For the First Time in My Life (possibility of having to use lethal force to defend my family and possibly my country)

[holdover]

If you defend yourself in NYS you will most likely be charged. Sometimes the cops cant tell who is guilty or not by what they see . they see a dead guy and They know you shot him , they are definitely taking you in for questioning .

 

[Darth]

In NY you have a duty to retreat *only if you can guarantee your complete safety when doing so.*

"
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 "

And there is no duty to retreat in the home.

There is no blanket "you must retreat or else" in NY.

If you can guarantee your and your loved ones personal safety by not using DPF...why WOULD you use it?

 

[holdover]

Your right, but you can explain that to the DA that is politically motivated to prosecute you.

 

[Darth]

Your right, but you can explain that to the DA that is politically motivated to prosecute you.

Ok.

Those cops yesterday seemed to.

 

[holdover]

which cops??

 

[Chevusa]

In NY you have a duty to retreat *only if you can guarantee your complete safety when doing so.*

"
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 "

And there is no duty to retreat in the home.

There is no blanket "you must retreat or else" in NY.

If you can guarantee your and your loved ones personal safety by not using DPF...why WOULD you use it?

You used the word "guarantee" but that word does not appear in the law.

In the class I just took by a NYS accredited training center and taught by a very experienced cop and detective, he even mentioned in the home you could have a problem easier than you think. It still has to be deemed "reasonable". His example was if you were upstairs with your family, it would be unreasonable to expect you and your family to jump from a 2nd story window to get away. Downstairs, it is more reasonable for you to be expected to avoid the encounter by all means necessary. Just shooting someone who is in your house however is not going to go off without a hitch. You better hope they are armed. Of course, if you are in immediate danger you have to do what you have to do.

The "knows with complete personal safety" part is much easier applied when defending a 3rd person. It is just much harder to secure complete safety for another person or multiple people. It is much easier to justify in that case. Just remember, your force and actions must be reasonable and match the opposing force. It may not exceed the force of another.

 

[Darth]

You used the word "guarantee" but that word does not appear in the law.

In the class I just took by a NYS accredited training center and taught by a very experienced cop and detective, he even mentioned in the home you could have a problem easier than you think. It still has to be deemed "reasonable". His example was if you were upstairs with your family, it would be unreasonable to expect you and your family to jump from a 2nd story window to get away. Downstairs, it is more reasonable for you to be expected to avoid the encounter by all means necessary. Just shooting someone who is in your house however is not going to go off without a hitch. You better hope they are armed. Of course, if you are in immediate danger you have to do what you have to do.

The "knows with complete personal safety" part is much easier applied when defending a 3rd person. It is just much harder to secure complete safety for another person or multiple people. It is much easier to justify in that case. Just remember, your force and actions must be reasonable and match the opposing force. It may not exceed the force of another.

"Knows that with complete safety" = guarantee.

Cops are possibly the worst people I can imagine on asking about the laws, beyond gun store owners.

 

[Chevusa]

"Knows that with complete safety" = guarantee.

Cop's are possibly the worst people I can imagine on asking about the laws, beyond gun store owners.

This guy is a state instructor. Not a road cop. You do what you want. You and you alone will face the music.

 

[Darth]

This guy is a state instructor. Not a road cop. You do what you want. You and you alone will face the music.

Will do.

Can't live in fear of my own shadow.

 

[Chevusa]

Will do.

Can't live in fear of my own shadow.

Who said anything about that?

Knowing and understanding the law throughly and properly has nothing to do with being afraid of anything.

 

[Darth]

Who said anything about that?

Knowing and understanding the law throughly and properly has nothing to do with being afraid of anything.

Right, I know and understand it thoroughly.

Hence I'm not afraid of my own shadow.

 

[Chevusa]

Right, I know and understand it thoroughly.

Your previous post demonstrates that is not the case. You have read it and can articulate it but do not understand it that way police/DA/judge know it and that is important because they are they ones who will apply it to your situation. There is more to it than just reading it once or twice online. There is history, precedent, application... etc. If it were just what is read on its face I would not have to go to a 47 hour class about it. They would just have us google it and read it.

 

[Darth]

Your previous post demonstrates that is not the case. You have read it and can articulate it but do not understand it that way police/DA/judge know it and that is important because they are they ones who will apply it to your situation. There is more to it than just reading it once or twice online. There is history, precedent, application... etc. If it were just what is read on its face I would not have to go to a 47 hour class about it. They would just have us google it and read it.

You didn't have to.

You chose to.

And it appears that the money was not well spent.

 

[Celt]

In NY you are guilty until proven innocent.

If you shoot someone in self defense you can count on having serious legal trouble if your case isnt air tight.

 

[Doc8404]

You used the word "guarantee" but that word does not appear in the law.

In the class I just took by a NYS accredited training center and taught by a very experienced cop and detective, he even mentioned in the home you could have a problem easier than you think. It still has to be deemed "reasonable". His example was if you were upstairs with your family, it would be unreasonable to expect you and your family to jump from a 2nd story window to get away. Downstairs, it is more reasonable for you to be expected to avoid the encounter by all means necessary. Just shooting someone who is in your house however is not going to go off without a hitch. You better hope they are armed. Of course, if you are in immediate danger you have to do what you have to do.

The "knows with complete personal safety" part is much easier applied when defending a 3rd person. It is just much harder to secure complete safety for another person or multiple people. It is much easier to justify in that case. Just remember, your force and actions must be reasonable and match the opposing force. It may not exceed the force of another.

your last sentence means you can’t shoot them until they shoot at you.
I doubt that is what you intended to say.

 

[Chevusa]

You didn't have to.

You chose to.

And it appears that the money was not well spent.

 

[Chevusa]

your last sentence means you can’t shoot them until they shoot at you.
I doubt that is what you intended to say.

That's not what was said at all. Equal force. I already addressed them having a gun previously. I said they better have one or another deadly weapon. Someone opening your door and just walking in does not meet the justification.

 

[Doc8404]

That's not what was said at all. Equal force. I already addressed them having a gun previously. I said they better have one or another deadly weapon. Someone opening your door and just walking in does not meet the justification.

im using English. You said your force must match theirs.
Not their capability of force. That’s all.

 

[Chevusa]

im using English. You said your force must match theirs.
Not their capability of force. That’s all.

Then you too do not understand A35 very well. It should have been clear as day to anyone who does.

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

Walk away. It's the only logical thing to do. These people are digging their own grave anyway.

Bull fuckin shit. Walk away my ass. They are pushing and testing limits. When they push farther, you take it. What happens when taking your drink and sitting at your table doesn't work? Whats next? A bat to the head? A knife in the neck? A bullet in the brain? Tell me im wrong. Wake the fuck up.

 

[CaseHardened]

If I feel my life, and the lives of my family, are in danger, I will engage in simple arithmetic.

I will conclude I and every loved one is lost, and will justify taking the same amount of lives that I and mine will lose.

This will be JUSTICE for my family, and also will prevent this occurring again by the same thugs.

 

[CaseHardened]

I have no capability of less than lethal force.

I simply don't.

I am old and very slow, and likely would not survive even a simple fall.

Tasers, Rubber Bullets, etc., are illegal for me to purchase or own.

It is either Shoot to Kill or nothing.

 

[Doc8404]

Then you too do not understand A35 very well. It should have been clear as day to anyone who does.

A35 is clear and I understand it well.
Next time maybe you should quote it instead of your weak interpretation.
In all reality, we are arguing about semantics.

 

[dwa12479]

A35 is clear and I understand it well.
Next time maybe you should quote it instead of your weak interpretation.
In all reality, we are arguing about semantics.

That's his specialty

 

[BuffNiag]

Bull fuckin shit. Walk away my ass. They are pushing and testing limits. When they push farther, you take it. What happens when taking your drink and sitting at your table doesn't work? Whats next? A bat to the head? A knife in the neck? A bullet in the brain? Tell me im wrong. Wake the fuck up.

So what’s your move? There are dozens of people backing up the rioters. They are obviously looking for a fight and have nothing to loose.

 

[Chevusa]

A35 is clear and I understand it well.
Next time maybe you should quote it instead of your weak interpretation.
In all reality, we are arguing about semantics.

I would die to see someone’s face as they are being arraigned and hearing the charges read who thought they understood the law quite well. It’s always a good idea to take instruction from the pro’s. There is always more to be learned. Otherwise we could close all schools down and everyone could just read online. Just as I said to @Darth I'm sure you read it and have a functioning brain. But the people who want to put you away for life know it much better and know it much deeper and can out game you 100 ways from Sunday.

 

[Darth]

Otherwise we could close all schools down and everyone could just read online

And of course they would never shut down schools and move everything online.

 

[Chevusa]

And of course they would never shut down schools and move everything online.

Permanently? Nah.

Even then there is still a live instructor. Can’t say that about reading laws online.

 

[GTN]

These are scary times indeed, shame we are even talking about it. Even with a really good understanding of our laws, one can still get jammed up hard.

MOST IMPORTANT////


If you get in a situation like one being spoke of; always ask to go to the hospital before a sit down with the Police.

After the hospital, lawyer up. Full lawyer up! Do not communicate at all with the Police

Officer I’m in shock. I need medical attention before making a statement

 

[Cooolone]

Again, not to say what I or anyone would or should do! But the fine line between confrontation and a life/death threat is a hairs width thin during the encounter, but a yard wide once prosecutors and lawyers have it in a courtroom.

That said... All those posts (above) represent a lot of thinking... And too much thinking when in a deadly confrontation will get you killed! It's simple really...

Are you being threatened? Are you afraid this threat is trying to violently cause you harm... and is that harm life threatening? A fraction of a second to decide, and ACT! Not stop and look around for the exit, or ask that the perpetrator PLEASE don't do what they're about to do! You act or you die...

But wait, what about that article 35? What did it say... OMG, what's my lawyers #... I don't want to have a problem... Wait... Where'd the guy go, oh shit, he's behind me... What the fuck was that... oh wait, why is my leg wet? OMG, it's not wet, it's blood, I didn't see that, what he do? Wait... Wait... Wait... Don't! NOoooo... Shit, fuck, motherfucker... Stooooooppp!

Yeah, read that a few fucking times!

The criminal isn't stopping to worry about what's gonna happen next! The criminal is going to ACT!

The person who ACTS has a distinct and severe advantage over the person "reacting" period!

But sure, take that split second to be distracted and think about what trouble you're trying to avoid, except the immediate problem in front of you!

That all...