Deadly force to retain handgun

The handgun is technically property and therefore in most states you cannot use deadly force to defend it. However in the case of a gun its complicated because it is a deadly weapon. It would be fair to say, if someone is taking your gun from you then you are in fear for your life. So, you cannot defend the property/gun but you can defend your life. I was told by several LEO that you must always remember the magic words. I only fired because I was in fear of my life/families life. You can paraphrase to "that mf'er was trying to kill me"
 
IMO another reason to carry backup, if someone tried to take my gun I would be scared for life, body, limb, and others. Heres why.

I could be killed when someone takes my gun (use it on me)
They could use it in a crime.
If they are a felon, you are stopping a felon using a firearm/handling it.

You do not know their intentions, or what they will do later, you could save someones life.

IMRO
My gun is not "property" but more a tool, and a selfdefence tool. Therefore if it got into the wrong hands, could cause crimes with it, I could? be at fault for not stopping the threat. In the wrong hands this tool can become a weapon. Just like a hammer.
 
It kind of makes sense to me not to shoot. I mean if he's trying to take it ot of your holster but you get them off and your gun at the ready if thy don't come back to attack you hasn't the threat been eliminated? Especially of they turn to run and you shoot them in the back.
Click to expand...

If the perp retreats, they are no longer a threat to you if they don't have a weapon themselves.

In the above scenario, hopefully training would kick in. If my gun was at the ready, and I had the chance to back away from the perp without perp advancing or drawing a weapon of his own, I would not shoot. If perp continue's to advance or draws weapon of his own, he's not giving me any choice but to shoot. He already tried to get my gun once. I can't afford to let him close enough for a second try.
 
Sheriff, it says, "deadly force to retain hangdun". That means that once you have control of the gun, you have to assess whether deadly force is necessary. Obviously, if the attacker is running away, you probably don't want to shoot. However that is not what the other poster is talking about. He is saying not to shoot if, during the struggle, you gain possession of the firearm long enough to end the fight.

Sent from my HTC One X
 
I wonder what somebody could possibly imagine as an innocent excuse for (never mind a justification) forcibly disarming someone, apart from lawful action by an LEO.

If somebody tries to snatch my gun, it's probably to use it on me or somebody else, not to have it tastefully engraved for me.

Try to get my gun and you'll probably end up with one or more of the bullets.
 
In court I think this one will all come down to whether you were justified in pulling your weapon to being with - i.e. can you show that your life was in danger and you were able under the law to therefore use lethal force to defend yourself when you drew your gun. At that point you're still defending yourself and probably okay. If not, the other person's trying to take your gun could be seen as self-defence against you - at least you can guarantee that's what the lawyer will say and you might have a hard time winning that one.

In the real world, anybody who tries to take someone's gun must be considered willing to use it afterwards and you can't treat it the same as you would your wallet. A reasonable person would think their life was threatened at that point and would have to shoot.

Just another reminder that you have to be real careful when you decide to threaten to use lethal force.
 
I wonder what somebody could possibly imagine as an innocent excuse for (never mind a justification) forcibly disarming someone, apart from lawful action by an LEO.
Click to expand...

Somebody stumbling on a situation already in progress may not realize that the guy with the gun is the "good guy" and the guy pleading for his life was actually the aggressor.
 
ATW525, that's why a good concealed carry course teaches people not to charge in without understanding the situation, because they inherit the legal problems of the side they take.

So, in your example the Samaritan may be mistaken, but legally he is actually no longer innocent.
 
BoogieMan said:
The handgun is technically property and therefore in most states you cannot use deadly force to defend it. However in the case of a gun its complicated because it is a deadly weapon. It would be fair to say, if someone is taking your gun from you then you are in fear for your life. So, you cannot defend the property/gun but you can defend your life.
Click to expand...
This sums it up pretty well. In most or all states other than Texas you can't use deadly force to protect property, but in all states you CAN use deadly force to protect yourself IF/WHEN you "reasonably" fear death or serious bodily injury. If someone is trying to grab my gun, it's not the monetary value of the gun as property that concerns me, it's what the grabber intends to do to me with my gun. I would certainly fear that he's going to shoot me, and I would react accordingly.
 
The handgun is technically property and therefore in most states you cannot use deadly force to defend it. However in the case of a gun its complicated because it is a deadly weapon. It would be fair to say, if someone is taking your gun from you then you are in fear for your life. So, you cannot defend the property/gun but you can defend your life.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I wouldn't think it justifyable to shoot someone lugging my gun safe away from my residence (I'd darn sure chase them, though) anymore than if they were carrying my TV. Even if they had a loaded pistol of mine and they were running away I'd find it difficult to justify. But trying to take it directly off my person? There's only one reason a person would do such a thing, and it warrants only one response.

TCB
 
"only property" ?, yes, but focus....

He is saying not to shoot if, during the struggle, you gain possession of the firearm long enough to end the fight.
Click to expand...

In this exact case, your justification would depened on IF your posesion of the gun ended the fight, immediately.

If, as soon as you gained control of the gun, your attacker instantly went limp or turned and ran, then no, not justified in shooting at that instant. Any other action other than surrender or flight could justfy you shooting to stop the assault.

Focus, people. Someone physically trying to take your gun is not theft, it is assault. They are attacking YOU and trying to get the gun. And to my eyes, going after a gun in the process (yours OR theirs) makes it deadly intent and shooting is justified.
 
Yes, you have to remember the magic words, "I was afraid he would kill me. I was just trying to stop him."
 
I would like to "shade" the question slightly, as I think it might clarify things a little:

If I am carrying two guns and someone attempts to take the one on my right side and I resist. We are struggling. Then I pull the gun on my left side and shoot him with it.

Was I justified? Would a warning that he is about to be shot be required? Under what circumstances?

Go back to the one gun situation.

I prevail in the struggle to the point of trigger control and muzzle control but he is still trying to take the gun. I decide to end the struggle by covering him with the muzzle and pulling the trigger. Was I justified?

Change the situation slightly. I have trigger and muzzle control and decide to try to retain my firearm by manual force, not firing. Am I being smart, kind or stupid?

I don't need answers. I just wanted to suggest that these are issues all of us should consider when we elect to carry tools of deadly force.

Lost Sheep
 
Quote:
I stand by my statement. If someone is trying to take your handgun does not mean that you are automatically authorized to use deadly force. A handgun is property. You cant use deadly force to protect property. It's a very rare situation where you can use deadly force for what someone might do.
Click to expand...

If some tried to take my gun, by force, I consider that being attacked. At that point, I would be in fear of my life or grave injury and deadly force is certainly a legal and valid option.

There are lots of legal self defense shootings that fall directly into the "what someone might do" situation. For example, if someone breaks into your home, pulls a knife and starts walking towards you, you do not have to wait to see if he just wants, for example, your Timex, or he is going to stab you. You do not have to wait until you are bleeding before you can protect yourself.
 
Last edited:
Lost Sheep said:
I would like to "shade" the question slightly, as I think it might clarify things a little:

If I am carrying two guns and someone attempts to take the one on my right side and I resist. We are struggling. Then I pull the gun on my left side and shoot him with it.

Was I justified? Would a warning that he is about to be shot be required? Under what circumstances?

Go back to the one gun situation.

I prevail in the struggle to the point of trigger control and muzzle control but he is still trying to take the gun. I decide to end the struggle by covering him with the muzzle and pulling the trigger. Was I justified?

Change the situation slightly. I have trigger and muzzle control and decide to try to retain my firearm by manual force, not firing. Am I being smart, kind or stupid?

I don't need answers. I just wanted to suggest that these are issues all of us should consider when we elect to carry tools of deadly force.

Lost Sheep
Click to expand...

My opinions here...

If you are carrying two guns, and a struggle between you and an attacker ensues over one of them, no, you do not have to warn him that he is about to be shot by your backup gun. The only thing that might save your life is the element of surprise, and him being preoccupied with the only gun that he knows about. As far as it being justified, you cannot make a blanket statement and just say "yes" or "no", it would depend on the situation, and whether you felt like you would be killed unless you used my backup gun or not.

Situation number two. Again, there is not just one right answer. It will depend on the situation. If you are well trained in firearms retention and know that you have the upper hand, then it might be a smart move (but even then, Shooting might be necessary as the situation dictates). If you have muzzle and trigger control but won't shoot because you feel like you are struggling over a piece of property instead of your life? You are stupid.

Sent from my HTC One X
 
Lost Sheep said:
If I am carrying two guns and someone attempts to take the one on my right side and I resist. We are struggling. Then I pull the gun on my left side and shoot him with it.

Was I justified? Would a warning that he is about to be shot be required? Under what circumstances?
Click to expand...
How is this any different from a one gun scenario?

An assailant is trying to disarm me and take possession of my gun, which is a deadly weapon. What would any "reasonable" person think this assailant is going to do to me with my gun? Personally, and I consider myself to be a reasonable person, I would be in fear that he's going to shoot me with my own gun, so I am going to defend myself. If I can't use my primary weapon to do so but I have a back-up, I'll use the back-up.

Why would a warning be required? If the assailant doesn't want to get shot, he shouldn't be attacking people. This isn't a case of simple trespass ("Get off my lawn"), this is a situation of mano a mano. No warning required.
 
Very simple. If someone intended you harm, and, was in the act of drawing thier weapon, you would assume (rightfully) that he intended to use it against you and, you would be justified in shooting them.

By trying to take your gun, he is, in fact, trying to draw a weapon against you, it just happens to be the one you started out with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top