Is it legal to use a gun to prevent an attack on family that doesn't involve weapons

H

HolderBoulder

Inactive
A friend of mine was on a piece of property next to his own when about 8 people said they were going to attack his brother and brother's girlfriend next door.

The one leading the pack handed him his handgun and said "Hold this, we are going to go handle this", at which point my friend chambered the firearm and held the person leading the pack at gunpoint.

Holding the crowd off for a second, he handed the pistol back and told them to do what they felt necessary now that attention was off his brother.

They threatened legal action, and violence ranging from restraint to severe beating, to assault. It's important I think to mention my friend was carrying his own pistol openly.

As it de-escalated a female from the group ran around and to the house, breaking and entering to being her assault. My friend pursued her with the pack pursuing him, where he told them if they came over the property line they would be shot, before informing the female if she did not end her attack the same would occur.

A massive brawl broke out on the property line for a short time, with more threats torwards the friend of legal action.

The friend had walked over and when he heard them speaking agressively he secretly started recording everything till the moment where he was handed the gun. The phone ran out of memory a few seconds later.

In this situation, is it likely my friend can be charged? All my friend wanted to do was watch the football game and these morons decided to form a mob and threaten his brother and girlfriend.

He had walked over because some of his friends had been conversing with them earlier and he was checking to see if they were still there.

Edit : The reason they wanted to attack was because they "prank" called my friends brother and girlfriend to convince him she was cheating.

When they found out it was a "prank" (someone present let them know they were being plotted against) the brother and girlfriend told them to not contact them anymore, because it wasn't really a prank at all.

They were trying to break them up and they never intended to tell them it was a prank. They just thought it would be hilarious to seei f they could cause an altercation.
 
Depends almost entirely on which state you live in. *Generally* you can respond with like force in self defense. Deadly force can be met with deadly force, less than deadly with less than deadly, etc. Defense of property usually does not allow deadly force, unless the castle doctrine applies. Fault and aggravating circumstances come into play, as well as the castle doctrine, invitees v. trespasser liability, and whether your state has a stand your ground law.
Long story short, no way to answer your question without a lot more facts and legal information. .
The *prudent* thing to do given the facts you have set out would have been to call the cops and ask them to come and keep the peace.
 
It MIGHT be legal, but there would have to be a number of circumstances for that to be true.

  • The person using the firearm could not be the aggressor for it to be legal. Firearms are for DEFENSE.

  • The person using the firearm could not have instigated the confrontation for it to be legal.

    This condition might not apply if he/she had clearly broken off an initial confrontation and the other party then re-engaged and began what was obviously a second confrontation instigated by the other party. But basically, you can't go start a confrontation and then pull a gun on the other party once you get your wish and a fight starts.

    If you start a fight you can't just immediately resort to a firearm and call it self-defense. You'd first better make it abundantly clear in some way or another that you're completely done with the confrontation and are trying desperately to get away. Once that's obvious to everyone, if the other person continues to press the attack to the point that you reasonably believe death or serious injury is imminent and also believe that a firearm is the only thing that will keep you alive and in one piece then it would probably be legal to use a firearm in self defense.

  • There would have to be no legal duty to retreat. If there were, the person employing the firearm would have to retreat from the confrontation if there were any way to do so safely. If there were no way to retreat safely or there were other innocents who needed protection and they could not retreat then the duty to retreat might be waived.

  • In a place where there is no legal duty to retreat, the person employing the firearm would have to have a legal right to be where he/she was at the time of the confrontation. For example, not trespassing, not breaking/entering, etc.

  • The person using the firearm would have to reasonably believe that unless the firearm was employed immediately, that he/she or another innocent would be seriously injured or killed.

    In this case, even though there were no weapons, a defender might, depending on the circumstances, reasonably assume that a determined and violent attack by a large number of persons against just one or two persons could cause serious injury or death to those on the outnumbered side.

    But that would all hinge on the defender reasonably believing that a determined and violent attack, likely to result in serious injury or death, was just about to take place.

  • In TX, and perhaps some other areas it would be legal to display a firearm when the defender is unlawfully threatened with force (even if the force isn't deadly force) if the firearm is merely displayed in a manner to create the apprehension on the part of the other party that it might be used if it becomes necessary. But that's not how it is in most places.

Ok, my take.

That sounds like a good property to stay away from in the future.

It might be a hard sell that a person who was willing to disarm and hand over a firearm to someone would then pose a deadly threat when their gun was handed back.

It's going to be an even harder sell that a defender who is willing to hand a gun to someone is really afraid that person might seriously injure or kill him with it. Why would he just hand it over if he were really afraid of the person.

It doesn't really sound like he thought he was in any danger at the time and that's going to make it hard for him to claim self-defense. Without being able to claim self-defense he's going to be in trouble because it's not legal to point a gun at someone without some legal justification.

If they push the issue he's going to have the burden of proof to show that what he did was reasonable in the situation and that it didn't constitute assault with a deadly weapon against the group. My guess is that could be difficult.
 
Radny97 said:
Depends almost entirely on which state you live in. *Generally* you can respond with like force in self defense. Deadly force can be met with deadly force, less than deadly with less than deadly, etc.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, I think "generally" this is incorrect. I don't think I have read New York's law on use of force and deadly force, but I have read my own state's and several others. "In general," it seems the standard is that the use of deadly force is allowed/justified if the individual is in fear of imminent death or grievous bodily injury. "Most" states also seem to allow a person to extend that to defense of an innocent third party.

In a case such as described, where there are multiple potential attackers making direct threats of serious bodily injury, I would say deploying a firearm to terminate the assault was probably justified. But ... it all depends on how the law is written in the state where the incident took place, and then on how the courts in that state have been applying the law.

Ultimately, in cases where the law is written as in my state, the final decision may come down to a jury, and typically the jury is instructed to apply the "reasonable man" theory. That means the jury is told to view the situation as the individual saw it at the moment, without benefit of any facts that may have come to light afterwards, and to decide if a hypothetical "reasonable man" would have acted the same under similar circumstances.
 
Let me get this correct: You there is a recording of the "bad actions" of the other group but just moments before the alleged "bad actions" of your friend began the recording device failed?

Without attempting to judge the actual veracity of that chain of events myself I can tell you anyone with authority looking into it will.

Edit: In MI lethal force can be used to prevent severe bodily harm or death, forcible sexual penetration, or kidnapping. There is a "reasonable person" standard where a reasonable person, given the information available to the person justifying lethal force, would agree that lethal force was justified.

So can you justify using lethal force against unarmed attackers? In certain circumstances sure. But the use of lethal force also generally requires the user be fairly innocent in the situation and it sounds like trespassing may have been involved.

Not a lawyer. The story seems awfully convoluted for one party to be claiming standing as an innocent party
 
Last edited:
Broadly speaking, in most (but not all!) jurisdictions in the United States:
  • It is generally legal to use force to defend a third party from a threat of death or serious bodily harm if it would be justifiable for the actor to use force if he or she were in a comparable situation. This is particularly acute if the person being threatened is a family member. However, in many jurisdictions, the level of force must be appropriate and proportional, i.e. the actor may have a legal problem if she immediately uses deadly force in a situation where a lesser level of force could have been adequate.
  • It is generally legal to use force to stop a felony in progress, again with the important caveat that the level of force should typically be appropriate and proportional.
THAT SAID... in this particular situation, I think it's a tough call.
JohnKSa said:
If they push the issue he's going to have the burden of proof to show that what he did was reasonable in the situation and that it didn't constitute assault with a deadly weapon against the group.
Click to expand...
+1. Additionally, in many jurisdictions, using lethal force (or a credible threat thereof) to restrain someone against their will, without legal justification to do so, meets the definition of kidnapping – another felony.

IMHO the friend should consult with a defense attorney who is familiar with the laws in the jurisdiction where this took place.

Mandatory disclaimer: I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. ;) This is not legal advice. Caveat emptor and YMMV.
 
Last edited:
Who brought the gun and why? Was this being carried holstered, legally concealed? Who owns the gun?

There is a lot of this story as I read it that is not clear and from the bits of information I am picking out I would think A) not talking about it let alone posting it on the web and B) consulting a competent attorney would be very prudent courses of action.

My impression is there is assault (the threat to do harm), criminal trespass, and a firearm involved and that is on the side involving your friend, the brother, and the girlfriend.
 
HolderBoulder A friend of mine was on a piece of property next to his own when about 8 people said they were going to attack his brother and brother's girlfriend next door.

The one leading the pack handed him his handgun and said "Hold this, we are going to go handle this", at which point my friend chambered the firearm and held the person leading the pack at gunpoint.

Holding the crowd off for a second, he handed the pistol back and told them to do what they felt necessary now that attention was off his brother.

They threatened legal action, and violence ranging from restraint to severe beating, to assault. It's important I think to mention my friend was carrying his own pistol openly.

As it de-escalated a female from the group ran around and to the house, breaking and entering to being her assault. My friend pursued her with the pack pursuing him, where he told them if they came over the property line they would be shot, before informing the female if she did not end her attack the same would occur.

A massive brawl broke out on the property line for a short time, with more threats torwards the friend of legal action.

The friend had walked over and when he heard them speaking agressively he secretly started recording everything till the moment where he was handed the gun. The phone ran out of memory a few seconds later.

In this situation, is it likely my friend can be charged? All my friend wanted to do was watch the football game and these morons decided to form a mob and threaten his brother and girlfriend.

He had walked over because some of his friends had been conversing with them earlier and he was checking to see if they were still there.

Edit : The reason they wanted to attack was because they "prank" called my friends brother and girlfriend to convince him she was cheating.

When they found out it was a "prank" (someone present let them know they were being plotted against) the brother and girlfriend told them to not contact them anymore, because it wasn't really a prank at all.

They were trying to break them up and they never intended to tell them it was a prank. They just thought it would be hilarious to seei f they could cause an altercation.
Click to expand...

This one time at band camp................:rolleyes:
 
Just to sum it up. The friend was next door to his house, and his brother was at home with his girlfriend. Someone I suppose did not realize who he was and handed him a firearm so that it wouldn't be lost in a fight I guess. He informed him he was going to perform the crimes of breaking and entering, and then he was going to attempt to injure people in the friends home violently. I've come to understand the nature of the recording was that while a button is held it is recording. Whenever things escalated, the requirement that hands were freed ended the recording. There is no longer legal action threatened in either direction as of now. I would still consider it a learning experience, especially with the knowledge of the legality of the situation. My friend learned that it's hard to think of the law at point blank to a bunch of angry people threatening violence.
 
Is it legal to use a gun to prevent an attack on family that doesn't involve weapons
Click to expand...

Yes, as John noted.

HolderBoulder's long story of people behaving badly.
Click to expand...

Impossible to say in this telling. If the police had showed up and separated the latest contestants on "Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes" they would have had a dozen different stories about who did and said what, who started the conflict, who pointed what at who and notions on where babies come from.

Seems that everyone has a cell phone these days. Instead of recording manufactured drama and posting it on Facebook later you might be better served by calling the referees (police) out and having them make a ruling on how people should behave in civilized society.
 
From what I read or read into the story, if someone had been shot, for any reason, it was mutual combat and the shooter is going to jail for it.

Find a new set of friends, and stay away from the ones involved in this. They're aggressive, out of control, probably on drugs and/or alcohol, and it's a matter of time until some serious harm comes to one or more of them in some manner.

We pay taxes to provide police forces to deal with such situations. Next time, call 911 and stay inside.

The term 'mutton-headed morons' comes to mind. Avoid these kind of idiots.
 
I didn't read mutual combat into the opening post, but perhaps I didn't read it carefully enough. The point is well taken -- once you enter into mutual combat (meaning you agreed to fight), you don't get to change your mind and claim self defense as an excuse to shoot if you're getting your posterior whupped.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top