Is shooting someone who is trying to beat you up self defense?

The defendant warned the attacker that he might be shot. Now If someone attacked me after I issued such a warning, i would fully expect his intentions to be to do me serious bodily harm.
 
Got into this a day late, but the bottom line is that one should walk away when they can, and Hasman definitely could have swallowed his pride and tried to ride off into the sunset. If the guys in the minivan followed, then it's a different story.

A situation happen to me the other day at Wally World (not going into detals). After I stupidly reacting to something a young punk said under his breath about me, I consciously de-escalated the situation.

20/20 hindsight, I should have let it slide off my back like water off a duck's in the first place. Believe it or not, this site and THR dot org reminded me of that...always better to walk away than stand your ground and kill or shoot somebody...unless it's in your house or you or a loved one is in harms way.

Going back to the Hasman - he F'd up by pulling over and getting off his bike. I mean, What did he think was going to happen? The guys in the mini-van wave and give him a peace sign while they drove by???
 
Last edited:
When I took my CCW course, the instructor was very clear about how armed citizens have the obligation to de-escalate as much as possible before using deadly force in self defense. That means a lot of tongue biting, and offering apologies if it means the person that is agitated at you might go away.
 
Is shooting someone who is trying to beat you up self defense?
Click to expand...

Yes.

However, the devil is in the details. Generally, the concept of disparity of force will be used to judge basic justification. And it is that judgement that (generally) determines if legal proceedings will be brought.

A couple of 20-30 year old males, both in fair general health, is a situation that makes determination highly dependant on the specifcs of the conflict.

A 20yr old 200lb male vs a 70 yr old 120lb female? Whole different standard will be applied.

Here is one example, a middle aged CCW holder, sitting in an open air cafe, having coffee was attacked by and "indigent" male (don't recall the age, but not a youth), and despite verbal warning, began pummelling the CCW holder. Knocked down, on the ground, with the attacker atop him, the CCW holder drew and fired, ending the attack. Ultimately, no charges were filed against the CCW holder.

Is shooting someone who is trying to beat you up self defense? Sure. Is it justified? Probably, depending on the specific situation. Remember though, you may believe it is justified, ans still be found to be legally in the wrong!
 
+1 44 AMP,

As far as not being able to seriously hurt/kill someone with your bare hands or feet, thats just ridiculous. Don't care who you are, one shot to the right place, especially barehanded, could be fatal. 'Boom Boom' Mancini delivered a fatal blow in the ring, sanctioned fight, against another pro fighter wearing gloves. There's been more than a few fighters that have had their brain scrambled with knockout shots and they were wearing gloves.

Also, not being familiar with where this happened can't comment on whether the rider could get away from the van or not. Maybe this happened in heavy traffic where the safest thing for the rider to do was pull over, maybe the rider could have got away. Guess the jury will figure that one out.

I do know that I wouldn't jeopordize wrecking on my bike and possibly hurting my wife/self trying to flee someone harassing me while riding. If I had a safe escape route then by all means I'd take it. If not, I'd pull over in the safest spot I could find, dial 911 and hope the harasser went on.

The driver of the vans statement, saying "when his passenger opened the van door, the biker already had his weapon pulled", didn't make since. Picture an altercation with someone and when you step out of your vehicle, the other person is standing at his with a gun already pulled. Are you going to still approach that person and punch him:rolleyes:?

That part sounds a bit like BS to me or maybe the passenger in the van just came from the bar,just did some meth/coke(makes you feel invincible) and didn't care the person he was going to punch had a weapon. Again, don't know I wasn't there but I hope all the facts come out in this case.

For those that don't ride, let me say that people on bikes sometimes become the targets of dangerous harassment by people in cars. I've been riding for many years and it happened to me. Should I have shot the individuals that did the harassing, no, I was able to pull into a gas station and they went on. Had they pulled into the station, hopefully the law would have got there before these assailants had a chance to do me harm.
 
one shot to the right place, especially barehanded, could be fatal. 'Boom Boom' Mancini delivered a fatal blow in the ring, sanctioned fight, against another pro fighter wearing gloves. There's been more than a few fighters that have had their brain scrambled with knockout shots and they were wearing gloves.
Click to expand...
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics of this and how the weight of the gloves actually compounds the injuries to the person getting hit.

Boxing gloves (heavyweights use 16 oz. gloves) may appear to "cushion" the blow, but in actuality, over the repeated strikes made by professional boxers over the course of a long match, compound the injury by adding weight (ie force) to the blow. The actual reason that boxers wear gloves in the ring isn't to protect the unlucky soul receiving the blow by reducing the concussive injuries caused by the strike, but primarily to protect the hands of the guy throwing the punch and reduce cuts.
 
It's true that being on two wheels seems to make one a magnet for a-holes. I've been screamed at, tailgated, flipped off, cut off, and generally harassed for no better reason than I am on a bike. It also seems that a fairish number of automobile drivers feel compelled to pass motorcycles at any cost. I find that the best way to ride is to go out with the assumption that everybody on four wheels is both mentally retarded and homicidal.
 
Joe Demko said:
I find that the best way to ride is to go out with the assumption that everybody on four wheels is both mentally retarded and homicidal.
Click to expand...
And that they are out to get you.

Seriously. I used to ride. I sold my last bike several years ago because I just got fed up with motorists who quite literally seemed to be TRYING to hit me and wipe me out.
 
Seriously. I used to ride. I sold my last bike several years ago because I just got fed up with motorists who quite literally seemed to be were TRYING to hit me and wipe me out.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for ya. :cool:

I used to ride. Big full-dress touring bikes. I hated it when 4-wheel drivers would tailgate. And I mean really tailgate - like less than 12 feet at 70mph. I've had nincompoops talking on cell phones tailgate down the freeway, and hotdoggers tailgate me in stop & go city traffic. I've even had a couple of morons follow me through nine lane changes and onto the shoulder "just to screw with" my mind (that one didn't end well for them).

Regardless of who "starts" an incident -- i.e. who cut off whom or who flipped the first bird -- the participants make choices. And those choices influence the outcome of the situation. Ultimately, though, in my view, the "aggressor" is the one who takes the fight to the level of a personal assault or an action that threatens bodily injury.

The fact that someone saw the bike rider trying to get the attention of the police indicates, to me, a problem with the van already existed. If the van was severely tailgating a bike with 2 riders, then his actions constitute reckless endangerment¹ (2 counts) as well as following too close.

The questions in this case that need some resolution, as I see them are²;
- Can the officer ticketing the stopped car be found?
- Does he recall a van and a motorcycle both stopping together?
- Did the 911 dispatch tapes record the van driver saying "You might as well shoot me"?
- Was the cyclist off the bike before the punch was thrown?

From reading the statements, what seems clear to me is that the van passenger was the aggressor who escalated the situation into a physical confrontation. He made physical contact, followed the retreating cyclist to engage in striking him. The van driver was also clearly out of control in that he attempted to "go after" the cyclist once he was in custody.

Driving a 3900 pound blunt instrument in a dangerous manner and being "called for it" can enrage some people's egos. Sounds like this was the case with the van driver. Yet the passenger was even more aggressive in his attempt to physically injure the cyclist. We don't know what, if any, "egging on" he did with the van driver, but it's not hard to imagine.

Nobody in this case is going to dazzle the legal establishment with their "smarts". The news article carefully avoids mentioning the ages of those involved which leads me to believe the cyclist is >45 years and the two in the van are likely < 30 years old.

¹ Reckless endangerment because willfully tailgating in the extreme means that the van cannot stop without striking the m/c and rider(s). This is essentially the equivilant of the driver holding a knife to the rider's neck or pointing a cocked gun at him.
² I think answering some of these questions would tend to bolster the statements of some of the witnesses.
 
Is shooting someone who is trying to beat you up self defense?
Click to expand...

To answer the OP's question, yes, sometimes shooting someone who is trying to beat you up is self defense. It all depends on the circumstances, though maybe not in the OP's case. However, the first Texas CHL shooting was just such a case, involving road rage. Gordon Hale's vehicle apparently bumped mirrors with another vehicle occupied by two men who then chased Hale, finally catching him at an intersection. The driver got out and approached Hale's vehicle. Hale rolled down his window, ostensibly to talk with the man who proceeded to punch him repeatedly in the face, breaking cheek bones and doing permanent damage to Hale's left eye. The attacker started back to his own vehicle and thought better of it and decided Hale needed more of a beating and returned and started on Hale again at which time Hale produced a gun and shot his attacker once in the chest. The attacker died. Hale was charged with murder but the grand jury failed to indict him. Later, Hale noted that he wished he had never shot Tavai. Of course, Hale could be dead now as well.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=6&issue=003
 
Boxing gloves(heavyweights use 16oz. gloves) may appear to "cushion" the blow, but in actuality, over the repeated strikes made by professional boxers over the course of a long match, compound the injury by adding weight (ie force) to the blow. The actual reason a boxer wears gloves in the ring isn't to protect the unlucky soul receiving the blows....
Click to expand...

Your partially right. Gloves are worn to protect both fighters. Damage is done when taking shots repeatedly wearing gloves. Thats the reason you key on a moused up eye in a fight, hit it repeatedly, it will cut eventually.

Go back and research some of the old barefisted fighters. They got cut to pieces and so many of their carriers were very short.

Barefisted, It takes alot less shots to the eye or cheek bone(for example) to cut tissue or knock the eye out of the socket. Same as a headbutt which usually cuts tissue quickly.

The point I was making was getting hit barefisted just once or twice with the right shots can do very serious damage. Doesn't have to be repeated shots and a long pounding. For someone to say you can't get seriously hurt by a few well thrown/placed shots just hasn't squared off with the right(or wrong) guy. Watch some of the cage matchs. In just three (3 min.) rounds these guys are torn up. Why, bone to bone contact. No padding.
 
Last edited:
 
Another question to a confrontation!

Just how close are you supposed to let someone get to you in an altercation?
On the street, if you let a 'foe' get close enough on you to swing, maybe you get cut instead of punched. Maybe your assailant is sporting brass knuckle's or mace to spray you with so he can really do a good job on you.

Protecting yourself/family require's alot of split decision's to make huh!
 
You need to look into the case (common) law where you live.

In Virginia fists (absent some other factor like size or condition) are not normally considered lethal force.

You might be able to show they were in a specific case, but would have to convince the court (judge and/or jury).

That does not mean that fists cannot kill, just that you will have your work cut out for you if you escalate to a firearm in self defense.
 
"Is shooting someone who is trying to beat you up self defense?"

Yes.

Is is justifiable?

Maybe.

Lots of factors contribute to deciding that last point, and folks have been arrested and/or prosecuting for not factoring all of them in.
 
...............I was able to pull into a gas station and they went on. Had they pulled into the station, hopefully the law would have got there before these assailants had a chance to do me harm.
Click to expand...

You ducked that one. ;) Would you have shot to avoid a beating that would have appeared to a reasonable man (and certainly to you) to be imminent?

OR, if the man had continued to approach you with a gun visible in your hand, would you have had a reasonable expectation that his continued approach meant he intended to arm himself with your gun and murder you. I believe that Ayoob has, in the past, made a good case to the affirmative.

I kinda like speeding off while the clown was out of the vehicle with the door open, myself:D--if it were possible.
 
Last edited:
Another consideration I'm rather surprised no one touched upon is the very real and very frightening issue of - what will the person who is pounding you do when he discovers you are armed? What will he do if he disarms you? Do you have any idea? What might have ended with a beating of an unarmed person might end in the death of a CCW.
 
Just how close are you supposed to let someone get to you in an altercation?
Click to expand...

Not close enough to lay hands on me. Much of your decision has to be based on your own physical condition and your size against that of your opponent. If it gets into rough and tumble, at my age, I'm going to end up with broken bones. If some 20ish or 30ish guy approaches me and he's only slightly larger than me but appears to be much more "in shape" or just has a lot of upper body mass, I'll invoke age/strength disparity.

If that guy threatening to kick your butt has six inches and 60 pounds on you it's a good bet that he can twist you into a figure 8. If the guy is your size, but he has one or two compadres urging him on or just hanging close, chances are you're in for a butt kicking.

OR, if the man had continued to approach you with a gun visible in your hand, would you have had a reasonable expectation that his continued approach meant he intended to arm himself with your gun and murder you. I believe that Ayoob has, in the past, made a good case to the affirmative.
Click to expand...
Given a choice, I'll back off, retreat or flee if there's a reasonable chance I can get away. Driving away is by far the best "win" because you can report the guy and let the police do their job.

In a situation arises where someone followed me to a public area to make good on a threat and was not dissuaded by looking down the muzzle of a gun, then he's going to lose. My rationale will be that I'm dealing with:
a) Someone who is in a violent or homicidal rage.
b) A person who is violently suicidal.
c) Someone who thinks he can overwhelm and disarm me before hurting me.

In any of those cases, if I'm right, squeezing the trigger is justified. I'm over 50 years old and know that facial bones are easily broken. That becomes a threat of "great bodily injury" to me. Someone else may have a heart condition that could be fatal if he's attacked. In those cases, the use of lethal force is usually justified.
 
Would you have shot to avoid a beating...
Click to expand...



If I feel I have retreated as far as I can go, my ccw is pulled and my assailant continues to come at me while I've given him clear warning, IMO he has given me no choice but to shoot. I don't know this guy from Adam and surely don't know whether all he has in mind is giving me a black eye or beating me to death.

One thing I do know is if an assailant keeps coming at you and you've got your ccw drawn down on him telling him to stop or you'll shoot, your dealing with someone thats not mentally stable at that point and time.

Again, fleeing/escaping the situation is always best but as a motorcycle rider I can see where there are some instances where trying to escape could endanger the rider/passenger and it would be safer to pull over. Remember, a motorcycle is no match for a car/truck.
 
We just had a case this weekend in Chandler where a guy had a party in his backyard. He was charging a $2 admission fee and at some point some uninvited guests showed up, paid the fee and started drinking.

The guy started to wind down the party and the late arrivers began to argue they were not treated fairly and tried to steal one of the kegs.

The wife of the party giver tried to stop them and the uninvited guests tried to slap her around.

The host saw what was happening and went to help his wife and two of the uninvited guests started slapping him around and pulled a gun.

The party host, who is a CCW holder, pulled his own gun and shot them both dead.

The police have ruled the shooting justifiable and are looking for 6 or 7 gang bangers and want to charge them with murder because the shooting occurred during the commission of a crime.

Geetarman:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top