The 'won't back down' situation

[samot]

all these senarios get you put in prision
You cant SHOOT someone for beating you up.......
I love this forum
Its a fist fight you *****s, i would spend more time in the gym then on this forum trying to decide if you should KILL someone or "carve someone up" for a fist fight....
You cant SHOOT someone for beating you up.......

 

[smoking357]

You cant SHOOT someone for beating you up.......

That's not true. If you have a justifiable belief that you are in mortal danger, lethal force is justified.

Bear in mind that the less lethal force possessed by your attacker raises your burden to show that you were in mortal danger.

As to the original poster, lo', those many pages ago, if you shoot in that situation, you're in a world of trouble.

Your only hope is that the Prosecutor decides that he doesn't have enough evidence.

 

[clt46910]

I am 62 years old and in poor health. Someone challenging me to a fist fight or actually trying to hit me, will be shot. I am frail enough in health to fear anyone actually trying to hit me.

Yes, a fist fight to younger people, like I use to be, maybe I would keep it there, but I am no longer. So yes, I will shoot someone that trys to beat me.

 

[1946]

"I am 62 years old and in poor health. Someone challenging me to a fist fight or actually trying to hit me, will be shot. I am frail enough in health to fear anyone actually trying to hit me.

Yes, a fist fight to younger people, like I use to be, maybe I would keep it there, but I am no longer. So yes, I will shoot someone that trys to beat me."


I'm also a 'senior', older than above. So yes I concur with the above quote. If someone is trying to beat me, I don't know just how far that beating will go. I.E. beat to death or comatose.

 

[Vanguard.45]

Again, is your response proportionate to the threat?

If you are facing a weapon, or have reason to believe you are facing a weapon, then get your weapon out.

If you have extenuating circumstances (disproportionate size, multiple opponents) then you MIGHT be justified depending upon the circumstances.

I am not sure if simply being a bit older AUTOMATICALLY gives you the right to use lethal force. It's sort of like getting a HANDICAPPED TAG for your car just because you're a bit older (that infuriates me, BTW).

These are all personal decisions, and ones which could leave you penniless, in prison, dead, or a hero depending upon the totality of the circumstances (including who is on the jury, who is the judge, and how good your attorney is).

Carrying a weapon is not without its risks, ladies and gentlemen.

Great discussion.

Someone said WAAAAY earlier that a person would not advance on an armed individual unless they also had a weapon or were a significant threat. Some people are just crazy or are looking for a way to be killed or have too much pride (read "stupidity") to back down and seek another way.

Bottom line is, if you shoot an unarmed person for simply "not backing down" without some justifiable reason for using LETHAL FORCE, you will likely get to go to prison and have relations with Bubba.

Vanguard.45

 

[lovemachine]

It's common sense. I'm 5'9, 205 pounds. If a midget started something with me, I shouldn't pull out my gun. It's just obvious who would win in a fight. (for you sarcastic asses out there, I would win, not the midget)

Now if a guy who was 6'6, 300 pounds started something with me, I think I would be ok to pull out my gun. He could pound me. It's all common sense. But I would make sure its in a situation where you cannot run away.

 

[1946]

"I am not sure if simply being a bit older AUTOMATICALLY gives you the right to use lethal force. It's sort of like getting a HANDICAPPED TAG for your car just because you're a bit older (that infuriates me, BTW)."

So, what are you proposing a person should do? If the aggressor is obviously younger, stronger or bigger than me and is 'ell bent on causing me physical harm, am I to just allow the aggressor to hammer me? Especially if I am in a cornered situation? (shame on me if that were to happen)

 

[doug1980]

The problem with these types of scenarios is there is no definitive answer. The law has too many grey areas and leaves too much open for individuals to come up with their own definition of the law. Even those that shoot and kill in combat zones are subjected to harsh investigations. It can be a very tricky situation and sometimes justice isn't fair or just. I can say this, if "I" felt threatened and belived that "I" had no other option but to shoot "I" would shoot. What the judge, jury or prosecutor thinks is what will really matter in the end and I can't control that.

 

[IMPD31323]

One of the things definately wrong with society today. Its not ok to kill someone because they want to fight. Lethal Force should only be used to protect your life or the life of another. Generally speaking if you have to post the scenario on a Blog it going to be a bad shoot situation if you were infront of a jury.

 

[Vanguard.45]

A response to 1946

What I am proposing is that your response be reasonably proportionate to the threat.

If you are infirm, disabled, or somehow unable to leave the situation for whatever reason and feel you are in danger of either being KILLED or about to be assaulted in such a way that you will receive GRIEVOUS BODILY INJURY, then lethal force MIGHT be reasonable.

Your issue is that you have to be able to demonstrate to a jury of your peers both the fact that you couldn't defend yourself in any other way or retreat from the situation (due to either being cornered or needing to protect life or property) AND that the person intended to inflict either death or grievous bodily harm.

Just being old doesn't mean you get to be Wyatt Earp and just shoot your way out of bad situations. "But your honor, I'm too old to fight!"

Like I said before, if you are facing multiple opponents or are outweighed by your aggressor by a good amount, then your decision to resort to a lethal weapon MIGHT be justified. My thought is that if the aggressor is your approximate size, pulling our your smokewagon and shooting them down, no matter how young by comparison, may get you put in jail. Maybe not, but maybe you should give yourself some other options.

You could carry some less than lethal alternatives (pepper spray, taser, etc.), or, heaven forbid, get to the gym and get back in shape so you're not so easy to kick around! Just because you're old doesn't mean you can't have the capacity to whip the young lions out there!

And get rid of that HANDICAPPED TAG, 1946! (Just kidding!)

Vanguard.45

 

[1946]

And, a response to Vanguard.45

I agree with you for the most part on what you just posted above and as you said, each situation and individual abilities/restrictions have to be evaluated. Your post makes sense based upon the information that has been presented in this thread.
HOWEVER, (caps for emphasis) fortunately I'm not infirm (yet). I'm 6'3" 225 and do exercise regularly, and I (thank you dear Lord) don't have or need to use a handicap tag.
My reason for my original post is how would I handle a situation when I'm say, in my seventies or older.
My perception of your earlier posts indicated to me that to you it didn't matter how old a person is, just don't use your "smokewagon".
Thanks for your taking the time to present another side of what is, as someone said, a gray area. It's always good to be able to openly discuss an issue such as this in a level headed manner. Gives everyone food for thought.

 

[Vanguard.45]

To 1946

It is good to see someone who can look ahead and be making plans already. I completely agree with you when you recognize that there will be a day in each of our lives when we will be too old to enforce our wills or to defend our persons/ property with the might of our physical bodies alone. That day varies from person to person, and I am glad to hear you are currently in good health! May your health last many years into the future, and may this topic never become relevant to you personally. Avoidance is always the best course of action if possible.

This topic is also why we all need to keep on shooting at the range, just in case the day of reckoning comes a bit sooner than expected!

Thanks for the great discussion. Hopefully it was edifying to other forum members as it was both enjoyable and educational for me!

Be well.

Vanguard.45

 

[finity]

What I am proposing is that your response be reasonably proportionate to the threat.

If you are infirm, disabled, or somehow unable to leave the situation for whatever reason and feel you are in danger of either being KILLED or about to be assaulted in such a way that you will receive GRIEVOUS BODILY INJURY, then lethal force MIGHT be reasonable.

Your issue is that you have to be able to demonstrate to a jury of your peers both the fact that you couldn't defend yourself in any other way or retreat from the situation (due to either being cornered or needing to protect life or property) AND that the person intended to inflict either death or grievous bodily harm.

No. You don't have to try to retreat from the situation. That is not open to interpretation. It is stated in black & white in the self-defense statute.

I agree that the use of force has to be otherwise reasonable but whether you could have retreated or not is not part of that 'reasonableness' test.

Just being old doesn't mean you get to be Wyatt Earp and just shoot your way out of bad situations. "But your honor, I'm too old to fight!"

"just being old" may not give you carte blanche permission to open fire but it would be a reasonable concern for MOST people when they have to go up against a much younger & most likely more in-shape person who is the initial aggressor. You don't have to be Wyatt Earp (which is BTW a fairly commonly used phrase/concept by the anti-gun crowd) in order to see the need to use a firearm in self-defense.

Like I said before, if you are facing multiple opponents or are outweighed by your aggressor by a good amount, then your decision to resort to a lethal weapon MIGHT be justified. My thought is that if the aggressor is your approximate size, pulling our your smokewagon and shooting them down, no matter how young by comparison, may get you put in jail. Maybe not, but maybe you should give yourself some other options.

It's pretty much an undeniable medical fact that muscle mass declines due to a reduction in testosterone as we age. If someone "of the same size" but 20 years old is compared to a 60+year old then statistically the 20 YO will have much more muscle mass than the 60 YO, all else being equal. I give leeway here for genetic anomalies. The aforementioned doesn't even take into consideration the reduced agility, speed & balance of the 'average' person as they age.

You could carry some less than lethal alternatives (pepper spray, taser, etc.), or, heaven forbid, get to the gym and get back in shape so you're not so easy to kick around! Just because you're old doesn't mean you can't have the capacity to whip the young lions out there!

And get rid of that HANDICAPPED TAG, 1946! (Just kidding!)

Vanguard.45

No one has to "take a beating". The IC gives the exception to use deadly force if you believe you will be subjected to "serious bodily injury". "Serious bodily injury" is defined in the IC as:

IC 35-41-1-25
"Serious bodily injury" defined
Sec. 25. "Serious bodily injury" means bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes:
(1) serious permanent disfigurement; (2) unconsciousness;
(3) extreme pain;
(4) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ; or
(5) loss of a fetus.

Note #2 & 3 above - unconsciuosness & extreme pain. I'd say a "beating" in most peoples mind would constitute extreme pain & is likely to lead to unconciousness.

There is no requirement to believe you will die before you use deadly force. I'm not sure if your defintion of what you called "GRIEVOUS BODILY INJURY" is different than what the Indiana IC calls "serious bodily injury" or not, but in reading the IC, the requirements to justify the use of deadly force are not as stringent as what you seem to imply.

Another thing to keep in mind while you're "whip[ping] the young lions out there" is that as soon as you voluntarily enter into fisticuffs with the other person you are now in "mutual combat" which makes a self-defense justification next to impossible. IOW, if you knowingly start boxing a much younger (or stronger or better) person you've severly restricted your ability to defend yourself in court if things start to go against you & you eventually resort to deadly force to prevent yourself from being beaten to death. At the point of unconsciousness who knows whether the other person will stop or continue & you will die.

 

[Vanguard.45]

I do not necessarily disagree with the entirety of your post.

I guess we all have to make our own judgment calls as to when it is appropriate for us to "unleash the fury."

I don't exactly know what to make of your comment that Wyatt Earp is "a fairly commonly used phrase/concept by the anti-gun crowd." I would certainly hope I am not being lumped into that crowd just for using the phrase. In fact, my son bears the name Wyatt in honor of the famed lawman. Perhaps that could be a possible explanation for my using it in this example? I am also reading a novel right now which pits Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson against a young Al Capone (great read so far). Thus, Wyatt Earp was on my mind at the time of my post.

Also, deciding to defend myself with my hands and feet does not at all imply I have "entered into fisticuffs" with anyone. People who have seen me put hands on others will tell you my fights typically don't last long enough to be considered a sporting event. Granted, I had twenty-plus years of formal training learning to defend myself without weapons, so your mileage may vary. A person can defend themselves either armed or unarmed. The question is whether or not the response was reasonable.

If you feel shooting an appproaching unarmed guy who is younger than you by a number of years but who is not significantly larger than you physically is acceptable, then I wish you luck in court. Make sure you carry a copy of that statute with you to court so you can read it to your cellmate in the penitentiary.

You can argue all you want that you don't HAVE to retreat, but, unless you have no avenue of retreat or are defending another person or property and have reason to believe the approaching forces are going to kill or do serious bodily injury to someone or damage/ steal the property, good luck in court when the first question you are asked by the prosecution is why you chose to take the life of an unarmed young man rather than making every effort to defuse or leave the situation. The prosecution will most likely say you shot that poor young man (who was a promising young student, beloved son, and whose promising life was cut short due to your unthinkable actions) simply because your pride and ego woulldn't allow you to stand down because you might look like a coward to onlookers. I am not saying it would be true, but what I think doesn't matter. It's what a jury thinks, and statutes sometimes persuade less than weeping mothers, grieving widows, and fatherless children. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to.

My point, once again, is that just because you may suck at fighting unarmed or because you are a little older or because you don't want to look like a coward or whatever statute you can cite which says you aren't REQUIRED to retreat doesn't mean you get to pull pistols every time some younger buck wants to tussle. Every situation is unique, but "the totality of circumstances" coupled with the question "Was the response reasonably proportionate to the threat" are pretty constant in my experience.

You can use the "I am not REQUIRED to retreat" mantra if you like. I'll use the "I evacuated the situation to avoid having to harm/ kill the person." You might call it cowardice, but some time watching juries during murder/ self defense cases might convince you otherwise.

You're a grown person and can make your own mind up. I offer advice from some limited, but affecting, real world experience. I pray you nor I will ever have to find out the results of such an encounter.

Thanks for the lively and informative comments.

Vanguard.45

 

[Jack Ryan]

I've tried searching, but haven't run into anything. I know there is no duty to retreat in IN, however there is a situation that comes to mind, that does play out in movies a lot, though if you run into the right crazy, it could be real life.

Enemy has assaulted you, whether verbally, getting in your face in a threatening way, whatever. Not battery, but assault. For the sake of the question, let's say that the threat was not immediate but imminent, standing 5+ feet away and you draw, not to fire but to diffuse. Please don't respond with 'you should only draw to shoot' responses either.

You draw your weapon and tell them not to move and give them a warning. They say, "chill out, I'm not going to hurt you. I'm unarmed, I'm not going anything" and continue slowly advancing toward you. They have their arms extended, no weapon in sight.

My initial response would be, SHOOT. My question is, would there be any legal repercussions? Would an LEO say that he even verbally backed down and did not pose a threat when I fired?. Could a defense attorney for him argue that I used the gun unlawfully because he had already backed down and was moving in to shake hands?

The ultimate question is:
If a man is held at gunpoint and continues to advance though warned, in a 'slow, non threatening manner', is this means to fire? It's either that or run imo. thoughts?

Let's hear answers for both on my property vs. in public (ally, mall, wherever)

May be yer standing in front of the crapper door and he needs to take a leak?

Put yer gun in your holster and GTF out of the way.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I think when the guy keeps advancing, you definately have the right to shoot. I, however would never shoot him in the knee cap. It's my opinion to shoot to kill, center mass if you're going to shoot. If I draw the gun, shout my commads and he backs away, he's safe.

I'm checking the pamphlets that came with my gun and with my carry permit and I can't find the section where it notes for an $200 investment in a Jennings J-22 and a pink piece of paper make me supreme commander and giver of order,s allowed to shoot any and all who don't "step aside" or back away.

You guys better start buying your guns from Hershey judging from how often "something similar happened to me" storys pop up demanding you get out your guns "to diffuse" situations.

 

[Vanguard.45]

Good post!

I'm checking the pamphlets that came with my gun and with my carry permit and I can't find the section where it notes for an $200 investment in a Jennings J-22 and a pink piece of paper make me supreme commander and giver of orders allowed to shoot any and all who don't "step aside" or back away.

You guys better start buying your guns from Hershey judging from how often "something similar happened to me" storys pop up demanding you get out your guns "to diffuse" situations.

 

[finity]

I guess we all have to make our own judgment calls as to when it is appropriate for us to "unleash the fury."

I don't exactly know what to make of your comment that Wyatt Earp is "a fairly commonly used phrase/concept by the anti-gun crowd." I would certainly hope I am not being lumped into that crowd just for using the phrase. In fact, my son bears the name Wyatt in honor of the famed lawman. Perhaps that could be a possible explanation for my using it in this example? I am also reading a novel right now which pits Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson against a young Al Capone (great read so far). Thus, Wyatt Earp was on my mind at the time of my post.

I don't lump people into any category unless they have shown a large amount of evidence (in my eyes) to do the lumping. You haven’t done that. I only bring up the "Wyatt Earp" reference just to show that even among gun-owners there are those that "buy into" the anti-gunners propaganda & that is something to guard against. To compare someone who might feel it necessary to use their self-defense tools to get them out of a dangerous situation to someone (anyone) from the "wild wild west" is promoting the propaganda of the anti's. Would you have used the "wild west" analogy if we had been talking about using a knife or club or lethal hands & feet to extricate yourself from that same situation? It's something to think about.

Also, deciding to defend myself with my hands and feet does not at all imply I have "entered into fisticuffs" with anyone. People who have seen me put hands on others will tell you my fights typically don't last long enough to be considered a sporting event. Granted, I had twenty-plus years of formal training learning to defend myself without weapons, so your mileage may vary.

And THAT is my point. I'm glad that you feel you can handle things with out resort to anything other than you hands. You can't hold others who more than likely don't have the same training/experience/genetics as you to YOUR standards.

I'm not that old BUT I'm not a fighter. I never have been. Not to mention that a back injury has caused me to not be as physically capable of fighting off even someone who is my same size & age, unless of course they had a similar back injury - but how am I supposed to know that in a self-defense situation?

A person can defend themselves either armed or unarmed. The question is whether or not the response was reasonable.

Agreed. I said as much.

If you feel shooting an appproaching unarmed guy who is younger than you by a number of years but who is not significantly larger than you physically is acceptable, then I wish you luck in court. Make sure you carry a copy of that statute with you to court so you can read it to your cellmate in the penitentiary.

So now we resort to the time honored technique of stating, beyond a doubt, that I will go to jail for doing something that is within the written word of the law but with which you don't agree. Sorry, scare tactics shouldn't enter into a debate of what the law says & your actions within it.

You can argue all you want that you don't HAVE to retreat, but, unless you have no avenue of retreat or are defending another person or property and have reason to believe the approaching forces are going to kill or do serious bodily injury to someone or damage/ steal the property, good luck in court when the first question you are asked by the prosecution is why you chose to take the life of an unarmed young man rather than making every effort to defuse or leave the situation.

Then I have to ask, what was the purpose of specifically putting the "no duty to retreat" clause into the law (as has been done in numerous other states - even some supposedly "liberal" ones) if the law doesn't really expect that you have the freedom to exercise that clause? I have read many court cases that have stated that the person had no duty to retreat. The case hinged on whether, ABSENT THE LACK OF RETREAT BY THE PERSON, all of their other actions were reasonable.

I think I also need to clear up another possible misconception in the above paragraph. You cannot use deadly force to protect your property from being stolen or damaged.

You can use deadly force to stop an attack on your home or OCCUPIED car but that’s the extent of using deadly force where protection of property is concerned.

The prosecution will most likely say you shot that poor young man (who was a promising young student, beloved son, and whose promising life was cut short due to your unthinkable actions) simply because your pride and ego woulldn't allow you to stand down because you might look like a coward to onlookers. I am not saying it would be true, but what I think doesn't matter. It's what a jury thinks, and statutes sometimes persuade less than weeping mothers, grieving widows, and fatherless children. You don't have to believe me if you don't want to.

I have said it before; you can't base your actions on what MIGHT happen in a courtroom because of a rogue prosecutor/judge/jury who disregards the law AS WRITTEN. You can't control what those people will do. You just have to act as much as possible within the confines of the law as it is written.

My point, once again, is that just because you may suck at fighting unarmed or because you are a little older or because you don't want to look like a coward or whatever statute you can cite which says you aren't REQUIRED to retreat doesn't mean you get to pull pistols every time some younger buck wants to tussle. Every situation is unique, but "the totality of circumstances" coupled with the question "Was the response reasonably proportionate to the threat" are pretty constant in my experience.

OK, first off, I'm not saying that you get to use deadly force just to save face or because you don't want to look like a coward to your buds. I think that is what they call a "straw man".

Second, you can't add in terms to the written laws that aren’t there to make your case. The IC says NOTHING about the response needing to be "proportionate". The only requirement is that it be "reasonable". "Reasonable" & "proportionate" are two entirely different things.

The "reasonable person" test uses only what that person knew at the time of the incident. No more, no less. You don't have to try to divine the future or take a personal history of your attacker before you react. Or in the words of Justice Holmes, ”detached reflection is not required in the presence of an upturned knife.” (Just to be clear, “knife” here is used metaphorically for ANY, possible threat of death or SBI in the case of the IC). If it is reasonable for you to believe that the other person could knock you out with his hands, the IC says, explicitly, that you can use deadly force to prevent that from happening. It doesn't, in any way, limit you to just using your hands in that situation. You can use whatever you have available.

Which brings up another point. Would we be having this discussion if the subject wasn't about using a gun in self-defense? Would you also be against using a club or a knife to defend yourself? They are more close contact weapons than a gun & require more hands-on skill to use effectively, but they are still considered deadly force, are they not?

Some "younger buck" can't make me "tussle" if I don't want to. He can't make me fight him on his terms. If he doesn't back off when I make it known that I don't want to "tussle" then HE has made the decision to place his destiny in my hands within the confines of the law. Again, I don't have to take a beating because someone who has had more training or experience than I in dealing with those types of people/situations (like yourself) thinks I should be able to handle it.

So what EXACTLY in your opinion would be the deciding factor on how much someone has to suck at fighting before they can defend themselves with more than hands?

You can use the "I am not REQUIRED to retreat" mantra if you like. I'll use the "I evacuated the situation to avoid having to harm/ kill the person." You might call it cowardice, but some time watching juries during murder/ self defense cases might convince you otherwise.

Again, with the straw man. I never said it was cowardice to retreat, evade, elude or otherwise GTH out of Dodge IF POSSIBLE & PRUDENT. I’m saying you have no legal obligation to do so. Can you show ANY Indiana case law in which a person was convicted due the single fact that he failed to retreat after the enactment of our “Castle Doctrine” law?


I enjoy a good debate.

 

[Vanguard.45]

When you get to use deadly force and don't have to retreat

"to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force."

"if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony."

"if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle."

"if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat; only if that force is justified under subsection (a)."

"if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight."
******************************
Most all of these seem to imply to me that you are standing your ground and using deadly force (if reasonable) in order to defend something or someone. I am completely in agreement with that.

Looking back at the original poster's scenario, the two things which seemed to stand out to me which could be a real problem were

"You draw your weapon and tell them not to move and give them a warning. They say, "chill out, I'm not going to hurt you. I'm unarmed, I'm not doing anything" and continue slowly advancing toward you. They have their arms extended, no weapon in sight."

and

"If a man is held at gunpoint and continues to advance though warned, in a 'slow, non threatening manner', is this means to fire? It's either that or run imo. thoughts?"

I guess we all have to decide whether we think a jury would believe it was "reasonable" to shoot someone for walking toward you in a slow, non-threatening manner, telling you they are unarmed, holding their hands away from their body, with no weapon in sight.

I also wonder how witnesses to the event might testify in court? I realize you have said we shouldn't act on "mights" in court, but I think we should at least consider "probables." I agree that the events leading up to their advancing on you would play a major role in a jury's decision as to whether or not you should have felt your life or well being were in serious enough jeopardy to justify utilizing deadly force (whether gun, knife, or stick). I am not sure if "well, I'm just not a fighter" would hold up in court if there was not some sort of major reason for thinking you were at a serious disadvantage (i.e. disparity of size/ strength, multiple opponents, etc.). It "might."

I agree with much of what you say, finity, and have learned and grown through this thread and from people like you who take the time to study and consider the written law. I believe most people's "no-shoot" comments (mine included, although I tend to chase rabbits every now and then during discussions) were directed primarily to the scenario initially posted.

I , like you, believe there are definite times to stand and fight, yet I also believe there are times when having the maturity to stand down to avoid having to kill or injure another human being simply because the other party is too drunk, prideful, or stupid to realize they are walking into the minefield of you or I is also a potentially useful asset to cultivate.

I guess I don't like having too many "mights" in the picture when it comes to my future. I just had too many of those back in my twenties (i.e. I "might" get the job, I "might" make rent this month, I "might" get her to go out with me, etc.).

Now if someone's threatening my family, friends, home, or another innocent person, I guess we get right to it and watch what happens when the balloon goes up!

This discussion has also reinforced my notion that perhaps the OP (and I)could find some use in carrying a less-than-lethal-yet-typically-very-effective alternative such as pepper spray.

Thanks for the discussion.

Vanguard.45

 

[kingnereli]

"to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force."

"if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony."

"if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle."

"if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat; only if that force is justified under subsection (a)."

"if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight."
******************************
Most all of these seem to imply to me that you are standing your ground and using deadly force (if reasonable) in order to defend something or someone. I am completely in agreement with that.

Looking back at the original poster's scenario, the two things which seemed to stand out to me which could be a real problem were

"You draw your weapon and tell them not to move and give them a warning. They say, "chill out, I'm not going to hurt you. I'm unarmed, I'm not doing anything" and continue slowly advancing toward you. They have their arms extended, no weapon in sight."

and

"If a man is held at gunpoint and continues to advance though warned, in a 'slow, non threatening manner', is this means to fire? It's either that or run imo. thoughts?"

I guess we all have to decide whether we think a jury would believe it was "reasonable" to shoot someone for walking toward you in a slow, non-threatening manner, telling you they are unarmed, holding their hands away from their body, with no weapon in sight.

I also wonder how witnesses to the event might testify in court? I realize you have said we shouldn't act on "mights" in court, but I think we should at least consider "probables." I agree that the events leading up to their advancing on you would play a major role in a jury's decision as to whether or not you should have felt your life or well being were in serious enough jeopardy to justify utilizing deadly force (whether gun, knife, or stick). I am not sure if "well, I'm just not a fighter" would hold up in court if there was not some sort of major reason for thinking you were at a serious disadvantage (i.e. disparity of size/ strength, multiple opponents, etc.). It "might."

I agree with much of what you say, finity, and have learned and grown through this thread and from people like you who take the time to study and consider the written law. I believe most people's "no-shoot" comments (mine included, although I tend to chase rabbits every now and then during discussions) were directed primarily to the scenario initially posted.

I , like you, believe there are definite times to stand and fight, yet I also believe there are times when having the maturity to stand down to avoid having to kill or injure another human being simply because the other party is too drunk, prideful, or stupid to realize they are walking into the minefield of you or I is also a potentially useful asset to cultivate.

I guess I don't like having too many "mights" in the picture when it comes to my future. I just had too many of those back in my twenties (i.e. I "might" get the job, I "might" make rent this month, I "might" get her to go out with me, etc.).

Now if someone's threatening my family, friends, home, or another innocent person, I guess we get right to it and watch what happens when the balloon goes up!

This discussion has also reinforced my notion that perhaps the OP (and I)could find some use in carrying a less-than-lethal-yet-typically-very-effective alternative such as pepper spray.

Thanks for the discussion.

Vanguard.45

That's where the trouble is. The man walking towards you with his hands extended and voicing his intentions are to not cause trouble is the only thing that potential witnesses are going to be able to testify about. It will also be up to you to explain why when he was walking towards you saying "I'm not doing anything" that you really thought he was planning on attacking. Even the verbal exchange earlier wouldn't help much because he could have just as easily been on his way to apologize for all you know.

Really, even a discussion of disparity of force here doesn't do much good because I don't think this situation is to the point of justifying deadly force no matter the size of you or the aggressor. What would I say to the judge, "Your honor, I know he wasn't armed, visibly angry or upset and voicing intent to fight, but he was walking my direction and he was really big."

The only thing that would shed enough light on the situation is a good hardy escape attempt. If you progressed towards your best possible escape route and he cut you off or ran after you that would be an articulable reason for suspecting his non-threatening demeanor was just a ruse. The OP says escape isn't possible but unless you are fighting in a phone booth I'd say there are some possible routes.