OldMarksman
Staff
There is a lot to that.
According to Larry Hickey, that was his reason for shooting.
He could to get an acquittal, but he wasn't convicted, either.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Force less than deadly force
- Thread starter Lohman446
- Start date
According to Larry Hickey, that was his reason for shooting.
He could to get an acquittal, but he wasn't convicted, either.
stagpanther
New member
I know of a situation when a cop engaged in a physical shoving match chose not to go to his weapon. He didn't live to find out if he made the right choice.
I will confess to being rather torn on this.
I have a limited background in martial arts - though its been many years since I have practiced it seriously. I have virtually no "real world" experience in fights since like junior high. I get the techniques taught in the "self defense" portion of martial arts should translate over but I am concerned that the training in hand to hand combat seems horribly scripted. Because I carry my firearm strong side and retention starts by covering it (I really prefer an adversary not know I have it) I am not sure how effective I could be in hand to hand combat - especially when the threat level is less than deadly force. I have no intention of restraining someone. Kathy Jackson writes that one should fight like a cornered cat - the goal is not to do damage to your adversary the goal is to escape and the amount of damage done in order to escape should be a far secondary concern but there should be no doubt that it is enough (once you decide you are fighting).
I am concerned about the use of pepper spray. I get that shooting someone for threatening you "I'm going to kick your butt" is an unreasonable use of force. While pepper spray may mitigate the amount of legal jeopardy involved I'm not certain its use in the same situation is warranted.
I have always practiced and accepted that the use of force was an "all or nothing" thing with some minor caveats. If I draw my weapon and my adversary immediately ceases all aggressive action I have no intention of using it anyways. However I also am not drawing my weapon as a threat - if I draw it is with the intent of using it to stop the threat's aggressive actions or make retreat possible. Nor am I using it when some massive disparity of force exists in my favor (an unarmed child does not pose imminent danger).
The idea of non-consenting adults participating in a fist-fight is still foreign to me. The fact that an adult physically attacking another adult does not rise to the level of an imminent threat of great bodily harm is troubling to me. I get the example of Mr. Hickey (he was actively engaged in hand to hand combat with three individuals). The thing that gives me pause is the idea that Mr. Hickey and / or his wife engaged in this combat as mutual combatants in the middle of the street rather than in their own driveway while attempting to retreat (as the event is related by Mr. Hickey). This seems to be a fact in dispute.
I get the statement: read up on it - I did order Branca's book and seek training. You know that the amount of training he had sought was actually used against Mr. Hickey in court (a mistrial so one can argue it was not successful). That and I am currently considering different options in training - again I find most hand to hand combat training to be too scripted and I am not interested in taking the time to learn Judo or a similar martial art that concentrates on the skills needed to effectively roll around on the ground. I've actually considered the idea practicing Aikido with my daughter (she will be three this year) as being good for her and it wouldn't hurt me. The same caveats apply to some degree though.
So I am left realizing there may be a hole in my training that poses some legal jeopardy. I am currently weighing the risk of the limited scenarios described here in actually occurring.
I have a limited background in martial arts - though its been many years since I have practiced it seriously. I have virtually no "real world" experience in fights since like junior high. I get the techniques taught in the "self defense" portion of martial arts should translate over but I am concerned that the training in hand to hand combat seems horribly scripted. Because I carry my firearm strong side and retention starts by covering it (I really prefer an adversary not know I have it) I am not sure how effective I could be in hand to hand combat - especially when the threat level is less than deadly force. I have no intention of restraining someone. Kathy Jackson writes that one should fight like a cornered cat - the goal is not to do damage to your adversary the goal is to escape and the amount of damage done in order to escape should be a far secondary concern but there should be no doubt that it is enough (once you decide you are fighting).
I am concerned about the use of pepper spray. I get that shooting someone for threatening you "I'm going to kick your butt" is an unreasonable use of force. While pepper spray may mitigate the amount of legal jeopardy involved I'm not certain its use in the same situation is warranted.
I have always practiced and accepted that the use of force was an "all or nothing" thing with some minor caveats. If I draw my weapon and my adversary immediately ceases all aggressive action I have no intention of using it anyways. However I also am not drawing my weapon as a threat - if I draw it is with the intent of using it to stop the threat's aggressive actions or make retreat possible. Nor am I using it when some massive disparity of force exists in my favor (an unarmed child does not pose imminent danger).
The idea of non-consenting adults participating in a fist-fight is still foreign to me. The fact that an adult physically attacking another adult does not rise to the level of an imminent threat of great bodily harm is troubling to me. I get the example of Mr. Hickey (he was actively engaged in hand to hand combat with three individuals). The thing that gives me pause is the idea that Mr. Hickey and / or his wife engaged in this combat as mutual combatants in the middle of the street rather than in their own driveway while attempting to retreat (as the event is related by Mr. Hickey). This seems to be a fact in dispute.
I get the statement: read up on it - I did order Branca's book and seek training. You know that the amount of training he had sought was actually used against Mr. Hickey in court (a mistrial so one can argue it was not successful). That and I am currently considering different options in training - again I find most hand to hand combat training to be too scripted and I am not interested in taking the time to learn Judo or a similar martial art that concentrates on the skills needed to effectively roll around on the ground. I've actually considered the idea practicing Aikido with my daughter (she will be three this year) as being good for her and it wouldn't hurt me. The same caveats apply to some degree though.
So I am left realizing there may be a hole in my training that poses some legal jeopardy. I am currently weighing the risk of the limited scenarios described here in actually occurring.
While pepper spray may mitigate the amount of legal jeopardy involved I'm not certain its use in the same situation is warranted.
I have always practiced and accepted that the use of force was an "all or nothing" thing with some minor caveats
I teach use of force professionally. Empty hands (modestly), Pepper spray (OCAT), Taser (M26 & X26), Baton (ASP & Koga straight stick) and (most often) Firearms. I have always learned and then taught escalation on a sliding scale. The most common analogy is a staircase. You start at the bottom and work your way up (i disagree, but lets look at it that way and i'll put my spin on it later.
So we start with
- Physical presence--that could mean you are a 270lb body builder and nobody want to fight you or it could be your demeanor and bearing
- verbal commands (or verbal Judo for the PC in the crowd)
- Empty hand "soft techniques" (control holds and/or come-alongs)
- OC spray or Electronic control devices (depending on you Agency SOP or State law)
- hard hands (strikes)
- Impact devices
- Chokes
- firearms
That is a "typical" Use of force escalation. Now, no Agency in the U.S. says you have to use each step up the ladder sequentially. I teach it as an elevator not a ladder. A ladder must be climbed 1 rung at a time. An Elevator allows me to go directly to the appropriate level
The use of self defense sprays is at a MUCH lower level then the gun. A "all or nothing" approach leaves a HUGE gap in your defensive strategy and would probably have you resorting to the only tool you had at inappropriate times.
Now, use of force incidents are NEVER black and white. Its all convoluted shades of grey. A Jury (comprised of people that are most likely NOT your peers) will decide your fate.
Drawing your gun when DEADLY force was not justified is a shade of grey best avoided.
SHOOTING an unarmed guy because he was going to punch you is going to be VERY hard to defend in court. No use of force trainer (LE or Civilian) teaches that as a standard response to a physical assault.
I much prefer to have other tools in my tool bag. If i can spray a guy and NOT have to shoot him...im WAY ahead in terms of aftermath.
Sharkbite:
My issue with pepper spray, as a civilian, is the use of force beyond contact distance. Looking at your chart you actually have pepper spray before striking (after physical defense) but in order for me to deploy it I have to have some range.
I don't believe I can justify deploying it at the threat "I'm going to kick your butt". My response cannot be deploying pepper spray at that moment (I think).
The course of action that I would have to have to deploy pepper spray: My aggressor physically threatens me. I am unable to apologize or in any other way prevent said aggressor from taking physically aggressive actions. I am also unable to retreat (choice 1). My aggressor attacks me. I am able to thwart that attack and gain distance enough to be able to tactically deploy pepper spray (I am rather uneducated on this but I doubt I want to aim at a target less than a couple feet away) but I am still unable to retreat.
My question becomes - how many times do I have to physically disengage and retreat as much as possible (assume no massive force disparity) before I can reasonably come to a conclusion that my aggressor intends me severe bodily harm?
I have rather limited training time. Any use of force training I take part in removes time from something else in my life. How often do people who bought pepper spray and never tried it actually successfully use it? This is why I'm inclined to sharpen a tool rather than add another - even if that means reconsidering one of the various martial arts because I can practice it with my daughter (and my son when he is older).
For the record: I am not suggesting the use of a firearm as a response to the threat "I'm going to kick your butt". Though I am questioning if it becomes a viable response after several physical attacks that continue despite retreat. I do question if using pepper spray at the threat "I'm going to kick your butt" before the strike is reasonable.
My issue with pepper spray, as a civilian, is the use of force beyond contact distance. Looking at your chart you actually have pepper spray before striking (after physical defense) but in order for me to deploy it I have to have some range.
I don't believe I can justify deploying it at the threat "I'm going to kick your butt". My response cannot be deploying pepper spray at that moment (I think).
The course of action that I would have to have to deploy pepper spray: My aggressor physically threatens me. I am unable to apologize or in any other way prevent said aggressor from taking physically aggressive actions. I am also unable to retreat (choice 1). My aggressor attacks me. I am able to thwart that attack and gain distance enough to be able to tactically deploy pepper spray (I am rather uneducated on this but I doubt I want to aim at a target less than a couple feet away) but I am still unable to retreat.
My question becomes - how many times do I have to physically disengage and retreat as much as possible (assume no massive force disparity) before I can reasonably come to a conclusion that my aggressor intends me severe bodily harm?
I have rather limited training time. Any use of force training I take part in removes time from something else in my life. How often do people who bought pepper spray and never tried it actually successfully use it? This is why I'm inclined to sharpen a tool rather than add another - even if that means reconsidering one of the various martial arts because I can practice it with my daughter (and my son when he is older).
For the record: I am not suggesting the use of a firearm as a response to the threat "I'm going to kick your butt". Though I am questioning if it becomes a viable response after several physical attacks that continue despite retreat. I do question if using pepper spray at the threat "I'm going to kick your butt" before the strike is reasonable.
I would use the scenario i posted above to demo the proper usage of OC by a everyday Joe (or Jane).
Coming out of the lobby of a gas station, some stranger starts screaming at you (you cut him off pulling in and he is UPSET). You start (attempt) to create some distance whils saying "im sorry, i didnt see you". He continues to advance in a threatening manner.
You tell him FORCEFULLY to "STOP...STAY BACK!!!!" . If at that point he continues his advance, i would spray him. I could make a VERY compelling case for using a self-defense spray at that point.
The biggest point in my favor is i WAS carrying a gun and could not risk a physical confrontation. So i used the minimal amount of force to defend myself and did so at the most opportune time to minimize both risk to myself and injury to my attacker.
Of course that is a very canned and sterile scenario. But, it showcases why having SOME FORM of less lethal option is a good idea.
As to the question about OC being used by people with minimal training... Its not exactly rocket science. I teach it but thats only because i think people shold have a clear understanding about the product and its effects. As far as actual deployment, if you can use hairspray or spray deodorant, you can use OC. Some spray patterns are different then others and you should test yours to see what it does.
My advice... Buy 2 of whatever kind you chose... Go into your backyard.... Stand upwind and spray one as a training unit. Short bursts in an "S" pattern. See what it does. Wipe your finger on the nozzle and touch the residue to your tounge. That will be enough to convince you that sprayed into the eyes and nose should dissuade an attacker
Disclaimer... OC (no brand or make) is 100% effective. I have sprayed guys that gave up and cried like babies.... Ive also sprayed guys that it had MINIMAL effect on. A good blast to the face WILL result in at least reduced vision and some coughing. Both of which make it harder for him to press the assault.
Coming out of the lobby of a gas station, some stranger starts screaming at you (you cut him off pulling in and he is UPSET). You start (attempt) to create some distance whils saying "im sorry, i didnt see you". He continues to advance in a threatening manner.
You tell him FORCEFULLY to "STOP...STAY BACK!!!!" . If at that point he continues his advance, i would spray him. I could make a VERY compelling case for using a self-defense spray at that point.
The biggest point in my favor is i WAS carrying a gun and could not risk a physical confrontation. So i used the minimal amount of force to defend myself and did so at the most opportune time to minimize both risk to myself and injury to my attacker.
Of course that is a very canned and sterile scenario. But, it showcases why having SOME FORM of less lethal option is a good idea.
As to the question about OC being used by people with minimal training... Its not exactly rocket science. I teach it but thats only because i think people shold have a clear understanding about the product and its effects. As far as actual deployment, if you can use hairspray or spray deodorant, you can use OC. Some spray patterns are different then others and you should test yours to see what it does.
My advice... Buy 2 of whatever kind you chose... Go into your backyard.... Stand upwind and spray one as a training unit. Short bursts in an "S" pattern. See what it does. Wipe your finger on the nozzle and touch the residue to your tounge. That will be enough to convince you that sprayed into the eyes and nose should dissuade an attacker
Disclaimer... OC (no brand or make) is 100% effective. I have sprayed guys that gave up and cried like babies.... Ive also sprayed guys that it had MINIMAL effect on. A good blast to the face WILL result in at least reduced vision and some coughing. Both of which make it harder for him to press the assault.
OldMarksman
Staff
Good thinking!If I draw my weapon and my adversary immediately ceases all aggressive action I have no intention of using it anyways. However I also am not drawing my weapon as a threat - if I draw it is with the intent of using it to stop the threat's aggressive actions or make retreat possible. Nor am I using it when some massive disparity of force exists in my favor (an unarmed child does not pose imminent danger).
That may be, but you had better accept it.The fact that an adult physically attacking another adult does not rise to the level of an imminent threat of great bodily harm is troubling to me.
To my knowledge, there was no allegation of consensual combat. The key issues were that the three individuals were not armed and that Hickey resorted to the use of deadly force.I get the example of Mr. Hickey (he was actively engaged in hand to hand combat with three individuals). The thing that gives me pause is the idea that Mr. Hickey and / or his wife engaged in this combat as mutual combatants in the middle of the street rather than in their own driveway while attempting to retreat (as the event is related by Mr. Hickey). This seems to be a fact in dispute.
Zero times. But serious bodily harm moves into the realm of justifying deadly force--and intent (jeopardy, actually) is but one important consideration. There are also ability and opportunity.My question becomes - how many times do I have to physically disengage and retreat as much as possible (assume no massive force disparity) before I can reasonably come to a conclusion that my aggressor intends me severe bodily harm?
Absent a weapon or a significant disparity of force, a reasonable person would have no basis for a belief that an imminent threat of either death or serious bodily harm existed.
Sure, there is a possibility of serious bodily harm, or even death, but that does not constitute an imminent threat.
Let's go back to a scenario that I described--and you said you understood the point.
Someone attacks you with non-deadly force-- by punching you. He started it. You were innocent.
Suppose that you respond by threatening him with deadly force. He then shoots you.
He may prevail in a defense of justification by claiming self defense. You were the one who first presented a threat of death or serious bodily harm.
Though I am questioning if it [using a firearm] becomes a viable response after several physical attacks that continue despite retreat.
No, you may not defend against non-deadly force by using deadly force.
However, if it becomes an immediate matter of keeping him from taking your firearm, then, and only then, you may have no other choice, because his acquisition of the gun would rise to the level of a threat of death or serious injury.
If you had been carrying openly and if he had been fool enough to attack you, such an intent on his part would be reasonable to assume. But had you drawn from concealment, your actions would come into question. Had your gun remain concealed, and had you started to lose consciousness, it would be a judgment call, as in the cases of Hickey and Zimmerman.
Don't assume that being struck first is ever a requirement in a defense of justification.I do question if using pepper spray at the threat "I'm going to kick your butt" before the strike is reasonable.
Don't assume that being struck first is ever a requirement in a defense of justification.
This is the thing - if being struck once or twice and backing up ends the attack I'm willing to accept it and have everyone walk away. Better yet if I get really luck and the blows do not land but it satisfies the need for "justice" for whatever the perceived or actual fault was I can live with that. I'm rather unwilling to swing first (or as I consider it use pepper spray).
The key to me is preventing it from escalating so quickly from "I'm going to kick your butt" to "I'm going to kill you" that I cannot respond to the escalated level of danger. The other key is preventing someone making physical contact with me figuring out I am carrying a gun, panicking, and escalating force.
I have a hard time considering the use of force when I am not under imminent danger of severe physical harm. Perhaps that is why I am having a hard time with the idea of an escalation "elevator" if you will.
As to the Mr. Hickey case - I did not read more than the article presented but it seemed that Mr. Hickey's account argued specifically it was in the driveway while the police account argued (incorrectly according to the article) it was in the road and as such represented mutual combat (IE Mr. Hickey was not retreating as his account holds).
I am having a hard time with the idea of an escalation "elevator" if you will.
You can have "a hard time" with it....however it is our societies standard for use of force events.
You can have "a hard time" with it....however it is our societies standard for use of force events.
I should rephrase. I'm not denying the need for different levels of force for some people. Nor am I denying that you know what you are talking about in the levels you describe. The only real surprise I had was that pepper spray comes before hard strikes but considering the ability of hard strikes to do long term damage I get it.
I'm having a problem envisioning the use of it by me. Not you or anyone else - I get the argument that says one can (should?) respond to force with force - I just do not accept that it applies to me.
The situation described where I am walking back to my vehicle and am intercepted by an aggressive and confrontational individual. I'm probably far to willing to watch his (or hers) hands and hold mine slightly up in apology rather than escalation. Its a tactically suspect response and should he chose to hit me chances are at least the first blow lands.* Frankly I hope to have the presence of mind not to respond, to back up, and to see if the situation has ended. If it has everyone walks away, the police are called, and no one is hurt. I WANT any witnesses to be able to say I did not provoke the fight in any way. In fact I desperately want to not provoke the fight in any way.
I am rather unwilling to do harm to another human to the point if they hit me once or twice and walk away I am ok with that outcome. I am less willing to allow another human to do severe harm to me or kill me. So while I don't carry a gun for show I am also rather unwilling to fight unless there is no other option to avoid that severe harm or death.
*Somewhere in here is the George Zimmerman defense. The physical attack has progressed to such a point that not only does it represent severe and imminent harm it is leaving evidence of it. No it is not a single punch. The events, as that defense held IIRC, involved Zimmerman's head being bounced off the cement.
I get that.
The problem with accepting a couple punches is you have absolutly NO IDEA what effect those would have. Maybe his first punch knocks you out. In falling to the ground your (once) concealed pistol is now exposed. You are not able to retain that gun and who knows what happens next.
Is this a 3rd strike felon that now has nothing to lose? He takes your gun and kills you.
Do you smash your head on the parking bumper as you fall and now youre a paraplegic?
Im not willing to take the chance and accecpt the hit. If you are, thats fine. Self-defense is a PERSONAL choice. Where you draw your line in the sand is entirety up to you.
The problem with accepting a couple punches is you have absolutly NO IDEA what effect those would have. Maybe his first punch knocks you out. In falling to the ground your (once) concealed pistol is now exposed. You are not able to retain that gun and who knows what happens next.
Is this a 3rd strike felon that now has nothing to lose? He takes your gun and kills you.
Do you smash your head on the parking bumper as you fall and now youre a paraplegic?
Im not willing to take the chance and accecpt the hit. If you are, thats fine. Self-defense is a PERSONAL choice. Where you draw your line in the sand is entirety up to you.
OldMarksman
Staff
Did you really think that a person would be required to be physically attacked before resorting to force to defend oneself, or do I misunderstand you?The only real surprise I had was that pepper spray comes before hard strikes but considering the ability of hard strikes to do long term damage I get it.
If so, what gave you that idea?
Are you saying that you would not defend yourself against the use of force or the threat of force if necessary?I get the argument that says one can (should?) respond to force with force - I just do not accept that it applies to me.
Absolutely! Innocence is essential for a defense of justification.I WANT any witnesses to be able to say I did not provoke the fight in any way. In fact I desperately want to not provoke the fight in any way.
Well, you sure do not want to use deadly force unless there is no other option. But one option may be the use of non-deadly force.... I am also rather unwilling to fight unless there is no other option to avoid that severe harm or death.
Its a perception issue. I can tell you what would be going through my mind in the hypothetical situation.
"He's not actually going to hit me. There is no way he is actually going to hit me over this"
"Holy crap he hit me. He's not going to do it again is he? There is no way he is actually going to do it again"
Because of this (hopefully not) flawed perception my response to the situation prior to the first or second strike is not likely to be physically effective.
"He's not actually going to hit me. There is no way he is actually going to hit me over this"
"Holy crap he hit me. He's not going to do it again is he? There is no way he is actually going to do it again"
Because of this (hopefully not) flawed perception my response to the situation prior to the first or second strike is not likely to be physically effective.
Are you saying that you would not defend yourself against the use of force or the threat of force if necessary?
I think so. Now after someone hits me three or four times I'm likely to respond with physical force because there is a limit to everything. Absent the real threat of severe imminent harm I am really not that willing to take offensive action against another person.
He's not actually going to hit me. There is no way he is actually going to hit me over this"
Wow!! Reality check NEEDED.
In todays society, IN AMERICA, people assault other people with physical violence ALL THE TIME.
Dont make the mistake of putting your morals onto others actions. People stab other people over a can of soda. Beat others senseless over a dirty look. Do some research into interpersonal violence
Wow!! Reality check NEEDED.
In todays society, IN AMERICA, people assault other people with physical violence ALL THE TIME.
Dont make the mistake of putting your morals onto others actions. People stab other people over a can of soda. Beat others senseless over a dirty look. Do some research into interpersonal violence
Possibly. Understand I also live in a fairly small community. In my daily life I am unlikely to engage anyone who is in an extreme stress or confrontational setting. I do not live in a geographic location that has a high "culture of honor" (its the term in psychology where one is expected to physically correct a perceived slight - think the stereotypical western where "you looked at me funny").
So am I underestimating the threat of semi-random violence? I may very well be. However I also think that a good many people also overestimate that threat.
Lohman, I live in a rural community that doesn't fit the stereotypical high stress, dangerous geographic location you alluded to. I still carry a gun, pepper spray and pay attention to what is going on around me. I don't live in fear or see a zombie behind every bush, but I do know that I am responsible for protecting myself and those in my charge. I also know that we live in a violent world where people are beaten and killed for a couple of bucks or a minor traffic incident, and there are predators everywhere you go.
I respect your willingness to examine what your response to violence will be. There are no easy or one size fits all answers I'm afraid. Too many of us like to think that carrying a gun is the answer to all these questions. It just isn't that simple.
I respect your willingness to examine what your response to violence will be. There are no easy or one size fits all answers I'm afraid. Too many of us like to think that carrying a gun is the answer to all these questions. It just isn't that simple.
OldMarksman
Staff
Well , let's overlook the use of the word "offensive", substitute "defensive", and think it out.Absent the real threat of severe imminent harm I am really not that willing to take offensive action against another person.
According to legalmatch.com,
Generally speaking, serious bodily harm is defined as any injury that seriously interferes with the person’s health or comfort, and that is long-lasting rather than short-lived.
Some examples of serious bodily harm may include:
--Paralysis
--Loss of limb, loss of functioning in a limb, and broken bones
--Head, neck, or spine injuries
--Serious cuts or burns
--Scarring or serious disfigurement
See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...dily-injury-lawyers.html#sthash.DEQxHdCH.dpuf
(Emphasis added)
Some examples of serious bodily harm may include:
--Paralysis
--Loss of limb, loss of functioning in a limb, and broken bones
--Head, neck, or spine injuries
--Serious cuts or burns
--Scarring or serious disfigurement
See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...dily-injury-lawyers.html#sthash.DEQxHdCH.dpuf
(Emphasis added)
That would justify the use of deadly force if immediately necessary, and if the other prerequisites of self defense are met.
Personally, my threshold for defensing myself with non-deadly physical force is much lower than an imminent threat of that level of harm.
I don't know why any reasonable person would willingly take such a risk.
I would not intend to punch or kick, but pepper spray, or should it suffice, a shove or two or safely delivered swing with my waking stick could be expected, if necessary, long before a threat of paralysis, loss of limb, loss of functioning in a limb, broken bones, head, neck, or spine injuries serious cuts or burns was imminent.
This is precisely the sort of uncertainty that I can't bring myself to accept. Not only could the first punch knock me out (which is a serious injury in the form of a concussion and possible permanent injury to the brain), it could even kill me--or paralyze me, as you state.The problem with accepting a couple punches is you have absolutly NO IDEA what effect those would have. Maybe his first punch knocks you out. In falling to the ground your (once) concealed pistol is now exposed. You are not able to retain that gun and who knows what happens next.
In other words, the person, for all that I can tell, is attempting to do something to me that could result in serious injury in spite of all my attempts to "make nice" and get away. I can't let him hit me, there's too much at stake--potentially EVERYTHING.
So on the one hand you're carefully (and correctly) pointing out the deadly seriousness of preventing a person from hitting you by noting that it could cause serious injury or death. On the other hand, you're saying that the attempt by this person to attack you and cause an injury which you just said could be serious or even fatal doesn't justify responding with deadly force.
Seems like only one of these things can be true at a time.
Either getting hit isn't that serious and therefore deadly force isn't justified or it can cause serious injury or death in which case deadly force, by definition, would be justified if the defender can't get away or physically stop the person from attacking.
JohnKsa said:Seems like only one of these things can be true at a time.
Either getting hit isn't that serious and therefore deadly force isn't justified or it can cause serious injury or death in which case deadly force, by definition, would be justified if the defender can't get away or physically stop the person from attacking.
Problem is that it's very seldom black and white.
And that's where the whole "reasonable action" and judgement by a jury of your peers comes into play.
Trapped in a corner of a room by an arthritic, 80 pound, 90 year old flailing at you who can barely move their arms or legs and is threatening to beat you to death because they don't like the color of their Jello or don't want to wear their pants? Happens to my daughter almost every day (nursing home supervisor), and she hasn't had to resort to deadly force yet. Laugh at them, gently hold their arms and restrain them and move them aside, no deadly force justified.
Trapped in a corner by a 300 pound known serial killer famous for beating his victims to death with his bare hands who is moving in for his first punch? Should be a no-brainer about what you do there.
It's all those situations in the middle of the two extremes that cause all the problems in what decision you make.
Last edited: