At what point can one legally respond to a threat?

[spacemanspiff]

At what point do you do more than wait for the person to attack you? If he follows you or blocks your path of retreat, do you strike pre-emtively or do you risk getting injured and count on your reflexes and reaction time to get you out of the situation?

i've been in a similar situation. been followed, and had my movements limited by traffic. the guy who 'just wanted to shake my hand' was far too close, but presented no weapon, nor was he verbally threatening. but my 'spidey sense' was going berserk so in my mind the situation just was wrong. i didnt draw down, but my hand was gripping my gun in its holster.

to answer your question, seeing how you live in a state where the duty to retreat is nonexistant, doesnt mean that you have to stand your ground in each and every encounter you have. a pre-emptive strike, against someone who is verbally abusive/threatening, but has not yet provided a weapon that you can see, would in my humble opinion, be 'less-justifiable'.
now, if you are cornered, if the subject blocks you in, and it is provable there is no disparity of force (i.e. you are not a 280 lb bodybuilder and your attacker a 90 lb dwarf) then by all means defend yourself. the attacker is already within your comfort zone, and well within range to deploy a weapon of his own and has a good chance of getting the drop on you.
hand to hand combat, i would use a 'less lethal' option, the flashlight to blind, the spray to keep him occupied, while i retreat to a safer location and call 911.

all in all, you did good, and i commend you for having multiple options of defense on hand, even if you werent carrying the gun.

 

[Hook686]

Yesterday, 08:07 PM #10
stephen426
Senior Member


Join Date: 03-11-2005
Posts: 785 I guess I am not making my question clear enough.

At what point do you do more than wait for the person to attack you? If he follows you or blocks your path of retreat, do you strike pre-emtively or do you risk getting injured and count on your reflexes and reaction time to get you out of the situation?

Would I have been justified in macing him if he walked up to my face and continued to make verbal threats? I would not shoot him for that, but Mace usually has no long term effects on people other than to make them think twice before mouthing off again. I'm sure the use of less than lethal force have a wider latitude than use of a deadly weapon. I guess even if I was wrong, it would be assault with the mace rather than assault with a deadly weapon.

This has really made me reconsider adding less than lethal defenses to my line of defenses when I carry. At least I can say I did not escalate to deadly force immediately.
__________________

Allow me to modify your inquiry ... suppose you are disabled, having had previous extensive neurosurgery, such that a hard blow to the head would definately knock you out and, depending upon placement, might actually kill you. How close to you let the overly verbal threats get ? I cannot move quickly, am blind and partially paralyzed on the left side. How close do I let a person who is threatening me verbally get ? I've pondered this at length. What would be your answer ? I decided, if it reaches the point of drawing, it will include firing, and I do not think I have the luxury of waiting for that "risk getting injured and count on your reflexes and reaction time to get you out of the situation". So how close do you let the verbally aggressive, threatening person get ?

 

[Mikeyboy]

invention45...I interpert that somehow this new law closed some sort of loophole that would make a victim of an assault liable by defending themselves if they had the ability to flee. I'm not from FL, but did something happen where a mugger was able to sue his victim for injuries when the victim fought back and won the case for big money??? Does anyone know exactly why this law was passed?

Stephen...Your right, I would probably just walk away and not tell the guy off to avoid additional confrontation.

 

[Derius_T]

Hook686 brings up an interesting point. I happen to be pretty severely disabled myself. I won't go into details, but even though I am still 6' 3" and about 260lbs, the nature of my injuries makes me doubt I could hold my own very well, against even a mildly healthy opponent. Is there a different line to be drawn in that scenario? When you CAN'T run, or even walk away very fast? Or is that something for your lawyers to use in your defense? How far do you let it get, knowing your own limitations......

 

[TexiCali Slim]

I personally would say that if you keep a cool head and dont antagonize the other individual you can talk it out 90% of the time. More often than not your pride is what makes you react more than the actual threat. I'd say if they put hands on you or got into your comfort zone you should react accordingly, but allways try and diffuse the situation for the both of you. Every action has a reaction.
-Thanks All

 

[stephen426]

Derius T,

I believe your and hook686's situation is what they call disparity of force. You are not in the position to defend yourselves in unarmed combat against a person without your physical ailments. In your case, I think you would have less chances of even being charged with a crime if you used force to defend yourself. If it ever got down to it, even a lawyer fresh out of grad school could paint you guys as disabled victims who did the only thing you guys could to protect yourselves. In your case, I would stand my ground and attempt to use less than lethal force first (such as mace or a taser) and then escalate to deadly force if needed.

 

[DasBoot]

426,
You absolutely did the right thing.
As previously stated, he was more than likely drunk/drugged/insane, so why get yourself and your friend in a messy situation with a Sh-----d!
As for

that part of Miami Beach is generally pretty safe and I did not want to startle my co-worker.

As far as I'm concerned, there aren't ANY truly safe places!
Anything can happen anywhere.
It just depends on what level of "self protect" mode you choose to be in at any given time time.
And startling a co-worker isn't even on my list of things to worry about!
I carry......PERIOD!
Family/friends/aquaintences/etc will have to accept that as being a part of me.
And most of these people don't even know I carry!
I keep it quiet.
And if it bothers any of them, I will more than like not be spending too much time with them anyway.

 

[fairview mick]

confrontation

Steve.
If you have a CCW license, then you know the proper thing to do is to avoid physical confrontation unles it is the very last resort. Walk around the guy, if he starts to follow, walk faster, if he runs after you, then it's probably time to realize that this is going to be confrontational. My first response to that would not be mace, but a very good pepper spray. I believe it's a much greater deterant than mace.
JMO
Mickey

 

[riverrat66]

I agree 100% with TexiCali Slim and think you did the right thing.

Like Derius_T I too am disabled and would be hard pressed to defend myself in a physical confrontation, in fact I could not even run away! If it ever came to the point that lethal force had to be used the legal system would surely take into consideration one's physical ability to defend one's self. There are those who prey only on the old and disabled because they are such an easy mark.

A few years ago I was in the local Mickey D's one morning and these two BG scumbags come in, looking like they had been up all night, they were dirty, smelly and looked like trouble right from the get-go. They started MFng the counter girl and one hit her in the face with a sandwich because he didn't like it, then one guy started harassing some guy with his wife and small kid telling him he was going to Fng kill him while the other threw stuff all over the restaurant. I was standing at the other end of the counter with a large black coffee with the lid off, and we all know how hot McDonald's coffee is! I told the other counter girl to quickly give me another large black coffee minus the lid. Mind you now I walk with a cane but I was carrying my Glock 27, but figured when these guys approached me a hot coffee in the face would work better then shooting these a-holes in a crowded restaurant. Also, if you know how to use it, the cane can be a great weapon! Well, as it turned out a few seconds later the cops were there and not so politely escorted those punks out and I went quietly on my way and I never did pay for the coffee!

DasBoot sez:
I carry......PERIOD!
Family/friends/acquaintances/etc will have to accept that as being a part of me.
And most of these people don't even know I carry!

I agree 1000%. Most of the time my wife doesn't even know I'm carrying.

 

[bclark1]

i'm not reading all this, i'd just like to respond to the original post... but i think even the thought of needing a gun in the situation is dangerous. i can't see any reason for deadly force. unless you're extremely sheltered, you know the homeless can be like that, and that most of them aren't playing with a full deck. minding your own business and continuing on is all you need. i would only engage deadly force against an equally matched threat... i'd return fists for fists with almost every homeless person i've seen because they're simply not in well-nourished, athletic shape, and i don't think i could live with myself for doing grievous harm onto someone who wasn't entirely in control of their situation, regardless of whether or not that got them into trouble.

i'm not saying there's no case where someone like this would not force you to defend yourself with lethal force. but i think you should be especially careful. it is this sort of attitude to immediately go hot when nothing more than words or a few meaningless gestures are exchanged that gives the level-headed gunners a bad name.

 

[invention_45]

Generally: I have had some...er...trouble lately with a stalker. So, for that reason, I keep my eye on the statutes. So, Mikey, I'm sorry, but I don't know why the law was changed.

I can tell you that, since I was (and still am) in a situation that could easily call on me to use deadly force, I was disturbed by the possibility of resulting criminal/civil action, both of which are pricey, even if I win. Maybe enough other people thought the same way and just raised enough hell to get the law changed.

Hook: This is my best guess about your situation. First, since you are in a wheelchair and your assailant presumably isn't, it's pretty unlikely that any judge, policeman, DA, or jury would consider you capable of retreat against anyone determined to hurt you. Also, you don't have many options between no force and deadly force.

As an example, let's say a small angry woman is standing at the sidewalk and I'm at my front door and it's not locked. She shows a knife and threatens to use it on me. I can't shoot her unless she's starting toward me and I would probably continue yelling at her to stop till she's halfway to me (about 15 feet) before I started shooting. I could also try to go inside quickly and lock the door.

In the same situation, you are probably justified to shoot the second she turns and starts in your direction. It's unlikely you can get inside and lock the door in time.

Another example, same woman but not showing a knife is 15 feet from me. She tells you she has a knife and is going to kill/hurt me. There is a witness to all this. I would probably at least have to loudly command her to get away from me and see how she reacts before I shoot. Since I could possibly run away, I don't have to by law, but depending on the exact curcumstances, might try.

You could probably shoot her as soon as she makes her intentions known. You cannot effectively run away.

WARNING: I'm not a lawyer. But if I were on a jury that's how I would compare the two situations. Actually, if I were on a jury, an aggressor would be very hard pressed to make me vote to convict a victim who shot him/her, regardless of any disparity of strength or ability.

I'm basing my comments on FL law and on what I seem to hear is the average law in other states.

 

[grndpndr]

No Retreat

Dont know if this is relevant to this thread but here in SD just today a bill left
committee to allow deadly force w/o requirement to retreat if you feel life is in danger.I believe it has always been generally accepted here that deadly force is justified in those situations its simply being codified so some overzealous States Attorney can't charge a civilian for a justified shooting.Bought Time!As far as the scenario described I believe a cautious retreat would be the best option,being disabled though I wouldnt be able to retreat far at which point more forceful persuasion would be required.