Force vs Perceived Threat

[fyrestarter]

At what point, in your opinion, is it neccessary to draw a firearm if the BG doesn't have a firearm himself? In other words, you are walking down the street and a man who, for purposes of this argument, is the same size as you, begins verbally harassing you. You do your best to walk away and end the confrontation, but he persists, and the harassment turns into a physical altercation, where he is placing his hands on your person. Assuming that you have the wherewithal, you manage to push him away, but he persists. No matter what you do, he continues to attempt to fight you. Can that be considered enough of a perceived threat to allow you to pull and fire your weapon?

If a BG has a knife or a gun, there's no question....I'm personally going to to fire. But what if he has a baseball bat? A length of chain? Only his fists? I've been punched in the face before, breaking my nose in the process, and I know if I were carrying at the time, I would have shot the perp. However, was that enough of a perceived threat to justify my use of deadly force?

I know that the deadly force laws vary from state to state. I'm not asking about the legality of the situation, merely the practical nature of using a firearm when a so-called "deadly weapon" is not present. What is the minimum amount of force you would be met with before drawing (and using) a firearm?

[Walosi]

There can be some existing variables, from one person to another. I am a heart patient, partially paralyzed, and have to walk with a cane. The cane can give me either a "less than deadly" first line of defense, or a seconds worth of distraction to allow me to draw. Or, if grabbed, it can be used to block and seperate us, to allow me to draw a small fixed blade, and cut my way out. The general gist of use of deadly force is to defend against a threat of "death or great bodily harm". This can get us old geezers off the starting line much quicker than the average, healthy 30-40 year old. "Death or great bodily harm" can result from a body punch, or stiff-arm to the chest. You don't have to be old to experience these frailties, and there is no requirement that you inform a belligerent, or wear a sign on your chest. The laws of most states take into consideration that a victim with medical conditions are in more danger than a "normally healthy" person, and also that an attacker bears the responsibility of his actions.

[Quartus]

Some jurisdictions have a "disparity of force" doctrine that would allow a small person to use deadly force against a larger attacker. However, given equal sizes and no weapon, you're probably in deep doo doo if you shoot an attacker. As for personal limits, it depends on the situation. If I am alone, I probably will not shoot unless it is that or get my gun grabbed. If I have my wife and children with me, I'm probably more likely to shoot if I think the threat will turn on them.

[45 Fu]

If there is a verbal altercation then I will, hopefully, have enough time to tell my antagonist that I do not want any trouble, I just want to leave, and that any physcial action on his part to stop me from doing so will be seen as a threat to my life and I will act accordingly. I will say this loud enough for anyone close enogh to hear it. The first time he attempts to put his hands, or whatever else is there (bat, chain, etc.) I will shoot him, and probably more than once

The minimum anount of "force" needed, IMHO, is the intention of the other person to not allow me to leave. If they will willingly attempt to restrict my movement/retreat after I have communicated my wish to leave and my fear of life and limb then their motives can not be pure. Do they want to push me around, hurt me, or kill me? You can't rely on the good graces of someone who has already shown they have no good graces.

[Steve in PA]

I would recommend you follow these four elements when deciding to use deadly force. All four must be in place for the use of deadly force.

Ability - can the person(s) cause you serious bodily harm or death? Does he have a knife, gun, club, etc? Is there a disparity of force (greater size or numbers)?

Opportunity - do the circumstances exist for the person to do you harm? A person on the other side of a 10' high chain link fence armed with a knife or a baseball bat has the ability to do you harm, but the opportunity is not there.

Imminent danger - are you in immediate fear for your life? This can vary from person to person.

Preclusion - fancy term meaning, did you have to use deadly force? Was there another option, including leaving the area if feasible?

If you answered yes to each and every one of the four elements, then the use of deadly force is warranted.

[Double Naught Spy]

When to draw? When you feel that your life is threatened with severe bodily harm or death. If drawing precludes an attack via showing power, then the tactic worked. If somehow it is believed that drawing at that time might not have been legal, then the gun carrier will have a day in court to answer for his actions.

The first shooting by a CHL holder in Texas came about 1 month after concealed carry by license was legal in Texas. The CHL holder was beaten all about his head and left side. Note, he was trapped within his car in traffic and did not realize that he was going to be attacked when the other motorist got out of his own vehicle and walked up to the CHL holder.

During the initial beating, the CHL holder did not draw his gun and the attacker quit after several punches an turned to walk back to his own vehicle. Something changed his mind and he returned to the CHL holder and started punching him again. At that time, the CHL holder produced his gun and shot the attacker once in the chest and the attacker died.

How could shooting an unarmed man be legal? Simple. He severly injured the CHL holder during the initial attack and on returning, the CHL holder was in fear for his life. The CHL holder had several broken facial bones and his left eye permanently damaged.

[38SnubFan]

My belief would be if the BG has a baseball bat, heavy chain, or any other blunt object that, when struck with it, could potentially cost me my life, then I would be justified in the use of deadly force.

However, if it's "fists only", and, as Fyrestarter stated, able to be pushed away, then I would need to use a non-lethal method (e.g. OC Spray or a strike to the nose, genitals, or other method of hand-to-hand combat) to stop the threat.

Steve in PA's suggestions regarding the use of deadly force apply to this situation, and I find it a good four questions one should be able to answer decidedly and quickly before making the choice to draw the gun from the holster. With his current LEO background and experience, it would be considered IMO pretty solid advice.

YMMV.

Matthew Webb
Franklintown, PA

[Arizona Fusilier]

I appreciate the "intellectual" nature of question. Where are our "personal" limits?

Duly noted are the previous comments on disparity of force, etc. This would not seem to apply here (deliberately). Most every jurisdiction would likely not consider this a "good shoot", not even here in Arizona.

So what would I do? Don't know. If that sounds like a cop out, its also the truth.

This is one of those situations where a good grounding in the martial arts would be a big pay off. I am not so skilled, but hope to get there someday.

[Bandit01]

That's why I like big guns. Belive me, the sight of a .357 coming out of a holster or the sight of a CZ97B .45 cal (that bastard is huge) coming out of a holster will make someone think seriously about the assult. If anything, I'll just pistol whip the SOB with my .45.

[USP45usp]

I agree with Steve and he is in a better position to give advice.

Wayne

[Dusty Miller]

I like Steve's Four Points better than Wilson's Fourteen Points!! (Boy, does that ever date me!) However, Fyrstarter's hypothetical situation leaves out one very important point. Assuming all other things to be equal (size, etc.) how can one discount the factor of what I call "ferocity of attack". Somebody smaller than I can attack me with a ferocity (possibly drug induced) that could result in my death or great bodily harm. I think the only thing one can do in THAT situation is to take enough of a beating for plenty of damage to be evident and then draw and shoot. Of course, you have to know when "enough is enough" or you'll end up getting beaten senseless or even killed by this "unarmed" attacker.

[yy]

What about these?

1) clear the handgun out of the holster in anticipation (I've seen money truck security hold the handgun in hand while the ATM was worked on. Not pointing at anybody). Is it brandishing if I am not aiming, or if I hide the handgun say behind my body or in my pocket?

or

2) does use of deadly force include the threat of it? Consider the difference between a) put my hand on my handgun and **telegraph** "I have my hand on my handgun."
b) yell in command voice, "back off now! I will defend myself"
c) draw handgun but use body to shield the handgun and yell "back off now"
and c) brandish (draw from concealment and aim) and yell "back off now! I will defend myself"


I ask because I hope some officers on this board can answer the key question: does having that concealed handgun actually put the CCW'er at a disadvantage? In other words, is it reasonable to suspect that a CCW'er cannot legally draw the weapon until some semi-to-serious bodily injury has occurred (as in 'too late')?

[45 Fu]

Perhaps I am not thinking about this as much as I should, but it seems very simple to me. Goblin threatens you in a physical/verbal manner, you respond that you fear for your life, goblin comes for you, you shoot goblin.

I am not saying that others do not have valid points as they do. It just seems to me we are overthinking this thing a bit. If someone threatens me it is clear they have less than noble intentions. How am I supposed to know if they mean to kill me or just beat me senseless? What if they are just tryimg to get me to wet my pants? That's is why I, if possible, warn said goblin that I take the threats seriously and fear for my life. By this time the weapon is already drawn and visible. If, after all this, the goblin doesn't turn tail and run it's a reasonable assumption he is going to hurt you. Therefore, he gets shot. Period.

As soon as the threat is no more I call 911 on the cell phone and report the incident ASAP and wait for LE to get there. Whatever happens after that (criminal/civil court) can be dealt with. The most important thing is that I am still around to deal with it.

[38SnubFan]

As much as I like your method of logic and as much as years ago, before our legal system became all screwed up, the logic wouldn't be argued.

Unfortunately, there's a large group of people who will argue more for the rights of the BG if he's unarmed regardless of the violent threat or other criminal offense he's just committed. These same people work all the time to have us locked up or simply take our 2A rights away from us.

They're called: Liberals!

Unfortunately, sometimed we have to "overthink" the "overthinkers" in order to keep those rights and stay on the good side of the law.

I think your method is correct, except for the fact that I would wait to draw until he refused to make an about face and go from whence he came. Before that, whether justified or not, it could very well be construed as "brandishing", since you used lethal force to respond to a not-yet-lethal threat.

So far, everyone has made good points on this matter though.

Matthew Webb
Franklintown, PA

[chiz45]

38Snubfan and 45Fu,

The law will consider the level of force--if your goblin is attacking you empty handed, that is not considered deadly force. However, if it was Mike Tyson, that might be a different story. A prosecutor will 'measure' the aggressor's actions vs. yours, and if yours exceeds theirs, you may be in trouble. Your self-serving statement "i was in reasonable fear of death or substantial bodily injury" will have to be evaluated by the jury; your subjective determination will not be enough. Drawing and blasting the unarmed guy will most certainly get charges filed against you.

That is another fear that i have, weapon retention. We carry for self-defense. However, if an unarmed adversary begins physical combat with you, you now have to worry about retaining that gun, which the adversary may or may not know about.

38snubfan, i have seen a case exactly as you described. Guy blocks the driveway of someone's condo. Condo owner comes out, yelling and screaming for him to get his F#$%ing car out of the way. Car owner says to 'chill out, i'll leave in a minute, i'm here to pick someone up.' Condo Owner, empty handed, approaches the car owner, yelling obscenities. Car owner draws handgun from under his shirt, and tells to back off. Home owner does--he retreats into his house, and calls 911. Car/gun owner is arrested for brandishing.

This one is a tough call. I was taught the display of deadly force was NOT the use of deadly force. I think we can all agree on that. But where does the line blur into brandishing? Our laws are not absolutes. It's not 'if A, then B.' A jury will be read the law , will read the law in the form of jury instructions, and will make their determinations.

[Dusty Miller]

Remember this line, "I don't want to hurt you but I will do what ever is necessary to defend myself", and hope a witness hears you say it! You might want to follow that up with, "Leave me alone, I don't want any trouble from anybody". You need to make SURE you are seen as the victem and not the aggressor. You need to make it CLEAR that you are attempting to escape the situation, not escalate it. You need to say, "I'm going to leave, I don't want any trouble". Every word out of your mouth is going to be put on display in front of a jury (at least a civil jury if not a criminal one). If you just utter ONE thing that can be used to paint you as an aggressor you can kiss your house and life saving goodbye. It ain't justice, it is reality.

[Hard Ball]

As an old Texas saying goes

"It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6,"

[38SnubFan]

chiz 45,

As far as the display of your handgun being considered, "use of deadly force," it's my firm belief that there's no solid legal answer; it's determined on a case-to-case basis, as can be said about all cases where one must justify ANY use of force (deadly or not) to defend themselves.

However, in the case you described about the guy blocking a driveway: In my opinion, the only thing the condo owner may be guilty of is Disorderly Conduct or Harassment, which to me does not justify any use of force unless he would make a PHYSICAL attempt to harm the motorist (i.e. attempts to pull open car door and yank motorist out, smash a window, windshield, etc.). In that case, the motorist, as he was, should have been arrested for brandishing. However, what may have saved the motorist SOME problems was for HIM to call 911 to report that he was threatened and used his CCW to diffuse and neutralize the attack, as one should be doing IMMEDIATELY after they draw their weapon in self-defense, shots fired or not.

Dusty Miller, I also agree with you that some form of verbal warning needs to be given, if the situation permits, prior to drawing the weapon or using any form of force (again, lethal or non-lethal). It's my opinion that any time an attack is threatened that does not immediately put your life on the line, all other options of neutralizing the situation without resorting to physical contact must be exhausted first.

Hardball: "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six," is a saying I remind myself of everytime I get asked about why I carry and the possible legal implications of shooting someone in self-defense.

Matthew Webb
Franklintown, PA