The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Advice for a friend that carries knives ONLY

leadcounsel · September 12, 2005, 03:02 PM

To you and me, we know that open fists are deadly weapons.

I'm only saying that I would not want to defend myself against a homicide prosecution where the "big mean man" wasn't present but instead there were pictures of him and his family and he looked really peaceful, while your defense is that you drew this evil looking gun that can stop a charging rhino and shot him dead while he had no weapon.

Like I said above, you can use the minimum force necessary to stop any physical attack against you a 3rd person. That CAN include using lethal force against an unarmed person, but it's much more clear when that person has a lethal weapon. So, if you shoot an unarmed aggressor who is REALLY a threat, will you win? Maybe? Will it bankrupt you? Probably. How much money do you have to spend on your defense? A murder rap will probably cost you 50 large and you'll likely get lots of bad press and lose you job.

To clarify the other point... Technically speaking, if an aggressor starts a fistfight with you, you are required to use the minimum amount of force necessary to defend yourself. It's debatable whether you can draw and would be the question the jury would have to answer. IF you do draw, you'll likely be charged or at least made miserable. IF you do draw, the initial aggressor CAN use lethal force against you if he tries to disengage and your pursue. For instance, he picks a fight with you, you are in fear for your life despite he has no weapon. You draw a (deadly weapon) and he says or shows his interest in disengaging. You strike anyway. YOU are liable.

Anyway you slice it (no pun intended), if you shoot an unarmed person, you'll not be enjoying life for some time even if you're exonerated. It doesn't matter if the guy is a world class martial artist. Sure, you'll probably be found not guilty, but at what cost? So, just make sure he has a weapon!

CRS 18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.
Statute text
(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or

(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.

September 12, 2005, 03:02 PM	#6
leadcounsel Junior member Join Date: September 8, 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA Posts: 2,119	To you and me, we know that open fists are deadly weapons. I'm only saying that I would not want to defend myself against a homicide prosecution where the "big mean man" wasn't present but instead there were pictures of him and his family and he looked really peaceful, while your defense is that you drew this evil looking gun that can stop a charging rhino and shot him dead while he had no weapon. Like I said above, you can use the minimum force necessary to stop any physical attack against you a 3rd person. That CAN include using lethal force against an unarmed person, but it's much more clear when that person has a lethal weapon. So, if you shoot an unarmed aggressor who is REALLY a threat, will you win? Maybe? Will it bankrupt you? Probably. How much money do you have to spend on your defense? A murder rap will probably cost you 50 large and you'll likely get lots of bad press and lose you job. To clarify the other point... Technically speaking, if an aggressor starts a fistfight with you, you are required to use the minimum amount of force necessary to defend yourself. It's debatable whether you can draw and would be the question the jury would have to answer. IF you do draw, you'll likely be charged or at least made miserable. IF you do draw, the initial aggressor CAN use lethal force against you if he tries to disengage and your pursue. For instance, he picks a fight with you, you are in fear for your life despite he has no weapon. You draw a (deadly weapon) and he says or shows his interest in disengaging. You strike anyway. YOU are liable. Anyway you slice it (no pun intended), if you shoot an unarmed person, you'll not be enjoying life for some time even if you're exonerated. It doesn't matter if the guy is a world class martial artist. Sure, you'll probably be found not guilty, but at what cost? So, just make sure he has a weapon! CRS 18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person. Statute text (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose. (2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and: (a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or (b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or (c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if: (a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or (b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. (4) In a case in which the defendant is not entitled to a jury instruction regarding self-defense as an affirmative defense, the court shall allow the defendant to present evidence, when relevant, that he or she was acting in self-defense. If the defendant presents evidence of self-defense, the court shall instruct the jury with a self-defense law instruction. The court shall instruct the jury that it may consider the evidence of self-defense in determining whether the defendant acted recklessly, with extreme indifference, or in a criminally negligent manner. However, the self-defense law instruction shall not be an affirmative defense instruction and the prosecuting attorney shall not have the burden of disproving self-defense. This section shall not apply to strict liability crimes.