Who's right and wrong here?

[protias]

Criminals don't need guns, knives, or anything else to kill you. They are perfectly capable of doing so with their hands.

 

[Rampdog]

I have a different perspective on this. Being wheelchair bound there's a certain segment of society who views me as a prime target. I really can't retreat and can't go toe to toe with the guy. I'd shoot.

 

[target64]

I was in fear for my wife's life as well as my own. I would possibly be facing twelve men,............but not carried by six.

 

[TomN]

Pepper spray.

Then if he shakes it off and keeps coming you use your pistol because you were afraid for your life.

But hopefully the spray dissuades him from further action.

 

[ryknoll3]

Pepper spray.

Then if he shakes it off and keeps coming you use your pistol because you were afraid for your life.

But hopefully the spray dissuades him from further action.

Problem is the effective range of pepper spray isn't very far. Once you've determined that he isn't stopping because of the spray and decide to use your pistol, he's going to be on top of you.

 

[Iroquois]

A little wisdom from my Iraq-vet son...unless he's butt naked you don't know
he's unarmed. Half a lifetime ago I was a black belt and could dead-lift nearly 3 times
my weight. Now I have 2 spinal fusions,3 bad discs in my back,bum knees and bone spurs
in my feet. If I let a 14 year old hit me it's wheelchair time!!! You tough guys can sentimental about this idiots human rights if you want to. I have enough to lug around
with a wallet , keys,cellphone,eyeglasses and a gun . I'm not about to start carrying
pepper spray,tazer and /or a set of num-chucks.

 

[Chefcook]

At a distance of 50' I would make an attempt to back away while making it clear DO NOT PURSUE ME! once the perpetrator was within striking distance of me and my wife. Say 15' I would draw and demand he stop. (I would probably say Freeze!!! In my best exclamatory booming voice.) If he continued to advance in a threatening manner. I would stop him with as many .45 cal flying ash trays center mass that it took to put him on his knees. Once I felt I was secure and mine were safe I would do whatever I could to help him to survive until assistance arrived.

 

[Cemetery-man]

Shoot.
Call the cops.
Call your lawyer.

You have a witness that the BG said he was going kill you and failed to stop when ordered to at gunpoint. Sounds like self defense to me and like I said, you do have the only witness.

 

[Iroquois]

Everybody keeps saying tried by 12. They need 12 to convict. Surely you can
find one person on a jury that understands the reality of the situation...No body has the
right to threaten your life and attack you when you're minding your own business and
are in a place you have right to be. You are not legally required to take a beating to
protect his civil rights.

 

[Gareth]

Everybody keeps saying tried by 12. They need 12 to convict. Surely you can
find one person on a jury that understands the reality of the situation...No body has the
right to threaten your life and attack you when you're minding your own business and
are in a place you have right to be. You are not legally required to take a beating to
protect his civil rights.

Exactly. But logic clearly eludes an increasing number of media brainwashed, self-centered, oblivious, spoiled, inconsiderate, and pusillanimous individuals who are selected for jury duty.

I was arrested on three separate occasions during my life for charges that were dismissed in court by judges who each solemnly informed me that if I would have demanded a jury trial, I would have been convicted by the emotions evoked in the jurors due to the nature of the charges that had been levied against me each time. This is truly pathetic.

 

[jbombelli]

If you carry a gun, be prepared to take a beating. Unless the bad guy shows a deadly weapon, you cannot use yours. Unless he has you by weight or your out numbered.
The correct answer would be "B"

Let me google that for you



This is what can happen if you are "prepared to take a beating." You could very easily die. Seriously. You want to take your chances with a beating? Be my guest. But don't recommend that path for others.

Regarding the reasonable man doctrine? A reasonable man is an INFORMED man. He has to know the risks involved in each of the possible courses of action available to him, or he cannot make a determination as to what's reasonable. And the risk of serious injury or death from a punch to the face is quite high. In fact, in just a few minutes I can find dozens of articles about people getting punched in the face and dying as a result (just click the above link for a few examples), or going into a coma, or getting serious brain damage. I can parade ER physicians, neurologists and trauma surgeons through a courtroom one after another for weeks, and all of them will attest to the fact that people die from getting punched. In my opinion, any "reasonable man" would realize the risk of letting someone punch him out, and would do whatever he had to do to prevent that from happening.

And if *I* am on the jury of someone who shot and killed an attacker, I'm going to vote to acquit. I don't care how the attacker came at him. You don't want to get shot? Don't put people in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Period.

 

[Denny347]

Let me google that for you



This is what can happen if you are "prepared to take a beating." You could very easily die. Seriously. You want to take your chances with a beating? Be my guest. But don't recommend that path for others.

Regarding the reasonable man doctrine? A reasonable man is an INFORMED man. He has to know the risks involved in each of the possible courses of action available to him, or he cannot make a determination as to what's reasonable. And the risk of serious injury or death from a punch to the face is quite high. In fact, in just a few minutes I can find dozens of articles about people getting punched in the face and dying as a result (just click the above link for a few examples), or going into a coma, or getting serious brain damage. I can parade ER physicians, neurologists and trauma surgeons through a courtroom one after another for weeks, and all of them will attest to the fact that people die from getting punched. In my opinion, any "reasonable man" would realize the risk of letting someone punch him out, and would do whatever he had to do to prevent that from happening.

And if *I* am on the jury of someone who shot and killed an attacker, I'm going to vote to acquit. I don't care how the attacker came at him. You don't want to get shot? Don't put people in danger of serious bodily injury or death. Period.

Cool, when I am arrested for shooting/killing a man for throwing a punch at me, I will look you up for the jury pool.

 

[dross]

Cool, when I am arrested for shooting/killing a man for throwing a punch at me, I will look you up for the jury pool.

Denny, as a cop, I know you have policy and training issues that you have to take into consideration. Also you have other weapons that are less lethal - baton, pepper spray, taser.

If I pull my weapon and tell the guy not to come closer and he still comes at me, why must I assume he's not capable of taking my weapon and making me eat it?

 

[jbombelli]

Cool, when I am arrested for shooting/killing a man for throwing a punch at me, I will look you up for the jury pool.

I'll vote to acquit if I'm on it. That's a promise.

I have seen firsthand what can happen in fights on the street. The street ain't the gym, it ain't the playground, and it ain't covered in mattresses, wrestling mats, or nice soft grass. One hit, you fall down and hit your head on the pavement, and that's all she wrote. If you don't understand that, you really need to do some research on this issue. I don't say that to be a jerk. I say that because getting punched in the face is truly dangerous. There is a real risk of serious bodily injury or death.

 

[dsom2006]

Sorry if this has been said, but I didn't read all of the comments.

At about 30ft assuming that I had my firearm out for him to see and I had verbalized a warning and he was still approaching while making threatening jestures I would try to place a nonfatal shot to a leg. If he gets any closer than that all bets are off.

Also personaly I don't care if he's one tenth of my size. I determine when I participate in a hands on fight, not some lunatic threatening my family or myself.

 

[dsom2006]

OK, I went back and read some other posts because I started thinking about the non fatal shot part of my defense and I agreed with a couple of the posters that explained the chances of hitting a moving arm or leg and the intent of a warning shot. I've changed my mind. I would just wait and fire only when I felt it necessary when the threat was close and I was afraid for my life.

 

[protias]

OK, I went back and read some other posts because I started thinking about the non fatal shot part of my defense and I agreed with a couple of the posters that explained the chances of hitting a moving arm or leg and the intent of a warning shot. I've changed my mind. I would just wait and fire only when I felt it necessary when the threat was close and I was afraid for my life.

The average male 18-25 can cover 21' in 3 seconds. The average crime is done is less than 3' and over in less than 60 seconds.

 

[ViperJock]

In one of the Zombie threads there was a suggestion to carry Halberds. I can't help but think that I would like to have one in this scenario. Kneel down, halberd set against the attacker, If he runs into it then I can assume he meant business.

Denny makes valid points. Restraint in the use of deadly force should be excericed when possible. Dross makes a valid point that Denny is an officer, and thus in some ways, held to higher standards regarding use of force. To me the thing is summed up by a few points:
1. The man is moving toward you.
2. He said stated that he is going to kill you.
3. He is not "obviously harmless."
4. If he is within 21 feet he can probably reach you before you can draw.
5. The Ayoob stuff.

The rest of the world can Monday Morning QB it. Only you know if you were really threatened. If you were, you can sleep easy and hope the LEOs and/or the Jury agree. If you just wanted to get your gun off, you may or may not pay for it in this world, but you probably will in the next.

 

[Jackson]

I have not read all of the replies, so this may have been brought up. But this is why I think anyone carrying a gun should strongly consider maintaining non-lethal force options (OC is what I have in mind here).

Would I definitely have time to use it? Maybe not. But at least I'd have the option if I did. This sounds like just the time for OC. You probably wont get charged with anything as serious as manslaughter for giving him a squirt. And you wont have to live with having killed someone that might not have needed it.

On the shoot/no shoot:If he hasn't demonstrated the intent, ability and opportunity to kill, less lethal methods should be considered. I see intent and opportunity. I didn't see a clearly articulable ability / means of deadly force listed in the OP.
Further: if the police officer above (Denny347) knows he can't shoot, I know I probably can't either. It seems to me that, right or wrong, the average guy on the street generally seems to be held to a higher standard, or at least to a somewhat different set of criteria, when being judged in self defense shootings. Maybe this is just my perception.

 

[Roadie]

Quite a bit of good discussion here! Threads like these are why I was so glad to have found INGO when I decided to start carrying.