buckhorn_cortez
New member
I appreciate that courtesy as everyone's 20:20 hindsight is seemingly infallible.
With my 20:20 hindsight - I'd have stayed home from work that day and bought the winning PowerBall ticket during one of my errands...
Engaging an "unarmed person..."
- Thread starter Tactical Jackalope
- Start date
I appreciate that courtesy as everyone's 20:20 hindsight is seemingly infallible.
With my 20:20 hindsight - I'd have stayed home from work that day and bought the winning PowerBall ticket during one of my errands...
Frank Ettin
Administrator
The difficulty with the unarmed assailant, and disparity of force in general, is the need for the actor to articulate convincingly why a reasonable person in like circumstances would have concluded that the unarmed assailant nonetheless presented a credible threat of imminent death or grave bodily injury. That is the basic standard for justifying lethal force in self defense.
Establishing an assailant's Ability to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily injury can be fairly straightforward when he has a knife or a gun or a baseball bat. But it's much tougher when he's unarmed.
Establishing an assailant's Ability to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily injury can be fairly straightforward when he has a knife or a gun or a baseball bat. But it's much tougher when he's unarmed.
g.willikers
New member
Wasn't there a similar situation in Florida where an "unarmed" assailant was bashing the head of a neighborhood security guard on the pavement, and the guard shot and killed the guy?
He was charged with the killing, but the jury released him on self defense considerations.
His name was Zimmerman, if I recall.
He was charged with the killing, but the jury released him on self defense considerations.
His name was Zimmerman, if I recall.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by Constantine:
If the attacker does not have a weapon, that becomes a tough sell.
Keep in mind that in many jurisdictions, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
The question is, whether "can do some damage" meets the standard of justifying what a reasonable person would do in "defending ...[his] life."
If the attacker does not have a weapon, that becomes a tough sell.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by manta49:
In some states, one may do so if he she witnessed the killing and if there existed a basis for a reasonable belief that the escape of a killer would pose an immediate, serious immediate threat to others, and if the escape could not be prevented in any other way. In others, one would have to be acting under the direction of a sworn officer. In others, not at all.
Deadly force may used when immediately necessary to prevent certain crimes, but not to punish.
No, and probably in none of them.
In some states, one may do so if he she witnessed the killing and if there existed a basis for a reasonable belief that the escape of a killer would pose an immediate, serious immediate threat to others, and if the escape could not be prevented in any other way. In others, one would have to be acting under the direction of a sworn officer. In others, not at all.
Deadly force may used when immediately necessary to prevent certain crimes, but not to punish.
Limnophile
New member
I agree that shooting such a person is probably a reasonable decision, at least in my state, because anyone who observed shooting illegally at another then running is a known violent fleeing felon who can reasonably be assumed to pose a risk to the observer and others. However, such a person is definitely not unarmed.
No offense intended, but I think you don't understand the meaning of lucky or of trained.
You provided several paragraphs explaining how you recognized the threat, how you knew how to position yourself, how you assessed the area to gain an advantage, how you timed your strike, etc. It was anything but lucky and while you may not have formal training, you certainly have a good deal of experience and definitely knew how to use the training you have gained in other areas to best effect.
Which gets back to the point that was made--not everyone has the tools that you have that would allow them to successfully solve a confrontation physically.
Limnophile
New member
If you are charged with illegal use of force and you claim self defense, I believe you must prove that claim with the standard being the preponderance of the evidence (ie, to a certainty level of 50.1% in the mind of the jury).
In my state any use of force must be limited to a degree which is reasonable, and for deadly force one better be willing and able to articulate a convincing argument of imminent fear of life or grievous bodily harm to oneself or to another.
Engaging an unarmed person
How many people on here have ever ACTUALLY been in a situation when they had to make a decision to shoot in self defense? It's easy to sit in front of a computer and amaze people with your superior ability to make the right decision, but what about when it's really happening to you? What if you are an older person or a woman? I'm 74 years old, and at this point in my life, I'm not going to be a victim.
How many people on here have ever ACTUALLY been in a situation when they had to make a decision to shoot in self defense? It's easy to sit in front of a computer and amaze people with your superior ability to make the right decision, but what about when it's really happening to you? What if you are an older person or a woman? I'm 74 years old, and at this point in my life, I'm not going to be a victim.
Limnophile
New member
Which means you can legally shoot in more cases than most, but you still need to be willing and able to articulate a reasonable fear of loss of life or grievous bodily harm if you do. In other words, the criteria don't change, it's just that your circumstances are more likely to fit the necessary criteria.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
Exactly the point I was trying to make. Criminals do this for a living. And believe it or not they do train each other. They do practice with multiple victims when they can. So a person who has never struck another before won't know. A person who has never been struck before won't know either.No offense intended, but I think you don't understand the meaning of lucky or of trained.
You provided several paragraphs explaining how you recognized the threat, how you knew how to position yourself, how you assessed the area to gain an advantage, how you timed your strike, etc. It was anything but lucky and while you may not have formal training, you certainly have a good deal of experience and definitely knew how to use the training you have gained in other areas to best effect.
Which gets back to the point that was made--not everyone has the tools that you have that would allow them to successfully solve a confrontation physically.
Thank you John.
Yes I have been. It goes nothing like how one would imagine beforehand. This is also the reason why I only carry double stack guns and 2-3 spare magazines.
OldMarksman
Staff
Posted by paleodog:
But the question was about "engaging an 'unarmed' person".
Merrill Kimball's comment “what am I supposed to do? He came at me. I’m 70 years old” did not sway the vote of a single juror in his murder trial, and the man he shot was younger and much larger than Kimball.
Good.
But the question was about "engaging an 'unarmed' person".
Merrill Kimball's comment “what am I supposed to do? He came at me. I’m 70 years old” did not sway the vote of a single juror in his murder trial, and the man he shot was younger and much larger than Kimball.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
That should go without saying. That's what everyone means. It goes both way. You're looking either way too into it or just trying to seek out a flaw to derail the conversation.
They engage you. You engage them. Realize they unarmed. What's the take?
That's all.
zincwarrior
New member
1. Yes, but won't discuss online.
2. I think we're just discussing items here. High calm factor might be good.
That depends on the state's specific laws and stare decisis. It is different between states.
The girl on girl altercation did not need your pistol to stop it.
If you know what the human body does, when struck, in vulnerable places does, IE reaction.
You are behind, no crowd, toe kick into right kidney, right foot! If you damage it? She has two of them. Working on the door of Clubs in Liverpool UK, in lots of fights, from the front, hit in Adams apple, from the rear, kidney.
I will be 80 in October, would still perform that kick. Me with my Wife of 22 years, any kind of a crowd? Sorry not my business.
If you know what the human body does, when struck, in vulnerable places does, IE reaction.
You are behind, no crowd, toe kick into right kidney, right foot! If you damage it? She has two of them. Working on the door of Clubs in Liverpool UK, in lots of fights, from the front, hit in Adams apple, from the rear, kidney.
I will be 80 in October, would still perform that kick. Me with my Wife of 22 years, any kind of a crowd? Sorry not my business.