Learned a lesson tonight

Let's try keeping this discussion realistic and intelligent. That statement is neither.
Click to expand...

It is a common saying in North Carolina. It is very similar to saying they will lock you up and throw away the key. It means they will have no reservation in giving you the full punishment allowed by law.

So in NC I have to actually have someone cause me great bodily harm before defense is justified?
Click to expand...

Defense does not default to gun. There is a whole use of force continuim spelled out in the NC CCH manual.

What's to say someone will stop at a "busted nose?"
Click to expand...

Nothing. That is why you have several options in the use of force continuim as described by the state. Untill you are imminent fear of grave bodily harm or death (and you believe another person of reasonable firmness would agree) lethal force is a no go. When that fear becomes reasonable varies. For Brock Lesner it is very different than it would be for Betty White.

I think most states have a reasonable fear clause. However a punch is usually considerred simple assault unless there is an age, physical ability, or disparity of force issue.

It would be like a guy bumping your fender at a stop light and you responding by pushing his car off of a fifty foot cliff.
 
It is a common saying in North Carolina. It is very similar to saying they will lock you up and throw away the key. It means they will have no reservation in giving you the full punishment allowed by law.
Click to expand...

Point taken. Tone of response duly appreciated.

Untill you are imminent fear of grave bodily harm or death (and you believe another person of reasonable firmness would agree) lethal force is a no go. When that fear becomes reasonable varies.
Click to expand...

I feel we're somewhat going around in circles. An angry person shouting threats as in the OP (especially if they are saying they will kill me as the case has become) and advancing toward me with raised fists has me in reasonable suspicion of being in danger of great bodily harm.
 
An angry person shouting threats as in the OP (especially if they are saying they will kill me as the case has become) and advancing toward me with raised fists has me in reasonable suspicion of being in danger of great bodily harm.
Click to expand...

No.

You might have such a fear.

But it is not a reasonable fear.

You could die from a single punch in the nose. It has happened before. Very, very, very rarely. Every year, thousands of guys get punched in the nose, and they don't die from it.

Your teenager could die from playing football. It has happened before. Statistically, that's more likely to happen than it is for you to die from a single punch in the nose. It's very, very rare. And every year, thousands of teenagers play football and they don't die from it.

It would not be reasonable for your teenager to respond to an incoming tackle by pulling out a gun and shooting the lineman. Not because that tackle can't kill him (such tackles can and have killed people). But because it's a disproportionate response to the actual danger.

pax
 
No.

You might have such a fear.

But it is not a reasonable fear.

You could die from a single punch in the nose. It has happened before. Very, very, very rarely. Every year, thousands of guys get punched in the nose, and they don't die from it.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

I'm not talking about just getting killed from a punch. I'm talking about taking a bad beating, which is great bodily harm.

What is unreasonable about that?

No offense Pax, but that football analogy is rather questionable...
 
I've read all that, Pax.

I disagree with your statement that it's unreasonable fear of great bodily harm. There's no need to treat me like I don't know anything, I know you're an "expert" around here.
 
I'd note the defensible use of force is also closely tied to each specific state's statute and its relevant stare decisis.

For example. In NY the real standard (not just statute) might be that the GG may need to be attacked by multiple boxers carrying pickaxes, whereas in Texas the standard may be "he needed killin your honor."*

*Note this is an actual legal defense for wives in Texas, as verified by my Wife. The "He needed Killin" rule has been a fundamental bit of case law since the epic case Harriet Tweed (1839). At the time use of this phrase permitted wives to implement righteous wrath on their husbands in the form of horsewhips, horses, rattle snakes, and Colt Pattern Repeating pistols. Since that time it has been updated to include Chevy's, golf clubs, and Remington 870s. Texas husbands are nothing if not polite.
 
Last edited:
AH.74,

Please forgive me for leaving the impression that I didn't think you knew anything. That was not why I posted that link! Just wanted to be sure that we had common ground for discussion, that was all -- and didn't want to insult you by reciting the basics if you already knew it, and didn't have time to type it all out right then anyway. Next time, I'll try to take a little more time to be sure the complete message is coming across rather than just throwing a link out there.

For the rest: yes, we disagree about the "reasonableness" of planning to meet a threatened fistfight with deadly force. It's possible that we disagree because we aren't envisioning the same circumstances. Here's the circumstance I envision:

1) The aggressor is roughly the same age as the good guy, and in roughly the same physical condition. The good guy is thus able to meet the threatened force from the aggressor with an equivalent level of force from himself.

2) The good guy has other options: he can apologize, he can retreat, etc.

Are these same two basics in place in your envisioned scenario?

pax
 
Pax- all is good, let's move on.

For the rest: yes, we disagree about the "reasonableness" of planning to meet a threatened fistfight with deadly force. It's possible that we disagree because we aren't envisioning the same circumstances. Here's the circumstance I envision:

1) The aggressor is roughly the same age as the good guy, and in roughly the same physical condition. The good guy is thus able to meet the threatened force from the aggressor with an equivalent level of force from himself.
Click to expand...

This is an assumption I have not made. I do not plan on getting into a fistfight, I do not want to meet the force. Why would I do that? I have not done anything to instigate, other than in the aggressor's mind.

2) The good guy has other options: he can apologize, he can retreat, etc.
Click to expand...

There's not a lot of time here. Someone is coming at you. You have time to say something, but will he hear it and acknowledge it? If not, you can back up but that will also only allow you so much- you can't turn your back, and you can't retreat forever.
 
An angry person shouting threats as in the OP (especially if they are saying they will kill me as the case has become) and advancing toward me with raised fists has me in reasonable suspicion of being in danger of great bodily harm.
Click to expand...
There is a tremendous difference between "I am gonna kick your butt" and "I am gonna kill you". I don't see how "I am going to kill you" can be pervieved as anything other than a threat of death. While their apparent ability to carry through with their threat needs to be considered, I am willing to take someone at their word in this situation.
 
Uhh, . . . folks, . . . we got a winner here, . . . SRH78 gets the "BINGO":

I don't see how "I am going to kill you" can be pervieved as anything other than a threat of death. While their apparent ability to carry through with their threat needs to be considered, I am willing to take someone at their word in this situation.
Click to expand...

My sentiments, . . . thoughts, . . . feelings, . . . exactly.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
I wanted to follow up on this thread.

Pax, you enter the discussion, make a ridiculous football analogy (I was being kind before in calling it questionable), suggest I should get into a fistfight with someone who has just announced they are going to kill me, and then exit from the thread?

How about a response? You asked me a question about a scenario I thought was poorly thought out. You're supposed to be an expert. I question your input into this thread.
 
AH, Pax is busy and may not have had time to respond. Stay calm and stay respectful.

As far as your question. In NC (my frame of reference) violent and threatening language is not reason enough for lethal force. If somebody says "I'm going to kill you" and punches you in the face it is still questionable.

Did you try to use any other form of defense? Was there a great disapirity in the physical abilities of you and the agressor? Did he have a weapon? Was he capable of fufilling his threat? Is your physical conditioning so much better that you should have been able to stop the fight by detaining the attacker? Did you try to retreat from the scene? Did you try to verbally deescelate the situation? Could your actions have been reasonably seen as provocation?

There is a whole laundry list of questions you would need to answer. The average person isn't going to see a verbal threat as enough reason to pull a gun. Remember everything you do may be judged by police, public prosecutor, grand jury, and trial jury. You have to think about what those people in your area would find acceptable and reasonable.

I don't mean the guys at your hunting club. I mean the grocery store clerk, the first grade teacher, the cop, the preacher, and everybody else. When you pull that gun many of those people will be judging your actions. Some may very well decide your fate.

Defense does not default to gun. Make sure you have other options for dealing with a threat. It doesn't really matter that you don't want to meet the threat on a less lethal level. If you can have dealt with it in a less lethal manner and don't you put your post shooting defense in jeopardy.

A good idea is to learn all of your local laws regarding use of force. Plus learn the police department's use of force continuim. If your state has a civilian use of force continuim study that. Mix it all together and come up with the correct response based on your localities customs and laws.
 
Last edited:
What sorts? You mean the sort that makes threats they can't complete or don't really plan to because they hope to intimidate or have high hopes?

Something more than a drive by remark would be nice.

Any use of lethal force will be questioned. An unarmed man punching you after saying "I'm going to kill you" makes your defense easier. How easy is questionable. If an unarmed man does that to Brock Lesner it is reasonably assumed that he could handle it without a gun unless a weapon is presented. If it happens to Betty White she can proably shoot before or right after the first strike.

I guess some people just don't get the high legal burden involved in shooting another human. It isn't a decision without consequence. Once you shoot your self defense scenario doesn't end. That is just the begining.
 
Around here, folks tend to mean what they say .....it's a midwestern thing, I guess. If somebody rushes me telling me the are going to kill me, I'll take them at their word, and not wait around to see if they actually do it.

AOJP. Ability, Opportunity, Jeapordy, Preclusion. Reasonble fear of Death or Great Bodily Harm.

All are satified if a healthy young man rushes me screaming obscenities and announcing his intention to beat me to death. He would certainly have the ability, the opprtunity (provided he's within 21 feet), I am in jeapordy of same, and I certainly can't outrun him with little kids in tow.
 
Last edited:
I guess some people just don't get the high legal burden involved in shooting another human. It isn't a decision without consequence. Once you shoot your self defense scenario doesn't end. That is just the begining.
Click to expand...

Oh, but I DO. It will cost me on the order of 50K to defend myself, not even considering the civil suit..........

The alternative, however, could cost me all I have, and all I would ever have had ......

It is a question that requires some thought. In such a situation, there is not time for deliberation. I have given it much thought, and come to a conclusion......

..... I choose Life.


It is the Legal System ("of the Lawyers, By the Lawyers, and For the Lawyers") that has obfusicated right and wrong, requiring their paid services to settle the obvious with endless "what if's" ..........

"What if he was bluffing?"
"What if he was just trying to intimidate you?"
"What if he just wanted your wallet/keys/to scare you?"

Here's a "what if": What if the guy had just minded his own and not assaulted me?

I think my chances are better with 12 reasonable people (even if they are surrounded by a pack of Lawyers!) than with a violent person threatening to kill me.
______________________
IMO, The Legal System is a self-perpetuating scam, promoting criminal conduct and recidivism ....... job security, that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top