CCW Scenario...Opinions Please

Frank, yes I do.

I have no requirement under law to submit to physical damage when I have attempted to avoid it. Neither do you.
Click to expand...


Like I said...good luck if you ever kill an unarmed man in a bar fight....Around here, the rule is that you have the right to shoot someone when you reasonably fear death or GREAT bodily harm. Great bodily harm is a lot different than "bodily harm". Granted, if you're 80 years old, what might be great bodily harm for you might not be for a younger person. Be that as it may, I'd love to see your state law that says you have the right to kill someone because you feared mere "bodily harm". I never said you had to "SUBMIT" to an assault. I'm telling you, you'll be in deep trouble if you kill an unarmed man over an assault and battery, and then go in there and tell the prosecutor you had the right to kill him because he threatened you with "bodily harm". You may think it's an inconsequential dispute about semantics, but there are a lot of people in prison based on simple semantics.

AZ law says a citizen has the right to self-defense if he fears for his life or bodily harm.
Click to expand...

Can you cut and paste the applicable law? Does it say you have the right to use deadly force for anything less than a reasonably perceived threat of death or GREAT bodily harm? The force used in self defense must be proportionatly reasonable to the threat. That doesn't mean killing someone because they punched you in the nose in a bar fight. You hear a lot of people in these discussions throwing around the "better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6" cliche. You DON'T hear a lot of people doing 12 to 20 for second degree murder or manslaughter using that expression.
 
I don't think it is a question of semantics, or even a question of legality. It's a question of life and death. If you are carrying a gun and succumb in a fist fight, the other party may very well take your gun and blow your brains out with it. It has happened before, and it can happen again.
The simple fact that you have a gun on your hip does not mean that you are the only one who can use it. If you are not prepared for this reality, then it's best to stay out of bar room brawls.
Frank and other policemen may feel the need to subdue violent people with bare hands and a gun on their hip, but private citizens do not have that training or that obligation. This is one area where the double standard works against the cop.
 
I don't think it is a question of semantics, or even a question of legality. It's a question of life and death. If you are carrying a gun and succumb in a fist fight, the other party may very well take your gun and blow your brains out with it. It has happened before, and it can happen again.
Click to expand...

Is it LIKELY, or even REASONABLE to think you should kill someone in a fist fight because they might get the gun that YOU brought to the fight? I don't think it is. Just because it's happened before doesn't make it reasonable. Lots of people are killed after being punched in the nose when they fall and hit their head on the ground. Does that mean you should kill someone who you think MIGHT punch you in the nose because other people have died after being punched in the nose?

I believe this is the law in Michigan:

M Civ JI 174.11 Felonious and Intentional Killing: Self-Defense—Definition
The killing was in self-defense if, at the time of the act, all of the following existed:

[Name of respondent] honestly and reasonably believed that [he / she] was in danger of being killed or receiving serious bodily harm.
Respondent honestly and reasonably believed that the use of force was immediately necessary to defend [himself / herself] from this danger.
Respondent used only the amount of force that appeared to [him / her] necessary at the time to defend [himself / herself] from this danger.
Click to expand...

And I believe this is the definition of "serious injury".

“Serious injury” means permanent, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function of a person.
Click to expand...

As I said before, if I were on the jury of a guy charged with a shooting, and it involved a 30 year old guy in reasonable shape who shot and killed an unarmed 30 year-old guy in a run of the mill bar fight because he was afraid of being punched in the face, and he came out of the whole thing without a mark on him, and said in court "I shot him because I was afraid he'd hit me and take my gun and shoot me while I was incapacitated", there's a good chance that the most he could hope for was a hung jury. Because I might very well be voting "guilty".
 
Frank, simply put, this is why people who carry guns should not get into fist fights. I have yet to see a fist fight that could not have been avoided by one party backing down and walking away. Nobody "finds" themself in a physical confrontation as stated in the original post. They allow it to develop around them or even participate in making it happen.

I do not advocate getting into fist fights, with or without a gun. But given the choice of possibly going to prison for an extended stay or possibly going to the cemetery for an extended stay, I'll take prison.

there's a good chance that the most he could hope for was a hung jury. Because I might very well be voting "guilty".
Click to expand...
Lets just say I trust a jury of my peers more than a man intent on beating my brains out. A hung jury is a good jury for the defense.
 
Frank, simply put, this is why people who carry guns should not get into fist fights.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.....I'd even go one further......If you're the type of person who can't seem to avoid a fistfight, you shouldn't carry a gun.

I have yet to see a fist fight that could not have been avoided by one party backing down and walking away. Nobody "finds" themself in a physical confrontation as stated in the original post. They allow it to develop around them or even participate in making it happen.

I do not advocate getting into fist fights, with or without a gun. But given the choice of possibly going to prison for an extended stay or possibly going to the cemetery for an extended stay, I'll take prison.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer to take my chances with my fists, or my escape, and try to avoid the cemetery and the prison both, and leave my gun for gunfights.....
 
Frank: Note that I said that I never carry a gun into a bar. Not only would that be a bad idea, in Texas it is not legal. We are not allowed to carry, even when licensed, into an establishment that makes more than 51% of it's revenue from selling alcolholic drinks on the premises. So that is not a situation I will find myself in, and I ruled that one out. Not only that but in my earlier years when I did frequent bars I never got into one fight inside or outside one.

Also, I said that there is no law that requires me to submit to physical harm of any level for any reason. And I stand by that. I have a right to self defense under any circumstances, and that is absolutely true in every state in the Union.

I also said that only after I had tried to walk away from the agressor, and/or had tried to talk him down, and/or that for whatever reason you want to dream up I was unable (not unwilling) to walk away, then I would bring the gun out and threaten him with it.

If under those circumstances he still attacked, yes I would shoot him. If someone still attacks with a gun pointed at him then you can bet there is going to be significant harm done if he is successful with his attack, he will no doubt be of diminished mental capacity to attack in the face of a cocked and aimed gun at close range. He is going to be a psyco and/or he is going to be high and/or intoxicated, and he is also not likely to stop like a gentleman after giving one a bloody nose, now is he?

You have to take all of the above into account when you read my response. This is a what-if scenario so I have tried to define it down to the point of where I would feel justified in pulling and shooting.

I did not say that the DA would not have issues with my actions, but I would be within my rights. Just because a DA or a policeman may not see it my way does not mean I do not have the right to use deadly force in that set of circumstances.
 
Lets just say I trust a jury of my peers more than a man intent on beating my brains out. A hung jury is a good jury for the defense.
Click to expand...

First, you have to get a jury of your peers. Good luck in my county.....
 
Someone asked if I had the Arizona statures pertaining to this subject. Here they are:

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:

1. In response to verbal provocation alone; or

2. To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or

3. If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:

(a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and

(b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.


13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
 
How far will he go?

Frank,
How are you determining in advance that you are only going to get a beating? How are you determining that he will stop once you are knocked out? How do you know he won't take it to the final step?

It seems that before one is willing to get into any physical encounter, you should also be willing to assume that either party might carry it to the final conclusion. Fighting is not a game! No kings-x or time outs.

If I am not carrying and I have to use my martial arts to defend myself, that is still the criterial. Am I willing to die or kill over this issue, not can I take a beating or beat the opponent up. Once it starts, there is no telling the level it will be brought to.
Fighting is dam serious business.

When confronting someone, you do not know if their intentions, if they have a knife, or are carrying concealed. You must always assume the worst. There is no "good guy waits for the bad guy to draw first" in real life.

The deputies even empahsized in class that if you are fighting fair, you are losing the battle!
 
XBreath, your statements on not getting into a fight seem rather naive to me.

Every so-called "fight" I have been in, boiled down to somebody deciding to put a major hurt on me, pretty much out of the blue.

No "you spilled my drink!" or "your momma!"

Some people are just that way.

"I had almost enough time to think, "Oh, S***!"

People DO get killed with ONE punch. You can be killed so easily with one good strike into the nose.

My last altercation got me 5 punches to the nose, and $30,000 of reconstructive surgery. My attacker was 50 pounds lighter, and three inches shorter than me, so much for "disparity of force".
Maybe I should have asked him how many times he planned to hit me with how many foot-pounds of force. If once is not enough, is three times ok with everybody?


When somebody means to hurt me with intent, I don't plan to goof around like some of you guys who view fights as recreation.

EC
 
XBreath, your statements on not getting into a fight seem rather naive to me.
Click to expand...
It would only seem naive to one who cannot manage to avoid a fist fight I suppose. I'm 47 years old with many miles of travel in different countries and on board ship in the Navy behind me. I have seen some serious tempers flare over things that do indeed matter. I have lived through conditions that many would not tolerate. I have seen immature men get into fist fights over more mickey mouse BS than I can count. The one common denominator was pride, ego and neither man backing down. If you cannot control your pride and ego, you will continue to get into fights. Some people just like to fight I guess, and that's OK too. In my opinion though, they should not carry a gun. If they cannot control their emotions, thoughts, mouth, arms and legs, then they cannot control their trigger finger. If they cannot see trouble fermenting before it explodes, then they will be unable to avoid using the gun. The last fist fight I was in was in the 5th grade. I came close a couple of times as a man, especially when I was a new boot in the fleet, but I also had enough sense to back down. The naivity is believing that a fist fight is unavoidable. I'll put on my Nomex now.
 
Xavier: Well said.

I am 52, was in the Army, have been in construction and on construction sites for going on 30 years. Construction is a very stress filled occupation and there is plenty of opportunity to lose your head and people soemtimes do. I have lived a life that often took me into places that Angels feared to tread, and traveled in some rough places. My last fistfight was when I was 15 and I stood up to a bully that was picking on a yonger and very much smaller kid, the bully was a lot bigger than me too. I have had any number of opportunities to fight, and have walked away from most of them. I have talked more than a few people off the ledge of wanting to fight me. Unless you are just backed into a physical corner by a psycho, which can happen, you will 99.99% of the time have an available means of not getting into a fight. If you are a real man that is. If you are not a real man, then you will end up in a fight every time.
 
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
Click to expand...

Sounds like in AZ you're only allowed to use deadly force to counter deadly force......not simply "bodily harm" that you might suffer from an assault and battery.

Frank,
How are you determining in advance that you are only going to get a beating? How are you determining that he will stop once you are knocked out? How do you know he won't take it to the final step?
Click to expand...

I know what I consider reasonable, and it's not to kill someone because they gave you a bloody nose. If you can convince the prosecutor or jury why you needed to shoot someone when you don't have a mark on you and the other guy is dead and unarmed, more power to you.
 
XB,

If a man punches you in the face, or lays a 2x4 to the back of your head, I'll be happy to taunt you about how you "shoulda" avoided the fight.

EC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top