Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
Alway walk on the side of the road facing traffic.
Robin
Robin
On a busy road yes.Alway walk on the side of the road facing traffic.
Robin
Thats my new plan, to carry my phone with the camera open and ready.A presentation was given at the Oneida & Herkimer County Chapter of SCOPE meeting last night on this exact topic, by a local lawyer who is an avid shooter. He stressed situational awareness, keeping a cool head even when the adreneline might be high, and being mentally prepared. He stressed that the law is vague and contradictory, and that in NYS the burden of proof will be on you. He specifically noted that the cell phone video might be your best friend. Also your options are severely limited when out "in public". Note section 2. (a) . A threat of a beat-down IN PUBLIC obligates you to retreat if possible, and you need to be able to prove somehow that you did everything possible to avoid or de-escalate the situation.
New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 35.15 | FindLaw
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the initial aggressor; except that in such case the use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or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.
Deadly force under any circumstances is going to get you into handcuffs in this state. However, the old adage comes to mind if it is truely necessary. " It's better to be judged by 12 than it is to be carried by 6"
Were I in your situation I would have -1, put some distance between you and the belligerent offender. Distance can give you more time to react if necessary.
2- even though it sounded obvious that reasoning of any kind was probably moot, I would have tried to diffuse the confrontation.
As you said, It wasn't just you that you had to worry about.
Thats why he said to video it.I don't know. Nothing good can come out of a whoop ass. I wouldn't follow that advice.
You whoop his ass and be presses charges with visible marks as abrasions. Permit can be lost anyway.
You whoop his ass and he needs medical attention, your permit can still be lost.
He whoops your ass. You can die, end up in the hospital clinging for life, or have your gun used against you and your family who just witnessed your skull being crushed and the perp just wants to get away.
The only safe and legal way is to retreat and if he gives chase, stop him at gun point if he gets to within 15 ft. If he continues, you know your life is in jeopardy because who the hell would charge a a man holding a gun on him?
But never get into a fight. You could be the most bad assed motherfucker and still get laid out by a lucky punch from a guy weighing a buck fifty who doesn't give a fuck and now your family is there at his mercy.
If someone threatens your life, then charges you and theres noplace to run to, you DO NOT have a duty to retreat.Agreed.
Unfortunately this is a "Duty to Retreat" state. Under the OP described circumstances, the guy appeared un-armed. You would be put in jail had you shot him. And even worst, the guy (if he lives) or his family can sue you in civil court. And the way this Liberal jackass state works you will be found liable.
Here it is again, the reason for the thread.Agreed.
Unfortunately this is a "Duty to Retreat" state. Under the OP described circumstances, the guy appeared un-armed. You would be put in jail had you shot him. And even worst, the guy (if he lives) or his family can sue you in civil court. And the way this Liberal jackass state works you will be found liable.
I'm not arguing your right to defend yourself or loved ones. I'm just stating the fucked up nature of the legal system in this state. Right or wrong, you most likely would've been put in jail and prosecuted (grand juries would indict a 'ham sandwich" if prosecutor asks). And civil court is another fucked up system.Here it is again, the reason for the thread.
You say shooting an unarmed person is against the law.
Where does the law say that?
Not in penal code 35, or anywhere else ive looked.
You have a duty to retreat *only* if it can be done with complete safety.If someone threatens your life, then charges you and theres noplace to run to, you DO NOT have a duty to retreat.
Also, this would not be a state isdueAgreed.
Unfortunately this is a "Duty to Retreat" state. Under the OP described circumstances, the guy appeared un-armed. You would be put in jail had you shot him. And even worst, the guy (if he lives) or his family can sue you in civil court. And the way this Liberal jackass state works you will be found liable.
Its happened twice here in the last several years, neither cases were prosecuted.I'm not arguing your right to defend yourself or loved ones. I'm just stating the fucked up nature of the legal system in this state. Right or wrong, you most likely would've been put in jail and prosecuted (grand juries would indict a 'ham sandwich" if prosecutor asks). And civil court is another fucked up system.
The way it is in NY. You have to be in your "home" (and not have instigated the situation) to claim self defense. And even then there no guarantee against prosecution. - just saying
I think this right is the main reason there are so many arguments on this forum. The state divided on guns it's unreal. If NYC was gone this state would probably be more like PA.Also, this would not be a state isdue
Its happened twice here in the last several years, neither cases were prosecuted.
We live in a very pro gun, pro self defense area.
Our local sheriff, judges and prosecutors are all conservative, pro gun guys.
Our sheriff was one that told his guys not to enforce the SafeAct. Our area is very, very pro Trump and pro law enforcement.
Our local judge does not ever put restrictions on permits and strongly encourages young people a women to get their pistol permits.
Our under sheriff is the one that does the pp investigations. No bullshit, if you dont have a state or federal prohibitor, you get your permit, very pro carry.
I know a guy with 2 DUIs, a possession of marijuana and a possession of stolen property on his record, he got a permit, no questions asked and didnt meet the judge for an interview.......and ive only heard of one guy losing his permit after a felony leaving the scene DWI and the judge apologized for revoking him.
Anyways, we here in Chautauqua are not like the eastern counties as far as law enforcement or citizenship.
I have read all of penal code 35 and I believe I know the answer, but, of course, this is NYS.
Two days ago my girlfriend and I were visiting my parents in a urban town.
We were walking down a long road when we heard a loud truck coming behind us.
The Dodge truck was literally driving with its tires on the gravel on the side of the road.
He got about 50 feet from us and we had to get out of the way, he WOULD have hit us.
As hes going by, the guy yells something to the effect of, "I wasnt going to hit you".
I put my hand up like a holy crap kinda thing.
By this time he was turning left at a stop sign about 50 yards past us.
He slams the truck in reverse, squealing the tires.
He jumps out of the truck very, very angry and yells, "flick me off again and watch what happens, Ill fucking kill you!!"
I have my GF and our 15 pound Chihuahua mix dog with me, so instead of doing the natural thing like flicking him off, I just laughed.
He said, "watch your back motherfucker".
I, again, just laughed.
This guy was in his 20s and about 250 pounds....and not fat.
Im a 230 pound former Ranger but im 46 years old so it would be a seriously violent fight if need be.
The thing is, my GF and dog may not be able to get away if this guy decided to attack us. He was seriously road raged, and spitting mad for some reason.
I keep hearing people say that a bad guy must have a weapon to use deadly force in NYS. I cant find that in ANY law. Who knows what this guy would do to my family if he knocked me out.
I havent been in a fight in 25 years but I have no fear of a punk big mouth, but my GF and dogs are my life.
Now if this guy just ran at us, as angry as he was, what do I do?
I had my Shield 9mm but was hesitant to think about deadly force against an unarmed guy.
Before you answer, picture a 250 pound dude spitting mad, veins popping and beat red.
Self defense is whats known as an affirmative defense. In order to plead self defense, you have to admit to murder or manslaughter, then claim it was justified and explain why.i have one problem with that lawyer at SCOPE .. " and that in NYS the burden of proof will be on you" REALLY .. self incrimination and what else is there .... the burden is on the state or the FED's i believe .. subject dead .. the 5th .. you prove it ... not my job ..
Where are you guys hearing that you can only use a firearm in self defense if your attacker is also armed? That's ridiculous. I asked @spat for the legal codes earlier in this thread when he suggested the same, and we have none yet. It's non-sense. If your attacker has both the INTENT and ABILITY to do you serious physical harm, you reasonably believe that your life or well-being is in serious jeopardy, and you cannot retreat, then you absolutely have the right to use a firearm in self defense, in even the hell hole of New Yorkistan.Agreed.
Unfortunately this is a "Duty to Retreat" state. Under the OP described circumstances, the guy appeared un-armed. You would be put in jail had you shot him. And even worst, the guy (if he lives) or his family can sue you in civil court. And the way this Liberal jackass state works you will be found liable.
He need not be armed, but in practice you need to be able to explain why you weren't evenly matched.Where are you guys hearing that you can only use a firearm in self defense if your attacker is also armed? That's ridiculous. I asked @spat for the legal codes earlier in this thread when he suggested the same, and we have none yet. It's non-sense. If your attacker has both the INTENT and ABILITY to do you serious physical harm, you reasonably believe that your life or well-being is in serious jeopardy, and you cannot retreat, then you absolutely have the right to use a firearm in self defense, in even the hell hole of New Yorkistan.
Most places deadly force against an equal and unarmed attacker is prohibited.
This is what I'm curious about. Can you cite a source for this claim? Not just an opinion that things won't go your way in court. You specifically said "prohibited".He need not be armed, but in practice you need to be able to explain why you weren't evenly matched.
If you have some infirmity, or he is bigger, or something, then that is enough. But if you can't explain why you were out matched, then don't expect things to go your way in court.
In the end you shoot because the alternative (not shooting) is worse. Expect to get seriously jammed up if you ever make the decision to fire, no matter how justified, only fire if you think the alternative would be worse anyway.
If you're in a situation and you aren't willing to spend a couple years in prison as the price of pulling the trigger, then you probably *aren't* justified.
This is what I'm curious about. Can you cite a source for this claim? Not just an opinion that things won't go your way in court. You specifically said "prohibited".
Not all threats of physical force rise to the level of deadly physical force.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
Says who? Where do you come to this conclusion? Case law? Written law? Who decides what evenly matched is? If a guy my exact size at 6'0" 210 was closing the distance on me and I truly believed he intended to attack me with his bare fists, then I satisfy the requirement of "an actor who reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force" . I do not have to just take that beating because we're both the same size and he's unarmed.Not all threats of physical force rise to the level of deadly physical force.
An evenly matched unarmed opponent is not generally considered to be a threat of deadly physical force. If you can explain why, in the particular circumstance you are in, they should be then you are in a better position.
There are many ways you could do that, but just "some people have died from one punch" is going to be a tough sell. Is the fight about to go down next to a busy highway ? Maybe that's enough. You on a high balcony ? Maybe.
Like everything else in NY law it is a giant blob of grey, and all you can hope for is to stack the deck in your favor.
I have never said the attacker must be armed.Says who? Where do you come to this conclusion? Case law? Written law? Who decides what evenly matched is? If a guy my exact size at 6'0" 210 was closing the distance on me and I truly believed he intended to attack me with his bare fists, then I satisfy the requirement of "an actor who reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force" . I do not have to just take that beating because we're both the same size and he's unarmed.
My specific target is the assertion by you and some others here that an attacker must be armed for you to be justified using DPF to protect yourself, and that's nonsense.
Disparity of Force - USCCA-Concealed Carry Self Defense Insurance & CCW InfoI have never said the attacker must be armed.
As for physical force vs deadly physical force, the answer is like everything else, whatever your lawyer can convince a jury it is.
But the bottom line is that NY law differentiates between physical force and deadly physical force, and you'd better be able to make a reasonable argument that the threat was the latter not the former if you shoot.
Every class I have taken, or legal advice I've heard hinges on a disparity of force being the key, armament is only one possible component.
Disparity of Force is defined as a situation that any reasonable person would conclude places you at an overwhelming disadvantage in your effort to protect yourself against immediate and serious bodily injury.
Here are some examples of Disparity of Force:
- Large man against small man.
- Able bodied man against disabled man.
- Man against woman.
- Two or more men against one man.
- Two or more juveniles against one man or one woman.
- Man or woman known to have training in the martial arts against untrained man or woman.
Also, this would not be a state isdue
Its happened twice here in the last several years, neither cases were prosecuted.
We live in a very pro gun, pro self defense area.
Our local sheriff, judges and prosecutors are all conservative, pro gun guys.
Our sheriff was one that told his guys not to enforce the SafeAct. Our area is very, very pro Trump and pro law enforcement.
Our local judge does not ever put restrictions on permits and strongly encourages young people a women to get their pistol permits.
Our under sheriff is the one that does the pp investigations. No bullshit, if you dont have a state or federal prohibitor, you get your permit, very pro carry.
I know a guy with 2 DUIs, a possession of marijuana and a possession of stolen property on his record, he got a permit, no questions asked and didnt meet the judge for an interview.......and ive only heard of one guy losing his permit after a felony leaving the scene DWI and the judge apologized for revoking him.
Anyways, we here in Chautauqua are not like the eastern counties as far as law enforcement or citizenship.
Most places deadly force against an equal and unarmed attacker is prohibited.
An evenly matched unarmed opponent is not generally considered to be a threat of deadly physical force. If you can explain why, in the particular circumstance you are in, they should be then you are in a better position.
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.I have never said the attacker must be armed.
Disparity of Force - USCCA-Concealed Carry Self Defense Insurance & CCW Info
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...U_HIYfM1XnS9kwDgA&sig2=Jzl3R2okM_k33fzgU9VaKw
Disparity of Force: Five Real-Life Self-Defense Cases
A Lesson in Disparity of Force…
There really is a lot of material out there about this, and the overwhelming consensus is that an DPF against an unarmed evenly matched attacker is going to be a very hard sell to a jury.
Generally speaking, you can only legally shoot when your adversary demonstrates the ability, opportunity and intent to inflict immediate and serious bodily injury to you or those around you.
Mas Ayoob said:Ayoob:
Disparity of force is the element that comes in
when a deadly weapon is used in self defense against
the ostensibly unarmed attacker. The law has long
recognized that there are certain
situations where the
attacker may not have a per se weapon, but within the
totality of the circumstances the likelihood of his violent
assault resulting in death or crippling injury
–
that is,
grave bodily harm to the defender
–
is such that it
becomes the equ
ivalent of a deadly weapon and it
warrants the defender’s recourse to a per se deadly
weapon.