I hope I did the right thing...

[OldMarksman]

From KLRANGEL: I

just think its unfair to say he did the wrong thing

Agree. None of us know all of the facts.

There is no reason to carry a weapon for self defense if you are so worried about legal ramifications...

Can't agree. One carries the weapon in case it becomes necessary to use it to protect against death or serious bodily harm. But he had better not go outside with it without knowing when he can use it and when he cannot without becoming a felon.

if you believe your life is in danger, pull...

That's just about it, realizing that your belief must be reasonable, and in the locale in question and most others you were not able to retreat, and that the facts will support your ability to successfully articulate why both conditions existed.

From NWPilgrim:

Or, if you feel threatened enough to pull you gun in self defense, then the legal ramifications are moot.

Almost. But what you feel doesn't enter into the equation. It is your reasonable belief and the underlying facts that count. See this:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3108655&postcount=41

That is the basic choice we all make if we choose to carry. Are we willing to risk legal complications or consequences in order to protect life and limb?

That's it in a nutshell. Has been since Englishmen carried the dirk and dagger undr English Common Law.

Personally, I would choose to protect myself and my family from grievous harm regardless of the legal shenanigans.

Imminent danger, reasonable belief, no other alternative--yep. But without those conditions, I wouldn't characterize what you will be up against as "legal shenanigans."

You might find this worth bookmarking and studying.

http://www.useofforce.us/

Do not take any of this as legal advice. And if you have any questions about whn you may or may not fire, or even draw, I suggest that consulting a qualified attorney would be a wise investment.

 

[Creature]

Almost. But what you feel doesn't enter into the equation. It is your reasonable belief and the underlying facts that count.

Come again? Feeling threatened with imminent physical harm is pretty much the same thing as reasonable belief. A jury will judge you on how you felt at critical moment in time, not how you felt an hour...or a year...later

 

[OldMarksman]

Creature, did you read the attorney's explanation in the link I provided?

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3108655&postcount=41

"Feeling" is subjective. The case will turn on what you knew at the time and why you concluded what you did from what you knew--an objective standard.

You may feel afraid, but you must believe that you are in imminent danger and have no alternative to the use of deadly force, and that belief must be judged reasonable by the jury after the fact, based on what you knew at the time.

Does this help?

 

[Brit]

From post #33

You say that you replied to their shouts and "simply said 'excuse me'".

I think perhaps we should explore this a bit further by asking...and be honest: Did you say 'excuse me' in a deferential way...as in "pardon my intrusion.". Or did you ask this in a challenging way...as in "what the hell did you say to me?".

I ask because you say that you really slipped up...making me think you asked it in a challenging way.

A few months ago, weather hot! came back to my vehicle after visiting the Verizon outlet, and had a devil of a job getting in the Jeep, I had backed in to the spot.

A very large young Lady, with three small children had parked almost across the next parking spot, in an old car.

I said "Nice bit of parking!" And she replied "Excuse me?" aggressive, she was in I am looking for an argument mode, I was in "Stupid?" Without any more comment I left. In thinking back she was obviously waiting for someone (or more than one) and if the party or parties had been attempting to resolve a billing query, might not have been in a good mood either, I was armed! Keeping top lip firmly pressed against the bottom one could be a plus most times.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Also, dont pay attention to the laws...

Now there's some good advice.



Perhaps, don't count on your interpretation of the law to be the same as the judge/prosecutor?

 

[Creature]

You may feel afraid, but you must believe that you are in imminent danger and have no alternative to the use of deadly force, and that belief must be judged reasonable by the jury after the fact, based on what you knew at the time.

Does this help?

So, fearing for one's life doesn't cut the mustard? Funny thing is, I am pretty sure I wouldn't fear for my life if I wasn't in imminent danger. How can I be fearful of being maimed or killed and not believe my life is in imminent danger?

 

[JohnH1963]

There are times I would draw the pistol even if I knew I were going to get arrested for doing so. Those times would be few and far between, however, and be very exceptional at that. I would much rather spend a few months in jail if I was certain that the other alternative would be myself or another suffering a devastating injury.

Your reasons for drawing either must be pretty good or pretty twisted if you dont mind spending some time in jail. However, in such quick situations, you usually dont have the time to construct a "pretty good" decision and sometimes it ends up "pretty twisted".

Therefore, situational avoidance should be practiced far more then actually using the pistol.

Back to the original scenario, why didnt you look before you got out of the car? Did these guys suddenly appear? If you saw these drunk guys before you got out of the car, why didnt you simply wait several minutes inside the safety of the vehicle until they left? These are things to consider.

When I go to a bar or a anyplace actually, I always look carefully around me before I get out of the car. If there is someone who seems a bit strange or hostile, then I stay inside the vehicle until they have put some distance between them and myself. Although the fault of aggression is on the person for attacking you, the right thing to do is make every attempt you can to avoid such encounters by being especially aware of your surroundings.

 

[vytoland]

I know that my life was being put in immediate danger

BULL .. there was no danger..they called you some names...sticks & stones ..big deal......you messed up dude.. all you had to do is just walk on by. you could have easily killed somebody. think about it

 

[Swampghost]

You could also just shoot the parking lot as I did many years ago. The sound and flash will stop most AND attract a lot of attention from others giving you witnesses in case you have to follow through with an actual shooting.

My belief is that intent to defend ones self tells the BG's a lot AND your weapon is already out and good to go.

 

[KLRANGL]

BULL .. there was no danger..they called you some names...sticks & stones ..big deal......you messed up dude.. all you had to do is just walk on by. you could have easily killed somebody. think about it

Thats called wishful thinking. Having two guys walking towards you with malicious intent after previously shown belligerent tendencies does not mean you can walk right past them... Im guessing you would have gotten seriously beat or killed if it had been you that night...

.........for when the police arrest you for illegally discharging a firearm and when you get sued because some passerby was wounded by the ricochet. Very bad idea.

+1.5
This is not the navy. We cant do warning shots across the bow... Bullets belong either through paper or in BG bodies

 

[OldMarksman]

From KLRANGL:

Having two guys walking towards you with malicious intent after previously shown belligerent tendencies does not mean you can walk right past them... Im guessing you would have gotten seriously beat or killed if it had been you that night...

That makes sense. And if that's the case, the only alternative is to go the other way.

Unless the facts indicated (1) that the guys had the ability to cause great bodily harm, along with (2) the opportunity to do so, and (3) you were in imminent jeapardy and (4) there was no other alternative course of action, such as evasion, avoidance, or escape.

 

[vytoland]

Having two guys walking towards you with malicious intent

the reason the "two guys" took this action is because the sober person found it necessary to verbally engage the drunks........somethings you gotta let go and walk on by.

 

[kgpcr]

Not to bright in my book. You should have ignored them and just got in your car and left. Or when you should have turned and went back inside the bar. Not smart carrying in a bar to begin with. Booze and guns just dont mix even if you are not drinking. Just because someone walks up to you is not reason to draw. What if he had not turned around? then what? you kill an unarmed drunk and go to jail. NOT a smart thing!

 

[Ricky B]

What would the judge say?

Here is EXACTLY what the judge would say in California (and I bet in most other states):

An assault with the fists does not justify the person being assaulted in using a deadly weapon in self-defense unless that person believes and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon him.​

Why do I say that a judge would say that? Because the foregoing quote is taken right from the standard jury instructions for criminal cases (Fall 2008 edition). The book this came from is the source of standard jury instructions for the judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in California. I am sure that this instruction is not peculiar to California.

Note that there are two elements to establish the defense:

1. The victim believes that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon him. This is subjective. Does the victim really believe this?

2. A reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon the victim. This is objective. In other words, what does the jury think, putting themselves in the shoes of the victim, they would have done?

Also note that the injury to be suffered is "great bodily injury." Not an affront to his pride. Not a slap in the face. Not a punch in the stomach. But great bodily injury.

No doubt if two drunks started beating on an a smaller man, there is the risk of great bodily injury, but consider the fact that they hadn't laid a finger on him when the weapon was drawn and pointed at them. A jury just might think that shooting a man who was drunk and belligerent and acting in a menacing fashion (but who hadn't actually touched the victim) was an over-reaction. If so, there goes self-defense, and here comes guilty as charged.

 

[Bauer]

Clearly he should have ignored them. However, he didn't do so. Time to move on, that step is in the past. Next step, 2 men coming at him with intent and ability to do physical harm ending with him being beat up, possibly to death, or beat up and they find his gun. I feel the OP did fine considering his mistake.

 

[KLRANGL]

I got a question myself actually, along these same lines.
What if the same situation occurred, but it was after you picked up your friend from the bar, and it was the drunk (or sober) friend who started responding to the belligerent drunk guys. Are you justified in pulling to defend your (blatantly in the wrong) friend or do you let him potentially get beat/killed? Legally and morally... Since he isnt the one carrying, does he have the same obligations to avoid confrontations that we do?

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

A reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon the victim. This is objective.

This is no more objective than the previous point. It still depends on an individual decision on "reasonable". You're reasonable in not my reasonable, therefore, subjective. 2+2=4, objective. 2 is an ugly number, subjective.

 

[OldMarksman]

This [a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury upon the victim]is no more objective than the previous point. It still depends on an individual decision on "reasonable".

While the situation does require judgment, said judgment must be made within the constructs of the facts existing at the time and on the requirements for justifiability (AOJ, retreat not possible). That is objective, in contrast with whether the man with the gun felt threatened or frightened, which would be subjective.

You're reasonable in not my reasonable, therefore, subjective.

Doesn't follow. Outcome will hinge on the jury's determination of what a reasonable person would have done in the same circumstances, knowing what the man with the gun knew at the time. I am not an attorney, but I think that's the basis of most trials, civil and criminal.

 

[Creature]

I disagree.

I am not an attorney either, but it is my understanding that a jury will generally make their determination based on what a reasonable person would do given the circumstances. The jury will take into account what they believe a reasonable person would likely perceive and the likely response a reasonable person would have during the specific circumstances of the situation. The jury does not simply base their decison on how a emotionless robot would perceive the same circumstances.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Outcome will hinge on the jury's determination of what a reasonable person...

Yes, a jury of individuals each subjectively determining what they believe to be reasonable. A group decision does not make that decision "objective". Any decision counts on each individual actually being objective, and yet, we almost never are. IMO, the "reasonable person" criteria in a SD situation is often times unachievable. The OP is one thing, and I think he did a reasonable thing but in many situations, such as exchanges of gunfire, there are no "reasonable" people.

The jury does not simply base their decison on how a emotionless robot would perceive the same circumstances.

Ah, but compared to the emotions at the time of the incident, they are emotionless. No jury can reliably say "I wouldn't have done that, I would have done this or that" unless they have actually been there and done this or that. Just like I don't really think many of us can say " I would have..." and be reliable in that statement. Unless we've genuinely feared for our lives and acted accordingly I don't think we're qualified to make blanket statements.


The reasonable person criteria can create some real problems when it's used to analyze unreasonable situations. I'm not saying I have a better way. I'm just saying it's not necessarily reliable.