When to use deadly force for defense

[OldMarksman]

The use of force by an individual is ALWAYS preventable by that particular individual.

That's really not very meaningful at all here.

The need for the defender to use deadly force could have been prevented by the attacker.

That's how I would interpret the police officer's comment.

Extreme pacifism will always prevent the use of lethal force by the pacifist. It might not prevent injury to its practitioner but it prevents the use of force by that individual.

And?

Chances are a lot of situations are preventable. The concern, at least from a legal stand point, is justification.

If the use of force, deadly or otherwise, is not immediately necessary, is it not justified.

 

[Lohman446]

If the use of force, deadly or otherwise, is not immediately necessary, is it not justified.

One of the discussions points that are sometimes had involves an early tactical error. For instance we ignore various red flags and walk into a situation where we should not have such as a gas station that had various red flags that it may be the target of an armed robbery. Such a situation may present justification for and immediate necessity of the use of lethal force to defend one's self from violent attack. Still the situation that required such force was preventable should we have "simply" not ignored those red flags.

I guess my point is preventable and justified are not mutually exclusive.

 

[T. O'Heir]

Is the use of deadly force not covered on the assorted CCW courses?
In any case, YouTube is not the place to get your training.
"...about 45% of the time..." Means that 55% of the time you get shot or killed.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

45% SUCCESS rate and that realistically only equalled a DRAW. A draw in a weapon based fight is a net loss. Me AND my attacker get to ride to the hospital ER/trama care center together. Not a good outcome.

Like I said, not plan A. However, an early, unexpected, and aggressive attack can save the day and is occasionally necessary. I would not categorically rule out drawing on a drawn gun; because that is still a better option than drawing on one already firing at you.

To use this video as an example, all the shootee had to do was start pulling the trigger instead of putting it back in his waistband. They waited for a better opportunity to draw; and luckily they got one. However, sometimes you wait and the chances just get worse and worse. What if the shootee kept his pistol out and ordered them to prone out facing away from him? Shoot then? Prone out and hope it gets better?

Discussions like this are great because we can think about things like this now. And I think one thing worth thinking about is what your personal lines in the sand are. You and your attacker getting shot isn’t a great outcome; but it still beats a loved one being shot or getting executed in the back of a freezer.

"...about 45% of the time..." Means that 55% of the time you get shot or killed.

Actually, way more than 55% of the time, since even when you get the first hit, it is rarely fast enough to stop the other person from shooting you as well.

 

[Lohman446]

What if the shootee kept his pistol out and ordered them to prone out facing away from him? Shoot then? Prone out and hope it gets better?

If you believe continued compliance or non-action is going to result in severe injury or death and safe retreat is not possible what choice do you have but to attempt action? Its like a morbid free play at the casino

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That’s the thing though. People are pretty good at rationalizing non-action in life or death circumstances. I doubt anyone is thinking “Well, he’s gonna kill us for sure. Better keep complying.” I imagine they are thinking “It is going to be all right.” or “Wait for a better chance to come along.” They’ll think it right up to the point all the chances are gone and it isn’t going to be all right.

So how dk we train ourselves to recognize those threats and overcome that instinctive urge to nit act and hope things get better?

 

[Lohman446]

For me I have clear lines where that is simply not going to happen. Prone on the ground at the hands of a non-law enforcement officer... nope. I may end up severely wounded or dead on the ground but nope

 

[Pep in CA]

The video is presented as a lesson for defenders, as is the mission of the Active Self Protection channel and organization. Yes, it would be better to have more context to explain what caused the altercation in the first place and there are some things we don't see -- such as the actions of the clerks.

However, it is also a lesson for perps. One should never brandish a weapon for intimidation purposes. Never. That action by the perp turned a verbal argument into a gunfight. For that reason, I see the clerk's actions justified (in the given context). It remains to be seen however, if the local DA or a jury agrees.

 

[briandg]

it's no surprise that there is so much disagreement here. People all have different psychological makeup. Twenty years ago I was not the same guy I am now. I am much cooler headed. Back then, I am almost certain that I would have heart shot the guy when he lowered his gun, the guy would have never had the chance to use his mace. Boy, that would have been a bad idea, the current version of myself thinks.

Some people by nature are terribly conservative and slow to act on serious matters, some people even have a psychiatric disorder that prevents them from making any decisions at all, a total avoidance of committing to a decision. Some people just have the tendency to "let's not be hasty".

Others are all action, there won't be a decision left alive at the end of the day. Move, move, move, fly by the seat, move on to the next question, don't have time to use a turn signal, thank you. The hurried, reckless type have far too much confidence and if a person fits that description, there is a lot of introspection called for.

Call it the "cowboy" if you want. The cowboy and the weenie are both wrong. Many people find themselves in situations that call for quick decisions, the weenie may lose his entire fortune because of a week's dithering over a stock. The cowboy may lose his entire life because he hasn't given due consideration, and jumped on what was the obvious solution (as it was presented to him).

Calling in a plumber for an estimate, the first one is going to do everything possible to seal the deal. Lots of people go off half cocked, and don't ever get competing bids.

 

[briandg]

For me I have clear lines where that is simply not going to happen.

Nothing personal here, but if the lines are too clear, they become too inflexible. If your thinking becomes too rigid, you take the risk of not being able to think clearly when a situation is just a bit off from the predetermined action.

If you knew that police were on the way, could hear the sirens, would that change things? If you were alone, or with your children, how would that change your response? are there any reasons that you can think of that you wouldn't decide to lie down with your hands behind your back, or is that a solid, simple rule that won't ever be broken? maybe there are things that would change it, don't lock yourself into a possibly unwise decision because of rigid thinking.

It may have been 100 years ago that my aunts and an uncle were playing soldier. he had stolen my grandfather's farm gun, probably a rimfire. He decided to execute his prisoners and shot my aunt in the head.

In that case, I agree, laying down with her hands behind her head was an unqualified mistake.

As far as I know, she still had the bullet in her head when she died a few years ago. she was a little weird. I suppose my uncle had to have skin grafts on his hind end.

 

[FireForged]

I think that a person can have tenets of personal safety and not be "inflexible" or too "rigid" in their thinking. Its all part of coming to terms with what you are willing to do to protect yourself and its probably a good idea that those things get worked out well ahead of the attack that you hope never comes.

In regards to violent criminals

I agree with Lohman.. there are certain things that I already know I am not willing to do. I am not going to be transported by criminals, disarmed by them, isolated or proned out on the floor. I will fight rather than submit to any of those things and I accept that I may lose the fight. If I lose, I will lose on my terms and not sit idly by while some criminal decides with impunity what they are going to do with me. In my mind there are no absolutes in regards to these sort of responses, there is only a spirit of the rule where final actions are generally based on the nuances of the moment.

 

[Lohman446]

There may be things that will change it but I cannot fathom what they are. My list is relatively short: I won’t stand and watch you harm my children (my wife has demanded this not apply to her as one of us needs to survive). I will not, unarmed, get in a car by the threat of force, I will not prone out (I will sit). Effectively I will allow a lot but I’m not willing to be left with only begging or hoping someone saves me. Might I lose? Because I am not responding immediately to force (the guy waiving his gun around for instance I let do his thing) immediately I may be at such a disadvantage it’s inevitable. I have no idea how I respond to getting shot but if it’s like taking a hit in a fighting sport I may still get a few shots off - I can be stubborn. I’m comfortable with my mortality. Because I figure certain things are near death sentences anyways, or worse than death, I’m willing to accept the long odds and take the chance

The funny thing. I’m probably one of the last to actually employ force short of those lines. The use of force may be justified and unavoidable at times but I still see it as a tremendously negative act to be avoided at nearly all costs

Edit: it sounds macho and maybe it’s the fact that I am not staring at a barrel but the saying goes “I’d rather die standing than live on my knees”. I don’t take it that far but there are limits

 

[OldMarksman]

If you knew that police were on the way, could hear the sirens, would that change things?

No. Why would it?

The defenders had seconds in which to act. How could knowledge of arriving officers have helped at all?

And by the way, does anyone believe that police officers rushing to the scene o a crime in progress would be expected to advertise that fact with sirens?

 

[OhioGuy]

Wow. To me this raises a lot of other questions.

- What if they hadn't had any pepper spray? The "imminence" is gone (gun back in pants) but he just threatened to kill me and he's still yelling, coming closer and any "reasonable person" sure as hell ought to still see him as a lethal threat

- What does position have to do with the outcome, meaning, the clerks are positioned behind a counter such that they're (probably) trapped and can't escape or retreat

- What if, after all this went down, the gun in his hand was a replica Glock squirt gun and he was just intimidating? Or so high he didn't know the difference? But the clerks didn't know that until after the investigation?

- What if this happened on the open street...no pepper spray...the person being threatened has the space to run away, but (like me) has knee and back problems and doesn't believe he can outrun the gun-toter if it becomes a chase? And certainly can't outrun a bullet?

All the laws about deadly force seem written from the perspective of someone who has perfect knowledge of all details and infinite time to think and deliberate -- not someone who's just realized he's about to die, sees something vaguely gun-shaped in the hands of someone acting threateningly, never wanted to hurt anyone but wants to get home to their kids again.

And -- if "imminence" only means "other guy's gun is drawn," then it's probably too late. Drawing mine will almost surely get me shot.

 

[Sharkbite]

The "imminence" is gone (gun back in pants)

I disagree. Most folks can draw and fire in around 1.5-2.0 SECONDS. That qualifies as immediate to me. Couple that with the fact that barring a CNS hit, a handgun round will take some time to disable the opponent.... a gun in the waistband is just as immediate as one in the hand.

What if, after all this went down, the gun in his hand was a replica Glock squirt gun and he was just intimidating

. Thats NOT relevant the the SD shoot. If the threat appears to be real...then it is.

 

[Lohman446]

The level of threat is defined by the recently brandished gun. If the imminence of the threat does not exist the use of pepper spray was unjustified

 

[OldMarksman]

All the laws about deadly force seem written from the perspective of someone who has perfect knowledge of all details and infinite time to think and deliberate -- not someone who's just realized he's about to die, sees something vaguely gun-shaped in the hands of someone acting threateningly, never wanted to hurt anyone but wants to get home to their kids again.

That may be your subjective impression, but it is not the way the law is supposed to work. Refer to Brown v. United States, 256 US 335 (10921). Justice Holmes said

“Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, ... it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider ..."​

The case had to do with the duty to retreat (specifically, about the ability of the defendant to have ascertained, under the circumstances, whether retreat had been safely possible under the circumstances), but the principle certainly applies more broadly.

 

[briandg]

The level of threat is defined by the recently brandished gun. If the imminence of the threat does not exist the use of pepper spray was unjustified

I'm not sure that I agree on any basis, whether it has been written into law or just as defined by 'reasonable man'. This is still a pretty lousy example of justification of use of force.

If an assailant at some point goes beyond the threshold that justifies use of force and then stands down, it's pretty simple, the justification for use of force is changed. On a case-by-case basis, a gun put back in a pocket is de-escalation, and until he drew it again defensive use of lethal force had been totally redefined. So, unless the situation is clearly codified into law, the question and every complication is thrown into the hands of the court system.

There obviously is no defining legal code that fits this.

He put the gun down, but at no point that I saw did he drop his aggression. The level of threat was altered a bit, but not eliminated, was it? The guy was still in possession of the gun and still exhibiting the same level of aggression.

A person who believes that an armed and aggressive assailant intends to cause him great bodily harm doesn't have to have a gun in his face to be absolutely certain that he is in imminent danger of harm. Mace is an acceptable way of dealing with a situation exactly like that.

From what I, a reasonable person saw, very little had changed. An armed man was acting unpredictably and aggressively. He took reasonable and sensible measures to prevent a murder.

The police and prosecutors believe so.

 

[Lohman446]

Brian I think you articulated what I meant

The aggressor clearly has the ability to cause serious harm or death - he was in possession of a firearm

The threat was ongoing. The only question is if the threat was imminent. Given the ranged weapon I would say it was. Putting the gun in a readily accessible position is not enough “standing down” to end the threat

 

[briandg]

A police officer would agree, I'm sure. the guy sticking the gun back in the pocket after being ordered to disarm himself doesn't change much. Still clearly a great risk. Hiding it in the pocket does not provide justification to shoot, but it also fails to eliminate all concern. The cop may hold his gun on the bad guy while his partner tazes him and takes his gun.