Do you have to fight?

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Microgunner: And since a blow with a fist can, and has caused many, many deaths, the US constitution guarentees my RIGHT to life.

Second part does not follow from the first. However, the Constitution simply prohibits the Government from taking a person's life against action taken without due process.

SCOTUS has characterized the right to defend one's llfe as a natural right.

The simple fact that people have been killed by blows from fists does not justify the use of deadly force to prevent oneself from being stuck. There must be a basis for a reasonable belief that the danger of death or serious injury is imminent and that deadly fore is immediately necessary--that is, that there is no other alternative.

Read Post #22 one more time, and study the attached article. The shooter did everything possible to avoid the use of deadly force when being attacked by more than one person with fists. He ultimately had no other choice but to shoot. He was in jail for quite a while and was tried twice.

That happened in gun friendly Arizona.

"Not Florida? This is from the website of the FL Division of Licensing:

2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.

Regarding the possibility of justifying the use of deadly force in a defense against fists, a lot will likely hinge on the comparative strength and health of the individuals involved.

[FoxtrotRomeo]

Yes verbal threat does not allow you to use deadly force. If a person wishes for a slug out session mano e mano, that does not allow deadly force either.

But it is more clear when a weapon or potential weapon is involved (A baseball bat does not become a weapon until it is swung with the intent to injure or kill.)

When a more clear weapon is involved (anger is present when dealing with a person and you see him attempt to pull a weapon for use.) The presentation as far as I'm concerned of a deadly weapon is authorized (I've had this conversation with my carry permit instructor). Presentation does not mean that the action of the use of deadly force is authorized. That needs to be clear. Now to someone willing to make it political it would so be careful and think before you present it.

Now if he or she persists and their action indicate that they wish to put your life and/or limb in jeopardy. Then according to the laws of the state of Tennessee, deadly force is now authorized.

Now in some states, that's not the case. So check the state laws before you get there.

So if you examine yourself in this state and you really do have a really good reason why fear is coursing through every vein and artery in your body and you have no other options, you can use deadly force.

[threegun]

Read Post #22 one more time, and study the attached article. The shooter did everything possible to avoid the use of deadly force when being attacked by more than one person with fists. He ultimately had no other choice but to shoot. He was in jail for quite a while and was tried twice.

Had the above person not opened fire he might possibly be dead or grievously injury.........kinda sounds like what is necessary to shoot doesn't it. Sounds like he got a bum deal and a pretty isolated case.

BTW Microgunner explained that shooting was as a last resort in post #59.

I will, and have, shout "I'm armed, stay back". If they proceed I will, and have, show my weapon. If they still proceed i will, and have, point my weapon. If they still proceed I will shoot.

_________________________________________________________________

The simple fact that people have been killed by blows from fists does not justify the use of deadly force to prevent oneself from being stuck. There must be a basis for a reasonable belief that the danger of death or serious injury is imminent and that deadly fore is immediately necessary--that is, that there is no other alternative.

At the point (using microgunners tactics) that the bad guy attempts to attack despite the firearm in my hand, it is much easier to defend our position legally. Several levels of warning to avoid having to shoot already ignored.

[threegun]

Yes verbal threat does not allow you to use deadly force. If a person wishes for a slug out session mano e mano, that does not allow deadly force either.

I think some of you guys are ignorant as to just how badly you can be beaten simply with fists. Perhaps you just haven't thought the issue through thoroughly. Maybe you guys believe a fist fight will be like the one you had in grade school.

My breakdown of why it is not physically responsible to engage in a fist fight.

1. You can be killed. As in dead not a bloody nose or fat lip. Just as the nose and lip are a possibility so is death.

2. You can be gravely injured. As in permanent brain injury or other not a broken rib or cracked tooth. While the rib and tooth are possible so it permanent brain injury.

The fact is you are literally putting your life into the hands of your attacker by engaging in a fist fight.

My breakdown of why it is not tactically responsible to fist fight.

Leaving your gun holstered while becoming engaged in hand to hand virtually insures a difficult or impossible deployment should your opponent decide to beat you to death. At a minimum you risk having it taken from you.

[Dragline45]

Growing up in a big city ill throw in my 2 cents.

Like everyone else said it depends on the situation. Judging by some peoples responses they have never been attacked or in a fight. People take for granted how much damage a fist can do, let alone knees, elbows, and feet, and like some people said these days there is no such thing as a fair fight anymore. Too often people go to far and I personally know a few people who needed major facial surgery after fights. If you tried to flee, your cornered without an escape route, you most certainly have the right to draw a firearm in self defense. At that point its his decision to back down.

[markj]

In Fla.

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content...yKA.cspx?rss=2

I belive these types of cases will be judged on an individual basis so no answer is a fits all response. Just be careful, try to AVOID any form of confrontation. A smile and a wave does wonders for many folks.

[blueridgerunner]

A couple of weeks ago, a young man was beaten and robbed by four thugs, the oldest was 16. The whole thing was caught on a security camera. When the victim got out of the hospital he had, among other things lost an eye. I am 65 years old. Back in the day I was a heck of a lot better prepared to defend myself than I am now. Most BGs my age or older aren't up to an altercation anymore either. I made it through 20 years as a cop without ever firing a shot at another human being. But I was, as now, prepared to do it if I had to. I refuse to be a victim.

[Microgunner]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

"Not Florida? This is from the website of the FL Division of Licensing:


Quote:
2. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.

This is from Florida Statute 776.013:

3)A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So, the rub is in defining justifiable use of deadly force. Me? I'm old and crippled. I don't think I'd have any problems meeting this criteria.

[Microgunner]

Another point of contention. Say I decide it's best to defend this physical attack with my fists and things and going badly for me, very badly. At what point do I decide it's life or death? And at that point will I be conscience enough to now draw and fire safely? No, I'll not give them the chance to greiviously injure me prior to drawing my weapon. Anything less is simply lawyer speak.

[M.O.A.]

that would be at the point the big guy grabs something like a pipe or two bye or something like that
be cause if two people have been fighting and one has the tim to draw a gun the othere guy is most likey trying to find something to end the fight as well
and this is comeing from a big guy that has done a little street fighting mostly because i am big and alot of peoplelike to see how big they are by fighting the biggest gu they can find
with me i say draw look the guy over good if weapon is seen put him down !

[OldMarksman]

Posted by threegun: Had the above person not opened fire he might possibly be dead or grievously injury.........kinda sounds like what is necessary to shoot doesn't it.

Yes, and that's what the court ultimately decided.

Sounds like he got a bum deal and a pretty isolated case.

Self defense shootings are rare, and not all shooters are charged, and not all of those who are go to trial. High among the guy's problems is the fact that the attackers were unarmed, even though he was outnumbered.

I think some of you guys are ignorant as to just how badly you can be beaten simply with fists. Perhaps you just haven't thought the issue through thoroughly. Maybe you guys believe a fist fight will be like the one you had in grade school.

No, not at all. I would avoid a fist fight every way that I can. The question at hand, I think, is whether I would be justified in shooting.

Maybe, maybe not. If I did shoot, my first problem would be producing evidence to the effect that I reasonably believed that (1) I was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm; (2) that I had no other choice; and (3) that I did not use excessive force in employing a deadly weapon against an unarmed man.

Then, if the stars and moon lined up and if the state did not present strong contradictory evidence, the jury would receive an instruction allowing them to consider whether my action constituted justifiable self defense.

My breakdown of why it is not physically responsible to engage in a fist fight.

1. You can be killed. As in dead not a bloody nose or fat lip. Just as the nose and lip are a possibility so is death.

2. You can be gravely injured. As in permanent brain injury or other not a broken rib or cracked tooth. While the rib and tooth are possible so it permanent brain injury.

No, it is not responsible to engage in a fight.

First, it is dangerous.

Secondly, as had been said before, willfully engaging in mutual combat is likely to weaken a defense of justification.

Thirdly, "can be" is unlikely to suffice in a defense of justification. The question that the charging authority, grand jury (if there is one), and/or trial jury would have to address is whether a reasonable person, knowing what the suspect or defendant knew at the time, reasonably believed that he would likely have been killed or seriously injured, had he not used deadly force.

I'm over sixty five and suffer from various joint and tendon issues. and I might be able to get by, possibly at very great expense, but I would much rather take my chances with the use of a Kimber Pepperblaster. The actor in the OP's scenario has a much greater problem: no disparity of force. In addition to the fact that the other person is not armed, that's a formula for disaster if he resorts to the use of a weapon.

The fact is you are literally putting your life into the hands of your attacker by engaging in a fist fight.

A very good reason to not do it.

I really would not want to be the one to test a "stand your ground" law by relying on a contention that such a law eliminates any duty to avoid or evade and gives one the justification to employ deadly force against an unarmed man who wants to fight. The process would take years, cost a fortune, and end up with some case law referenced as the appellate court ruling in "[my name] vs. [name of the state], with an end result probably not at all to my liking.

[FoxtrotRomeo]

I think some of you guys are ignorant as to just how badly you can be beaten simply with fists.

Keep it in context. I said

if a person wishes for a slug out session mano e mano.

.

A person does not suggest, me, or you. A person suggests the likelihood of another individual being the instigator or enabler for such a skermish to take place.

I value the other person as well as myself enough to attempt to walk away.

As far as brain injury though, I'm not Ali fighting Frazier and then after that of all people, Foreman (In his most psychologically angry state in George's life I might add. George talked about that part of his life, he needed peace in his life). Attempting to walk away provides myself in view of others with the idea of being the victor for having enough respect for myself and others to walk away with no one harmed. Should the situation further escalate, it will have clearily been not as the result of my actions.

My job in all of this is to not only do what is right, but to makes sure that my case is as clear as possible that I had no other alternative left.

Again. Don't try to use it as a fuel for an an argument, read it in the context that it was meant to be read in.

Irreguardless of what we say here and now, We all can agree that before you pull the trigger, keep a cool and responsible head on your shoulders.

[Ruark]

"verbal threat does not allow you to use deadly force."

A couple of ideas:

1. Granted, if somebody just trash talks you, you can't pull out a weapon and blow his head off. We're assuming a situation where the opponent will not stop verbal aggression. Say he's blocking your exit and daring you to fight him ("come'on, <<deleted>>, come'on"). Maybe that wouldn't justify deadly force, but would it justify displaying or brandishing? Of course, the implication there is that you WILL use deadly force if he continues. So if he continues after you brandish, are you THEN justified?

2. It's pretty well accepted that "shooting to wound" is not advisable in self-defense situations, for a variety of good reasons I won't go into here. But in a case like we're discussing, is there a place for it? It seems logical on the surface. He wasn't armed, and you went through a series of steps in giving him an opportunity to quit. And you might justify shooting to wound as using the MINIMUM amount of force necessary to stop him. Not many would continue this behavior after getting a .357HP through the knee or foot. "But your honor, it wasn't NECESSARY to kill him..." Comments?

[threegun]

High among the guy's problems is the fact that the attackers were unarmed, even though he was outnumbered.

I have a hard time believing that there isn't more to this case than we are aware of. Multiple attackers even unarmed is without a doubt a justifiable use of force should they attack you.

[threegun]

2. It's pretty well accepted that "shooting to wound" is not advisable in self-defense situations, for a variety of good reasons I won't go into here. But in a case like we're discussing, is there a place for it? It seems logical on the surface. He wasn't armed, and you went through a series of steps in giving him an opportunity to quit. And you might justify shooting to wound as using the MINIMUM amount of force necessary to stop him. Not many would continue this behavior after getting a .357HP through the knee or foot. "But your honor, it wasn't NECESSARY to kill him..." Comments?

If the gun goes bang its because your life is in jeopardy. Shoot to end the threat not to kill or wound.

[FoxtrotRomeo]

Maybe that wouldn't justify deadly force, but would it justify displaying or brandishing?

The answer is NO. You must be able to make out the possibility for him/her to be reaching for a weapon. Period.

He blocks your exit, he blocks your exit. It does not mean you still can not deal with the situation. Let him/her look like an ass if that's what they want. You must remain in control of yourself at all times. If you get out of control, you're on the edge of doing something stupid and that's not good, ever.

[Auto426]

George Shaw wrote: "That is the whole secret of successful fighting. Get your enemy at a disadvantage; and never, on any account, fight him on equal terms."

If you have a gun and someone is trying to engage you in fist fight, even if they are unarmed, use your gun to your advantage.

Just because you pull your gun doesn't mean you have to fire it. The mere sight of a gun can drastically change some peoples minds. The BG may think he can beat you up, but he knows hes not bullet-proof. Chances are high that he will back off and high tail it out of there. If he continues his assault, then go ahead and shoot him.

[M.O.A.]

what about a warning shot any one heard of that

[stephen426]

I think the important thing is to clearly demonstrate that you are not a willing participant and that you are trying to avoid an altercation. The first thing I would do is try and attract attention of those around me. Hopefully potential witnesses will attest to the fact that the other guy was the aggressor and I was trying to avoid an altercation. Maybe somebody will get in the middle and try to prevent the fight. I believe it is fool hardy at best to judge your opponent's ability just by looking at him.

Try to leave if at all possible, but do not leave yourself vulnerable to getting sucker punched since this will likely do much more damage than if you are expecting the blow. I took martial arts back in the day but I am out of practice. There are a few shots that can typically end a fight fairly quickly. Typically a shot to the groin or wind pipe takes the fight out of most people. Hit him hard and leave. While these are cheap shots, why risk getting into a fight with someone who may be far more adept than you? As many have mentioned, there is no such thing as a fair fight these days.

[JohnKSa]

what about a warning shot any one heard of that

It's not clear that it would even be legal to draw a firearm in the standoff situation described by the OP. It's even less likely to be legal to fire it in warning.

[threegun]

The answer is NO. You must be able to make out the possibility for him/her to be reaching for a weapon. Period.

Wrong. Microgunner drew, pointed, and warned the unarmed bad guy beating on his vehicles window that if the glass broke he would fire. Cops were called and his action were deemed lawful.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by threegun: ["You must be able to make out the possibility for him/her to be reaching for a weapon"] [is] Wrong. Microgunner drew, pointed, and warned the unarmed bad guy beating on his vehicles window that if the glass broke he would fire. Cops were called and his action were deemed lawful.

It could deemed to be wrong, but it probably would not be so judged; in any event, the scenario posed by the OP does not involve someone who is in the process of forcibly and unlawfully breaking into an occupied automobile in Florida. That is an entirely different situation.

[MLeake]

Not trying to single you out, OM, but you're generally a sensible and reasonable type, so I would particularly like your opinion. I wouldn't mind other opinions, too.

If we change the scenario slightly, and the BG is now an unarmed, strong-arm robber, instead of some yahoo wanting a brawl, what would your answers be?

[JohnKSa]

Wrong. Microgunner drew, pointed, and warned the unarmed bad guy beating on his vehicles window that if the glass broke he would fire. Cops were called and his action were deemed lawful.

That would probably be legal in TX (I haven't checked it out thoroughly), but probably not in many other places. The analogy is very poor for this thread, however. A better analogy for the OPs post would be someone THREATENING to hit the window, not someone who's already in the progress of trying to break it.

TX law is quite clear that a verbal provocation alone is not grounds for use of force (pulling a gun and displaying it) or deadly force (shooting at the attacker).

[OldMarksman]

If we change the scenario slightly, and the BG is now an unarmed, strong-arm robber, instead of some yahoo wanting a brawl, what would your answers be?

Sill no disparity of force?

Where I live, or in any place that does not allow for the defensive display of a weapon or its Texas equivalent, I would toss him my wallet.

In Texas, I might well grab my gun and try to be persuasive.