Deadly force

[spat]

I don't know, you seem pretty sure that an unarmed attacker is off limits to shoot in self defense. All that needs to be present is the ABILITY and INTENT to inflict serious harm. An unarmed man the exact same size and stature as me can do that with his bare hands.

You are reading that backwards.

An armed attacker is obviously presenting threat of DPF.

An unarmed attacker *may* present such a threat, or they may not.

Both of my statements indicate that if they guy is armed, you dont need to consider whether he is bigger than you, or any of the rest. If he shows up with a weapon, your don't having to consider the other factors, that is why I added the "unarmed" qualifier.

Go ahead and shoot some attacker who is unarmed and appears to be an even match in HtH, take your chances with a jury. Make sure you get a good lawyer, if you spend enough $$ you may prevail...

 

[spat]

From some of these articles:

You quoted 2 sections that illustrate exactly what I was saying about disparity of force. If the attacker is unarmed, you have an additional burden to prove that DPF was warranted, it is not by any means impossible, but you do have a higher burden.

A 98 year old woman in a wheelchair is a threat if she has a gun, not at all if she doesn't. An unarmed 250lb MMA champion is a threat warranting DPF, if youre a 120lb woman, but not if you're another MMA heavyweight champion.

 

[dwa12479]

You quoted 2 sections that illustrate exactly what I was saying about disparity of force. If the attacker is unarmed, you have an additional burden to prove that DPF was warranted, it is not by any means impossible, but you do have a higher burden.

A 98 year old woman in a wheelchair is a threat if she has a gun, not at all if she doesn't. An unarmed 250lb MMA champion is a threat warranting DPF, if youre a 120lb woman, but not if you're another MMA heavyweight champion.

These 2 passages highlight an attacker having INTENT and ABILITY to harm you. A man my exact size can have INTENT and ABILITY to harm me, He does not have to armed for me to use DPF. I agree with your first 2 examples, not your third.

 

[spat]

These 2 passages highlight an attacker having INTENT and ABILITY to harm you. A man my exact size can have INTENT and ABILITY to harm me, He does not have to armed for me to use DPF. I agree with your first 2 examples, not your third.

He doesn't even need to be a threat for you to *use* DPF.

What we are talking about is how much shit you will end up in after. He could have already fired a dozen rounds from his illegal machinegun at you and you still end up in shit, its all about the odds. The less overmatched you are, the harder the defense is if it ends up in court. Most experts don't recommend DPF against an evenly matched unarmed opponent.

Ask George Zimmermann how well winning one of those cases goes, and he waited until his life was obviously in danger, in a state with much stronger self defense protections than NY. You're talking about shooting before the first punch lands.

 

[spat]

A man my exact size can have INTENT and ABILITY to harm me, He does not have to armed for me to use DPF. I agree with your first 2 examples, not your third.

You're right, but you can spend a fortune and still fail to convince a jury of that.


It comes down to this. When to *use* DPF is based on your assessment of the totality of the circumstances. How much danger do you feel you are in. If you think your about to die, then it doesn't matter what he law says, I'd shoot an attacke in London england if i was there and thought i would die if i didn't, id just expect to end up in prison for it.

Whether you end up in prison *here* depends on your ability to convince a jury you were right about the threat. You can bet the prosecutor will bring up a lack of disparity.

 

[dwa12479]

He doesn't even need to be a threat for you to *use* DPF.

THEN you would be in a heap of trouble.

You're right, but you can spend a fortune and still fail to convince a jury of that.

Quite possibly, yes. But that doesn't mean you should/must take a beating just because you might be able to survive it.

Most experts don't recommend DPF against an evenly matched unarmed opponent.

Earlier you said... "Most places deadly force against an equal and unarmed attacker is prohibited."
That's different than... "Most experts don't recommend DPF against an evenly matched unarmed opponent. "

 

[spat]

THEN you would be in a heap of trouble.

Quite possibly, yes. But that doesn't mean you should/must take a beating just because you might be able to survive it.


Earlier you said... "Most places deadly force against an equal and unarmed attacker is prohibited."
That's different than... "Most experts don't recommend DPF against an evenly matched unarmed opponent. "

If they send people to prison for it, it is prohibited.

They send people to prison for what you are talking about. The experts recommend avoiding it.

Would you rather get in one fight, or a never ending series of them over the next 5-10 years ?


An evenly matched opponent means you've got 50/50 chance of beating him. I give you much worse odds with a jury, but its your life, your freedom, and your call in that moment.

 

[Marine Cpl]

 

[FrankenCub]

Keep it up and you guys are going to alert the resident troll to the thread.....

 

[Day444]

Dam, I keep thinking this is a gun forum. MOST of us carry a gun for the protection of me and mine.
I can't run due to a bad back, bad knee so there's a limit to my retreat options. As an LEO there was no question, we didn't retreat that wasn't an option.
So, find cover, tell the Mrs. to get out of here and call the Po Po. There's a level of force circle, you come with in killing distance and it's gun drawing time. Any sign of a weapon and that circle gets a bit larger.
You want to nammy pambe. Debate what if's, go right ahead. The ass wipe in the truck would have been looking down the bore of a gun when he was with in 15 feet of me.
I really question some of the posters who whine about nothing and can't show any facts.
IT'S A GUN FORUM, PRO 2ND AMENDMENT, DON'T TREAD ON ME kinda a place here!!!!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Spat has acquired my addiction.

 

[Uzi]

It's very sad that there are concealed carriers on this forum that have no idea, literally no idea what's legal, or not a good idea. I'm not picking out any individuals, and there is no one proper way to deal with all situations, but there are guidelines to follow. The proper universal action no matter where you live while conceal carrying is this;

You don't argue with anyone.
Don't threaten someone while brandishing your handgun.
Don't tell anyone about the fact that you're carrying and will use it if you have to. They can very well be armed as well and immediately then use a firearm or knife against you. If they're close enough and they have a blade, you're dead meat. Learn and understand how close most encounters are and how they relate to what can work against you. Keep your mouth shut about having a gun.
Don't escalate a situation and make it turn into a worse confrontation, and especially one that gets physical.
Avoid progressing an argument, call the police if for an example instead if someone is driving like a total asshole. I don't think a hand gesture like a what the fuck are you doing is a big deal or even a finger to be honest though. Just don't escalate anything if it continues. Get their plate number if possible too and report it to police.
The time to pull out your handgun is the time you're ready to shoot and kill someone. It's NOT in between or sort of kind of maybe I'll use it. If you believe you will be assaulted and believe your life or family is in danger with an act of deadly force, that's when you use your handgun if necessary.
You NEVER want to use your handgun if you don't need to and it all can be avoided.
Take concealed carry courses locally and learn about the very basic fundamentals of carrying before you carry.
Don't be an asshole and lift up your shirt like a big man and get your wives and dogs or yourself shot and killed.
The major major major advantage of concealing a firearm or other weapon is that there is the obvious element of surprise. use it wisely.

 

[RDN]

I don't know, you seem pretty sure that an unarmed attacker is off limits to shoot in self defense. All that needs to be present is the ABILITY and INTENT to inflict serious harm. An unarmed man the exact same size and stature as me can do that with his bare hands.

You must be getting New York mixed with Florida or another "Stand your Ground" state.
No Stand your Ground. No Castle Doctrine in NY.
It's a call 911 state. (example - If some hits you hard in the face (w/no blood) and you retaliate by beating the Sh!%*t out of them and make them bleed. Your the aggressor and the bad one.)

 

[dwa12479]

You must be getting New York mixed with Florida or another "Stand your Ground" state.
No Stand your Ground. No Castle Doctrine in NY.
It's a call 911 state. (example - If some hits you hard in the face (w/no blood) and you retaliate by beating the Sh!%*t out of them and make them bleed. Your the aggressor and the bad one.)

No one's discussing anything about Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine. We're talking about the last ditch effort at self defense when there is no option to retreat and you reasonably believe that an attacker has intent and ability to cause you serious physical harm or death right now at this very moment, and the extent to which it matters if that person is armed or unarmed.

 

[dwa12479]

If they send people to prison for it, it is prohibited.

They send people to prison for what you are talking about. The experts recommend avoiding it.

Would you rather get in one fight, or a never ending series of them over the next 5-10 years ?


An evenly matched opponent means you've got 50/50 chance of beating him. I give you much worse odds with a jury, but its your life, your freedom, and your call in that moment.

They send you to prison if it's determined that you were outside the realm of self defense in using DPF. Can Disparity of Force sway your case one way or the other? Sure. Is it a hard REQUIREMENT written into the law that it be there? No.

35.15
Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.

 

[RDN]

No one's discussing anything about Stand Your Ground or Castle Doctrine. We're talking about the last ditch effort at self defense when there is no option to retreat and you reasonably believe that an attacker has intent and ability to cause you serious physical harm or death right now at this very moment, and the extent to which it matters if that person is armed or unarmed.

Ok, either way. You shoot an unarmed person that attacks or maybe attacking you. YOU WILL BE PROSECUTED !!!! Have fun.

 

[Jmac00]

If the guy had a tire iron or something then you would probably be ok, but if he was bare handed, I'd rather take a physical beating than the legal mess that would undoubtedly ensue.

not to worry, I guarantee, if he came at me like that and he got shot, HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ARMED. IfYouKnowWhatIMean

 

[Day444]

Why I understand the use of deadly force:
CHARLES A CURIO
Tony as I know him from childhood and then an inmate in the County Jail where I use to work as a C.O. (He spent his time with us in 1988, in an isolated cell and was on strict 15 minute checks.) Tony was a pure monster, and for a shorter guy was a solid mass of mussel on top of mussel! An unconfirmed story is that he held the bench press record in Prison. He was scared of nothing, and his threats were not to be taken lightly.
In today's Time Herald Record page 3 (can't link it for some reason), Tony has been arrested for allegedly stabbing a Monticello man to death.
Curio has previously reported his address in NEWBURGH, Middletown and Monticello. They are all places I spend time in.
So if you ask, yeah I clearly understand Use of deadly force.

 

[spat]

They send you to prison if it's determined that you were outside the realm of self defense in using DPF. Can Disparity of Force sway your case one way or the other? Sure. Is it a hard REQUIREMENT written into the law that it be there? No.

The law says you may not use DPF except as a response to DPF, or to stop a few specific crimes. While an evenly matched opponent may be able to kill you with his bare hands, getting a jury to buy that as him using DPF is another matter entirely.

 

[Day444]

Just wondering how you determine an evenly matched opponent? What if the guy is a mall Ninja? Just saying the guy could be a boxer or skilled in martial arts. Do you wait and find out (the hard way)?

 

[Jmac00]

The law says you may not use DPF except as a response to DPF, or to stop a few specific crimes. While an evenly matched opponent may be able to kill you with his bare hands, getting a jury to buy that as him using DPF is another matter entirely.

right now, with my bad knees, arthritis in my hands and my back killing me, 12-year-old girl scout could take me out. Can I shoot the wench if she attacks me for not buying the cookies

 

[spat]

right now, with my bad knees, arthritis in my hands and my back killing me, 12-year-old girl scout could take me out. Can I shoot the wench if she attacks me for not buying the cookies

LOL, probably not the girl scout, but you can certainly claim disparity of force in a lot of situations that I can't....

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the ever popular "it looked like he had a weapon" defense. The law is about what you reasonably believed, not what actually is. That one works for cops all the time.

 

[spat]

Just wondering how you determine an evenly matched opponent? What if the guy is a mall Ninja? Just saying the guy could be a boxer or skilled in martial arts. Do you wait and find out (the hard way)?

Even if he *is* a Navy SEAL, unless you can explain why you thought he was at the time you're still in trouble.

Look, what it comes down to is: how much were you *really* afraid for your life. If you really were afraid, then the law is irrelevant, you shoot or you die, everything after that is a whole different problem.

If you're thinking "I can justify this" and not "I'm gonna die" then you aren't justified.

 

[Jem45472]

LOL, probably not the girl scout, but you can certainly claim disparity of force in a lot of situations that I can't....

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the ever popular "it looked like he had a weapon" defense. The law is about what you reasonably believed, not what actually is. That one works for cops all the time.

Can't remember who, but somebody here said that the attacker would have been armed by the time the police showed lol.

 

[Day444]

So, if the attacker is wearing a Navy Seal ball cap, has a death before dishonor tattoo on one arm and kill or be killed on the other arm. Can one shoot?

 

[GOPerfect]

Ok, either way. You shoot an unarmed person that attacks or maybe attacking you. YOU WILL BE PROSECUTED !!!! Have fun.

Wrong, there are many, many cases in NY (Recent history) that counterdicts your statement.

Shooting an unarmed attacker is indeed allowed at times.

It is how the incident is articulated.

 

[GOPerfect]

I am sorry if this offends anyone here,

There is soooooo much bad information being passed here on this subject. Please, for all who are reading looking for REAL facts and information, do not take this thread as true knowledge.

 

[ProgSpear]

So, if the attacker is wearing a Navy Seal ball cap, has a death before dishonor tattoo on one arm and kill or be killed on the other arm. Can one shoot?

Not if you are at the VA. It's a GFZ.

 

[Criticalt]

He doesn't even need to be a threat for you to *use* DPF.

What we are talking about is how much shit you will end up in after. He could have already fired a dozen rounds from his illegal machinegun at you and you still end up in shit, its all about the odds. The less overmatched you are, the harder the defense is if it ends up in court. Most experts don't recommend DPF against an evenly matched unarmed opponent.

Ask George Zimmermann how well winning one of those cases goes, and he waited until his life was obviously in danger, in a state with much stronger self defense protections than NY. You're talking about shooting before the first punch lands.

But Zimmerman followed the guy. He had all the time in the world to get away without a confrontation.
That is where all his troubles came from. He initiated contact and when the guy retaliated, he shot him.
Thats a far cry from someone minding their own business and being violently attacked.

 

[spat]

But Zimmerman followed the guy. He had all the time in the world to get away without a confrontation.
That is where all his troubles came from. He initiated contact and when the guy retaliated, he shot him.
Thats a far cry from someone minding their own business and being violently attacked.

That is what got Zimmerman in trouble, but he wasn't doing anything illegal, or even wrong.

The media and the prosecution made a lot out of that, but Zimmerman didn't really "start" anything, claiming he was the aggressor was a stretch.