Do you have to fight?

When we use lethal force we are taking a risk of ruining our lives, meaning that the result of not using lethal force should be equal to or worse than the death penalty, a prison sentence or a drawn out legal battle that could leave you jobless and broke. If you have time to ask yourself "is this legal?", then you probably are in a no-shoot situation.
 
If it appears to be an even match, and there's no way out, just fight the guy. A good fight every once in a while is good for the soul. I would be nervous about fighting with a gun on me though, because they could grab the gun, or it could get scratched. If I feel like someone is going to kill me, they are getting shot, I'll worry about the law after I worry about my life. The question was a little vague, there are way to many varibles that could come into play.
 
Just my .02$- (.01$ after our Dear Leader gets his cut)

I am 53 years old and disabled. I stand 5'10" and about 190.(Should be about 175:o) In my earlier days, I could give a fair account of myself in a fight. Not so anymore. I have two sons, Hal is 6'2" and 325lbs, Aaron is 6'6" and 275, either one of them could easily kill a man with one blow.They are both incredibly strong, even given their size.This is something to consider, if you were attacked by a person that was like one of my sons, they would not need a weapon to end a life. They are both good men,and have never harmed nor will ever harm an innocent person, but niether one has ever come close to losing a fight, and as I have taught them, you have a right to exist as long as you are being lawful. I will retreat from any altercation if it is possible, but most days, just walking is hard, there is no such thing as running for me anymore. I have been attacked in the past and have gotten out of harms way without having to actualy fire a gun.If someone the size of one of my Sons came at me, and I could not flee, I will shoot them, I HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST. If I am jailed for doing what I think is right, so be it. Of course, If the boys are with me,well:D:D, I'll just stand back and let nature and my boys take their course!!And yes, I am a proud papa:)!
As always JMHO and YMMV
Willy
 
Last edited:
I can't remember the last time....

... outside of road rage incidents at traffic jams...

... that a single person started a fair fist-fight.

The norm has been multiple attackers gang up on some victim. A few years ago, the rage in central Florida was "curbing." That was where, after the victim was knocked senseless, the attackers would open his jaws, and place them to either side of the edge of a curb, and then kick the victim in the back of the head, breaking jaws and shattering teeth.

Of course, there were the guys on I-4 near Daytona a couple years ago who challenged a guy to a fight, then decided to shoot him instead.

Or the guy who willingly got into a fist-fight in Orlando, but then when he was hit he fell and hit his head on a car's bumper. Killed him.

So, while the OP's scenario falls into a grey area, it's also not a very likely one.

Now, it does raise a question: Say, instead of wanting to fight, the BG is attempting a strong-arm robbery?

In Florida or Georgia, pretty sure that would actually qualify for use of the firearm in SD. (Specified forcible felonies.)

So, the next question is: what is the difference? (Morally, if not legally.)
 
Hey, I walk with crutches. I'm not, no way on God's green earth, going to allow anyone to get that first punch in on me prior to drawing my weapon if I can help it. I'd be on the ground and helpless. I will, and have, shout "I'm armed, stay back". If they proceed I will, and have, show my weapon. If they still proceed i will, and have, point my weapon. If they still proceed I will shoot. No ifs ands or buts. I made these decissions long ago and feel completely justified in this response.
Click to expand...

Well said and my point exactly. This is the sequence I "will and have" used up to the pointing my weapon stage.

I believe you "will and have" been deemed justified on a couple occassions by law enforcement. Isn't that correct Micro?
 
threegun said:
I believe you "will and have" been deemed justified on a couple occassions by law enforcement. Isn't that correct Micro?
Click to expand...

You are correct threegun.

Nowhere in the US or Florida constitutions am I required to take a beating prior to defending myself.

Anyone who believes he should just duke it out with a felon, and anyone attacking you IS a felon, is just a fool destined for the cemetery.
 
Two more cents

I am with MLeake on this. When was the last time you heard about a "Fair Fight"? This concept dissapeared many years ago, in my estimation. Gone are the days when you would duke it out and call it settled. We live in a much, much more violent time.
And as I stated previously, I have a right to exist. My father was from Daingerfield, Texas, he believed that it was ones duty to shoot wrongdoers, as they would most certainly harm another person if you did not. If you let him go and he harmed another, you would share blame.
Just what Dad thought, pretty interesting concept, actualy.
Willy
Off topic, But I just got HughesNet high speed yesterday(YEAA):D, but I find that I have to retype about a third of my words:confused:
 
Nowhere in the US or Florida constitutions am I required to take a beating prior to defending myself.
Click to expand...

And nowhere does it say you can use lethal force.

Lethal force can normally only be used in response to force that can cause death or grave injury.

Fists have been around a long time.

Some states have case law that firmly cones down on the side of fists NOT being presumed lethal force.
Responding with lethal force to the threat of fists would put you in a very ba position at trial.
 
brickeyee said:
Some states have case law that firmly cones down on the side of fists NOT being presumed lethal force.
Responding with lethal force to the threat of fists would put you in a very ba position at trial.
Click to expand...

Not Florida.

And since a blow with a fist can, and has caused many, many deaths, the US constitution guarentees my RIGHT to life.

brickeyee said:
Lethal force can normally only be used in response to force that can cause death or grave injury.

Fists have been around a long time.
Click to expand...
So have clubs, so by your reasoning they're not lethal?

And graveyards are full of folks beaten to death with fists.
 
Last edited:
Look at it another way. Not knowing if the thug who wishes to attack me with his fists will stop at simply beating me unconscience, why should I allow myself to be at his complete mercy. Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
 
Well said

Well said Microgunner, as I said earlier, if someone like my Sons Hal and Aaron tried to give me, or most people, a beat down, death could certainly be a reasonable outcome. My son Aaron, who has been discharged from the Navy, He was on the JFK, a hatch came down on his head during Desert Storm, and has caused him grevious mental issues, was in an altercation in Md. four years ago where they first wanted to charge him with attempted Murder in the first, for the damage to a man who attacked him. He made a bad mess of this fellow, who will never recover completely.Again, as I stated earlier, no matter who you are, when you see Hal or Aaron, you know you are looking at two BIG MEN. This is nothing that I or Aaron are proud of. And the charges were eventualy dismissed.The man did attack Aaron without provocation. I only state this to show what one can do to another with only "His Fists". Sugar Ray Leanard used to come in to my restaurant in the eighties, he is not a big man, but just think of what would happen if he "got a mad on" at your average person. Dead, and dead quick. BTW, you will never meet a nicer more down to earth person than Sugar Ray.
You have no idea of how your attacker will hurt you.
If you are sent to prison, that means you are still alive.. That is my opinion.
YOU AND I HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST.
Willy
 
Last edited:
Ah, the advantages of old age - no jury expects us old guys to be able to run and neither do they expect us to be able to engage in a fair fist fight. Therefore, I feel entitled to use whatever force I have available to avoid blunt force trauma to an old body. :D

I get amused with all the posts saying "you can't use deadly force" in the given circumstance. Don't be ridiculous - trust me, I CAN because I have armed myself and practiced to be able to do just that. Now, you can tell me that you and/or the law think I SHOULDN'T. (Kinda like playing "may I" versus "can I".)

Even if I were a young, muscular stud, I would require certain steps to insure the so-called "fair fist fight" was really gonna be just that. I would want the other guy searched for weapons, I would want a detailed investigative search of his background to insure his level of training was not significantly better than mine in hand-to-hand combat, and finally I would want one of those referees from the TV "legalized beat-em shows" to insure that we were separated when a winner had been determined. Anything less than the above is just playing Russian Roulette in the area I live. I don't recall seeing any fair fist fights even when I was in high school - just keep beating and kicking the other guy until someone finally pulled you off of him.
 
When I spoke about the "punch in the nose" doctrine- I wasn't speaking about what is right or wrong. IMHO if some guy punches you in the nose- all is fair- shoot the SOB ...BUT...when I got my Florida concealed weapons permit the instructions gave some guidelines on when you can or cannot shoot. I forget some of the details but one example in the instructions was about a guy at a gas station who gets into an argument with someone else. The guy retreats to his car and the other guy comes over- goes into the car and starts hitting the guy. The victum shoots the attacker. Off hand I would think your car is your "Home" so you would be justified but the law convicted the guy and sent him to jail on the argument his life wasn't threatened. On the other hand Florida is sort of unique as far as home intruders are concerned- as I understand it you can shoot them and no explanation is needed- if they are illegally in your home- that's enough.
On the streets I think I remember part of the instructions inwhich someone was going to be accosted and fleeing the area but the attackers pursued him and he could not get away and so he shot and was justified.
Really confusing to me.
 
Posted by Microgunner: And since a blow with a fist can, and has caused many, many deaths, the US constitution guarentees my RIGHT to life.
Click to expand...
Second part does not follow from the first. However, the Constitution simply prohibits the Government from taking a person's life against action taken without due process.

SCOTUS has characterized the right to defend one's llfe as a natural right.

The simple fact that people have been killed by blows from fists does not justify the use of deadly force to prevent oneself from being stuck. There must be a basis for a reasonable belief that the danger of death or serious injury is imminent and that deadly fore is immediately necessary--that is, that there is no other alternative.

Read Post #22 one more time, and study the attached article. The shooter did everything possible to avoid the use of deadly force when being attacked by more than one person with fists. He ultimately had no other choice but to shoot. He was in jail for quite a while and was tried twice.

That happened in gun friendly Arizona.

"Not Florida? This is from the website of the FL Division of Licensing:

2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.
Click to expand...

Regarding the possibility of justifying the use of deadly force in a defense against fists, a lot will likely hinge on the comparative strength and health of the individuals involved.
 
Yes verbal threat does not allow you to use deadly force. If a person wishes for a slug out session mano e mano, that does not allow deadly force either.

But it is more clear when a weapon or potential weapon is involved (A baseball bat does not become a weapon until it is swung with the intent to injure or kill.)

When a more clear weapon is involved (anger is present when dealing with a person and you see him attempt to pull a weapon for use.) The presentation as far as I'm concerned of a deadly weapon is authorized (I've had this conversation with my carry permit instructor). Presentation does not mean that the action of the use of deadly force is authorized. That needs to be clear. Now to someone willing to make it political it would so be careful and think before you present it.

Now if he or she persists and their action indicate that they wish to put your life and/or limb in jeopardy. Then according to the laws of the state of Tennessee, deadly force is now authorized.

Now in some states, that's not the case. So check the state laws before you get there.

So if you examine yourself in this state and you really do have a really good reason why fear is coursing through every vein and artery in your body and you have no other options, you can use deadly force.
 
Read Post #22 one more time, and study the attached article. The shooter did everything possible to avoid the use of deadly force when being attacked by more than one person with fists. He ultimately had no other choice but to shoot. He was in jail for quite a while and was tried twice.
Click to expand...

Had the above person not opened fire he might possibly be dead or grievously injury.........kinda sounds like what is necessary to shoot doesn't it. Sounds like he got a bum deal and a pretty isolated case.

BTW Microgunner explained that shooting was as a last resort in post #59.

I will, and have, shout "I'm armed, stay back". If they proceed I will, and have, show my weapon. If they still proceed i will, and have, point my weapon. If they still proceed I will shoot.
Click to expand...

_________________________________________________________________

The simple fact that people have been killed by blows from fists does not justify the use of deadly force to prevent oneself from being stuck. There must be a basis for a reasonable belief that the danger of death or serious injury is imminent and that deadly fore is immediately necessary--that is, that there is no other alternative.
Click to expand...

At the point (using microgunners tactics) that the bad guy attempts to attack despite the firearm in my hand, it is much easier to defend our position legally. Several levels of warning to avoid having to shoot already ignored.
 
Yes verbal threat does not allow you to use deadly force. If a person wishes for a slug out session mano e mano, that does not allow deadly force either.
Click to expand...

I think some of you guys are ignorant as to just how badly you can be beaten simply with fists. Perhaps you just haven't thought the issue through thoroughly. Maybe you guys believe a fist fight will be like the one you had in grade school.

My breakdown of why it is not physically responsible to engage in a fist fight.

1. You can be killed. As in dead not a bloody nose or fat lip. Just as the nose and lip are a possibility so is death.

2. You can be gravely injured. As in permanent brain injury or other not a broken rib or cracked tooth. While the rib and tooth are possible so it permanent brain injury.

The fact is you are literally putting your life into the hands of your attacker by engaging in a fist fight.

My breakdown of why it is not tactically responsible to fist fight.

Leaving your gun holstered while becoming engaged in hand to hand virtually insures a difficult or impossible deployment should your opponent decide to beat you to death. At a minimum you risk having it taken from you.
 
Growing up in a big city ill throw in my 2 cents.

Like everyone else said it depends on the situation. Judging by some peoples responses they have never been attacked or in a fight. People take for granted how much damage a fist can do, let alone knees, elbows, and feet, and like some people said these days there is no such thing as a fair fight anymore. Too often people go to far and I personally know a few people who needed major facial surgery after fights. If you tried to flee, your cornered without an escape route, you most certainly have the right to draw a firearm in self defense. At that point its his decision to back down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top