Self defense question - Page 2

Bartholomew Roberts · April 10, 2009, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyguyskt

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.

Quote:

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"

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.

Had you been too quick/forced to fire, you might have ended up regretting that (legally or morally)

You did great, mate IMO

Glad your little angel and you are ok

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?", S.W.A.T. Magazine
Ayoob, Massad (October 1991), "Explaining the deadly force decision: the opportunity factor", Shooting Industry
Young, Dan. "Handgun Drills, Standards, and Training Page" (about middle of the page).
De Jongh, Lloyd. "The Reality Of Edged Weapon Attacks". FightingArts.com.
Truscott, Ted. "The Hidden Lesson of the Tueller Drill".

A TFL thread from 1999, is here. Another thread, from 2001, is here.

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

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

April 10, 2009, 08:42 AM	#29
Dragon55 Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2009 Location: East Tennessee Posts: 811	Whoa..... wait a minute 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. __________________ sailing ... A way to spend lots of money and go real S L O W

April 10, 2009, 09:11 AM	#31
Dingoboyx Senior Member Join Date: March 7, 2009 Location: South East Queensland, Australia Posts: 1,513	My 2c worth 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" 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. Had you been too quick/forced to fire, you might have ended up regretting that (legally or morally) You did great, mate IMO Glad your little angel and you are ok __________________ Muzza If you cant blind them with brilliance, Baffle them with BS Be alert...... there is a shortage of LERTs

April 10, 2009, 09:48 AM	#34
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	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. Last edited by johnwilliamson062; April 10, 2009 at 10:03 AM.

April 10, 2009, 06:39 PM	#35
calamityjane Junior Member Join Date: April 10, 2009 Location: North Carolina Posts: 4	NC CCH 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?' Last edited by calamityjane; April 10, 2009 at 06:44 PM. Reason: Format clarification

April 10, 2009, 08:22 AM	#27
PoorSoulInJersey Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2009 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 220	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.

April 10, 2009, 09:01 AM	#30
Jofaba Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 2009 Posts: 322	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.

April 10, 2009, 09:29 AM	#32
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	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?", S.W.A.T. Magazine Ayoob, Massad (October 1991), "Explaining the deadly force decision: the opportunity factor", Shooting Industry Young, Dan. "Handgun Drills, Standards, and Training Page" (about middle of the page). De Jongh, Lloyd. "The Reality Of Edged Weapon Attacks". FightingArts.com. Truscott, Ted. "The Hidden Lesson of the Tueller Drill". A TFL thread from 1999, is here. Another thread, from 2001, is here. 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.

April 10, 2009, 09:46 AM	#33
johnwilliamson062 Junior member Join Date: May 16, 2008 Posts: 9,995	I thought Texas had the right to use deadly force to protect property. I know a few states still do.

April 10, 2009, 07:29 PM	#36
ar15chase Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 2009 Location: Shallowater, Texas Posts: 444	I am sure you are correct about the NC laws. This incident happened in TX the laws are a bit different here.

April 10, 2009, 08:03 PM	#37
SteveRick Member Join Date: March 23, 2009 Posts: 55	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.

April 10, 2009, 10:12 PM	#39
Kent E Member Join Date: December 19, 2008 Posts: 25	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.

April 10, 2009, 10:27 PM	#40
ar15chase Senior Member Join Date: February 20, 2009 Location: Shallowater, Texas Posts: 444	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.

April 10, 2009, 11:31 PM	#41
2edgesword Member Join Date: December 27, 2008 Location: Suffolk County, NY Posts: 83	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.

April 11, 2009, 05:21 PM	#44
ssilicon Senior Member Join Date: May 5, 2005 Posts: 459	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.

April 11, 2009, 09:05 PM	#45
USASA Member Join Date: June 27, 2008 Location: Washington State Posts: 84	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.

April 11, 2009, 10:06 PM	#46
mskdgunman Senior Member Join Date: December 28, 2008 Posts: 127	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

April 12, 2009, 11:42 AM	#47
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	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.

April 13, 2009, 12:33 AM	#48
RDak Senior Member Join Date: October 17, 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 734	You'd be justified in Michigan IMHO. In Michigan, the castle doctrine extends to anywhere you have a legal right to be.

April 13, 2009, 01:52 AM	#49
cracked91 Senior Member Join Date: February 17, 2009 Posts: 385	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.