More than one Attacker...

I suggest you reread what I wrote very closely.
Click to expand...

Just what is it that you think I'm missing?

You have contended "If you FEEL that your life is being threatened, then you are within your rights to draw your weapon. And if you feel threatened enough, you are justified in shooting."

You have said that you would draw and fire response in to "accumulated threatening gestures."

You have said "You may draw your weapon if you feel or believe that you might need to employ your weapon in self defense (or the defense of another person) from serious bodily harm or death".

All of those points would seem to be contradicted in the authoritative literature and all would seem to be a quick formula for the loss of a personal fortune, personal freedom, and a clean record.

If you feel I have missed something of importance or misinterpreted your views, let me know, but at this point winning an argument is not what you need to do. You need to gain an understanding of what you may and may not do with a deadly weapon, and if the posted articles don't help you in that regard, you should contact a local criminal trial attorney with a good record. Expect to pay a couple of C-notes or more. It will be an excellent investment.
 
Well since your the expert, perhaps you should post your phone number so that if any of us ever encounter a situation where we feel threatened with bodily harm or death, we can can call and run it by you just to make sure we are justified in pulling our weapon...
 
To Creature and OldMarksman: call me crazy but aren't you kind of saying the same thing. I think the operative words are feel or believe

Here is Merriam's Defintion:
feel : to be aware of by instinct or inference b: believe , think <say what you really feel>intransitive verb
Click to expand...

Isn't that the standard what a Reasonable Man would believe?
 
You have contended "If you FEEL that your life is being threatened, then you are within your rights to draw your weapon. And if you feel threatened enough, you are justified in shooting."
Click to expand...
Don't forget to throw into the mix that your "feeling" still must rise to a reasonable belief in most states. My daughter had a feeling there was somebody fighting with a dog on her deck last night, but there was nothing to raise that feeling to a reasonable belief.
 
feel : to be aware of by instinct or inference b: believe , think <say what you really feel>intransitive verb
Click to expand...

Yes, those are some dictionary definitions. There's even one that implies that the two are synonyms. But they are not. It's simply that there is an overlap. There are differences.

Some state laws even use the words "fear" or "feel". Most do not, however.

The subject of the difference between feeling and reasonable belief as it pertains to justifying homicide has been discussed many times on this and other forums. I do not have the time or inclination to find some of the older postings by attorneys that discuss that subject.

However, David Armstrong's explanation should suffice quite well:

Don't forget to throw into the mix that your "feeling" still must rise to a reasonable belief in most states.
Click to expand...

Another way to look at that is that the extent to which threatening gestures may have made me feel afraid may not really matter very much at all.

I learned in working directly for the chief counsel of a major business for a couple of years and closely with the law department for a couple of dozen that it usually isn't very wise at all for a lay person to try to interpret the law.

Don't rely on my credibility for that. Here's a paper from Arizona attorney Michael Anthony that is on the Arizona CCW web site:

http://ccw.azdps.gov/procedures/documents/ccw_legal.pdf

You should not assume that you understand a criminal statute by
merely reading it. Courts determine the meaning of criminal statutes, and they sometimes do so with bizarre results. If a criminal statute is too
confusing, or if it conflicts with higher laws, such as the Constitution, the
courts may decide that the statute is ineffective, partially unenforceable or
wholly unenforceable. The legal principles used by the courts to interpret
the meaning of criminal statutes have evolved over centuries, and scholars argue endlessly over how the laws should be interpreted. In other words, you should not assume that you understand the meaning of a criminal law by simply reading a statute and attaching your own meaning or dictionary definitions to it.
Click to expand...

The rest of the paper is worth reading even if you do not live in Arizona. Who knows, the reader just might learn something worthwhile.

Here's an excerpt that I think closely matches the OP's scenario; see page 39:

You are walking through a shopping mall with your spouse, child or date, and three young males, wearing gang "colors," are walking toward you. As the three young males walk past you, one of them bumps your shoulder. He immediately turns, flashes a gang sign, "flips you the bird," and starts yelling at you. He uses more profanity than you have ever heard before, and he directs it at you and your spouse, child or date. You ignore him and start to walk away, but he and the other two young males follow. Now, You ignore him and start to walk away, but he and the other two, young, males follow. Now, they are all yelling at you and cursing you. They walk circles around you as you walk down the mall. They dare you to "step outside," and they graphically describe how they are going to "cut" you and your spouse, child or date. No one comes forward to help, and there are no security personnel or police in view. You are carrying a loaded pistol under your jacket. One of the young males approaches within two inches of your face and screams that he is going to kill you. KEEP YOUR COOL! If you pull your gun and shoot, you will not be justified. Until you are threatened with imminent death or serious physical injury, you cannot use deadly force. Do not display your gun - that is aggravated assault. Do not tell the youths that you are armed - that gives away a tactical advantage (surprise) and may cause the situation to escalate. Even if one of the youths shoves you, keep your cool and your balance! Rather than letting the anger build, start planning "what if." Plan what you will do if one of the youths pulls a knife, if one pulls a gun, if more than one pulls knives or guns, if one produces a club, etc. ... Maximize your distance from the youths. ... Even if one of the youths shoves you, keep your cool and your balance! Rather than letting the anger build, start planning "what if." Plan what you will do if one of the youths pulls a knife, if one pulls a gun, if more than one pulls knives or guns, if one produces a club, etc. Think it through and look for tactical advantage. What escape routes are available? What cover is available? Which of the youths is closest? Keep a clear view of all three youths! Maximize your distance from the youths. ... Can you use deadly force without hitting someone else; if so, how do you need to improve your position; if not, can you move into a position where use of deadly force and risk of harm to bystanders is minimized? In short, think, plan and stay cool, but remember that mere words never justify the use of deadly force.
Click to expand...


Scary, eh? Would you feel threatened? I sure would. Would you feel threatened with imminent death or serious bodily harm? No less so, I would guess, than if they had merely made "threatening gestures."

Does the attorney conclude that deadly force would be justified by the threats and shoves? NO!

He does not even believe that you can legally draw, which was the OPs original question.

Does that coincide with your preconceptions? It sure didn't match what I thought before I took my CCW training!

Is it relevant to the OP's question?

Does anyone doubt it's credibility and validity, as it would apply in Arizona?

Is it right? Well, the Arizona legislature saw fit last year to change the law to change the liability for drawing a gun, but the governor disagreed.

I really wish the rest of us had a state resource such as this. Where I live, getting the CCW endorsement requires the completion of an eight hour course, and about half of that pertains to the law and such things as what happens after a shooting. This Arizona write-up is superb.
 
Creature,

I don't follow. Here, you say that if you feel threatened with imminent bodily harm or death then there is justifiable cause to use deadly force.

Here is the interesting part. Just a few hours ago, in another thread (dog shooting thread), you berated me for saying that if someone violently attacked and struck myself or my wife that I did would not have cause to use deadly force and to do so would send me to prison.

You're missing that it all depends on who is actually doing the threatening. You would be drawing your weapon because you are feeling threatened with imminent bodily harm or death.
Click to expand...

I'd say a person violently striking me or mine would constitute "imminent bodily harm".

Perhaps you can explain to me how its unlawful to react to an actual tangible threat but lawful to react to a feeling?
 
creature ... correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think, 'feeling I threatened' is not a feeling. It might be a personal conclusion, or judgement that results in a feeling, such as fear, anxiety, apprehension ..., but by itself I do not think of it as a feeing.

I'm feeling threatened ? I suggest calling Dr. Phil. I was threatened with great bodily harm, then I suggest calling 911, hunkering down and preparing to defend onself.

"transitive verb
1 a: to handle or touch in order to examine, test, or explore some quality b: to perceive by a physical sensation coming from discrete end organs (as of the skin or muscles)
2 a: to undergo passive experience of b: to have one's sensibilities markedly affected by
3: to ascertain by cautious trial —usually used with out
4 a: to be aware of by instinct or inference b: believe , think <say what you really feel>
intransitive verb
1 a: to receive or be able to receive a tactile sensation b: to search for something by using the sense of touch
2 a: to be conscious of an inward impression, state of mind, or physical condition b: to have a marked sentiment or opinion <feels strongly about it>
3: seem <it feels like spring today>
4: to have sympathy or pity <I feel for you>
— feel like : to have an inclination for <feel like a walk?>"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feel
 
Last edited:
This input from an actual experience and the resulting legal advice might shed some additional light on things.

A man in Ohio is approached by three youths who stick their heads into the car and ask for money. They show no weapons. He's outnumbered and is disabled.

He points a gun and they leave. Afterwards he is advised by both his attorney and a lead NRA attorney that it would have been a difficult self defense case.

The question of whether he could legally draw does not seem to have come up.

The demeanor of the youths as described in this post does not sound highly threatening to me, but that description is likely not presented in the same manner as it would be to a jury.

Always best to keep asking and learning, I think.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5498377&postcount=6
 
Interesting thread

The varied responses here likely represent the confusion over this subject matter, with that confusion likely being the result of the interpretation of the 50 different laws on the books, along with the different case law of each state.

There is no one clear answer, but instead 50 murky ones.

I say murky because each state's statutes will be interpreted by their state's appellate courts. And, while that is not so bad in itself, the fact remains that the appellate courts can and do change their minds as to what the statutes mean.

My advice is to research your own state's case law on self-defense, and glean from the cases the likely position an appellate court would take on the subject.

Be ready for several hours of intense reading though.

One more thing. Seeking out an attorney to form a client-attorney relationship with regarding your right to self-defense is the right step, but make sure that attorney knows the laws of self-defense in your state. Most criminal defense attorneys do not handle many self-defense cases. Once you do your case law search, and arrange to meet the attorney, make sure he has a list of self-defense cases you would like him to interpret for you. By doing this, you can actually help train the attorney to help you if you need it. A win-win.
 
Last edited:
OldMarksman said:
You should not assume that you understand a criminal statute by
merely reading it. Courts determine the meaning of criminal statutes, and they sometimes do so with bizarre results. If a criminal statute is too
confusing, or if it conflicts with higher laws, such as the Constitution, the
courts may decide that the statute is ineffective, partially unenforceable or
wholly unenforceable. The legal principles used by the courts to interpret
the meaning of criminal statutes have evolved over centuries, and scholars argue endlessly over how the laws should be interpreted. In other words, you should not assume that you understand the meaning of a criminal law by simply reading a statute and attaching your own meaning or dictionary definitions to it.
Click to expand...
I love it! So, basically, unless I'm wrong (which is always a big possibility), what a law says may or may not have anything to do with what the law means. That just makes me laugh. What in the world is the point of even having written laws? Basically, a bunch of lawyers (lawmakers) have gotten together (when they make and interpret laws) and simply provided themselves some job security (by requiring citizens to consult a lawyer about each and every single law that they wish to understand). If that were not enough, consultations must be made periodically, since the meaning of each and every single law is subject to change at any time. This sounds like a scheme to me. It is our responsibility to follow the law anyway, I'm just saying that the system frustrates, and sometimes infuriates, me.

I would say that the presence of multiple individuals, when threatening you at the proper level and in the proper manner, would allow you to respond with the use of a firearm.

In a DGU scenario, my primary goal would be to stay alive. This would most likely be accomplished (in a legal DGU scenario) by shooting to stop (almost certainly one or more center of mass shots), which I responsibly understand has a high probability of causing death in the recipient. That's at least how I think about it. I'll shoot to stop, but I'm not trying to fool myself, the shot will likely kill the assailant, but if I'm for some reason not already on the phone to the police, I soon will be, asking them to get an ambulance to my location as soon as possible. If the guy is laying there bleeding, or whatever, I want the guy to make it. I can't just watch the guy die. One reason for me wanting him to survive is that then he can face trial and prosecution for any crimes he may have committed besides the current affair. Real justice, when the system works, is so much more satisfying than street justice. Also (sorry, this is not really on topic, but I think it may help some people understand what I'm trying to say), as a Christian, I want to afford the assailant every possible chance at salvation, although not at my expense.

One thing I just thought about, I should probably not directly provide medical assistance to an assailant that I have shot in order to avoid possible lawsuits (unsatisfactory care or something similar), right? I'm not a lawyer and am interested in what people, preferably experts have to say on this subject. PM me, so as not to hijack the thread.
 
So, basically, unless I'm wrong (which is always a big possibility), what a law says may or may not have anything to do with what the law means.
Click to expand...

Well, no, not exactly. What I think Mr. Anthony is saying is threefold: (1) one or more dictionary definitions may not accurately reflect the legal definition; (2) one must interpret each law in the context of all of the relevant laws; and (3) one must take into account legal precedent as reflected in case law.

I invite comments from an attorney on that.

What in the world is the point of even having written laws?
Click to expand...

Would you prefer chaos? Read about the origin of the English Common Law.

If that were not enough, consultations must be made periodically, since the meaning of each and every single law is subject to change at any time.
Click to expand...

That's an extreme way to put it, but yes, a court decision may render a law unconstiutional, or at least clarify how it may be applied or enforced. Heller, for example. Or the limitation on the admissibility of confessions that came down the other day.

I would say that the presence of multiple individuals, when threatening you at the proper level and in the proper manner, would allow you to respond with the use of a firearm.
Click to expand...

Yep. Where the question comes in is in what is "proper." And that's where you have to have more than a lay interpretation.

I don't know about you, but the Arizona state web page example of multiple people threatening and even shoving someone bothers me. Draw and be charged with aggravated assault? The legislature was bothered too, but the governor was OK with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top