Engaging an "unarmed person..."

The point of the video was to show that "unarmed" still means deadly.
Click to expand...
It CAN mean deadly depending on the circumstances. It's just as dangerous (from the standpoint of legal danger) to assume it always does as it is (from the standpoint of physical danger) to assume it always doesn't.
 
John, the word 'always' should be used sparingly, if at all; and the phrase 'walk away' should be used as often as possible.
But it is decision made in the midst of incomplete information that one lives with -- for better or for worse -- always.
 
Posted by mehavey:
I go back to the OP's original post -- a clear lethal situation developing in 10's of seconds regardless of fault -- and what to do about it other than walk away saying tsk, tsk tsk.
Click to expand...
"Regardless of fault"? The problem is, unless one has a basis for a reasonable belief that another person would be justified in the use of force to defend himself (that is, was not at fault), one may not lawfully use force to intervene.
 
unless one has a basis for a reasonable belief that another person would be justified in the use of force to defend himself (that is, was not at fault), one may not lawfully use force to intervene.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but that is flat wrong.
The deliberate killing of another person who is helpless to defend
himself and/or do further harm is murder -- regardless of fault or cause.
 
Posted by mehavey:
I'm sorry, but that [(unless one has a basis for a reasonable belief that another person would be justified in the use of force to defend himself (that is, was not at fault), one may not lawfully use force to intervene)] is flat wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you believe that, but you need to look into it.

In some jurisdictions, one may lawfully use deadly force to defend third persons only if those third parsons are connected with the defender in certain specified ways--spouse, parent, child, etc..

In at least one state, any third person may be lawfully defended though the use of force, provided that that person would in fact be legally justified in defending himself--regardless of what the defender may have believed at the time. That was the general rule for a long time.

I described a newer and much more common rule, in which the defender must simply have a reasonable belief that the apparent intended victim would be entitled to use force to defend himself.

See this for a general discussion.

The legal right to use force to prevent harm does not exist if a person was committing a crime of violence; if a person had started an altercation and had not made clear his intention to stop; or in the case of mutual combat.
 
As much as it sucks to learn these things through research and discussion, learning them through experience would suck even more.

pax
 
Posted by pax:
As much as it sucks to learn these things through research and discussion, learning them through experience would suck even more.
Click to expand...
That is very true, and it applies to a lot of things, including such things as
  • what to do when there is a noise in the house
  • whether to go outside with a gun to investigate a problem
  • the "fleeing felon" scenario
  • what to do about a trespasser
  • what "stand your ground" really means, and what it does not mean
  • what to do about property
  • the idea of detaining someone for any reason
  • the idea of displaying a firearm.....

On that last one, I think the first thing that one should do before pulling a gun (unless there is clear evidence that the need to shoot exists then and there) is ask, "what is it that I intend to do with this thing?".
 
Some "Pulling gun" scenarios are kind of simple.

IE, We live in a wee townhouse, no one has access, but my Wife and I, if we are both in bed, noise down stairs? Pull gun.

Grand Children in house, (2&4) holstered concealed, Glock 19, no round chambered. Ultra cautious old Granddad, me!
 
When I see these unarmed story's, they always make me think about the two soccer refs that took one punch to the head and died.
Sometimes fists are a deadly weapon. At 66 years old I would rather not take the punch to find out if I can take it or not.
 
Posted by Grant D:
Sometimes fists are a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...
Sometimes a punch can result in death, but in most cases the use of fists does not fall under the legal definition of deadly force.

At 66 years old I would rather not take the punch to find out if I can take it or not.
Click to expand...
Nor would I, but there are acceptable ways to avoid finding out, and there are ways that can lead to extremely serious consequences.
 
I typically fall back on the old use of force diagram.. Ability, Opportunity and Jeopardy. Jeopardy being a very key element. When I use the term jeopardy, I am not talking about a punch in the mouth, I am referring to real peril.
 
I followed the Kimball case very closely, the shooting took place within 20 miles of my house. He decided to carry going into a heated family/business conflict after he'd had a couple of drinks and then faced an unarmed man on someone else's property. IMHO the jury got it right.

But in any case he also had enough resources to pay for one of the best criminal defense lawyers in the state. And he still lost. Keep that in mind when considering how to deal with an unarmed person.
 
mehavey said:
RTP. Someone else is in deadly risk of death/lethal brain injury, and with no means of retreat.

Do something? (and if so, what?)
or walk away.

You have 3 seconds....
Decide.*




* (actually,I believe you have already told me what you decided.)
Click to expand...

Were we watching the same video??? It appeared that both girls were willing participants in the fight. As soon as the other girl started convulsing, someone in the crowd yelled that's enough (or something to that effect) and the other girl got off her. She gave her a few more kicks, but did not continue to cause head trauma. At what point would you have shot her? Had you been there, would it not have made more sense to stop the fight before it actually started?

One of the first things I was taught in the concealed carry course is that my carry permit does not make me a police officer. That does not mean I ignore things that don't affect me directly, but rather use my judgment to act only when there is a clear need to act. Two girls fighting is not a situation where I feel I should pull my gun and shoot someone.

If I was in that situation and had 3 seconds to decide, first, I would have yelled for the other girl to stop. Then, I would have probably tried to pull the other girl off her or possibly even throw myself on top of the other girl to shield her (assuming the girl did not stop her attack).
 
No one is saying to put themselves in the scenario I posted. You're going off track severely.

The point of the video is to show that unarmed can be deadly. Just as deadly as a weapon.
 
The point of the video is to show that unarmed can be deadly. Just as deadly as a weapon.
Click to expand...

Its what the law and police see as a deadly weapon that's important. Almost anything can be used as a weapon.
 
For a second to stop the back and forth. What I'm doing is talking to my fellow armed citizens. To be alert and realize they're threats in all different shapes and sizes.

Again. The what if fantasies of who, what, where, why, and when.. doesn't matter. They can be debated all day long until our fingers fall off.


The purpose of the post is to show that unarmed doesn't necessarily mean that they're not a threat.

Life > Death
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top