The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

RBid · February 3, 2014, 03:17 PM

Going to try to clear up some muddy water where it may be present.

As is often correctly stated here and elsewhere, avoidance and escape are the best choices whenever they are viable. In review of the situation, it is absolutely relevant to point out various crossroads where those doors could have been used or left open.

However...

Those crossroads became temporarily irrelevant when the moment arrived where you were outside your car, facing an irrational and possibly more physically capable attacker.

Once any of us is in that position, only ONE question matters:

Is a life in, or about to be in danger?

That's it. There is no Zimmerman. There is no court. There is no jury. There is ONLY preservation of well being. This is not perfectly black and white, but it is much more so than it is often said to be, because of one fundamental misunderstanding:

It is TRUE that Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy are necessary to use lethal force. I have emphasized use, because it is often viable to present a lethal force option when Ability and Opportunity are present, and Jeopardy appears imminent. You do not need to be in Jeopardy RIGHT NOW to draw in many places (seek clarity within laws specific to your area).

For example, this man demonstrated Ability (physical capability disparity), Opportunity (proximity), and Jeopardy appeared imminent as he was advancing, though he had not yet committed to violent action. As evidenced by the way this was handled by LE after the fact, you were clearly legally justified according to the laws of your area in doing what you did.

So... How does this help clear up muddy water?

You presented a lethal force response, which put the next decision in the hands of the aggressor. You forced him to make another decision. You did not shoot. You did not pull over sooner to challenge him, instead seeking sanctuary at a place of comfort and security.

All of this is to say that when your decision making process is 100% rooted in preservation of well being, you will wind up with the best possible outcome. Note that I'm not saying the outcome will be pretty, simply less ugly than it could otherwise be. A long trial is preferable to death or permanent disability. Being vilified in court is better than being beat to death. Shooting a man who sought to deliver violence is preferable to being murdered.

After the fact, your situation is clearly more black and white than Zimmerman's, because his decisions were not rooted in preservation of well being.

That filter is as close to a golden ticket for a clear conscience and court win as there is. It is the best we have. Trust in it. Abide by it. Do not second guess it. Simply make choices specifically to preserve well being.

Be well.

February 3, 2014, 03:17 PM	#11
RBid Senior Member Join Date: March 10, 2012 Posts: 1,059	Going to try to clear up some muddy water where it may be present. As is often correctly stated here and elsewhere, avoidance and escape are the best choices whenever they are viable. In review of the situation, it is absolutely relevant to point out various crossroads where those doors could have been used or left open. However... Those crossroads became temporarily irrelevant when the moment arrived where you were outside your car, facing an irrational and possibly more physically capable attacker. Once any of us is in that position, only ONE question matters: Is a life in, or about to be in danger? That's it. There is no Zimmerman. There is no court. There is no jury. There is ONLY preservation of well being. This is not perfectly black and white, but it is much more so than it is often said to be, because of one fundamental misunderstanding: It is TRUE that Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy are necessary to use lethal force. I have emphasized use, because it is often viable to present a lethal force option when Ability and Opportunity are present, and Jeopardy appears imminent. You do not need to be in Jeopardy RIGHT NOW to draw in many places (seek clarity within laws specific to your area). For example, this man demonstrated Ability (physical capability disparity), Opportunity (proximity), and Jeopardy appeared imminent as he was advancing, though he had not yet committed to violent action. As evidenced by the way this was handled by LE after the fact, you were clearly legally justified according to the laws of your area in doing what you did. So... How does this help clear up muddy water? You presented a lethal force response, which put the next decision in the hands of the aggressor. You forced him to make another decision. You did not shoot. You did not pull over sooner to challenge him, instead seeking sanctuary at a place of comfort and security. All of this is to say that when your decision making process is 100% rooted in preservation of well being, you will wind up with the best possible outcome. Note that I'm not saying the outcome will be pretty, simply less ugly than it could otherwise be. A long trial is preferable to death or permanent disability. Being vilified in court is better than being beat to death. Shooting a man who sought to deliver violence is preferable to being murdered. After the fact, your situation is clearly more black and white than Zimmerman's, because his decisions were not rooted in preservation of well being. That filter is as close to a golden ticket for a clear conscience and court win as there is. It is the best we have. Trust in it. Abide by it. Do not second guess it. Simply make choices specifically to preserve well being. Be well.