Scary Thought

Like others have said, go through steps, not only to try to avoid a physical assault, but to satisfy legal requirements. Try to get away. If you can't, warn him verbally to stop. Draw your weapon, but don't point it at him, and tell him to stop. If he keeps coming, point it at him. You get the picture. In other words, if it comes down to legal prosecution, it should appear that you did absolutely EVERYTHING humanly possible to avoid escalation, step by step.

Beyond that, of course as always, it depends on the situation, your firearm, the state you live in, and your ability to shoot instinctively with speed and accuracy. In the situation described, I personally, if my back were to the wall, would take out his knee with a .357 158 gr. hollow point. If he didn't appear to be a hard criminal, just some jerk who drank too much, I'd shoot his foot. That may or may not work for you, again depending. The important thing is that you're seriously examining the concept and thinking about what you're doing, and not just blundering around like some armchair Rambo wannabe. You're doing fine.
 
http://www.salon.com/wires/allwires/2011/01/12/D9KMP5U00_us_self_defense_shooting/index.html
Click to expand...

FLA jogger shot a guy attacked him, he is found to be not guilty

A pistol-packing jogger in Florida won't be charged for shooting and killing a teenager who attacked him during a midnight run.

Prosecutors said Tuesday they are convinced Thomas Baker acted in self defense when he fired eight shots at 18-year-old Carlos Mustelier near Tampa in November .
Click to expand...

Know your local laws.
 
He wasn't found not guilty, he was not charged. A significant difference. He was not charged, properly, because the FL law justifying the shooter's actions are very friendly toward the victim/perceived victim of an assault. Lets hope that spirit catches on coast to coast.
 
perfect example of some stupid kid thinking he has an easy target only to find out that some people do carry for preventative measures. It is sad to see a teenager die, but the person was just trying to get some exercise in and then successfully defended himself.
 
USCTrojanSigFan

As a resident of Southern California (I work in El Monte, on the East side of Los Angeles), I have studied the California law for use of deadly force. Nowhere in the law does it require that the assailant be armed. The law only requires that a reasonable person in the same situation would fear for their life or fear great bodily harm.

Defense against rape is specifically called out as a situation that allows the legal use of deadly force.

California law also allows you to use deadly force in defense of other innocent persons if a reasonable person would consider them in fear of loss life or great bodily harm. Be careful, deadly force is not allowed to chase people off of your property although force can be used to eject a person from your property. :confused:

Most “Self Defense” claims for cases that go to trial fail the test of a reasonable person in the same situation fearing loss of life or great bodily harm. Of the many cases I have seen over the years, many murderers claim self defense only to have the premeditation of their killing proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Additionally, stop reading the LA Times and USC newspapers. These are (IMHO) famously anti-gun and rarely report anything that would cast a positive light on gun ownership and carry. :mad:

Finally, as you are aware, it is virtually impossible to get a CCW in LA County or any of the surrounding counties, so you are in serious legal trouble if you use a gun in self defense and did not have a permit to carry. In fact, most DA’s would use this to prove premeditation and thus murder, not self defense.
 
If you read through all of the post so far it becomes clear that legally justifying the shooting of an unarmed individual involves many factors. According to self-defense legal expert Mitch Vilos shooting an unarmed individual is one of the "thumbs down" factors that coupled together with other issues can land you in prison for a long time.

Having said this there are scenarios where it would be justified BUT anytime the word "reasonable", as judged by twelve of your peers, is used as a qualifier for justified use of deadly force there are no guarantees.

If you make the decision to arm yourself and a situation arises it becomes very important that you go to the extreme to deescalate the situation. Claiming fear that the individual might disarm you may not carry much weight and the fact that you're armed, via some twisted logical, can be viewed as your having put yourself in jeopardy.

In some states drawing your weapon as a warning to a potential attacker is legal but in many states you'll be facing a brandishing charge and possibly the loss of your license. Personally I don't agree with the laws that say you only draw your weapon with the intention of immediately using it but it is what it is.

Of course having empty hand skills and carrying a non-lethal form of self-defense equipment (pepper spray or taser if it is legal in your area) are possible options. The fact that you're asking these questions is a good since anyone that makes the decision to carry a firearm needs to give some thought to the force continuum and the justified level of force for various situations.
 
well edge you said it: "Fear" - that is a major factor. If you wake up in the middle of the night and shoot someone in your bedroom, did you have a reasonable fear for yourself and your family: unarmed or not(just no back shots).

one man took out four muggers, but hsi mistake was to explain to the cops that he was never in fear for his life one bit. I appreciate this man's honesty and grit, but that was a bad choice of words that can make things more difficult in the aftermath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top