Force less than deadly force

It's interesting to know how the law defines "force".

For example, in TX, drawing/displaying a firearm with the intent to create the apprehension that you will use it if necessary, is considered to be the use of force that is not deadly force. One must have justification to use force in order to draw/display the firearm in such a manner.
 
For example, in TX, drawing/displaying a firearm with the intent to create the apprehension that you will use it if necessary, is considered to be the use of force that is not deadly force. One must have justification to use force in order to draw/display the firearm in such a manner.
Click to expand...
Yes, and importantly, Texas is one of only a handful of states in which that justification is not the same as that required to justify the actual use of deadly force.

Arizona, Montana, Texas, Washington....are there others?
 
most conflicts are not deadly.. I sure hope you have more options than the gun.
Click to expand...

And THAT sums it up nicely.
If all you have is a Hammer, everything looks like a nail

More options= more training and more hassle in terms of everyday prep. But, ultimately makes you safer in this troubled world.

Ive never regretted the "prep time"
 
...most conflicts are not deadly.. I sure hope you have more options than the gun.
Click to expand...
Describe a conflict with no deadly potential from which safe retreat/disengagement is impossible.
 
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this lately--I've often wondered how much better police would be able to respond to threats if they had some kind of weapon that could instantly debilitate without being lethal, something worth investing the cost of one F22 raptor to develop IMHO .

The problem is really not knowing on a nano-second evolving basis whether a situation has tipped the balance to "imminent serious bodily injury or death"--especially since that determination will likely take a jury of peers and massive quantities of data months, maybe years, to decide later on.
 
Describe a conflict with no deadly potential from which safe retreat/disengagement is impossible.
Click to expand...

Its not about "potential", its about facts you can articulate. I can not use deadly force because of a "potential" threat.

My assailant MUST show the ability, opportunity and intent to cause me (or someone else) death or serious bodily harm. Absent ANY of those elements and my use of deadly force is most likely NOT justified by law.

A simple fist fight between people with like abilities (absent a disparity of force scenario) does not rise to that level. IANAL but i did wear a badge for a time. If i showed up and you had shot a guy cause he was about to punch you....:eek:
 
[In response to]
Describe a conflict with no deadly potential from which safe retreat/disengagement is impossible.
Click to expand...
Its not about "potential", its about facts you can articulate. I can not use deadly force because of a "potential" threat.

My assailant MUST show the ability, opportunity and intent to cause me (or someone else) death or serious bodily harm. Absent ANY of those elements and my use of deadly force is most likely NOT justified by law.

A simple fist fight between people with like abilities (absent a disparity of force scenario) does not rise to that level. IANAL but i did wear a badge for a time. If i showed up and you had shot a guy cause he was about to punch you....
Click to expand...
Very well put indeed.

I will suggest one minor modification. One cannot really know the intent of someone else unless it is spoken or very clearly demonstrated. One can, on the other hands, have a basis for a readable belief that one is in jeopardy. The presence of that basis, and an actual belief, would be appropriate.

Assuming, of course, that the there was a basis for a reasonable belief that the use of force is necessary.
 
If only we could set phasers to stun. :p We could shoot everything and sort it out later.

Of course then there would be those people with cardiac conditions or epilepsy or what-have-you who would react badly (fatally) to stun beams, but at least the use of same could be taken as proof that we intended to end the fight non-lethally.

Until that happy day (or maybe not, because it really would give the anti-gunners the ammo they needed to justify banning projectile weapons), we shall have to go on having these difficult conversations, remembering that the ultimate decision will have to be made under pressure with the adrenaline of fear flowing and possibly with the safety of spouses and kids at stake. However it goes down, you need to be prepared for the reasonable likelihood that your act of self defence is going to cost somebody their life.
 
...most conflicts are not deadly.. I sure hope you have more options than the gun.
Click to expand...
Describe a conflict with no deadly potential from which safe retreat/disengagement is impossible.
Click to expand...

I believe what JohnKSa was saying is that in virtually all situations where deadly force is not appropriate, backing away from the situation is a viable -and perhaps the best- option.

Hand to hand skills or other alternatives would be great tools to have, but are not always practical for everyone due to age, physical condition, unaffordability, etc., but everyone has the ability to attempt to de-escalate by removing oneself away from the problem person.
 
JNO1 has my meaning.

I was thinking about the comment about having a spectrum of force levels available and wondered about the precise situations where I would need them.

I can see how LE needs to have a spectrum of force levels because they are required to continue to engage until they apprehend the suspect. They can not immediately disengage if things start to look dangerous and avoidance is contrary to the nature of their mission.

I was trying to come up with a non-LE scenario where I could not safely retreat and yet be unable to legally justify the use of a firearm (though perhaps not necessarily deadly force) to either end the situation or facilitate my retreat. I could not.

So I asked the question.
A simple fist fight between people with like abilities (absent a disparity of force scenario) does not rise to that level.
Click to expand...
I will never be in a "simple fist fight". I will not allow a confrontation to progress to anywhere near that level without disengaging.

What could happen would be that I am attacked physically by someone who will not let me disengage/retreat/escape in spite of my earnest efforts to do so. The law does not require me to respond in kind. At least not my state's law. TX law allows one to draw/display a firearm as a deterrent/warning if an attacker is unlawfully using force against the defender and will not allow retreat.
 
John

I hear ya Brother.

What about a twist in the situation i described above. I pull into a gas station, go inside to pay and on my way back to the pump am set upon by some dude i cut off. He is now PISSED and is going to kick my rear? What if my child is still in my car? I cant just run away...but i cant present my pistol and stick some rounds thru him either.

Now some will say i should have taken the child inside with me. OK, so now as i walk back to my car i have a child in tow...same thing. I cant run...i cant shoot

Texas may allow you to draw in that scenario. But most states do not, and even if you draw, how do you justify shooting to stop a punch in the face?

Or is the drawn gun a bluff? Ive seen street thugs sneer at drawn guns before. I dont bluff. If im not ready to shoot you, another option is needed
 
Why aren't you justified in preventing an imminent assault from this guy? Being cut off in traffic is not provocation for assault. For all you know, once he's done beating you senseless and leaving you laying there, he's going to harm your child in the car.

This is a bit like the drunk kicking in your door at 2:00 A.M., who says he just wants to crash in what he may or may not believe to be his own house? Who says he just wants to punch you in the nose? He's irrational and aggressive, meaning possibly drunk or drugged, and for all anyone knows he intends to cause you grievous bodily harm and may not stop with you.
 
ALL the street thug/gangstahs I've seen pull a gun--and I've seen a few do it--ALWAYS fired after drawing the weapon.
Click to expand...

Stag, i was referring to them sneering at LEO's guns pointed at them. Ive seen that first hand over my sights.

I can only imagine what their reaction to a civilian drawing on them would be. A lot of potty mouth talking would be my guess.
 
[In response to]
Yes, punches, even a single punch, can kill or maim. But the issue is one of likelihood.
Click to expand...
Likely enough that we've had to recently pass laws specifically targeting 'one punch' attacks.
Click to expand...
Such attacks have been classified as criminal violence for centuries.

But they are not generally considered deadly force.
 
Texas may allow you to draw in that scenario. But most states do not, and even if you draw, how do you justify shooting to stop a punch in the face?
Click to expand...
No matter how it's worded, a person physically attacking someone else, who physically prevents the victim from retreating, and who continues to attack the victim after a firearm is presented is a deadly threat.

"A punch in the face" may sound innocuous, but I've seen people permanently injured from a punch in the face. I've seen people knocked out by a punch in the face (knocked out = concussion = serious injury). I've seen people killed by a punch in the face. It makes no sense at all to take one just to find out how hard the guy punches and how well I can take it. The reason I carry a gun in the first place is to prevent someone from seriously injuring or killing me when they leave me no other option. By continuing the attack and refusing to allow me to retreat, they've left me no other option.

If a person refuses to allow me to escape and continues to physically attack me after I draw on them, they will have proven to me that they are a deadly threat and they will leave me no option but to act accordingly. I'm not going to put down my gun and duke it out with them. There's nothing but risk in that for me and that would be true even if I were a black belt in something. Think about it--at any given time, there's only one guy on the planet so good that no one else can beat him.

I would treat them as a deadly threat if for no other reason than that if they subdue me they will have my gun. Given that they have demonstrated that they are completely unwilling to disengage, I have no reason at all to assume that after I'm disabled that they will just walk away, not continue the attack after I can no longer resist, and not use my gun against me (and potentially anyone with me) once they disable me.
A lot of potty mouth talking would be my guess.
Click to expand...
I'm perfectly ok with that. They can say whatever they want as I leave the scene and call the cops.

It should be clear that all of the above is predicated on a reasonable assessment of the attacker as being able to cause serious injury or death. That should be implicit in the fact that he is effectively able to physically thwart all my attempts to disengage.
 
As Kilimanjaro said, we don't know the outcome of being violently attacked, and we don't know what will happen to those in our charge if we are incapacitated during such an attack. Walking or running away from a physical confrontation if possible is always the best solution. That is not always possible though. How much force is required to stop the attack will have to be decided based on the situation. The reality is any physical attack can turn serious or deadly even if that is not the intent. I have other tools in my box, but if a hammer is needed then a hammer it will be.
 
I have always chosen to run away from a bad encounter as fast as I can--even when I carried. Except on my property. That's different, I don't see a duty to retreat there (if it's clear a potential threat is not going to retreat; rather escalate).

All humans are predators, and IMO somewhere in everyone there is a primal instinct to kill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top