You may be, but are others on this forum as well informed. Following some of the advice , that seems to be its ok to shoot someone that throws a punch at you. Just make sure you tell the police you were scared for your life.I am well-acquainted with the legal system here, and exactly whom I will have to convince that the force I used was reasonable.
That's why I saidI, nor any other defender can know at the onset of an attack how severe it will be.
That would be up to the individual to decide.
I will also say this, manta49. I don't think anyone but you has suggested that a defender should "tell the police you were scared for your life even if that was not the case." (emphasis mine)manta49 said:. . . . I am surprised that the advice on the forum seems to be towards its OK to shoot if someone takes a swing at you . Then tell the police you were scared for your life. Even if that was not the case.
He did NOT say "even if that is not the case." That is a clause that you added to the discussion later.KyJim said:The conviction underscores the need to consult with counsel before saying anything except "I was scared for my life and shot in self-defense."
Maybe its just the way its coming across to me I will go trough some of the posts again. We in the ( UK ) thankfully have the right to remain silent as well.He did NOT say "even if that is not the case." That is a clause that you added to the discussion later.
Nobody has advocated lying to the police about the circumstances. Nobody has advocated telling the police that he feared for his life when that was not the case. What has been advocated is a simple statement that one feared for his life, then shutting up until legal counsel arrived. We (Americans) have a right to remain silent, and sometimes it's wise to exercise that
Maybe its just the way its coming across to me I will go trough some of the posts again. We in the ( UK ) thankfully have the right to remain silent as well.
If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack.
And perhaps you should take the time to quote the statement in its full context.manta49 said:Thanks interesting read. I think some others should take the time to read it.
If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack.
The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.
I Don't see that the full context bellow makes much difference to what I was saying and replying to. Unless the person is known to you to be a boxer for example. If you are out and someone throws a punch at you ,its unlikely that you will know if he is a boxer or not. If you find out later that is the case then you could use that as a defence. Some of the posts seemed to me to be saying that they think to shoot someone would be an appropriate response because they punched them for example. As I said its maybe just me.And perhaps you should take the time to quote the statement in its full context
Call me a coward, then. I will gladly admit that I have never been skilled at fisticuffs.
While I practice conflict avoidance, if circumstances result in a miscreant intending to thrash me with fists and feet, they will meet my pistol.
To me that implies that as you caint know how far the attack will go it would be OK to shoot the person. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong.When the first punch is thrown, how is the defender supposed to know whether it's going to be "just a few punches," or if he's about to be beaten to death. My crystal ball never seems to work quite right
( The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. ) ( One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack) . If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.
But Green and Banks had had some prior disagreement and "didn't see eye-to-eye," Gordon said, though he said he didn't know why.
Has news about what is being called in the U.S. the "knockout game" reached the shores of Ireland? The entire premise of this little "game" is for an assailant (because that's what the "players" are, in fact) to sneak up on an unsuspecting victim and attempt to knock the victim out with one punch.manta49 said:You tell me , if someone takes a swing for you, is it OK to shoot him, would that be seen as resaonable force. ?
No that has not reached N Ireland yet that I am aware of. But there have being cases of one people being killed with one punch. But they dinint see the punch coming, and in the cases in America if the idea is sneking up on someone and punching them, again they are unlikely to see it coming. In your case being a senior citizen could be seen as a defence as you would have difficulty defending yourself. But i am sure that wouldn't be the case for all people.Has news about what is being called in the U.S. the "knockout game" reached the shores of Ireland? The entire premise of this little "game" is for an assailant (because that's what the "players" are, in fact) to sneak up on an unsuspecting victim and attempt to knock the victim out with one punch.
Some of the victims have died.
There have been many instances of fist fights that resulted in one of the combatants having been killed by a blow.
Then you seem to overlook the fact that, in general, American law does not limit the use of deadly force to those situations in which you fear death. I haven't read the laws of all fifty states, but I have read a number of them. The words chosen may vary ("deadly" vs. "lethal" force, or "serious" vs. "grievous" bodily harm), but the common element is that a victim is legally allowed to employ deadly/lethal force in self defense if he fears death or grievous bodily harm.
As I posted previously, I am a senior citizen. I was never a "hunk," and I have never studied martial arts or boxing. If someone attacks me physically, I AM going to be in fear for my life,
I am not sure just saying or thinking that you feared death or grievous harm would be enough in all cases from what I can read.but the common element is that a victim is legally allowed to employ deadly/lethal force in self defense if he fears death or grievous bodily harm.
In my state, and some others, if a person subjectively believes in the need for deadly force but that belief is not reasonable, he or she may be convicted of an offense less than murder -- manslaughter or reckless homicide. The use of force is often not a black and white question. There are many shades of gray and, as we have discussed here before, results may differ based on factors other than the law and the facts such as community attitude.
Always remember:
1.The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2.Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3.Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain
The doctrine is known as imperfect self-defense. The Zimmerman case (and we are not going there) was an example of this.In my state, and some others, if a person subjectively believes in the need for deadly force but that belief is not reasonable, he or she may be convicted of an offense less than murder -- manslaughter or reckless homicide.
You seem to have a mental image of brawling Guinness drinking Northern Irish. Its funny the stereotypes people have, for one I doint like Guinness and few of my friends do. I doint think people in America go around shooting people for throwing a punch. I asked the question would people see someone throwing a punch at them as justification for shooting them, there is a difference. Maybe you already knew what my reply was going to be , as you seem to know what I am thinking. PS Who is John L Sullivan.Manta...since you seem to have a mental image of trigger happy, cowardly Americans going to the gun at the first sign of a "simple" black eye, allow me to give you my mental image of your context...
A couple good, honest boys down a few draughts of Guiness and get in an argument about a lass or a soccer team. Fists are raised in bare chested John L. Sullivan manner while the rest of the pub cheers...after a few blows are exchanged, they buy each other more Guiness and laugh about the whole thing.
In such cases, juries are supposed to be instructed to view the circumstances as if they were the defendant. It's called the "reasonable man" test, and it calls on the jury to answer the question: What would a hypothetical reasonable man have done if he were in the same situation?Manta49 said:I am not sure just saying or thinking that you feared death or grievous harm would be enough in all cases from what I can read.
I think most people fear injury from an assault. But I don't fear it enough to escalate what could be a few punches thrown with no real injuries to a lethal encounter that you could end up in jail. Believe me living here for 50 years I have seen more than enough of real life.In my view, if you DON'T fear death or serious injury from a physical assault, you're either not sane or you're on drugs. Your view is apparently either more benign, or based on having seen a lot less of real life than I have seen.
You say that a jury can be asked to put themselves in your situation and decide if what a person did was reasonable. That's a bit of a lottery that you would be better trying to avoid. What one person would see as reasonable others wouldn't. I would take a person having a swing at me every time before I would put myself in that situation. I think the advice below makes sense, point 2 says it all.Every day of the year marks the anniversary of someone’s death as a result of conflict in and about Northern Ireland.1
3,720 people were killed as a result of the conflict.2
Approximately 47,541 people were injured.3
There were 36,923 shootings.4
16,209 bombings were conducted
Always remember:
1.The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2.Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3.Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain
This is getting far too circular. The real point is that there is no automatic answer. It all depends on the exact circumstances.manta49 said:I think most people fear injury from an assault. But I don't fear it enough to escalate what could be a few punches thrown with no real injuries to a lethal encounter that you could end up in jail. Believe me living here for 50 years I have seen more than enough of real life....