Self defense question

The fact that your little girl was with you removes any hesitation I might have had with respect to the justification for your actions.

BTW, the folks in Texas haven't lost the common sense that isn't so common in places like NY....

"THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force."

The question regard what constitutes a threat of deadly force or force sufficent to cause serious injury is a huge grey area. In addition a less then lethal situation can easily escalate in milli-seconds to a lethal force situation. The idea that a weapon should only be drawn when you have made the decision to shoot is ridiculous and negates a major advantage of having a weapon, having it serve as a deterent to the escalation of force on that part of those threatening an attack.
 
For the life of me, I can't even fathom why we are talking about the law. In my opinion you did everything above and beyond what you should have. You protected you life and your child's. I commend you! The law is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

You may think the law is irrelevant but try telling that to the police or the jury. We discuss the law because it is vitally important for any armed citizen to know when they can and should use deadly force, or the threat of deadly force, to defend themselves. The old mantra "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6." will be poor consolation to the your wife and children while your doing 25-life for an unjustified shooting.

In this case I think it's fairly obvious that the action was justified. Even states that require retreat do so only when it is possible with complete safety to self and others. It is clear in this case that the OP was not going to outrun two BGs with a two year old in his arms.
 
Mas and I were discussing a police case where the 'Tueller Rule' was not universally accepted without argument. Here's a clip from it.

02/11/2009

10-8: Life on the Line
- Sponsored by Blauer

with Charles Remsberg

Jurors learn edged weapon and use of force realities in $8M lawsuit

At trial or during the preliminaries, three expert witnesses hired by the plaintiffs had vehemently attacked the officers’ actions. All discounted the dangers of edged weapons and the need to use deadly force against a screwdriver.
Click to expand...

A highlight of Grossi’s testimony was his patient education of the jury on the realities of edged-weapon assaults. Although introduction of Surviving Edged Weapons was “fought tooth and nail” by the plaintiffs’ attorney, the judge permitted Grossi to show about 5 minutes of footage from the video
Click to expand...

Point is that the Tueller rule may have to be explained and defended. Experts might be found to testify against you, etc. Depends on politics and money.
 
Story doesn't make sense to me. The timing seems wrong. It started with the perps 10 feet away and then when walking away from them they are heard to be cursing and running after her. She has time to notice them running at her (from behind), stash the girl behind a nearby car, draw weapon and verbalize a warning all before they were on her. Must have walked quite a ways away before they decided to to revist is all I can say. In my estimation all she would have had time for would be to almost finish stashing the kid.
 
Quote:

"All in all, they said they were going to check the cameras at Wal_mart to try and find out exactly what happened."

Sounds like a crock to me. "Try and find out exactly what happened."

You told them what happened. Sounds like, if they even check the cameras, they'll be looking to see if you did anything out of place.
 
Evidence is evidence. The camera records what it sees without any emotion. It's a two edged sword to be sure but if you have done everything right, who cares? After the incident, the vicitms perceptions are probably a little skewed due to stress and this is understandable. Witness statements are notoriously unreliable and I can't tell you how many times the description I was given by a witness looked nothing like the actual suspect so I'll take video if I can get it

Forgive me if I don't take anybody's word for what happened as being 100% reliable. All they want the video for to see EXACTLY what happened...it's not some big conspiracy to hammer some citizen. Welcome to the world of being second guessed. It happens to cops all the time after use of force situations. It's not fair but it happens. I just fail to see the big deal about them pulling the video. Sounds like SOP in an investigation to me. As I said, if everything was on the up and up, there's nothing to worry about
 
Overall, I think you did the right thing. The only thing I'd have done differently is that I would have immediately gone back inside the Wal-Mart, called the police, and waited inside rather than going home first.
 
You'd be justified in Michigan IMHO.

In Michigan, the castle doctrine extends to anywhere you have a legal right to be.
 
I live in Arizona, and there are alot of cases of people getting beat to death by two on one or more, even fists. I know if I had a toddler with me and they did not stop, someone would have gotten shot. Its not a question of law. Its a question of getting your head crunched against the curb in front of your daughter and ending up in diapers because of brain damage the rest of your life.
 
I live in Arizona, and there are alot of cases of people getting beat to death by two on one or more, even fists. I know if I had a toddler with me and they did not stop, someone would have gotten shot. Its not a question of law. Its a question of getting your head crunched against the curb in front of your daughter and ending up in diapers because of brain damage the rest of your life.
Click to expand...

This is part of why I'll never fully understand the laws concerning use of deadly force in self-defense. Even in Texas, it seems the person defending themselves can only do so in the face of deadly force (or a short list of other crimes). Seems unreasonable, considering that there is so much overlap between a simple beating, gross bodily harm, and beating somebody to death. The first can easily lead to the third, even absent intent.

I see no reason why I should have to wait and see if the two nice gentlemen are actually going to beat me to death (or wait until they draw a weapon such as a knife, by which point it may be too late) to use deadly force.

Then again, Texas at least seems to sidestep the issue by allowing one to draw a weapon under the regular use of force guidelines (not deadly force)...and at that point any assailant that doesn't run like a frightened deer (or at least stop in their tracks with their hands up) can reasonably be presumed to intend to use deadly force...weapon or no. You don't mess with somebody that has a gun unless you're quite willing to kill them.
 
You did the right thing... other than not calling the police from

wally world...

debating state laws after the fact is the job of lawyers and judges. In my opinion the two punks were way too lucky... probably 3 more steps and they would or should have been dead.

When two people (or even one person) is running at you with obvious no good intentions... there is no time to determine city, county, state, federal or international laws... the only law you needed to obey is the one to protect yourself and even more important, that of your daughter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top