and mind to PAY CLOSE ATTENTION to what's happening and draw reasonable conclusions. These gun schools that teach some slurred warning as part of a firing drill are really not accomplishing anything useful. Warnings can and have gotten armed citizens shot. The Tacoma mall example is the best one. In that case the green light was on very brightly, and the armed bystander should have either shot or fled. Instead he yelled a warning, and got paralyzed for life for his troubles. To quote the great Tuco, "IF YOU ARE GOING TO SHOOT, SHOOT. DON'T TALK."

In a recent local example, a teen with an air rifle was shot by a police officer without warning. He sued, and the jury totally rejected his claims across the board. With a different judge it never would have even gotten that far.

 

[WoodyTX]

You point out the judge as a factor.

Let me throw in another monkey-wrench. I live in Williamson County, which is one of the safest highly-populated counties in Texas. It's also one of the least lenient on criminal behavior (I intentionally avoided the phrase 'illegal behavior').

Williamson County is just to the north of Travis County, where Austin is located. It's been described as "an island of blue in a sea of red", and that's a pretty accurate statement. Travis County is where you party; WilCo is where you raise your kids.

Were I to be involved in a shooting, the county line is certainly going to be a factor in the post-shooting events. It probably should be a factor in the decision process, but things like imminent murder, adrenaline, and such tend to crowd out things like political boundaries.

In other words, part of the "when would I shoot?" process (which should be figured out before carrying) might be to consider different jurisdictions and their legal tendencies.

 

[Mother]

In Texas you will find out that the law does not work anything like you think it would. When you shoot in self defense it had still better be in your home at armed intruder or the DA will come after you forcing you to spend a small fortune to defend yourself. Remember the Bad Man you had to shoot is going to lie about what happened and scream that you tried to kill him.
You will find out that the officers let any witness that hung around leave without getting statements of any kind. The 911 operators did not get names and phone #s from the people calling in because the Bad Man had attacked them before he even got to you.
My Son shot his gun in Texas. He had his wife and baby in the car when they were attacked by a large commercial truck. The truck repeatedly swirved at them forcing them off the road into the median. It had been raining he had 2 wheels on wet grass staring at the ditch and guard rail. The truck was pacing him with no escape. He felt the back end start sliding, it was shoot now or they would all die in a horrible crash. He was not arrested and they returned his gun and bullets.
Almost 5 months later he was stopped speeding on the way to work and found out he had a warrant for Aggrv. Assault with a deadly weapon. No bail could be set until after he was transported to the County where the charges were filed. He spent 6 days in jail before they transported and finally set the bond at 100,000.
This should give you an idea of how it really works when you shoot even defending your infant child. All these laws are written but the DA can twist them around and make your life miserable. Yes you probably will win in court if you have deep enough pockets but it will be the fight of your life.
The Truck Driver had a scratch on the back of his lower leg. He refused to go to the hospital for medical care.
The Truck Driver has still not been charged.
Do you have 30,000.00 to prove you shot in self defense ? You will probably need more before it is over.

 

[Shadow 7D]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=574891
Very interesting thread about a self defense shoot, in a not so gun friendly place, with "friends of the victim" that out right lied, a video, and a HUGE number of different stories

Gist is guy and some friends are walking out of a bar, encounter another group, words are exchanged and a fight ensues. He pulled his gun on the main instigator after they tried to leave. The other main character charged him, and hit him, and as he went down, he shot the guy. Now after a few long years, he is found innocent.

Very good read. Makes you realize that it's not like the movies.

 

[charliehustle10]

If someone scuffs my 'Tims', or dis-respects me, I shoot to wound.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by charliehustle10: If someone scuffs my 'Tims', or dis-respects me, I shoot to wound.

...which would constitute an illegal and tactically very unsound use of deadly force, and give you an express ticket to jail. Many posts on that here --use the search function.

 

[charliehustle10]

It was a joke. A ridiculous answer to a ridiculous question. Every situation is different, impossible to say before hand what actions you would take.
Calm down.

 

[txhoghunter]

My ROE consists of 3 factors that must be met in order to justify the use of deadly force.

1. Intent to cause serious bodily harm or death.
- verbal, physical acts

2. Ability to carry out intent.
- size / strength / numbers disparities, weapons / tools that could be used as weapons

3. Immediate need to use deadly force to stop the threat.
- No chance of evading or avoiding the threat due to lack of time / distance.
- No protective barriers to shield me from the threat.

Joe beat me to it, these are what I consider my "triggers"

Now trigger number 2, ability, varies. If someone is verbally threatening to beat me up from 20 yds away, that threat is just "talking the talk" unless he makes a move towards me.
Now if that same person 20 yds away is threatening to shoot me, the threat is escalated. Not just because a gun has come into play, but because I am within range should he (or she) actually produce a gun.

The possibility of myself being sent to prison for shooting someone stealing my TV (even if legal under circumstances) is not worth me firing. A TV can be replaced, quite easily.

 

[Sam1911]

It was a joke. A ridiculous answer to a ridiculous question.... Calm down.

There is a set of Rules that governs conduct in S&T. That sticky thread is subtitled with the admonishment, "Please read before posting."

One selection from that set of instructions states:

Self defense and the use of deadly force are very serious subjects indeed, and we therefore strongly discourage attempts at humor, because they do not come across well in the discussion of the kinds of subjects that come up here.

Not trying to pick on Charlie, here, just pointing out for the benefit of all participating that, while humor can indeed be a powerful way to communicate in the right circumstances, black letter text doesn't translate insinuation, inflection, and jesting very well, and jokes about such serious matters as we discuss here in S&T cause more trouble than they're worth.

 

[Fred Fuller]

A little further clarification -

THR has thousands of members (17,030 active members as of this posting), who are able to view and post in S&T (S&T is a members-only forum, for those who didn't know.)

The relatively new 'rules' thread has 161 views as of this posting. It can be seen at http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=561603 .

If anyone posting here hasn't read the rules yet, it might save trouble to do so ahead of need... sorta like not getting your legal education in the courtroom at the defendant's table...

lpl

 

[Nushif]

I think I'd default to training and go with a military use of force spectrum.

If I remember this right, and do correct me if I'm wrong there's several stages, and I'd only ever step one up from what the bad guy is doing. Also, this spectrum is very heavily influenced by how I feel about the issue. Also, since in Oregon we don't have castle law, and I also don't feel like property is worth killing over property defense would not make me shoot. Unless it's a dog. I honestly don't know what I'd do if someone killed or hurt my dogs.

This is the spectrum of force that kinda swims around in my head.

So the first step is presence. This could simply be standing in a doorway, barring entrance, what have you.
The second step is words. This can range from a polite suggestion, over a yelled command to a profanity laden order.
The third step is hands on, without injury. This is a shove, a poke, a hand on the shoulder, that sort of thing.
The fourth is restraining. This is an active attempt to restrain. unarmed, still.
The next step is unarmed intent to hurt. This is a thrown fist, a karatay chopz! or any other such intent. From then we move into tools, such as clubs, guns and anything else that is used to bash in brains, aerate internals, you name it.

My philosphy is that as a legitimate defender I will not go more than one level above someone who is equally matched in any way. And if we're not equally matched, I'd go up two, but I feel like a gun is a very much last resort. Maybe it's because I'm in decent shape, like combatives and am young, but I don't necessarily feel like a gun is my only means of defense. Oh yeah, and if they're retreating, I won so uh ... no shootie at a retreating bad guy in any civilian capacity.
And only to stop a violent crime, really. Shooting someone is kind of like an ad hoc death penalty, so I kind of gauge my behavior on what would actually warrant a death penalty. Stealing a TV, or even a domestic dispute (unless it turns into a serious violent crime) doesn't mean the guy or girl needs to fry.

I know this is a bit disjointed, but it's my take on when I would use legal force in the framework of the laws I know.

 

[Jeff White]

I think I'd default to training and go with a military use of force spectrum.

You are describing the Force Continuum which is a guideline that was developed for people who have a duty to act, police and military. I have never thought it was appropriate for a private citizen ans the private citizen has no duty to use force to resolve a situation. The private citizen has the option to disengage.

So the first step is presence. This could simply be standing in a doorway, barring entrance, what have you.

Please explain to me how your presence as a private citizen with no duty to act is a use of force?

The second step is words. This can range from a polite suggestion, over a yelled command to a profanity laden order.

What about simply disengaging? As a private citizen you are under no obligation to maintain the peace. So if someone is getting loud and threatening, why would not just disengage and move on? Why would you possibly provoke a physical attack by engaging someone who may be verbally assaulting you in a war of words? Or do you envision this as you warning someone who gets too close to you to step away? Again, using verbal commands is a use of force more applicable to someone with a duty to act. you may be pushing the altercation from being self defense to mutual combat if you start giving "profanity laden orders" to someone out on the street.

The third step is hands on, without injury. This is a shove, a poke, a hand on the shoulder, that sort of thing.

What is your legal justification for going hands on? The hands on option in a law enforcement force continuum is to gain compliance with a lawful order you are giving someone. As a private citizen in most cases you have no legal authority to go hands on to gain compliance. If you push someone out of your way you have committed a battery (might be assault in some states) and you have now given your assailant a legal opening to strike you in self defense.

The fourth is restraining. This is an active attempt to restrain. unarmed, still.

Who are you restraining and why? Most states have a law against unlawful restraint[/u]. As a private citizen you have very little legal cause to physically restrain someone. Many states have citizens arrest laws but they are often very different in the amount of force that can be used to effect a citizens arrest and what crimes you can arrest someone for.

The next step is unarmed intent to hurt. This is a thrown fist, a karatay chopz! or any other such intent.

Why would you get involved in a physical fight? It may be forced on you by an assailant, but if it's not, why would you? What is wrong with disengaging?

From then we move into tools, such as clubs, guns and anything else that is used to bash in brains, aerate internals, you name it.

What less lethal tools do you normally carry? Why do you need them as a private citizen? You are also mixing less lethal options with lethal options.

And if we're not equally matched, I'd go up two, but I feel like a gun is a very much last resort. Maybe it's because I'm in decent shape, like combatives and am young, but I don't necessarily feel like a gun is my only means of defense. Oh yeah, and if they're retreating, I won so uh ... no shootie at a retreating bad guy in any civilian capacity.

So you would continue a fight until your opponent retreated? What is your standard for knowing when he's beat? At what point does self defense become mutual combat or even end up with you being charged with assault, battery, aggravated battery.....?

You know that you won't be the only person to tell the story to the police. There will be as many different versions of what happened as there are witnesses and those witnesses often will slant their story to fit their preconceived notions of what was right. There are plenty of people sitting in prison right now with their firearms rights forfeited forever because they thought their actions were self defense. It's likely that many of them were right but the other witnesses took the other side.

There is nothing wrong with avoiding trouble if you can, only using enough force to disengage if you can't avoid it and using deadly force if you feel your life or the life of another was in danger......Pretty simple really, no complex force continuum to remember and worry about.

 

[Nushif]

I think the biggest point about you so artfully deconstructing my personal violence threshold is that I neither initiate, nor act in other people's behalf with violence. I will reply to each paragraph in turn at this point.

Presence is an act of force. I know it's not in the literal way that you're exacting force, but imagine yourself in a room with two burly guys with grim faces and crossed arms at every door. Are they in some way giving a very mild indicator that leaving through the door may not be the smartest thing in the world? I do think they are.

The second stage is easily explained by saying that if someone engaged me ... I don't have to engage back. I do think you're reading way too much into my post here. As you yourself stated, it's not my job to deal with rambunctious folks.

Very nicely stated, the good guy has no right to go hands on. Care to explain that to the two goons holding you by the arms, cause you supposedly insulted their bro's girlfriend? This is about doing the minimal force to disengage. Remember that.

On my next point, let's keep the standard drunken brawl in mind. If I'm sober, carrying a gun and some drunk dude is stumbling towards me ... why is a gun even entering my mind?

Now, let's assume for our final step that either I am sorely overpowered by numbers, the fact that he's swinging a scary baseball bat or something other ... This is the point where a gun might come to mind, of course barring that at any point I simply couldn't disengage and call the cops. Remember a tool to bash a brain in isn't always a nice little asp you buy at the local commando store. It could be a bottle, a pool queue, some heavy literature, you name it.

If engaged in a physical manner, would I continue a fight until either party finds a way out? You bet, I see nothing wrong with that. Or would you decide that a guy punching your lights out is a good thing to sit out and maybe wait until he gets ten hits in before you can run for the exit? I know I'd fight back at that point. I don't like getting hit.

I really do think you somehow turned my relatively high "no shoot" threshhold into me trying to be a hero. Frankly I don't know how, but hey. Maybe it's because I was under the assumption that the average law abiding citizen should probably *know* they're not the law? Who knows? Is it because I frame my thought in a lengthy and deliberate manner? Occupational hazard.
Basically ... "Chill, Dude. I'm an armed Pacifist." As we say around here.

 

[Cosmoline]

I think it's just the wrong tool box to bring outside of MP or LEO circumstances. The case in point that springs to mind is the gallant soldier, an off duty MP, who tried to intervene with some drunk gang bangers a block away and got shot and killed. He may well have thought he was using a force continuum. Certainly he never presented a deadly threat to the guy who shot him.

For private citizens there's both less need to involve yourself and less need to restrain and detain. That doesn't mean you kill the goons holding your arms, but it does mean you crack their bones and do all you can short of killing them to escape. You aren't trying to safely detain, as an LEO would be. You just need to get out of the situation. And unlike an LEO you have limited legal authority and no real backup. Plus the legal consequences of attacking you are far less severe than attacking an officer.

Plus, in many situations the steps of the continuum are inapplicable. The firearm may need to be the FIRST resort, before you utter a word or the shooter even sees you. Truly imminent deadly unlawful threats leave no room for negotiation or pondering.

I see some merit to a force continuum for purely non-deadly brawls. There is a doctrine that force must match force in the common law and in many codes. But as soon as the line is crossed to deadly force everything changes. And the distinction between a force continuum and mutual combat may be lost on a DA. When faced with non-deadly force, evasion and escape are the best bet. If that means you break some guy's wrist to get loose of his grasp, so be it. Your goal is not a fair fight, but a guarded escape until you can call 911 and report the assault.

 

[Nushif]

I don't think I ever even implied some drunk gangbangers a block away are a massive threat to my safety. Unless they have some seriously heavy ordinance and are actually using it. Again, I don't see where this notion that I'm saying one ought to involve oneself outside of calling cops is coming from.
Extricating oneself by minimum means is pretty much what I'm describing here. IS my english really that bad? Most people don't even hear I'm not a natural speaker.

The fact that we call it a continuum (great word) doesn't mean that it has to build. As you (Cosmo) pointed out, there may be a time when deadly force is the first step. that's a pretty darned dire situation though. Flexibility and not some sense of literalness should be part of every train of thought when it comes to dealing with the human element, which by definition we are.

 

[Jeff White]

Presence is an act of force. I know it's not in the literal way that you're exacting force, but imagine yourself in a room with two burly guys with grim faces and crossed arms at every door. Are they in some way giving a very mild indicator that leaving through the door may not be the smartest thing in the world? I do think they are.

In the case you describe here, your presence is not an act of force. You might make a case for the presence of the "two burly guys with grim faces and crossed arms at every door" being force, but your presence is not an act of force. The reason presence is usually the first rung on the force continuum ladder for a law enforcement agency is because the presence of an officer, especially a uniformed one will often cause people to restrain their actions. As a private citizen your presence would not have that effect.

A force continuum is not really about a sworn person acting in self defense, it's about how much force to apply to get others to comply with him/her while conducting lawful enforcement action.

Very nicely stated, the good guy has no right to go hands on. Care to explain that to the two goons holding you by the arms, cause you supposedly insulted their bro's girlfriend? This is about doing the minimal force to disengage. Remember that.

I never said that you didn't have the right to defend yourself, I said that you didn't have the right to go hands on to enforce your will. As I stated before the purpose of a force continuum is to give sworn personnel with a duty to act some guidance on how much force they should use offensively.

On my next point, let's keep the standard drunken brawl in mind. If I'm sober, carrying a gun and some drunk dude is stumbling towards me ... why is a gun even entering my mind?

If you are carrying a gun, it had better be entering your mind. Every fight you get into will have at least one gun involved, the one you are carrying. You need to be cognizant of the fact that if you go hand to hand while you are carrying a weapon there is a good possibility you may lose control of your weapon in the altercation then the drunk you are fighting off may have it to use or some other drunk or bystander. I don't know how you carry, but I'm not aware of many level III retention holsters being used for CCW. Do you have any training in weapons retention? How easy do you think it's going to be to go hands on with the drunk while you are holding the butt of your weapon with one hand to make sure you don't lose it?

Remember a tool to bash a brain in isn't always a nice little asp you buy at the local commando store. It could be a bottle, a pool queue, some heavy literature, you name it.

I am well aware of what can be picked up to injure someone. But I have to ask, if you have a firearm and someone comes at you swinging baseball bat why you would want to pick up something to fight with? A baseball bat is deadly force against you the same as a gun or a knife.

If engaged in a physical manner, would I continue a fight until either party finds a way out? You bet, I see nothing wrong with that.

That isn't what you said in your original post. You said:

but I don't necessarily feel like a gun is my only means of defense. Oh yeah, and if they're retreating, I won so uh ... no shootie at a retreating bad guy in any civilian capacity.

The part I highlighted in bold is what led me to believe you were defining victory as winning even if you had crossed the line from self defense to mutual combat.

I really do think you somehow turned my relatively high "no shoot" threshhold into me trying to be a hero. Frankly I don't know how,

This is what you said that brought me to that conclusion:

Maybe it's because I'm in decent shape, like combatives and am young, but I don't necessarily feel like a gun is my only means of defense.

I've seen plenty of young men who took a fight as an adult with the same seriousness that they applied to a school yard fight in grammar school end up in jail and then in court because they didn't realize the law looked at things a little differently. If you are carrying a firearm you pretty much give up your right to engage in fisticuffs. You simply can't be certain you will be able to maintain control of your weapon if you go hand to hand.

If you have the time spend a morning or an afternoon sitting in criminal court sometime and listen to the proceedings. You'll see all kinds of people who thought they were in a fair fight or defending themselves facing jail or prison time. I've arrested both parties involved in a fight and I've arrested no one and filed information with the states attorney and let him decide who should be charged. As I said in my earlier post, you don't need a force continuum, you just need to do what you have to disengage and do so at the first opportunity or if you truly believe that you or another is in imminent danger of receiving great bodily harm or losing your/their life then use deadly force to resolve the situation.

Can you use other less lethal means to allow you to disengage, of course you can. OC works as do tasers, simply spray and run or tase and run, Taser International will replace your taser with a copy of the police report. That's about the only force continuum a private citizen needs. Going hand to hand while you are carrying a firearm is dangerous and irresponsible.

 

[Nushif]

A force continuum is not really about a sworn person acting in self defense, it's about how much force to apply to get others to comply with him/her while conducting lawful enforcement action.

That is entirely untrue. I don't know where you're getting this, but this renders our entire discussion highly invalid, because we both do not share this definition.

Going hand to hand while you are carrying a firearm is dangerous and irresponsible.

I utterly disagree. Just because you have a firearm on your person does *not* turn every encounter into a deadly force encounter.
The simple act of carrying a firearm does *not* oblige you to use it as your only means of self defense.

Frankly, I was also under the impression that this was a thread about self defense. This Red Herring you keep pulling up about enforcing laws is ridiculous! This was (last I checked) a thread about defending oneself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but *you* are the one who brought enforcing any laws into this.
In no way did I insinuate *anything* about enforcing any laws.

[edit]

Aha! So, the thread was indeed about borderline cases.
I read the beginning of the OP and skimmerized the rest, so ... to the question of what would get me to intervene I don't have an answer, because I haven't really mulled it around enough, but I stand by my statements, that my self defense spectrum is still in place.
In borderline cases, well, I carry a cell phone in those.

So this ended up being a bit of a tangent, it seems.

[/edit]

 

[Sam1911]

Nushif, I agree with Jeff's definition. And, with great irony, so does Wikipedia, even!

A use of force continuum is a standard that provides law enforcement officials & security guards (such as police officers, probation officers, or corrections officers) with guidelines as to how much force may be used against a resisting subject in a given situation. In certain ways it is similar to the military rules of engagement. The purpose of these models is to clarify, both for officers and citizens, the complex subject of use of force by law officers.

There are certain elements of a use of force continuum that parallel what a civilian/citizen might apply in self-defense, but the key difference is the duty of the officer to act, and enforce his/her lawful orders. Most of the force continuum is not appropriate/lawful for a private citizen to apply because it is based in achieving compliance, not self-defense.

In fact, when I've heard it discussed and lectured on, the distinction was clearly made that there is no direct application for the private citizen.

The only reason this "red herring" is introduced here is that you're using a term, the very widely understood definition of which applies directly, and only, to law-enforcement.

Obviously you don't mean it to, but that's causing at least some of the conflict here.

 

[Jeff White]

That is entirely untrue. I don't know where you're getting this, but this renders our entire discussion highly invalid, because we both do not share this definition.

I am getting it from 25 years in law enforcement. The concept of a force continuum was developed to give sworn personnel guidelines on how much force to apply in a given situation where a subject is resisting and more importantly to the administrators, guidelines that could be defended in court. Just because you don't share the common definition of a force continuum doesn't make this conversation invalid.

I utterly disagree. Just because you have a firearm on your person does *not* turn every encounter into a deadly force encounter.
The simple act of carrying a firearm does *not* oblige you to use it as your only means of self defense.

What level of retention does the holster you carry your weapon in have? How much training do you have in weapon retention? Do you really think you can fight effectively and keep control of your weapon? Every encounter you have is in fact an armed encounter, because YOU brought a gun to the fight even if you don't intend on using it.

Frankly, I was also under the impression that this was a thread about self defense. This Red Herring you keep pulling up about enforcing laws is ridiculous! This was (last I checked) a thread about defending oneself. Correct me if I'm wrong, but *you* are the one who brought enforcing any laws into this.
In no way did I insinuate *anything* about enforcing any laws.

Once again, the force continuum is a guideline for the use of force by people who have a duty to act, not by private citizens. I don't know why you don't understand that.

 

[mustang_steve]

I would not shoot in a fight regardless of situation...especially in a domestic quarrel.

If I saw a situation where one is likely to die, or an actual rape...I'd use it, but in the rape I'd have to be careful since any mistake can harm the victim.

 

[clutch]

There isn't a free shot card. If you could get out of the situation and didn't attempt it, well you deserve what you get.

Clutch

 

[quatin]

I've learned a lot from watching these threads on THR. First, I've noticed these threads would always get a lot of mod attention then the discussion would die. The topic always steers toward the fact that there are legal consequences, no matter how "clean" the shoot was. It's against THR policy to suggest doing anything illegal, which nullifies most of the topics on these threads, because even touching someone is considered assault.

I won't go directly from being complacent to using lethal force. I doubt most people with common sense would. Therefore, the situations in which I can precisely follow the law to shoot someone is so narrow and the consequences so vast, that I've realized it's futile to carry a gun outside of my home. Yes, I know we are preparing for that 0.1% chance when we need a weapon, but of that 0.1% chance there's a 90% chance that we won't be completely justified in using(shooting) it. Therefore I've completely overlooked the majority of encounters where I need non-lethal force. If the most that a firearm can do for me in those situations is to intimidate the threat, there's much more useful tools that I can carry. I now realize how under utilized mace, tazers and batons are. If anything, I'd be negligent to carry a firearm, but not a non-lethal weapon since there's a much greater chance that I'll need it.

 

[quatin]

I would not shoot in a fight regardless of situation...especially in a domestic quarrel.

If I saw a situation where one is likely to die, or an actual rape...I'd use it, but in the rape I'd have to be careful since any mistake can harm the victim.

Fights can turn deadly quick. I would definitely use a weapon if I was forced into a fight. I may avoid using deadly force, but it's going to get worse in the future. there's pee-wee MMA at my gym and these 5 year olds learn quick. I saw one make a take down, get back control and slap on a rear naked choke in 5 seconds. The next generation of kids will have unparalleled fighting skills.

 

[Sam1911]

but of that 0.1% chance there's a 90% chance that we won't be completely justified in using(shooting) it. Therefore I've completely overlooked the majority of encounters where I need non-lethal force. If the most that a firearm can do for me in those situations is to intimidate the threat, there's much more useful tools that I can carry. I now realize how under utilized mace, tazers and batons are. If anything, I'd be negligent to carry a firearm, but not a non-lethal weapon since there's a much greater chance that I'll need it.

Can you articulate the specific instances where you'd have an affirmative defense for assault (striking someone with a baton, tazing someone, OC-spraying someone) but not have an affirmative defense for the brandishing charge or possible homicide if you display or use a firearm?

Striking someone with a baton would not be "non-lethal force." Less-lethal, perhaps, if you really know what you're doing, but even a punch can kill.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Sitting in on a trial or trials in superior court (or whatever level courtroom handles serious cases in your jurisdiction) is free, save for the time involved.

The education received from watching "the justice system" in operation is priceless.

Listening to former LEOs who have interviewed hundreds of imprisoned felons - including a fair number who thought they were good guys who'd been involved in "a good shoot" - is also educational. Since it usually requires participation at training events like Tom Givens' Polite Society to sit in on, it isn't free. But it's still priceless.

Anyone who wishes to do so is free to postpone their legal education until/unless they wind up at the defendant's table in court... but that isn't the best way to go about it.

jmho, ymmv-

lpl