OldMarksman
Staff
A number of years ago, we had a member whose sig line read something like "it's not about whether you can shoot (legally), but whether you have to shoot". I cannot remember the exact words, but I have never forgotten the sentiment.
From time to time, we read posts along the lines of "in my state, deadly force may be used when..." and "I know when deadly force can be used under the laws of my state".
It is important to know the use of force laws in one's jurisdiction, but nothing in them should ever be taken as a green light for using force.
Also, going back to that old sig line, we should add something about putting one's hand on, displaying, drawing, or pointing a weapon.
We may indeed have to do so, under some exigent circumstances, if we have no other choice.
We would be justified in doing this if (1) it has become immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious injury, and (2) we are not the initial aggressor (or we have stated our intention to withdraw from the confrontation). Our action must be reasonable, and the force we use must be proportional. Depending on jurisdiction , we may may not have a duty to retreat if retreat is safely possible, and our failure to retreat may or may not be taken into account in determining whether our action was reasonable.
We should understand that when we have done so, our justification--the account of what we did and why--will not be judged solely on the basis of what we say. It will depend on fragments of incomplete evidence gathered after the fact, and on testimony that may well be faulty. It will be judged by people who were not there. That is not a good place to be at all, but it may be a lot better than the alternative--or not.
One related point: the criminal justice system is not perfect. Even if one does everything right, attorneys tell us that there is perhaps a 10% chance of conviction.
Let's simplify things by first outlining when we do not want to go for the gun:
That last one includes avoidance and retreat, even if retreat is not legally required; deescalation and apology; "not stopping there"; going somewhere else; driving away; and so on.
Suppose, however, that we do have to reach for the gun for self preservation. What next?
One should engage an attorney ASAP. Realize that the clock for billable hours will start then.
One should never discuss the incident with any reporters or other people or post anything about it on social media, and one should limit discussion with law enforcement to saying what is necessary to identify ourself as a victim and to identify any witnesses and evidence before they disappear.
The aftermath will likely be very costly and traumatic.
We are assuming, of course, that the defender is successful in preserving his life and those of his loved ones. That is, after all, the real purpose of all of this.
One other thing: the subject of defending a third party is often raised. That is lawful in all US jurisdictions, but only if the third party would be lawfully justified in using deadly force to defend himself. In some states, a reasonable belief about that justification will suffice (but that does not mean "based on what I saw, she sure looked innocent"); in others, the third party must actually be justified in defending himself. That means that one should never enter into a situation without knowing what has previously transpired. And, of course, all of he requirements of lawful self defense apply.
Personally, I will not subject myself to physical, financial, and legal risk unless I know the third party.
I hope this proves helpful.
From time to time, we read posts along the lines of "in my state, deadly force may be used when..." and "I know when deadly force can be used under the laws of my state".
It is important to know the use of force laws in one's jurisdiction, but nothing in them should ever be taken as a green light for using force.
Also, going back to that old sig line, we should add something about putting one's hand on, displaying, drawing, or pointing a weapon.
We may indeed have to do so, under some exigent circumstances, if we have no other choice.
We would be justified in doing this if (1) it has become immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious injury, and (2) we are not the initial aggressor (or we have stated our intention to withdraw from the confrontation). Our action must be reasonable, and the force we use must be proportional. Depending on jurisdiction , we may may not have a duty to retreat if retreat is safely possible, and our failure to retreat may or may not be taken into account in determining whether our action was reasonable.
We should understand that when we have done so, our justification--the account of what we did and why--will not be judged solely on the basis of what we say. It will depend on fragments of incomplete evidence gathered after the fact, and on testimony that may well be faulty. It will be judged by people who were not there. That is not a good place to be at all, but it may be a lot better than the alternative--or not.
One related point: the criminal justice system is not perfect. Even if one does everything right, attorneys tell us that there is perhaps a 10% chance of conviction.
Let's simplify things by first outlining when we do not want to go for the gun:
- To defend moveable, tangible property (that's legal in one sate under very limited circumstances, but it is rarely worth doing)
- To prevent or terminate trespass
- To prevent someone from breaking i to a house or car unless it is occupied
- To detain a suspect (if he chooses to depart, you may not shoot him)
- To shoot a fleeing suspect
- Warning shots
- To shoot to wound
- When you have knowingly and willfully entered into a controversial encounter
- If you cannot use your weapon without putting others at unnecessary risk
- If there is any other alternative
That last one includes avoidance and retreat, even if retreat is not legally required; deescalation and apology; "not stopping there"; going somewhere else; driving away; and so on.
Suppose, however, that we do have to reach for the gun for self preservation. What next?
- Act decisively, without delay.
- Think "backstop", if possible.
- Be alert for his accomplice(s).
- Do not use any more force that is necessary to stop the attack.
- Be the first to call the police.
- Stay at the scene unless it is too dangerous to do so (flight is an indication of guilt).
- Get the gun out of our hands as quickly as possible before first responders arrive--drop it if necessary.
One should engage an attorney ASAP. Realize that the clock for billable hours will start then.
One should never discuss the incident with any reporters or other people or post anything about it on social media, and one should limit discussion with law enforcement to saying what is necessary to identify ourself as a victim and to identify any witnesses and evidence before they disappear.
The aftermath will likely be very costly and traumatic.
We are assuming, of course, that the defender is successful in preserving his life and those of his loved ones. That is, after all, the real purpose of all of this.
One other thing: the subject of defending a third party is often raised. That is lawful in all US jurisdictions, but only if the third party would be lawfully justified in using deadly force to defend himself. In some states, a reasonable belief about that justification will suffice (but that does not mean "based on what I saw, she sure looked innocent"); in others, the third party must actually be justified in defending himself. That means that one should never enter into a situation without knowing what has previously transpired. And, of course, all of he requirements of lawful self defense apply.
Personally, I will not subject myself to physical, financial, and legal risk unless I know the third party.
I hope this proves helpful.
