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.
Justified in shooting?
- Thread starter ZVP
- Start date
I don't think it is legal to use deadly force if the thieves are running away without your property, not even here in Texas. That you were able to run them off, save your property and not have to use your weapon is the best outcome you could have.
Let the police handle it from there would be my advise. I might use deadly force to protect my property if needed but would have to weigh the loss against the legal costs that are sure to follow. Poor George Z. has found out all about that.
Let the police handle it from there would be my advise. I might use deadly force to protect my property if needed but would have to weigh the loss against the legal costs that are sure to follow. Poor George Z. has found out all about that.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Yes and no. More precisely, I haven't gone looking for "disproportionate force" in SD statutes, but I'm not aware of any that specifically name it. However, most states' SD statutes refer to a "reasonable belief" on the part of the shooter that death or serious bodily injury (or some similar language) could result. Accordingly, disproportionate force can be weighed into the reasonableness of the shooter's belief that he or she was about to suffer death or serious bodily injury.g.willikers] Isn't there the legal defense of disproportionate of force?
Multiple young criminals vs one disabled victim, whether they are armed or not?
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Let's keep Zimmerman out of this.
In the OP's case he puts himself in a potentially legally vulnerable position by going out of the house to confront someone -- especially since he has physical limitations. Often the better course would be to call 911, stay in the house, observe and prepare to be a good witness, take photographs, and be prepared to defend yourself if attacked.
Let's understand the basic reality of the use of force in self defense.
It's called "disparity of force." It goes to the question of whether one or more assailants reasonably have the ability to cause lethal harm. But to support a claim of self defense, one still would need to show that the alleged assailants reasonably manifest an intent to immediately cause death or serious injury.g.willikers said:Isn't there the legal defense of disproportionate of force?
Multiple young criminals vs one disabled victim, whether they are armed or not?
In the OP's case he puts himself in a potentially legally vulnerable position by going out of the house to confront someone -- especially since he has physical limitations. Often the better course would be to call 911, stay in the house, observe and prepare to be a good witness, take photographs, and be prepared to defend yourself if attacked.
Let's understand the basic reality of the use of force in self defense.
- Our society takes a dim view of the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.
- However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
- Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened.
- However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.
- The amount of force an actor my justifiably use in self defense will depend on the level of the threat.
- Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --
- Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
- Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and
- put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he had the intent to kill or cripple.
- Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
- "Ability" doesn't necessarily require a weapon. Disparity of force, e. g., a large, young, strong person attacking a small, old, frail person, or force of numbers, could show "Ability."
- "Opportunity" could be established by showing proximity, lack of barriers or the like.
- "Jeopardy" (intent) could be inferred from overt acts (e. g., violent approach) and/or statements of intent.
- And unless the standard justifying the use of lethal force is met, use of some lesser level of violence might be legally justified to prevent a harmful or offensive, unconsented to contact by another person.
- Under the laws of most States, lethal force may be justified when a reasonable person in like circumstance would conclude that a use of lethal force is necessary to prevent the otherwise unavoidable, imminent death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to establish that, the actor claiming justified use of lethal force would need to show that the person against whom the lethal force was used reasonably had --
- If you have thus used violence against another person, your actions will be investigated as a crime, because on the surface that's what it is.
- Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
- If the evidence is not clear, you may well be arrested and perhaps even charged with a criminal offense. If that happens you will need to affirmatively assert that you were defending yourself and put forth evidence that you at least prima facie satisfied the applicable standard justifying your act of violence.
- Of course, if your use of force against another human took place in or immediately around your home, your justification for your use of violence could be more readily apparent or easier to establish -- maybe.
- Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
- In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.
- It could however be another matter to establish your justification if you have to use force against someone you invited into your home in a social context which later turns violent.
- It could also be another matter if you left the safety of your house to confront someone on your property.
- Again, it still depends on what happened and how it happened. For example, was the person you shot a stranger, an acquaintance, a friend, a business associate or relative? Did the person you shot forcibly break into your home or was he invited? Was the contact tumultuous from the beginning, or did things begin peaceably and turn violent, how and why?
- Sometimes there will be sufficient evidence concerning what happened and how it happened readily apparent to the police for the police and/or prosecutor to quickly conclude that your actions were justified. If that's the case, you will be quickly exonerated of criminal responsibility, although in many States you might have to still deal with a civil suit.
- Good, general overviews of the topic can be found at UseofForce.us and in this booklet by Marty Hayes at the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network.
- Sometimes a defensive use of lethal force will have grave consequences for the defender, even when ultimately exonerated. For example --
- This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.
- Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona: He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.
- Mark Abshire in Oklahoma: Despite defending himself against multiple attackers on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal meat-grinder before finally being acquitted.
- Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona: He was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.
- Gerald Ung: He was attacked by several men, and the attack was captured on video. He was nonetheless charged and brought to trial. He was ultimately acquitted.
- Some good folks in clear jeopardy and with no way to preserve their lives except by the use of lethal force against other humans. Yet that happened under circumstances in which their justification for the use of lethal force was not immediately clear. While each was finally exonerated, it came at great emotional and financial cost. And perhaps there but for the grace of God will go one of us.
- And note also that two of those cases arose in States with a Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground law in effect at the time.
- This couple, arrested in early April and finally exonerated under Missouri's Castle Doctrine in early June. And no doubt after incurring expenses for bail and a lawyer, as well as a couple of month's anxiety, before being cleared.
Last edited:
Again I ask the question. Do I have to shoot to protect life?? If you cant reply a resounding yes you should not shoot. Just that simple. You better think twice before you go out and hold some one at gun point. What are you going to do if you tell them to get down on the ground and they tell you to pound sand?? Now what??
Frank that's a great post!! Not one of those people mentioned won. NOT ONE!!. They were released or found not guilty but spent all their money to do so. Many lost jobs, houses and everything they had. There is a HUGE difference between winning and being found not guilty. The money spent, emotional stress of wondering if you are going to jail and the disruption of your life just plain and simple make it a no win!!!
Double Naught Spy
New member
No, they won, but they had to go through due process to do so. However, the issue is a very real one. We have those that say that they are indeed their brother's keeper, "brother" being a term to mean of their fellow humans, not just family. This is a balancing act for many of us. How do you protect your own family whilst you are in jail for defending someone else?
What are often perceived as clear cases of self defense turn out to be gray areas or something LEOs aren't prepared to handle and then leave it up to the DAs. The classic case from Texas is the first CHL shooting with Gordon Hale who was chased down in a road rage incident, beaten about the head where upon he suffered multiple broken bones in the face and was permanently (partially) blinded in one eye when the attacker broke off the attack. The attacker, who outweighed Hale by something like 70 or 80 lbs, decided he wasn't done and returned to vent more rage. Hale shot him once. Sure enough, nobody wanted to give Hale a pass on the shooting as it was the first CHL shooting DESPITE Hale's shooting meeting all the necessary requirements for it to be justified. He was the victim. He suffered grave bodily injury. He feared for his life. He didn't resort to his gun first. He did not shoot maliciously or after the fact. As he was trapped in traffic and trapped inside of his vehicle (he was beaten through the open window), he could not retreat, but he got charged anyway. Probably the biggest problem with the whole incident was that his attacker was not armed with any sort of weapon other than his fists. Hale shot "an unarmed man." He was acquitted.
I saw an interview with Hale after the trial. I think he is the only person I have ever heard say afterwards that he would have rather been beaten to death than to go through what he went through. At the time, while he would be allowed to recover his CHL, he had no plans to do so. He was that disgusted with the whole process. I never saw another interview with him and have no idea if he actually gave up his CHL for good or not, but that had been his plan.
What are often perceived as clear cases of self defense turn out to be gray areas or something LEOs aren't prepared to handle and then leave it up to the DAs. The classic case from Texas is the first CHL shooting with Gordon Hale who was chased down in a road rage incident, beaten about the head where upon he suffered multiple broken bones in the face and was permanently (partially) blinded in one eye when the attacker broke off the attack. The attacker, who outweighed Hale by something like 70 or 80 lbs, decided he wasn't done and returned to vent more rage. Hale shot him once. Sure enough, nobody wanted to give Hale a pass on the shooting as it was the first CHL shooting DESPITE Hale's shooting meeting all the necessary requirements for it to be justified. He was the victim. He suffered grave bodily injury. He feared for his life. He didn't resort to his gun first. He did not shoot maliciously or after the fact. As he was trapped in traffic and trapped inside of his vehicle (he was beaten through the open window), he could not retreat, but he got charged anyway. Probably the biggest problem with the whole incident was that his attacker was not armed with any sort of weapon other than his fists. Hale shot "an unarmed man." He was acquitted.
I saw an interview with Hale after the trial. I think he is the only person I have ever heard say afterwards that he would have rather been beaten to death than to go through what he went through. At the time, while he would be allowed to recover his CHL, he had no plans to do so. He was that disgusted with the whole process. I never saw another interview with him and have no idea if he actually gave up his CHL for good or not, but that had been his plan.
357 Python
New member
Having been an armed security officer and police officer for over 30 years combined I have used my weapon in order to effect an arrest more than once. I can say it is absolutely not as easy as it looks on TV. Even detaining someone at gunpoint is not as easy as it sounds. There are many things going on at once and you need to have a clear head in order to keep track of everything. Did you see the watchout who could come from behind and harm you? Did you see a knife or a screwdriver. I know a screwdriver can be as dangerous as a knife but a jury may not think so. My advice is to call the police and let them deal with the guys. Unless they try to get into your home, in your condition there is no need to confront them. I hate to say it but insurance should be able to care of the truck.
Double
I am NOT saying that one should never shoot. Not saying that at all. what I am saying is your problems don't end there. They are just beginning but you are alive. If there is ANY way to avoid a shooting one should take it. Like one guy said" shooting some one in self defense does not solve all your problems. It just changes them however you are alive to deal with them" that was very well said. Personally I will do what ever I can to avoid a shooting but if I have to I will.
I am NOT saying that one should never shoot. Not saying that at all. what I am saying is your problems don't end there. They are just beginning but you are alive. If there is ANY way to avoid a shooting one should take it. Like one guy said" shooting some one in self defense does not solve all your problems. It just changes them however you are alive to deal with them" that was very well said. Personally I will do what ever I can to avoid a shooting but if I have to I will.
In the mid 80's, my truck was parked on the street at night with all my work tools in the back (camper shell). It had been broken into befor and the thiefs broke a window, stole a briefcase and ran off. I heard noise and looked out and saw someone in the back of my truck unloading toolboxes. I jumped up and grabed my shotgun and came around the side of the house and put the shotgun aginst the back of the bg's head and said "you have three choices, I kill you right now, I set this shotgun down and we fight, winner keeps the tools, or you go in the house and call the sheriff and beg him to come arrest you befor I kill you." The kid headed to the house, the other one got out of the back of my truck and grabbed the barrel of my shotgun. Instead of pulling the trigger I put the safety on. I was in one hell of a fight befor my wife came out and hit one guy with a rake and my neighbor took on the other.
The kids, one was 20 the other was just short of 18 admitted breaking a window to get into my truck and stealing my briefcase befor and trying to steal my tools again this time, went to jail. It all cost me a couple of weeks lost work and buisness, maby $10,000 attorny fees, thier parents sued, I won.
I can not imanage the cost and hassel if I had pulled the trigger and killed one of them, let alone having to live with killing someone over anger and a few stolen tools.
The kids, one was 20 the other was just short of 18 admitted breaking a window to get into my truck and stealing my briefcase befor and trying to steal my tools again this time, went to jail. It all cost me a couple of weeks lost work and buisness, maby $10,000 attorny fees, thier parents sued, I won.
I can not imanage the cost and hassel if I had pulled the trigger and killed one of them, let alone having to live with killing someone over anger and a few stolen tools.
Now had I caaught them all I could justifilably do is hold them at gunpoint till the police got there.
its my understanding that you cannot detain someone at gunpoint only the law can. The only difference is the officer is required by law to intervien, but a civilian is not..... and once the threat to you is over you cannot point the gun.
then on the flipside, if you can physically detain them then you can as a citizen place them under citizens arrest forceably until police arrive.
correct me if I am wrong....
Double Naught Spy
New member
its my understanding that you cannot detain someone at gunpoint only the law can.
Citations?
Al Thompson
Staff Alumnus
its my understanding that you cannot detain someone at gunpoint only the law can
Completely dependent on local laws. Perhaps not in Oregon, absolutely not true in South Carolina.
I knew of someone that woke up to noise looked out and someone was cutting a hole in their convertible top car. They went out with a 1911 told them to "stop" they robber had a knife tried to escape. The car owner shot him in the leg told him to sit down and wait for the police.
The car owner was arrested for attempted murder and a small collection of felonies. He took it to jury trail and won.
The car owner won but I am sure it cost him and gave him some grey hairs.
The car owner was arrested for attempted murder and a small collection of felonies. He took it to jury trail and won.
The car owner won but I am sure it cost him and gave him some grey hairs.
You're very fortunate. In many jurisdictions, a claim of self-defense under those circumstances would have failed, and you'd have been subject to felony charges.put the shotgun aginst the back of the bg's head and said "you have three choices, I kill you right now, I set this shotgun down and we fight, winner keeps the tools, or you go in the house and call the sheriff and beg him to come arrest you befor I kill you."
While it is legal to hold someone at gunpoint, or to effect a citizen's arrest, in many places, it's very unwise. Massad Ayoob wrote a very good essay on the pitfalls of the practice called the Dangerous Myth of the Citizen's Arrest. It's in the book In the Gravest Extreme.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
One can expect that the legal fees and costs of defense through a jury trial will run, depending on the complexity of the case and prevailing legal rates, from $50,000 to $150,000. That would buy a pretty nice car, let alone a new convertible top.deepcreek said:...The car owner was arrested for attempted murder and a small collection of felonies. He took it to jury trail and won.
The car owner won but I am sure it cost him and gave him some grey hairs.
...costs of defense through a jury trial will run, depending on the complexity of the case and prevailing legal rates, from $50,000 to $150,000. That would buy a pretty nice car, let alone a new convertible top.
This is an excellent "bottom line" to keep in mind while training (not to try and remember in the heat of the moment). There is virtually no physical object that anyone can steal from you that is worth more in monetary terms than the cost of your defense.
And the bigger picture, which most will hopefully never be forced to realize, is that there is NO emotional and psychological exoneration from ending someone's life, no matter how bad the bad guy was. Extreme case, like Charles Manson was stabbing your pregnant daughter...You'd STILL face the emotional realization that you killed a human, every waking and sleeping moment, for the rest of your life. Much more typical case, you kill a guy for stealing your belt sander or your Toyota. Now that emotional brick wall just plain kicks your butt. "I killed a guy because he took my $50 belt sander" or "I killed a guy because he took my car which I had insured".
I'm never recommending to not defend yourself. I'm always recommending to fight really hard to try and NOT put yourself into a situation where you have to face the emotional monster of having killed another human.
Sgt Lumpy
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The police literature is clear on the emotional/psychological aftermaths of even a 'good shoot'.
Two good reads for the civilian are
Into the Kill Zone by Klinger
Deadly Force Encounters - Artwohl
Our research found that a good proportion of police officers think that even after a good shoot, they will have significant psychological consequences.
If the bad guys run away - best outcome.
Two good reads for the civilian are
Into the Kill Zone by Klinger
Deadly Force Encounters - Artwohl
Our research found that a good proportion of police officers think that even after a good shoot, they will have significant psychological consequences.
If the bad guys run away - best outcome.
Fascinating....Completely dependent on local laws. Perhaps not in Oregon, absolutely not true in South Carolina.
So what happens if your holding someone at gunpoint, and they turn around and walk (or run) away?
Double Naught Spy, sorry no citations this time. I should have, but I did say its my understanding... I wasn't stating a fact.