Some scenarios for use of deadly force

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OhioGuy

New member
I had a quick discussion with a few other CCW-ers this week...unsurprisingly there were disagreements. It focused on some hypothetical robbery scenarios. Let's assume you're stuck and cannot retreat, and...

1. Guy comes up to you, pulls a gun from his pants, and says "Give me your wallet or I'll kill you."

2. Same deal, but he only lifts his shirt and shows you the grip of his gun...but doesn't draw it.

3. Same deal, but he puts his hand under his shirt in what looks like a gun-gripping, getting-ready-to-draw move...but you never see a gun, just his hand disappearing under his shirt.

4. Same deal, but he only says "I have a gun...give me your wallet or I'll kill you."

Everyone (meaning a small group of non-lawyers) pretty much agreed that #1 justifies deadly force, but you're probably better off just complying because you can't out-draw his bullet (or go to some hypothetical scenario of attempting to distract him, so you have the opportunity to draw...which all sounded pretty fictitious to me)

Everyone agreed #4 would never pass muster as justifiable use of deadly force.

But opinions were split on the middle two.

Thoughts?
 
Think about it this way:

Would the triers of fact, based on the evidence provided to them,

  • believe that the actor, had reason to beleive, based on what he knew at the time, that the use of force, deasly or otherwise, had been immediately necessary to prevent death or injury, and
  • did the actor acually believe that?

In most jurisdictions, those conditions would be necessary and sufficient to justify the presentation of a weapon by the defender. Whether the usual use of the weapon would be justified (necessary) would depend on what then happened.

Let's consider #2 for a moment. How long would it take for the man to draw? The idea that one may not lawfully use a firearm until a perp has actually reached for a gun is a figment of imagination, probably stemming from screen fiction written for dramatic effect.

On 3 and 4, do you really have to see a gun, or see an action consistent with an attempt to draw a gun, to have a reasonable belief that the perp has the ability and the opportunity to seriously harm you, and that you are in jeopardy?
 
The cost of a successful use of lethal force is much higher than what you are carrying in your wallet.
Click to expand...
That would be pertinent to the issue only if preventing the loss of the wallet were the objective.

But it will never be.

Robbery is a crime against persons. It is not a property crime.
 
The cost of a successful use of lethal force is much higher than what you are carrying in your wallet.
Click to expand...

sure,.. and I wouldn't be using that kind of force to protect my wallet. Its not really about the wallet its about perceived jeopardy.
 
Lohman446 said:
The cost of a successful use of lethal force is much higher than what you are carrying in your wallet.
Click to expand...
^^^^^^
A class I attended in Phoenix had a gun rights lawyer speak. He noted a "good shoot" would likely cost you $7-10K. A questionable shoot might be up to $100K.

That doesn't include the cost of the mental anguish and PTSD you're going to experience after the fact.
 
"...#1 justifies deadly force..." If the bad guy has a gun in your face, give him your wallet. You ain't Bill Hickok and you ain't in Dodge. You're not Quick Draw McGraw either.
#2, 3 or 4 have no immediate threat to your life.
As mentioned, any use of force will require you to justify yourself and even if you are found justified, that will not stop the bad guy's next of kin suing you for wrongful death.
"...cost you $7-10K...up to $100K..." In Arizona. Be different in every State. $500 to a grand per hour for a criminal lawyer in Ohio.
 
A class I attended in Phoenix had a gun rights lawyer speak. He noted a "good shoot" would likely cost you $7-10K. A questionable shoot might be up to $100K.
Click to expand...
How would that layer assess the cost of death or cropping injury if deadly force is not used?

#2, 3 or 4 have no immediate threat to your life.
Click to expand...
Maybe, and maybe not. But the questions are, would the defender have a reasonable basis for believing otherwise, base on what or she knows at the time, and would he or she actually believe otherwise?
 
Try the various shots in a FOF with airsoft and then evaluate whether you think you should or not on a practical basis. Just something to add to the legal considerations.

We did #3 drills to see if we could stop the draw. I could at times, just saying.
 
How would that layer assess the cost of death or cropping injury if deadly force is not used?
Click to expand...

The issue he was pointing out was don’t pull a gun unless you are going to use it, and it’s going to cost you to do so. And yes you have to decide if you want to be judged by 12 or carried by 6 (or maimed somewhere in the middle.)
 
I don't think its about the particular scenario but rather the existence or absence of some very specific elements. Of course it goes without saying that laws and standards may vary from place to place.

some of those elements could be

ability to harm
opportunity to harm
existence of actual jeopardy*

*Jeopardy being ( life threatening)
 
I think it depends on the the entire situation in all four; but I wouldn't say "never" on number 4 since I know similar situations have been found justified in real life.

I can say that if you can get out of that situation by giving up your wallet, that's probably the best deal you are going to get in that situation. All the other options include a risk of serious injury or death and you'll have to be carrying something gold in that wallet before that isn't the cheaper option.
 
We did #3 drills to see if we could stop the draw. I could at times, just saying.
Click to expand...
.

I would like to know HOW you stopped the draw in FOF scenarios like #3 above? Simply putting a round in his chest will not necessarily stop his draw. We see dash cam (and other video) of handgun rounds taking 10,20,30 seconds OR LONGER to stop an assailant.

Thats one of the problems with simunition training...no one really acts like they have been really shot. Either they keep going forever or they stop fighting immediately upon being hit
 
Sometimes, you have get physical. That's HOW! Everything isn't always a move to the gun.

If you want to train with live ammo in a close contact situation, can we have your stuff? We did use Code Eagle, not sims.

I once even disarmed someone in another FOF and shot that person with their own gun! That was a sims Glock.

However, in another situation I was shot to pieces when I went for the gun.

That's why we practice. If you want to say that such are useless, then we have little to talk about.
 
What i asked was HOW? No need to get snippy. I teach (have for decades) intergrated use of force skills. Not many on this forum think of any solution other then gun-fu.

Again, i asked how...you answered. Thanks.
 
Well, the bold and HOW, seemed a touch snippy to me. But no problem.

Even an old FOG like me can take some training in other than gun-fu. I did recently take a course on Alpine cheeses - just being funny.
 
All four could be found justifiable, under some state laws. In general (BIG generalisation), if a reasonable person would believe they were in danger of death, and there are not lesser reasonable alternatives, the use of lethal force in self defense is permissible.
 
OhioGuy wrote:
Everyone agreed #4 would never pass muster as justifiable use of deadly force.
Click to expand...

What you're fishing for is an answer to the question, "When is it okay to use deadly force?". Unfortunately, you are not addressing the salient question, which is, "When do I have no alternative than to use deadly force?"

Looked at it in that way, the fact is that any pets relocated
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
I think it depends on the the entire situation in all four; but I wouldn't say "never" on number 4 since I know similar situations have been found justified in real life.

I can say that if you can get out of that situation by giving up your wallet, that's probably the best deal you are going to get in that situation. All the other options include a risk of serious injury or death and you'll have to be carrying something gold in that wallet before that isn't the cheaper option.
Click to expand...
It does depend, always, sure.

As to your second point, I would believe (but I'm not on my own jury) that if the guy has threatened to kill me and has indicated a means of doing so (a drawn gun, a brandished gun, even body language showing there's something hidden that will kill me) -- I would believe that I am already in imminent danger of death. After all, it's hardly unheard of for someone to comply with a criminal, hand over a wallet or watch or whatever, and then be shot anyway.

Anyone who would be willing to kill to steal, or even pretend to be to terrify someone, can't be trusted to have any regard for human life. If I had some way to know he'd just take the wallet and run, yeah, I'd give him the wallet and wait for him to use a stolen credit card and get arrested like low-brow thieves usually do. Even if I were fully justified and had a panel of lawyers standing with me, I'd give him the wallet if I knew that would end the situation. I have no desire to ever harm anyone.

But the very event of being robbed by someone willing to kill me to do so, would also lead me to believe I have a very good chance of being "carried by six" no matter what I give him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top