Not all fights are gunfights

[ghbucky]

geez, Don.. I can't imagine that being even remotely good advice. Especially in this day and age where cameras are everywhere.

If you leave you pretty much throw out any legal self defense claim, I would imagine.

At least in KY, they have written into the law coverage for civil lawsuits if it is determined that your actions were legal.

[TunnelRat]

Yeah I’m going to go out on a limb and say that leaving the scene of a shooting might be the worst advice I’ve read here.

For those concerned about the costs of the legal aftermath, there are insurance programs through a number of organizations that will provide legal expense coverage and bail money (USCCA, Second Call, CCW Safe, Texas Law Shield, NRA, etc). Please invest in one of those before taking the advice above.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frank Ettin]

...the more I think about it the more I think for me it's shoot and walk away. Years ago I drove over the road in 48 states and Canada. In New York City one time I was talking to a cop and he mention that they know most us driver's are armed in the city. He told me if I ever have to shoot someone just leave them lay and walk away, don't call the cops. He said, "we'll find them and if we don't know who did it there's less paper work". I think that was good advice!...

No it wasn't good advise. It was stunningly stupid advise.

Post incident conduct is evidence and can be argued as evidence of guilt. For example see:

1. U.S. v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1990), at 1402:

   ...the instruction explicitly stated, "the jury may consider [the false statements] as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt." Id. at 1104. Second, we have approved the use of this instruction on false exculpatory statements. See United States v. Boekelman, 594 F.2d 1238, 1240 (9th Cir.1979) (court noted approval of standard Devitt & Blackmar instruction and distinguished Di Stefano in upholding a variation from the standard instruction); United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.1976)....

2. State v. Wimbush, 260 Iowa 1262, 150 N.W.2d 653 (Iowa, 1967), at 656:

   ...In Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed., section 276, Volume II, page 111, under the title 'Conduct as Evidence of Guilt' the editor states: 'It is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused's flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.'
   
   McCormick on Evidence, section 248, pages 532, 533, puts it thus: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth.' Many acts of a defendant after the crime seeking to escape the toils of the law are received as admissions by conduct, constituting circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and hence of the fact of guilt itself. In this class are flight from the locality after the crime, assuming a false name, resisting arrest, * * *.' See also Jones on Evidence, Fifth Ed., section 386, page 717.
   
   We have held many times that evidence of escape from custody and flight of an accused is admissible as a criminating circumstance. State v. O'Meara, 190 Iowa 613, 625, 177 N.W. 563, 569; State v. Heath, 202 Iowa 153, 156, 209 N.W. 279, 281; State v. Ford, Iowa, 145 N.W.2d 638, 641. See also 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, section 280, and 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625 a....

3. State v. Lonnecker, 237 Neb. 207, 465 N.W.2d 737 (Neb., 1991), at 743:

   ... Although Clancy involved evidence of the defendant's attempted intimidation or actual intimidation of a State's informant or witness, evidence which was admissible under Neb.Evid.R. 404(2) ("other acts"), the rationale for "conscious guilt" evidence is equally applicable in Lonnecker's case.
   
   Lonnecker's hiding in the crawl space was evidence of his "conscious guilt" concerning the marijuana located on the premises which were under his control, that is, a conscious guilt concerning possession and cultivation of marijuana as a controlled substance. ...

4. Martin v. State, 707 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.App.-Beaumont, 1986), at 245:

   ...In 2 RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL sec. 1538 (Texas Practice 3rd ed. 1980), we find:
   
   "Sec. 1538 Conduct as Evidence of Guilt
   
   "A 'consciousness of guilt' is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is consequently a well accepted principle that any conduct on the part of a person accused of crime, subsequent to its commission, which indicates a 'consciousness of guilt' may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged." ...
   
   See also Cuellar v. State, 613 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)....

A guilty person runs. An innocent person reports and makes himself available to explain his actions.

An intentional act of violence against another human is also, on its face, a crime. The law recognizes however that at times such an act of violence may be legally justified. But it will be up to the actor to present evidence supporting a claim of justification.

Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:

...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....
...

... Often, the defendant will need to testify in order to establish his subjective belief about the threat and need to respond defensively. This can be done through circumstantial evidence, but it is difficult....

If a reasonable person in like circumstances would conclude that remaining at the scene would put him in danger you should --

1. Leave and get to safety.
   
   
2. Call 911 to report the incident as soon as possible. Tell the 911 operator your name, where you are, and provide complete contact information. Do everything you reasonably can under the circumstances to make yourself available to authorities.
   
   
3. Be prepared to articulate why you left the scene.

[thallub]

Those cases all had something in common... what was it?

They were prosecuted and tried.

Abshire lost everything: Savings, home, job.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

They were all prosecuted for shooting unarmed attackers. Some of them are still in prison.

[JohnKSa]

was going to say that the law doesn't require us to "give ourselves options," the law presumes that we should be free to do anything legal without being assaulted. But ... we live in clown world today, so I should modify that to: I don't think the law requires us to carry "options" and, if it does, then IMHO the law needs to be changed.

Any physical assault carries with it the danger of serious injury, if not death. If I didn't invite an assault, then IMHO I should not have to worry about having to decide what I can or can't use to defend myself. That said, I'm a senior citizen with a mechanically repaired heart and an artificial hip that has not recovered well from the surgery 10 months ago. It would probably be easier for me to justify resorting to a firearm for self-defense than it would be for someone in their prime who is built like a professional wrestler and who is a black belt in multiple martial arts disciplines.

The law doesn't require you to carry options or to give yourself options, but if you don't have them, you may find yourself in a situation where you can't legally use your gun and wish you did have some options.

While I agree that I shouldn't have to worry about the nitty gritty of whether or not there's sufficient disparity of force to justify using a firearm, that's not how the law is generally applied.

That said, if you DO have good reasons why you needed to shoot, this becomes much less of an issue. Maybe not a total non-issue, but less of an issue. Senior citizen, disabled, heart issues, serious surgery with persistent complications, etc. would all be good reasons. A person with that kind of a "resume" would likely find it fairly easy to justify resorting to deadly force against an unarmed attacker.

I guess my thought process here as a mid 50s guy in reasonable shape is that if it gets down to brass tacks, I'm not going to 'get physical' with anyone that I assess is a reasonable threat to me.

Well, for example, if the person attacking you is "a mid 50s guy in reasonable shape" who is unarmed and you end up shooting him, you may find yourself in serious legal jeopardy.

The law isn't how we want it to be. It is how it is.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of the law being that way--just pointing out the reality of the situation.

[zukiphile]

The article's underlying point is sensible as training advice. More options will be better than fewer. I don't read it as legal advice except in as much as it encourages people to seek it.

Originally Posted by GHbucky

I'm not interested in wrestling with someone.

In my state, wrestling or grappling with someone may be construed as evidence that you've voluntarily entered a physical contest. Losing a voluntary boxing bout is unlikely to be viewed as good grounds for use of a firearm. If that alarms you, it probably should.

There are probably lots of downsides to being armed and entering a fist fight, but the least intuitive may be that use of your fists could invalidate a defense of your later use of your firearm.

[Don Fischer]

Your probably right but my impression over the years is that if you shoot someone the burden of proof is on you and even if you were right, you may still rot in jail. It has occurred over the years that it seem's the laws are made to protect the criminal.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Don Fischer

Your probably right but my impression over the years is that if you shoot someone the burden of proof is on you and even if you were right, you may still rot in jail. .....

Yes, but that's not new. That's been law for a very long time -- going back to the foundation of our legal system, the Common Law of England. And it's not going to be changing any time soon, if ever.

Actually, today the defendant claiming self defense doesn't have the burden of proof in all but a few States. But he still has the burden of producing sufficient evidence to establish each legal element of a self defense claim. Doing so shifts the burden of proof to the prosecutor and will get the defendant a jury instruction on self defense. But the more convincing the defendant's evidence the harder it will be for the prosecutor to overcome it.

An intentional act of violence against another human is, on its face. a crime. One escapes criminal (and civil) liability by being able to demonstrate that intentional act of violence was justified.

[Brit]

As a gun carrier, every day here in Florida. The chance of getting into a gunfight, as opposed to a non-owner of a defensive pistol, is just about100%.
The ingredients are right there, a man with Glock 19, loaded with 16 rounds of 9mm, criminals, and mentally deranged persons, free to travel, a lot of them owning mechanical means of transport, cars, and trucks.
We all, the bad and the good of society, are free to roam. And as an owner of a TV, I see violent meetings, in many Citys of this vast land of ours. Every day.
Actually you do not need to leave your home, trouble can arrive uninvited, right up to your door!
Without being paranoid, my message to all. Be aware. Carry always.

[HiBC]

One "option" I have carried is a Surefire or similar high lumen (over 200) flashlight.
I'm not sure what the risk to my own vision was,but I blasted myself in the eyes with it when I bought it,
.There was a short time period ,maybe 10 seconds,I was blinded. There was a lingering large black hole in the center of my vision that lasted 15 or 20 minutes. For rough scale,like a larger than usual donut hole or sunny side egg yolk. You can have a less intense experience shining the light in a mirror.

IMO,the 5 to 10 seconds can be "Slip out the back,jack" time.

The hole in center vision makes it hard to see a blow coming.

The be all/end all SD tool? Hardly.

But I can comfortably carry the light having a couple of beers when I would not carry a gun.

I'd much rather explain shining someone with a flashlight to an LEO than bullet holes.

[ghbucky]

HiBC, that is a fantastic idea.

Do you have a link to the light?

[HiBC]

ghbucky...I made one quick search This is similar to mine. Mine is 200 lumens.

This one is 600 lumens. Use your own judgement. I can't tell you the ideal number of lumens.

I can tell you mine fits nicely in a 1 in Leupols QD scope ring,which will attach to a picatinny rail.

In darkness,itilluminates a 100 yd target well enough I can easily see my crosshairs through a 2.5 to 8X Leupold VX 3 mil-dot.. Thats with 200 lumens

https://www.surefire.com/products/il.../g2x-tactical/

[ghbucky]

Thanks!

[doofus47]

ABlanca

Sad.

I used to respect Jim Wilson. This article looks like it was written by his evil twin, Skippy.

I went to school with Skippy... He's not evil. Just misunderstood.

[Bill DeShivs]

Pepper spray.

[ghbucky]

When the world isn't in pandemic lockdown, I travel from Kentucky to downtown LA every other week.

A flashlight would be about the only thing I can think of that I would be able to carry.

[Mainah]

The flashlight is a great suggestion. I keep my keys on a carabiner latched to a belt loop. Lots of muscle memory with unclipping and handling.

One tactic I practice is tossing them at an attacker's upper torso underhand followed by a kick to the groin or kneecap. I figure the keys flying at them might engage their hands and distract them for a second.

I've found the usual disadvantages with aging. However one advantage is that my pride allows me to walk away from situations that I engaged in when I was young.

[the45er]

There are plenty of people with the moral high ground who are sitting in prison.

Absolutely true! You don't have to read too many books by reputable experts on this subject (e.g. Massad Ayoob) to know this is true. In many states, any defense of your life, regardless of how justified, is going to automatically require thousands and thousands, if not millions of dollars. And the sad thing is that juries don't always dispense justice. If the plaintiff lawyer can convince them that you are a "gun nut" that was just looking for an opportunity to use a firearm in self-defense, even if you did, you could be convicted and go to prison. Just look at that couple in St. Louis recently! Tell me how a prosecutor could even think about going after them? It's beyond my comprehension to fathom.

Bottom line in my case anyway is that if there is any way at all possible to avoid a conflict of any type, that's going to be my choice. I can't run very fast at 70 years old but I can still think and I can still hear and see. And lastly, I'm glad I live in Texas where the odds are in my favor that the laws at least lean in the favor of the innocent and any jury (God forbid) that would ever judge me would have at least some chance of not being totally anti-Second Amendment!

[Brit]

So this thread is still active! An Update, I am aged 84, Carry a Glock 19 4th Gen every day. Had two stents fitted in 2011. So that puts me in the catagary of having a heart condition. Most likely seeing me whipped off to a hospital after any kind of gun activity. Plus I do prescribe to an insurance group who have a Lawyer on call, with experience in self defence with firearms law.
I also ran my own company, teaching self defence with handguns, first with Revolvers, then with Glock pistols in Canada for 25 years.
Clients, Armoured Car Companys, Armed Security Companys, Police and Military.
I have been in Canadian Courts, as an Expert Witness on quite a number of occassions.
My advice on speaking to Police after a violent firearms incedent, yes speak to the responding Officers, but not with your life story! But at least with your ID and contact information.
Reference modifications to your carried, self defense pistol. I agree with most instructors, night sights are fine, 2lb triggers, not so much!

[the45er]

Don't fight till its time to kill or die.

Short, succinct and the best advice in this thread!

[zoo]

Don't fight till its time to kill or die.

No offense but that strikes me as vague and seriously oversimplified.

Maybe apply for some shooters insurance. At least they might be able to get you bailed out pending trial.

[HiBC]

How so? Leave. Retreat. Give up stuff. Let words slide by.

So far,violence can be avoided.

These days,if you go down,kicks to the head can be expected. I'm 68. I'm not going to play that game.

I will endure tremendous indignity to avoid violence. Maybe thats the difference between you and I.

Maybe if I trash talk your mother you have to fight.

I recognise I carry a deadly force instrument, I will find any way I can out of violence.

I've made it to 68 with never pulling a gun on anyone for any reason.

More than 10 years ago ,I was not armed. I was ignoring a fight till I saw a women punched. She went down and out. I gave the guy about three to the solar plexus and my best right to the temple.We mutually disengaged. I had long hair and a beard I did not want him to grab.I'm no martial artist.

It took a few minutes for his brain to bleed before he went out.He scored 7 misdemeanors,a felony,and a restraining order.

I'm too old for that now. My legs are damaged,I can't run. I can use Wisdom.

If violence upon me is inevitable,you tell me just how in the hell I know ahead of time if it will be fatal or cause me great harm?

Hindsight won't do.

The scenario is this. I have no choice. Shoot or take a beat down.

You tell me what meets your approval

[Rangerrich99]

I guess it depends on what state you're in or who is involved.

Not that long ago a civilian here in the Phoenix area rescued a state trooper from being beaten to death. Long story short, he happened to be driving by, saw the perp on top of the ST officer, beating his head against the ground, so he stopped and ended up shooting the guy to save the ST.

He was never charged or arrested, and he never went to trial for shooting and killing essentially an unarmed man.

And I've been told numerous times in classes that I can legally defend others with my gun, even against an unarmed BG, if that BG is what I would consider a physical danger to whoever he's attacking/threatening.

[ghbucky]

Not that long ago a civilian here in the Phoenix area rescued a state trooper from being beaten to death. Long story short, he happened to be driving by, saw the perp on top of the ST officer, beating his head against the ground, so he stopped and ended up shooting the guy to save the ST.

I've thought about these scenarios. In my state, I may use force to defend myself (and self is considered family) against serious threat, great bodily harm, etc... based on MY perception of what is happening.

But, if I use force to defend another, my perception of the events no longer matters. Now the only thing that matters is the facts of the event.

So, if I roll up on 2 people, and 1 is holding the other at gunpoint and I shoot the guy, who turns out to be a plain clothes detective, I'm very likely to spend the rest of my life in prison.