PDA

View Full Version : Self defense question


ar15chase
April 9, 2009, 04:37 PM
I have my CHL in TX. I was walking out into the parking lot at to local Wal-Mart at about 10pm with my 2 year old daughter in my arms, still about 75 yrds from my vehicle. When 2 kinda rough looking guys with saggy pants. ( I am sure you know the type) Came out about 10 feet in front of us and asked to use my phone. I said I didnt have a phone and started walking in a different direction to my truck to avoid them. Just a few seconds later I noticed them both behind me charging at us yelling cursewords. There was no way for me to outrun them with my little girl in my arms, and I was pretty sure I was in for a beating. Not to mention my daughter could be seriously injured. So I set her down as fast as I could behind a nearby car(about 2 feet from me) and drew my 45 on them, and told them to stop or I will shoot. Lucky for me they did and ran off in the other direction. My question is would I have been justified in firing on them if they got any closer?? I did not see either with a weapon. But I dont think they would have needed one. Do you think I did the right thing in drawing my weapon?

NavyLT
April 9, 2009, 04:45 PM
Yes, absolutely I think you did the right thing. Who knows if it would be ruled as a SD shooting, but, in that situation, you didn't have any choice, IMHO. Glad it worked out no worse than it did.

a7mmnut
April 9, 2009, 04:51 PM
I'm not saying you were totally wrong, but in NC you would have been charged with at LEAST "brandishing a firearm", maybe criminal assault since you were a permit holder. You would have gone to jail, and your little girl would have been taken in by either a matron or DSS. Of course, this all depends on how convincing you are, and also what evidence they found on the assailants. Does Texas not have an "escallation of force" clause in their defense law?:confused:


-7-

djohn
April 9, 2009, 04:51 PM
IMO yes,I would have done the same thing.If they where charging you i think there intention where not good and show disregard that you had a little one. Sounds like you where about to get jaked up and robbed with the ask of the phone but since you walked right away It gave them a lttle time to get angry.Glad it worked in your favor and not esculated to a shooting.

ar15chase
April 9, 2009, 04:52 PM
Good to hear NAVYLT. One thing I forgot to mention was the fact that I wasnt going to stick around for LE to arrive in fear they could come back with a gun. So I called when I got home.

ar15chase
April 9, 2009, 05:10 PM
I dont know if we have an escallation of force" clause here in TX I would have to check. But I can say that if so I have never heard of it. As I said before I called the police when I got home. One officer seemed angry I didnt stick around for them. But his partner didnt seem to care.

flyguyskt
April 9, 2009, 05:16 PM
I have done this same thing before and will do again!

the key to this in a self defense case is PROVING you were in fear of your life or someone elses life. your toddler child would not take a lot of abuse to be fatal.

if they were"charging" you and threatening you then you were justified...

yes in NYC you probly would get in trouble...same with California...but your in texas! thank God that all states don't follow the idiot law makers of some other states.

old saying rings true "its better to be judged by 12 than carried by six"

Nuff said.

oh by the way if they had a knife...the federal kill zone for self defense is 21 feet. so make sure they are close before pulling the trigger!

ar15chase
April 9, 2009, 05:19 PM
Thanks for the info on the knife.

NavyLT
April 9, 2009, 05:33 PM
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

a7mmnut
April 9, 2009, 05:42 PM
As long as you are fully aware of what was just seconds away from happening to you and your daughter, ok. We still teach other non-lethal methods here because the "..fist to fist, club to club, knife to knife, gun to gun.." progression is so much played out in NC courts on both sides of the bench.


Glad everything worked out. Do yourself a favor and buy some O.C. spray.


-7-

MartyG
April 9, 2009, 05:49 PM
Two against one is enough deadly force by my line of reasoning, even if unarmed. Add to that you were not completely free to defend yourself, you had to defend your daughter as well. Two thugs vs 1 man and a little baby. You avoided them, and they pursued, cursing at you. You did the right thing. The proof was that they ran off. They knew they were up to no good, and so did you, and so do we.

Chalk one up for concealed carry!:)

armsmaster270
April 9, 2009, 05:49 PM
It's kinda Hard to defend yourself with a child in your arms and if you put her down to do battle with one the other can grab the child its a losing battle in all ways I vote you did what you had to to protect your child. JMO

NavyLT
April 9, 2009, 05:50 PM
As long as you are fully aware of what was just seconds away from happening to you and your daughter, ok. We still teach other non-lethal methods here because the "..fist to fist, club to club, knife to knife, gun to gun.." progression is so much played out in NC courts on both sides of the bench.


Glad everything worked out. Do yourself a favor and buy some O.C. spray.


-7-

He's not in North Carolina. He's in Texas. Good advice to a North Carolinian is not necessarily good advice to a Texan. A Texan can legally shoot a thief who is stealing their property while that thief is RUNNING AWAY, if that is the only way for the Texan to stop the robbery.

gb_in_ga
April 9, 2009, 05:51 PM
In my CHL class here in Tx the instructor put it this way:

If it is a single, unarmed attacker you may not draw.

If it is a single, armed attacker you may draw.

If it is multiple attackers, armed nor not, you may draw.

FWIW, the rules for drawing and the rules for firing are one and the same.

ar15chase
April 9, 2009, 06:30 PM
I am glad I didnt shoot in this situation since it all worked out, but its nice to know I could have. If the BG's would have got to the car parked next to the one we were stoped at I would have fired. I guess THE GOOD LORD above was helping out on this one. I just hate the fact that 2 thugs, would try to do something like that when there is a small child involed. It just goes to show how little some people care about the helpless. (my 2 year old) I am also thankful my father taught me never to walk to close to a car in a parking lot, because you never know who might jump out.

51_60_colt
April 9, 2009, 06:52 PM
So, in NC you'll be jailed for pulling your weapon on an attacker? I knew that you had to retreat in your own home but, in this situation what else could you do? These laws make me angry.:mad::mad:

ar15chase
April 9, 2009, 08:09 PM
I agree a person should NOT have to run a hide, just to be able to defend themselves with dealdly force. It makes no sense. Glad I am in TX.

Brian Pfleuger
April 9, 2009, 08:12 PM
What was the police response to your call?

ar15chase
April 9, 2009, 08:28 PM
"As I said before I called the police when I got home. One officer seemed angry I didnt stick around for them. But his partner didnt seem to care."


When LE arived at my home....25mins after i called.....I told them the same thing I told you guys, with the exeption that I said everything they yelled at me, which I cant put in this forum. They asked to see the weapon I was carrying, which I showed them. LE looked at it got the serial numbers and gave it back to me. All in all, they said they were going to check the cameras at Wal_mart to try and find out exactly what happened. They have cameras all over the parking lot there. I hope they get the thugs, before they hurt someone. But I doubt it.

skydiver3346
April 9, 2009, 09:07 PM
Without question in my opinion. Especially When you tried to evade them and get away and they still pursued you and your little girl. They were up to no good for sure and you did what you had to do to stop the threat. If you fired, that is another matter but drawing your weapon after what transpired was justified in most folks eyes. Who knows if they had a weapon or not and it really doesn't matter as they actually put you in fear of your life for no reason. You must defend yourself and especially your child. They are lucky that you didn't pull the trigger on your .45. I guarantee that they won't have the same approach again to other people without thinking this could happen again and someone else may just blow them away.........
Thank God you and your child were able to go home safely and in one piece.

carguychris
April 9, 2009, 09:14 PM
IMHO given the fact that your 2-year-old child was next to you, no jury in Texas would convict you of any wrongdoing. I would not have done anything different.

OTOH if I were alone in the same situation, I would have first backed up rapidly while loudly exclaiming "I HAVE A GUN- BACK OFF!!" If they did not respond by the count of 2, then I would draw. :)

gwright
April 9, 2009, 10:18 PM
Part of this in any jurisdiction is going to depend on what witnesses saw. Calling LE was the right thing to do, but you should have remained at the scene until the LEOs arrived, and gotten the names of any witnesses. Also, I would not "confess" to anything, especially brandishing a weapon. Let the witnesses tell the story. If there were no witnesses, and the BGs left, you only need to report their actions so LE can be on the look out. You cannot be convicted of brandishing a weapon unless there are witnesses. Stick to the facts, and say as little about your actions as you can.

Southern Rebel
April 9, 2009, 11:17 PM
In my own little world, their is no higher law (state, federal, whatever) than that of defense of your child. Hesitation caused by legal concerns could have cost you the life of your child. The lifetime guilt that you would have endured would have been a lot more of a punishment than ANYTHING the law could do to you.

JohnKSa
April 10, 2009, 12:48 AM
FWIW, the rules for drawing and the rules for firing are one and the same.That is not correct in TX.

In TX, you may not fire until deadly force is legally justified, however you CAN threaten someone with a gun when only force (not deadly force) is legally justifed. Here is the applicable section of law.

Sec. 9.04. THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

NavyLT has correctly quoted the section of the law dealing with the justification for deadly force. Below is the section dealing with the justification for force NOT deadly force.

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.

(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

maestro pistolero
April 10, 2009, 12:51 AM
So, in NC you'll be jailed for pulling your weapon on an attacker?

In your situation I doubt that very much. There were two aggressors which amounts to a disparity of force, plus the mitigating factor of a young child to defend.

Well done. You didn't have to shoot so you didn't shoot. It couldn't have turned out better. Do get some pepper spray. In this case, with your two attackers, it probably wouldn't have helped. But against one unarmed assailant, it can save you a lot of 'splainin and a mountain of attorney's fees.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 10, 2009, 07:15 AM
oh by the way if they had a knife...the federal kill zone for self defense is 21 feet.

What exactly is a "federal kill zone for self defense" and where can I find the language of the law that establishes it?

PoorSoulInJersey
April 10, 2009, 08:22 AM
absolutely. You're outnumbered 2 to 1 and you have a daughter to defend. You were right in many ways:
- you tried to evade them
- you drew your gun
- you verbally warned them to stop
- you didn't shoot them once they ceased to be a threat

The police get picky about leaving the scene of a crime, but I can understand your desire to get out of there.

rwilson452
April 10, 2009, 08:30 AM
There is no legislation that has been past in this regard that I know of. There is Case law on it. It is from a study done years ago that indicated that a bg at 21 feet can run at you and stab you in less time than it takes you to draw and fire.

What exactly is a "federal kill zone for self defense" and where can I find the language of the law that establishes it?

Dragon55
April 10, 2009, 08:42 AM
NO.... you don't stick around waiting on the punks to get back with their armed buddies. You take your baby and get the h*** out of there. Waiting around for some cops to fill out some paperwork is just plain stupid.

Jofaba
April 10, 2009, 09:01 AM
Seems like a perfect example of carry use. No controversial discharge, clear perception of violence about to take place, not to mention the perps were willing to attack someone who had a child with them!? You stopped a crime, and perhaps even saved your child and yourself.

Glad you're okay.

Dingoboyx
April 10, 2009, 09:11 AM
Sounds like you did everything perfectly, to me. You put your daughter down in the best place you could, you drew (understandibly) you warned them, they ran..... you did like the good shepard and "got the flock outta there" :D

Well done ;)

I say what you did (no matter what the law says.... the law wasn't there) you drew your weapon, but you didn't fire it..... (just because a gun is drawn, does not mean it has to be fired, I dont care what anyone else thinks otherwise)

To my way of thinking, you used your gun sensibly, to defuse a situation that would have had a totally different outcome, had you not acted as responsibly as you did. :D Had you been too quick/forced to fire, you might have ended up regretting that (legally or morally)

You did great, mate IMO :D

Glad your little angel and you are ok :D

Al Norris
April 10, 2009, 09:29 AM
If your post contained nothing more than a "+1," it was deleted as wasted space. If you agree with what another person has said, then have the common curtesy to say why you agree.

flyguyskt, as Bart implied and rwilson452 expanded, the 21 foot "rule" is case law, not any kind of actual legislated law. You might want to look up "Tueller Drill" (named after Sgt. Dennis Tueller, SLCPD, Utah).

Tueller, Dennis (March 1983), "How Close is Too Close?" (http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm), S.W.A.T. Magazine
Ayoob, Massad (October 1991), "Explaining the deadly force decision: the opportunity factor" (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n10_v36/ai_11549909), Shooting Industry
Young, Dan. "Handgun Drills, Standards, and Training Page" (http://www.kuci.org/~dany/firearms/all_drills.html) (about middle of the page).
De Jongh, Lloyd. "The Reality Of Edged Weapon Attacks" (http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=308). FightingArts.com.
Truscott, Ted. "The Hidden Lesson of the Tueller Drill" (http://defendyourself101.ca/articles/hidden-lesson-tueller-drill).

A TFL thread from 1999, is here (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44748). Another thread, from 2001, is here (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87489).

It is a self defense technique that most trainers use today. Anyone relying solely upon their gun, should be well versed in the fact that you may very well lose the fight, should your assailant be within 21 feet of you.

Kudos, to the OP for handling the situation the way he did.

johnwilliamson062
April 10, 2009, 09:46 AM
I thought Texas had the right to use deadly force to protect property. I know a few states still do.

johnwilliamson062
April 10, 2009, 09:48 AM
I have seen the 21 foot rule(or 7 yard) proven several times. It takes someone who knows the exact steps to take, but if they do it the person with a gun has to be VERY fast to have a chance.
One of the reasons I prefer a knife when legal(which is practically never).

When your baby is involved how worried are you about the law?
I won't judge you.

calamityjane
April 10, 2009, 06:39 PM
I just completed a four hour course on North Carolina use of deadly force law.

The North Carolina CHP rules stated earlier on this thread are absolutely incorrect.

1. Justified self-defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force in North Carolina against another if and only if:

a. The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death great bodily harm, or sexual assault and

b. The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force was necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, and

c. The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, and

d. Force used was not excessive - greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor.


2. Duty to retreat before using deadly force

Unless an exception such as those listed below applies, a citizen must retreat before using deadly force if retreat is possible.

Exception A: There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the assault threatens imminent death or great bodily harm – a murderous or felonious assault or sexual assault.

Exception B: There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force if the victim is on his or her own premises, or on his or her business premises, or is at home.

Because the law requires retreat from a simple assault but does not require retreat from a murderous or felonious assault, an assault victim is once again faced with a decision: when does a simple assault become a murderous assault? No clear answer exists for the multitude of circumstances constituting an assault.

I believe the OP did the right thing and would be free from retribution in TX as well as NC however, it's can always be a very gray area.

On a side note, think carefully before carrying mace since it opens up the ability for the prosecution (if it comes to that) to ask 'why did you opt for lethal force when you had non-lethal force available to you?'

ar15chase
April 10, 2009, 07:29 PM
I am sure you are correct about the NC laws. This incident happened in TX the laws are a bit different here.

SteveRick
April 10, 2009, 08:03 PM
Even California has a Stand Your Ground law. I can't believe people want you to turn your back on dangerous criminals who will chase, shoot or stab you in the back.

haiyter
April 10, 2009, 08:28 PM
My question is would I have been justified in firing on them if they got any closer?? I did not see either with a weapon. But I dont think they would have needed one. Do you think I did the right thing in drawing my weapon?

First of all, it would have been a justifiable since you verbally warned them. Had they come any closer while you were holding your daughter in your arms, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that they would have assaulted you which would cause a bodily injury to both you and your daughter. The law does not require a person to see a visual weapon, you just have to justify that you felt there was a legitimate reason that they could cause bodily harm to you and that your life was in danger. Say those 2 people werent ruff looking etc and were 2 12 year old kids running towards you screaming curse words, I'm sure your not going to feel the same way you did with 2 rough looking people and dont think anyone will side with you if you drew out your .45 aiming at kids.

The only way you could get in trouble is if someone witnessed the situation, saw you drew out your pistol, and while they retreated they saw you shoot them behind their backs

Kent E
April 10, 2009, 10:12 PM
For the life of me, I can't even fathom why we are talking about the law. In my opinion you did everything above and beyond what you should have. You protected you life and your child's. I commend you! The law is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, these evildoers are free to harm others. Let's pray next time they pick the wrong person once again and receive justice.

Blessing to you.

ar15chase
April 10, 2009, 10:27 PM
Thank you very much Kent E. I do understand that they may now go and harm others, simply because they are alive. Sadly there are many people like that in this world. But maybe next time they see a 5'3'' 135lbs single dad they will think twice. I am however glad they ran off, for the simple reason that I dont want my little one to see her dad shoot and kill somebody with a gun. The last thing I want is to harm another human being, no matter how bad they are. Even though sometimes that is just what they deserve. All I can say is that if I had it to do all over again. I would NOT have went to Wal-Mart.:mad:

2edgesword
April 10, 2009, 11:31 PM
The fact that your little girl was with you removes any hesitation I might have had with respect to the justification for your actions.

BTW, the folks in Texas haven't lost the common sense that isn't so common in places like NY....

"THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE. The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force."

The question regard what constitutes a threat of deadly force or force sufficent to cause serious injury is a huge grey area. In addition a less then lethal situation can easily escalate in milli-seconds to a lethal force situation. The idea that a weapon should only be drawn when you have made the decision to shoot is ridiculous and negates a major advantage of having a weapon, having it serve as a deterent to the escalation of force on that part of those threatening an attack.

Brian Pfleuger
April 11, 2009, 08:59 AM
For the life of me, I can't even fathom why we are talking about the law. In my opinion you did everything above and beyond what you should have. You protected you life and your child's. I commend you! The law is irrelevant.

You may think the law is irrelevant but try telling that to the police or the jury. We discuss the law because it is vitally important for any armed citizen to know when they can and should use deadly force, or the threat of deadly force, to defend themselves. The old mantra "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6." will be poor consolation to the your wife and children while your doing 25-life for an unjustified shooting.

In this case I think it's fairly obvious that the action was justified. Even states that require retreat do so only when it is possible with complete safety to self and others. It is clear in this case that the OP was not going to outrun two BGs with a two year old in his arms.

Glenn E. Meyer
April 11, 2009, 05:14 PM
Mas and I were discussing a police case where the 'Tueller Rule' was not universally accepted without argument. Here's a clip from it.

02/11/2009

10-8: Life on the Line
- Sponsored by Blauer

with Charles Remsberg

Jurors learn edged weapon and use of force realities in $8M lawsuit

At trial or during the preliminaries, three expert witnesses hired by the plaintiffs had vehemently attacked the officers’ actions. All discounted the dangers of edged weapons and the need to use deadly force against a screwdriver.

A highlight of Grossi’s testimony was his patient education of the jury on the realities of edged-weapon assaults. Although introduction of Surviving Edged Weapons was “fought tooth and nail” by the plaintiffs’ attorney, the judge permitted Grossi to show about 5 minutes of footage from the video

Point is that the Tueller rule may have to be explained and defended. Experts might be found to testify against you, etc. Depends on politics and money.

ssilicon
April 11, 2009, 05:21 PM
Story doesn't make sense to me. The timing seems wrong. It started with the perps 10 feet away and then when walking away from them they are heard to be cursing and running after her. She has time to notice them running at her (from behind), stash the girl behind a nearby car, draw weapon and verbalize a warning all before they were on her. Must have walked quite a ways away before they decided to to revist is all I can say. In my estimation all she would have had time for would be to almost finish stashing the kid.

USASA
April 11, 2009, 09:05 PM
Quote:

"All in all, they said they were going to check the cameras at Wal_mart to try and find out exactly what happened."

Sounds like a crock to me. "Try and find out exactly what happened."

You told them what happened. Sounds like, if they even check the cameras, they'll be looking to see if you did anything out of place.

mskdgunman
April 11, 2009, 10:06 PM
Evidence is evidence. The camera records what it sees without any emotion. It's a two edged sword to be sure but if you have done everything right, who cares? After the incident, the vicitms perceptions are probably a little skewed due to stress and this is understandable. Witness statements are notoriously unreliable and I can't tell you how many times the description I was given by a witness looked nothing like the actual suspect so I'll take video if I can get it

Forgive me if I don't take anybody's word for what happened as being 100% reliable. All they want the video for to see EXACTLY what happened...it's not some big conspiracy to hammer some citizen. Welcome to the world of being second guessed. It happens to cops all the time after use of force situations. It's not fair but it happens. I just fail to see the big deal about them pulling the video. Sounds like SOP in an investigation to me. As I said, if everything was on the up and up, there's nothing to worry about

Webleymkv
April 12, 2009, 11:42 AM
Overall, I think you did the right thing. The only thing I'd have done differently is that I would have immediately gone back inside the Wal-Mart, called the police, and waited inside rather than going home first.

RDak
April 13, 2009, 12:33 AM
You'd be justified in Michigan IMHO.

In Michigan, the castle doctrine extends to anywhere you have a legal right to be.

cracked91
April 13, 2009, 01:52 AM
I live in Arizona, and there are alot of cases of people getting beat to death by two on one or more, even fists. I know if I had a toddler with me and they did not stop, someone would have gotten shot. Its not a question of law. Its a question of getting your head crunched against the curb in front of your daughter and ending up in diapers because of brain damage the rest of your life.

JuanCarlos
April 13, 2009, 03:32 AM
I live in Arizona, and there are alot of cases of people getting beat to death by two on one or more, even fists. I know if I had a toddler with me and they did not stop, someone would have gotten shot. Its not a question of law. Its a question of getting your head crunched against the curb in front of your daughter and ending up in diapers because of brain damage the rest of your life.

This is part of why I'll never fully understand the laws concerning use of deadly force in self-defense. Even in Texas, it seems the person defending themselves can only do so in the face of deadly force (or a short list of other crimes). Seems unreasonable, considering that there is so much overlap between a simple beating, gross bodily harm, and beating somebody to death. The first can easily lead to the third, even absent intent.

I see no reason why I should have to wait and see if the two nice gentlemen are actually going to beat me to death (or wait until they draw a weapon such as a knife, by which point it may be too late) to use deadly force.

Then again, Texas at least seems to sidestep the issue by allowing one to draw a weapon under the regular use of force guidelines (not deadly force)...and at that point any assailant that doesn't run like a frightened deer (or at least stop in their tracks with their hands up) can reasonably be presumed to intend to use deadly force...weapon or no. You don't mess with somebody that has a gun unless you're quite willing to kill them.

blume357
April 13, 2009, 06:54 AM
wally world...

debating state laws after the fact is the job of lawyers and judges. In my opinion the two punks were way too lucky... probably 3 more steps and they would or should have been dead.

When two people (or even one person) is running at you with obvious no good intentions... there is no time to determine city, county, state, federal or international laws... the only law you needed to obey is the one to protect yourself and even more important, that of your daughter.

USASA
April 14, 2009, 10:13 PM
mskdgunman,

Good post.....