Posted by threegun: 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.
Yes, and that's what the court ultimately decided.
Sounds like he got a bum deal and a pretty isolated case.
Self defense shootings are rare, and not all shooters are charged, and not all of those who are go to trial. High among the guy's problems is the fact that the attackers were unarmed, even though he was outnumbered.
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.
No, not at all. I would avoid a fist fight every way that I can. The question at hand, I think, is whether I would be justified in shooting.
Maybe, maybe not. If I did shoot, my first problem would be producing evidence to the effect that I reasonably believed that (1) I was in
imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm; (2) that I had
no other choice; and (3) that I
did not use excessive force in employing a deadly weapon against an unarmed man.
Then, if the stars and moon lined up and if the state did not present strong contradictory evidence, the jury would receive an instruction
allowing them to
consider whether my action constituted justifiable self defense.
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.
No, it is not responsible to engage in a fight.
First, it is dangerous.
Secondly, as had been said before, willfully engaging in mutual combat is likely to weaken a defense of justification.
Thirdly, "can be" is unlikely to suffice in a defense of justification. The question that the charging authority, grand jury (if there is one), and/or trial jury would have to address is whether a reasonable person, knowing what the suspect or defendant knew at the time, reasonably believed that he
would likely have been killed or seriously injured, had he not used deadly force.
I'm over sixty five and suffer from various joint and tendon issues. and I might be able to get by, possibly at very great expense, but I would much rather take my chances with the use of a Kimber Pepperblaster. The actor in the OP's scenario has a much greater problem: no disparity of force. In addition to the fact that the other person is not armed, that's a formula for disaster if he resorts to the use of a weapon.
The fact is you are literally putting your life into the hands of your attacker by engaging in a fist fight.
A very good reason to not do it.
I really would
not want to be the one to test a "stand your ground" law by relying on a contention that such a law eliminates any duty to avoid or evade and gives one the justification to employ deadly force against an unarmed man who wants to fight. The process would take years, cost a fortune, and end up with some case law referenced as the appellate court ruling in "[my name] vs. [name of the state], with an end result probably not at all to my liking.