Why punish somebody for refusing to be a victim?

[Doyle]

When someone is killed or injured, whether with a weapon or not, there has either been an accident or a crime.

There is a 3rd option - legitimate use of force which is neither accident nor crime.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Doyle:

There is a 3rd option - legitimate use of force which is neither accident nor crime.

But it cannot be "legitimate" unless there has been a crime, such as assault or burglary, or an act of or attempt to commit battery, burglary, robbery, murder, arson, etc., and that use of force was immediately necessary to defend against said crime.

 

[Frank Ettin]

When someone is killed or injured, whether with a weapon or not, there has either been an accident or a crime.

There is a 3rd option - legitimate use of force which is neither accident nor crime.

And let me offer a different perspective.

1. An intentional threat or use of force by one person against another is always, on its face, a crime of one sort or another.
   
   
2. But various circumstances can relieve the actor (the person threatening or using that force) from criminal liability. For example --
   
   
   • Consent (actual or implied): The surgeon who operates on you generally has your actual consent to cut into your flesh. The EMT who performs an emergency tracheotomy on an unconscious person will generally be considered to have that person's implied consent because of the exigent circumstances.
     
     
   • Necessity: The person who has pushed someone out of the way of a speeding car will not be criminally liable for the unconsented to touching (a "battery"). It was a act necessary to save someone in imminent danger from injury or death.
     
     
   • Privilege: The parent who physically restrains and carries off his young child in mid-tantrum in order to protect the well being of the child and the peace and well being of others is generally recognized under that laws as having certain rights to physically control his child.
     
     
   • Self defense: Discussed at length in post 17.
   
   
3. What if it turns out that the use of force was not intentional? The fact that a use of force was not intentional might reduce or relieve the actor from some measure of criminal or civil liability, again depending on circumstances.
   
   
   • A reckless act (sometimes referred to as "willful, wanton and reckless" or gross negligence) which results in the injury or death of another will often subject the actor to criminal liability. However, the penalties are usually less than for an intentional act of violence, and the actor can be held civilly liable to compensate the victim for the injuries. Recklessness is generally defined as acting in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others.
     
     
   • A negligent act which results in the injury or death of another will not subject the actor to criminal liability, but the actor can be held civilly liable to compensate the victim for the injuries. A decent, working, short-hand definition of negligence would be: "failure to use the level of care a reasonable and prudent person would under like circumstances, which failure results in damage or injury to another."
     
     
   • An accident which results in the injury or death of another will not subject the actor to criminal or civil liability. An accident can be defined for these purposes generally as:

     1. An unintended, unforeseen, and undesirable event, especially one that causes harm, injury, damage, or loss.
     2. An unintended and unexpected event, especially one that is undesirable or harmful, that does not occur in the usual course of events under the circumstances in which it occurred, or that would not be reasonably anticipated.

   
   
4. Sometimes the circumstances relieving the actor of criminal liability will be readily apparent. Sometimes they will not be and will become apparent only upon extensive or involved investigation. Sometimes whether those circumstances existed will need to be decided by judicial proceedings.

 

[OldMarksman]

I have edited Post #20 to reflect Post #25 and address the matter of non-criminal negligence.

 

[Kosh75287]

Posted by Kosh75287:
Quote:
I guess it'll also depend on the ethnicity of the poor misunderstood alleged felon, the litigious propensities of his family, and the proximity of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or some other similar race-hustler.
That's pure speculation.

The ethnicity is known.

The "litigious propensities of his family" will not influence criminal proceedings.

Yes, it IS speculation, hence the verb "guess", in my assertion. PURE speculation? I wonder. I think recent news events have made clear that the prevailing attitude of proximal masses and the agitation level of the bereaved CAN factor into a decision to prosecute or even bring a case to the grand jury. Can anyone spell Baltimore?

The ethnicity was UNCLEAR to ME, hence the qualification.

The "litigious propensities of his family" will not influence criminal proceedings.

Let's hope not. Because none of the city's law enforcement agencies were involved, I might even say "PROBABLY not". But if you think every indictment occurs solely on the basis of evidence, and is utterly independent of the victim's family pressuring for said indictment in the form of threatened tort litigation absent an indictment (specifically, where city or state agencies appear culpable), I think you're living in a fantasy land. Now, in THIS case, it's difficult to see how the bereaved could exert a lot of pressure. But then, the race hustlers haven't chimed in yet (let's hope not EVER).

The defender MAY get no-billed, and I HOPE that he does. But that doesn't end the litigation. Wrongful death litigation could remain in the offing. If the whole thing goes completely south for the defender and he is found culpable "as a matter of law", he could lose everything. Might not constitute "criminal proceedings", but don't try and sell me on the point that he wouldn't be punished from further litigation.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If the whole thing goes completely south for the defender and he is found culpable "as a matter of law", he could lose everything. Might not constitute "criminal proceedings", but don't try and sell me on the point that he wouldn't be punished from further litigation.

One of the reasons we have a legal system is to provide a mechanism, through a formal process, to decide, if there is disagreement on the point, whether someone who has intentionally hurt or killed another person is criminally or civilly liable for the damage caused by his act of violence. And that is why there are layered activities, including an investigation of the incident, review (with regard to the question of possible criminal liability) by prosecutor and sometimes a grand jury, possibly trial, and possibly appellate review.

You obviously have a jaundiced view of the process, but all societies have some mechanism, or mechanisms, to deal with acts of violence by one person causing injury or death to another. Some, more primitive societies have effectively institutionalized feuding or the seeking of revenge by the family of the person harmed. Some societies require the payment of "blood money" by the actor -- often regardless of fault.

In any case, our process is what it is. You're welcome to suggest an alternative process and to lobby your state legislature for the installation of such an alternative. But unless/until things change, it can be useful to understand how things work now.

 

[jmr40]

Lots of shootings are claimed to be self defense. Sometimes after all the facts are considered they are not what they appear. After several high profile shootings by LE and private citizens in many places over the last decade I can certainly see why a DA would err on the side of being sure of the facts.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Lots of shootings are claimed to be self defense. Sometimes after all the facts are considered they are not what they appear. ....

And that is the bottom line. In fact one is not punished for refusing to be a victim. However, it must first be established that's what happened.

 

[Photon Guy]

This is in response to post # 16 made by Frank Ettin. His post is very long so I am not going to quote it all. I will quote parts but quoting the whole thing would take up too much space.

The important thing to remember at the outset of any discussion of the use of force in self defense is that our society has, for hundreds of years, frowned on threatening another human or intentionally hurting or killing another human. Threatening someone or intentionally hurting or killing him is prima facie (on its face) a crime everywhere.

And I agree that intentionally hurting or killing another innocent human should be frowned upon and should be illegal which it is but using force to stop a criminal scum whose intent on harming yourself or somebody else shouldn't be frowned upon or made illegal, it should be smiled upon. And you use the word human, Im not sure if human is the proper word to use when describing criminal scum.

1. Our society takes a dim view of threatening or using force against and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human. In every State the threat or use of force and/or intentionally hurting or killing another human is prima facie (on its face) a crime of one sort or another.

a. However, for hundreds of years our law has recognized that there are some circumstances in which such an intentional act of violence against another human might be legally justified.

b. Exactly what would be necessary to establish that violence against someone else was justified will depend on (1) the applicable law where the event takes place; and (2) exactly what happened and how it happened, which will have to be judged on the basis of evidence gathered after the fact.

c. Someone who initiated a conflict will almost never be able to legally justify an act of violence against another.

Yes and self defense or the defense of another I think would be such a circumstance to allow the use of force, anywhere in the country. I had the impression that in the USA you're allowed to defend yourself. Certainly if you initiate the conflict physically you wouldn't be able to justify any use of force but if somebody attacks you than you should be allowed to fight back.

A threat of force or the use of force may be legally excused or justified only for the purposes of stopping the threat. Once the threat has ended, the continued threat or use of force can no longer be excused or justified and may result in criminal (and civil) liability.

That's exactly what I said a few posts back, you can't continue to attack somebody if they're no longer a threat, if they're down and no longer coming at you, but up to that point you shouldn't get in trouble for using what force is necessary to stop them.

In the case of a stranger forcibly breaking into your home, your justification for the use of lethal force would probably be obvious. The laws of most States provide some useful protections for someone attacked in his home, which protections make it easier and a more certain matter for your acts to be found justified.

So how about if somebody tries to rob a store that you own, as it was in the case I presented in the first post? If you own a store I would think it could at least be seen as equivalent to your home in terms of defending it against criminals, and I would think the castle doctrine would apply to it too.

Now, as to not saying anything to police, if you're going to claim self defense that might not be the best idea.

But Don't Say Too Much.

Call 911. Be the first to report the incident and do so immediately. If you don't report it, or if there's a long delay, you will appear to have a guilty conscience.

Then, having taken LFI-I with Massad Ayoob, spending time with him and helping with a class of his in Sierra Vista, AZ not too long ago, I'll go along with his recommendation for when the police arrive.
While one has a right to remain silent, clamming up is what the bad guys do. Following a self defense incident, you'll want to act like one of the good guys. You also won't want the investigating officers to miss any evidence or possible witnesses. What if the responding officers miss your assailant's knife that you saw fall down the storm drain? What if they don't know about the guy you saw pick up your assailant's gun and walk off with it?

At the same time, you don't want to say too much. You will most likely be rattled. You will also most likely be suffering from various well known stress induced distortions of perception.

So Massad Ayoob recommends:

Saying something like, "That person (or those people) attacked me." You are thus immediately identifying yourself as the victim. It also helps get the investigation off on the right track.

Saying something like, "I will sign a complaint." You are thus immediately identifying the other guys(s) as the criminal(s).

Pointing out possible evidence, especially evidence that may not be immediate apparent. You don't want any such evidence to be missed.

Pointing out possible witnesses before they vanish.

Then saying something like, "I'm not going to say anything more right now. You'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours, after I've talked with my lawyer."

I attended a concealed carry convention which had workshops and classes. One of the classes I went to talked about what to do if you have to shoot somebody in self defense. The first thing you want to do is call 911 and report it. Then when the police arrive tell them you need medical attention. Even if you're not physically hurt its a good idea to get medical attention due to the psychological trauma of being in a gunfight. The police will have to call in an ambulance. In the ambulance truck you call your lawyer. That was what I was told in a class. As for your involvement with Massad Ayoob I've read some of his literature and I really like what he writes and I would like to take a class of his sometime. I will consider the advice that you said he gave.

 

[Photon Guy]

"While he's still a threat"? What does that mean?

It means exactly that, while he's still a threat. If he's up and still coming at you than he is a threat. If he's down and no longer coming at you than he is no longer a threat. Basically if he's still attacking, or trying to attack you, than he is still a threat.

One may lawfully use force if it is necessary. Your words were "beat up the bad guy". Sound like punishment, which is not lawful.

"Gotten into trouble"? Do you mean convicted of a crime?

I will give you an example of a case that really did happen in NJ which isn't all that friendly about self defense, and this was a case that didn't involve any guns but it did involve the use of force, specifically bare hands. There was this student of the martial arts who was driving home from class. He accidentally cut off a pickup truck. The pickup truck started following him. When he was a couple of blocks away from his house he decided he didn't want the driver of the pickup truck knowing where he lived so he pulled over and got out of his car. The pickup truck pulled up behind him, a big guy got out and came running at him. He sidestepped his attacker hit him with a ridge hand in the mouth, an open handed strike used in the martial arts, and knocked some of his teeth out and then kneed him in the stomach dropping him to the ground. As his assailant was no longer a threat at that point he ceased his attack.

The martial arts student thought he was in the right but what became of it was this, he had to make two court appearances. He was charged criminally and civilly and he had to pay for the guy's teeth. In his second court appearance he had a lawyer with him so he was able to avoid any prison time but he still ended up with a felony record. So that is an example of somebody who used self defense to beat up a bad guy but he did not keep up his attack after the bad guy was no longer a threat, and he got in trouble as I explained above for doing it.

 

[kilimanjaro]

He should of stayed in his truck and found a cop. Sounds more like mutual combat to me.

 

[JohnKSa]

And I agree that intentionally hurting or killing another innocent human should be frowned upon and should be illegal which it is but using force to stop a criminal scum whose intent on harming yourself or somebody else shouldn't be frowned upon or made illegal, it should be smiled upon.

The person who shoots someone doesn't get to make the determination as to whether the person they shoot is "innocent" or "criminal scum". Think how screwed up things would be if that WERE how things worked.

"Oh yeah, I shot and killed Bob, but you don't need to worry about it--he wasn't innocent, he was criminal scum. You can take my word for it."​

I hope it's blatantly obvious to everyone why it's necessary to have someone other than the shooter review the facts to verify that the shooting was justified.

I had the impression that in the USA you're allowed to defend yourself.

The shooter doesn't get to make the determination as to whether or not their killing someone is self defense or not. Same reason why a person doesn't get to rule on whether or not a person they shot was innocent or criminal scum.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...but using force to stop a criminal scum whose intent on harming yourself or somebody else shouldn't be frowned upon or made illegal, it should be smiled upon....

First, what you believe should be true is irrelevant. What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.

Second, whether your use of force was justified as necessary to prevent harm to you or another innocent still needs to be determined before you can be let off the hook.

...Yes and self defense or the defense of another I think would be such a circumstance to allow the use of force, anywhere in the country. I had the impression that in the USA you're allowed to defend yourself. Certainly if you initiate the conflict physically you wouldn't be able to justify any use of force but if somebody attacks you than you should be allowed to fight back....

Again, I've have described what is and how the law actually works. You have garbled it.

You are allowed to defend yourself. But whether you in fact did defend yourself and thus were justified in using force against another human is something that is decided after the fact, by others, based on the evidence.

....One of the classes I went to talked about what to do if you have to shoot somebody in self defense. The first thing you want to do is call 911 and report it. Then when the police arrive tell them you need medical attention. Even if you're not physically hurt its a good idea to get medical attention due to the psychological trauma of being in a gunfight. The police will have to call in an ambulance. In the ambulance truck you call your lawyer....

That is lousy advice. Don't ask for medical attention unless you reasonably believe that you need medical attention.

It's true that many people mistakenly give that advice, but it can ruin your credibility. And you very much need to be credible if you are claiming self defense.

I commented on that advice in 2009 in this post:

...but lying will always be used against you. Once you are caught in a lie, you are a liar. You may think you won't get caught, and maybe you won't. But that's a different question. And liars frequently get found out.

In addition, you have now called for an ambulance you really don't need. Depending on the availability of emergency medical services in your community, you have taken an ambulance out of service and perhaps delayed response to someone who really is gravely sick or injured and really needs one.

You're also now using space and resources in an ER -- space and resources you really don't need. You may be thereby delaying care to someone who really is sick or injured.

And you're going to file an insurance claim for emergency medical services which you knew you really didn't need. That's insurance fraud and grand larceny.

So when all that is discovered, you now become a callous, lying monster wasting limited emergency medical resources so you can duck talking with police (when you merely have to invoke your right to remain silent) and delaying the availability of those services for people who may really need them. You also expect your medical insurance to pay for your little ruse, even though they have no responsibility to pay for unnecessary service used for the purpose of temporarily evading police questioning; and thus you are stealing from your medical insurance.

But nonetheless you will expect the police, the DA, the grand jury and probably a trial jury to believe your claim that you were an innocent victim forced by the criminal act of another to use violence as a last resort to save your life?....

It is important to understand the nature of a claim of self defense. If you are claiming that you resorted to violence out of the necessity of having to defend yourself or someone else, you will be effectively admitting the basic elements of a crime. Your defense will be based on your reasonable belief that you had no choice but to use force. It's therefore crucial that you be seen as honest and forthright.

Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:

...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....

...As for your involvement with Massad Ayoob I've read some of his literature and I really like what he writes and I would like to take a class of his sometime....

I took Mas' LFI-1 class some time ago. It's now called MAG-40, and if you can take only one major class, that would be an excellent choice. Several years ago I was one of his assistant instructors for a MAG-40 class in Sierra Vista, Arizona.

Mas quoted me his column in the August, 2010, issue of Combat Handguns on the inadvisability of falsely requesting medical attention, writing (pg 9):

...This whole 'strategy' was effectively shot down in flames by Frank Ettin, a retired attorney with more than 30 years or experience in legal liability reduction issues. Bear in mind that this is a man who knows his guns: Frank has extensive experience in firearms training, handgun competition in several formats, and concealed carry. He has deeply studied the law and the caselaw as it relates to defensive use of firearms and deadly force....

I will give you an example of a case that really did happen in NJ which isn't all that friendly about self defense, ...

The martial arts student thought he was in the right but what became of it was this, he had to make two court appearances. He was charged criminally and civilly and he had to pay for the guy's teeth. In his second court appearance he had a lawyer with him so he was able to avoid any prison time but he still ended up with a felony record. ...

Well, we really can't draw any conclusions from that anecdote. We certainly don't have all the facts. Clearly there was a lot more to the story than you related. And also, clearly, given the outcome the student was unable to make a convincing claim of justification.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Photon Guy:

And I agree that intentionally hurting or killing another innocent human should be frowned upon and should be illegal which it is ....

Good!!!

....but using force to stop a criminal scum whose intent on harming yourself or somebody else shouldn't be frowned upon or made illegal, it should be smiled upon.

John and Frank have addressed that one very well indeed. If the actor used necessary force, and no more force than had been necessary, and if he had not caused the confrontation, his action would be justified , or "excused", under the law.

The operative word is "if", and not whether everyone would agree that the attacker had been "criminal scum". And what happened has to be determined, by others, based upon the totality of the facts that can be assembled after the event.

So how about if somebody tries to rob a store that you own, as it was in the case I presented in the first post? If you own a store I would think it could at least be seen as equivalent to your home in terms of defending it against criminals, and I would think the castle doctrine would apply to it too.

First, not to be argumentative, one does not "rob" a store. Robbery is a crime against persons, not property, and people are robbed-- sometimes on the street, sometimes in stores, sometimes in their homes, sometimes in conveyances.

Yes, the use of necessary force defense to defend against robbery is excused under the law.

"Castle doctrine" does not really change the conditions necessary for the justification for using force. What it really does is change the requirements on the defender to produce evidence of justification, and in most places, to eliminate the duty to retreat.

In Texas, where the armed robbery we have been discussing occurred, "castle doctrine" provisions do apply in the defender's place of employment.

That incident occurred in September, 2014. I have seen nothing to indicate that the defender has either been criminally charged or convicted or found criminally liable, yet.

The news report said that a Grand Jury would "evaluate the incident." That is apparently routine for cases of homicide in Texas, but also apparently, it does not always occur.

Does anyone know what may have happened here?

Back to that "criminal scum" reference. Keep in mind that someone who is most unsavory, and even one who may have a criminal record of some kind, has the same rights to self defense as the next person. He may not be able to possess a firearm lawfully, but if he is attacked through no fault of his own, he may lawfully defend himself as necessary. It's not a matter of what kind of person the actor may be, it's all about what happened. Imaginary white hats and black hats are not visible to the law.

 

[carguychris]

Does anyone know what may have happened here?

Houston Chronicle (local newspaper) archives don't show anything after the initial incident.

The names "Usman Seth" and "Abugalboush" are both pretty unusual, so I suspect that the Googles would have found subsequent news reports if they existed.

Harris County criminal court records don't indicate that anyone named Usman Seth was brought before the courts after September 2014, so I surmise that prosecutors may have dropped the case.

 

[Photon Guy]

The person who shoots someone doesn't get to make the determination as to whether the person they shoot is "innocent" or "criminal scum". Think how screwed up things would be if that WERE how things worked.
"Oh yeah, I shot and killed Bob, but you don't need to worry about it--he wasn't innocent, he was criminal scum. You can take my word for it."
I hope it's blatantly obvious to everyone why it's necessary to have someone other than the shooter review the facts to verify that the shooting was justified.

Its a person's actions that make the determination if they're innocent or criminal scum. If somebody is trying to rob a store its obvious they're the latter.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The person who shoots someone doesn't get to make the determination as to whether the person they shoot is "innocent" or "criminal scum". Think how screwed up things would be if that WERE how things worked.

"Oh yeah, I shot and killed Bob, but you don't need to worry about it--he wasn't innocent, he was criminal scum. You can take my word for it."
I hope it's blatantly obvious to everyone why it's necessary to have someone other than the shooter review the facts to verify that the shooting was justified.

Its a person's actions that make the determination if they're innocent or criminal scum. If somebody is trying to rob a store its obvious they're the latter.

No, it's a good deal more complicated than that. Several of us have been trying to explain that.

For example, consider the cases of Jerome Ersland or Markus Kaarma. Each used deadly force against a person committing a crime, but each was found by a jury to have gone too far; and each was convicted of murder. Ersland lost his appeal and is in prison serving a life sentence. Kaarma was sentenced to 70 years in prison, and it's been reported that he will appeal.

 

[gyvel]

OK. Here's a good question for you:

If you are involved in an SD "shootout," and your attacker is still alive but incapacitated, are you under any obligation, be it a Good Samaritan law or what have you, to render aid and assistance to the person you have just shot?

 

[Photon Guy]

That is lousy advice. Don't ask for medical attention unless you reasonably believe that you need medical attention.

It's true that many people mistakenly give that advice, but it can ruin your credibility. And you very much need to be credible if you are claiming self defense.

I got this advice from a workshop I attended when I went to a convention for the USCCA. USCCA stands for United States Concealed Carry Association. The president of the organization is Tim Schmidt and he is quite knowledgeable about such stuff although he was not running the particular workshop where I got that advice. I really like the USCCA but like any human run organization they can make mistakes. They said that it is a good idea to get medical attention if you're involved in a shootout even if you're not physically hurt because of the psychological trauma you will be under, much like soldiers who suffer from shell shock when they're in battle, even if they don't physically get hurt.

Anyway I though its always a good idea to talk to the police any more than you have to without talking to a lawyer first. The police might not be your enemies but they're not necessarily your friends either. After all, they're not there to be your friends they're there to enforce the law, so that's why its a good idea to talk to a lawyer first.

It is important to understand the nature of a claim of self defense. If you are claiming that you resorted to violence out of the necessity of having to defend yourself or someone else, you will be effectively admitting the basic elements of a crime. Your defense will be based on your reasonable belief that you had no choice but to use force. It's therefore crucial that you be seen as honest and forthright.

Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:
Quote:
...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....

It sounds like what Ms. Steel says is good however there are some things I would like to point out. She says that when claiming self defense the client is admitting they had a weapon. First of all, that is not necessarily true. A client could've been unarmed and could've taken down their assailant with nothing more than their bare hands such as the case I described about the martial arts student who took down the assailant who had been following him in a pickup truck. Also, if the client did use a weapon it I think it would depend on what kind of weapon they used. Guns are one of the most obvious weapons but it could be something else. I know a case of a woman who beat up an attacker with an umbrella. This was in NYC and she got in trouble for that, NYC is not all that self defense friendly. But aside from that carrying an umbrella will not carry the same legal weight as carrying a gun or for that matter if you use an umbrella in self defense vs using a gun in self defense, while an umbrella certainly can be used as a weapon that is not its primary purpose whereas with a gun, aside from being much more deadly than an umbrella, its primary purpose is to be used as a weapon, or to cause destruction somehow. Or, the client might not've even been carrying or using a weapon, such as the case of the martial arts student who took down the guy who charged at him from the pickup truck.

I took Mas' LFI-1 class some time ago. It's now called MAG-40, and if you can take only one major class, that would be an excellent choice. Several years ago I was one of his assistant instructors for a MAG-40 class in Sierra Vista, Arizona.

Mas quoted me his column in the August, 2010, issue of Combat Handguns on the inadvisability of falsely requesting medical attention, writing (pg 9):

I will look into taking it. Right now I take most of my firearms classes at this place called Front Sight which is located in Pahrump, Nevada, but I've taken other classes run by other organizations too. Aside from excellent firearm instruction, Front Sight does give instructions and advice in dealing with the legal aftermath of a self defense shooting. I like to learn as much as I can from many different sources.

 

[Photon Guy]

First, not to be argumentative, one does not "rob" a store. Robbery is a crime against persons, not property, and people are robbed-- sometimes on the street, sometimes in stores, sometimes in their homes, sometimes in conveyances.

The Marrian Webster dictionary defines "rob" as- "To take money or property from (a person or a place) illegally and sometimes by using force, violence, or threats."

So as its defined "to take money or property from a person or a place" so people do rob places such as stores. That's why people who forcefully steal money from banks are called, "bank robbers" and why such actions are called, "bank robberies." When a bank robbery occurs they don't say that the bad guys robbed the tellers they say they robbed the bank.

Back to that "criminal scum" reference. Keep in mind that someone who is most unsavory, and even one who may have a criminal record of some kind, has the same rights to self defense as the next person. He may not be able to possess a firearm lawfully, but if he is attacked through no fault of his own, he may lawfully defend himself as necessary. It's not a matter of what kind of person the actor may be, it's all about what happened. Imaginary white hats and black hats are not visible to the law.

If I were to take forceful action against somebody, I wouldn't to it because of their past or because they've got a background as a criminal, I would do it because at the time they were acting in a way that warranted the use of force. For instance, if Im running a store and somebody tries to hold up the place, or if somebody is attacking me directly, ect. Even if somebody does have a criminal past and a reputation for being a bully, I would not attack them if they weren't doing anything at the time because then I would become the aggressor.