Force less than deadly force - Page 6

**JohnKSa** · June 4, 2016, 11:24 PM

Quote:

What if there are more than one? ( I once had five men try to set me up for an ambush).

A clear disparity of force changes the legal situation dramatically.

Sharkbite · June 4, 2016, 11:37 PM

Quote:

What if there are more than one? ( I once had five men try to set me up for an ambush).
A clear disparity of force changes the legal situation dramatically.

Agreed.... If set upon by mtpl assailants, there is now legal justification to draw your pistol. Mtpl attackers DOES rise to the level of deadly force.

That is not whats being talked about. ONE attacker, same size, youre not elderly or infirm. He's closing distance and screaming about how he is going to beat your rear end.

briandg · June 4, 2016, 11:52 PM

This brings up the point that being armed isn't the only way that you can see that a person is dangerous, and that a person can be even more dangerous when he's armed. Lots of people are unintentionally killed or crippled. A guy nearby was jumped by three "children" who were just out for a wild night and after the coma he was still neurological damaged to the point that he's completely disabled.

I can't even begin to lay out scenarios. Each is different, and just the fact that it would be you instead of me changes everything. I've had brain surgery and a beating would kill me. Whenever I find myself in a situation of someone threat, whether it's real or just posturing, I have no choice but to take it very seriously. I will not let an assailant touch me. Mace when I have it on me is great, I don't have so many concerns if I blast a guy with mace. I'd prefer not to take risks like that but life isn't safe, fair, predictable, it's chaotic and dangerous.

**OldMarksman** · June 5, 2016, 06:56 AM

Quote:

A clear disparity of force changes the legal situation dramatically.

When one is leaving a facility in which the possession of firearms is forbidden, that is a moot point.

I had a cane. I would not have considered waiting to be stuck before using it. Even by one of them.

And my testimony that I saw five men communicating and maneuvering would not establish the existence of a disparity of force without some other evidence.

**OldMarksman** · June 5, 2016, 07:03 AM

Quote:

I've had brain surgery and a beating would kill me.

That's important, but as a subjective assumption it might might not suffice.

However, one could strengthen that in a defense of justification by having in one's possession a previously created, dated piece of unopened registered mail containing a statement to that effect from an undisputed medical expert.

Same thing for vertebral issues, cardiac conditions, and so on.

The triers of fact will be instructed to consider what the actor knew at the time.

I take medication that severely slows blood coagulation. I've been told by more than one doctor that even a fall in the shower could kill, but I cannot prove that I have been so advised by just saying so.

briandg · June 5, 2016, 10:59 AM

You are right, and for that matter, I would also be responsible for knowing in advance that the condition remains. It took a lot of time before the section of bone that was removed closed up, and of course,I should also know factually whether the area that was worked on was still at risk of serious trauma, but that still team s an issue of legal debate. When reality is that an individual makes threatening gestures and ignores your want kings, a person can only assume and act upon the worst case scenario .

It would be really nice if the bad guys clearly labeled themselves. Let their intentions be known and do it in front of witnesses. Whatever happens, if force is used, there will be a percentage of people who will refuse to accept the logic of why it happened.

A suspected thief attacked a police officer in his car without provocation. The thief was a big, powerful looking guy. The guy renewed his attack when the cop left his car, and the officer felt that he had no option but deadly force. That event sums up everything that's wrong with this issue.there are people who truly believe that a person cannot engage in preemptive measures, that the other guy must draw first, and that maybe he should even be allowed to prove his intentions by firing first.

I think I've said everything I can say. Life is chaos, and non lethal force against another is necessary sometimes just like lethal force is.

**JohnKSa** · June 5, 2016, 09:11 PM

Here's a shooting which is quite similar to some of the scenarios under discussion.

An unarmed man continued to attack an armed citizen who retreated until he was cornered and then finally shot and killed the unarmed man when he continued to attack.

There is no clear disparity of force although the attacker is somewhat larger than the defender. The attacker is clearly unwilling to break off the attack and will not allow the defender to escape. However the attacker never makes a determined attack that seems likely to cause injury. I can't see that he ever throws a punch although he does repeatedly lay hands on the defender--pushing and pulling him around.

In spite of that, according the news article the DA indicated that they believed the shooting was justified and that charges would not be filed.

Quote:

http://www.guns.com/2016/06/01/no-ch...ource=facebook

I'm not saying that every shooting that fits this description will get the same response from the DA, but it's still interesting.

briandg · June 5, 2016, 11:11 PM

I understand it. This guy gave no clear indication that he was going to kill or seriously injure the victim, right? The problem is that there was no clear indication of what this mentally unstable guy was planning to do or where that encounter might go. By the time his intentions were made absolutely clear, his victim might have already been incapacitated and maybe dead.

This brings up the idea of defense zones, or the line in the sand. NOBODY should ever cross that line at the desk, and the clerk would have been clearly justified in using non lethal force if an aggressive person pushed through that barrier, in a sense, trespassing, since he probably crossed an "employees only"sign, and maybe it would be illegal entry. He had an armed man up against a wall and was hitting him. This guy wasn't the employee, and I'm sure th a people could play the vigilante game or mess up justice otherwise, but it seems pretty clear to me. I would have pulled the trigger at that point too. I think that it would have worked better if deescalation techniques would have been effectively used, but without audio, I'm lost.

For me the bottom line was that a guy with a gun was being beaten, and at any minute he was going to lose control of it and lose the fight.

I sure as hell would not have wanted to be there. I'm not sure if I would have handled it well.

**OldMarksman** · June 5, 2016, 11:22 PM

Trying to cause injury is often the issue, but it would seem here that getting the gun wit the serious risk.

briandg · June 5, 2016, 11:22 PM

I think that this is an absolutely perfect example of where the stand your ground laws come in.The shooter had done nothing to provoke a physical attack. An aggressor backed him to the limits of escape, and he fired when he began to fear for his safety. Understand a stand your ground law, he could have fired a disabling round into the guy's thigh before it went so far that he had no other option.

I'm curious, how many rounds fired? I think that there may have been one shot that didn't stop him and he came back.

Sharkbite · June 5, 2016, 11:39 PM

And AGAIN, I say a blast of OC in that guys face would have been a better option then the shoving match and potential gun take-a-way situation we watched.

Its NOT the perfect tool, there is NO such thing. But, if it keeps me from having to shoot that guy....its a better option. More tools in the toolbag, means a better outcome

**OldMarksman** · June 5, 2016, 11:44 PM

Quote:

I think that this is an absolutely perfect example of where the stand your ground laws come in.The shooter had done nothing to provoke a physical attack. An aggressor backed him to the limits of escape, and he fired when he began to fear for his safety. Understand a stand your ground law, he could have fired a disabling round into the guy's thigh before it went so far that he had no other option.

First, I don't think that "stand your ground" enters into this at all. Louisiana has no duty to retreat, but the fellow could not do so safely anyway.

Second. a "disabling round into the guy's thigh" would require the same justification of deady force as a shot to the chest.

**OldMarksman** · June 5, 2016, 11:45 PM

Quote:

And AGAIN, I say a blast of OC in that guys face would have been a better option then the shoving match and potential gun take-a-way situation we watched.

Yes indeed!

briandg · June 5, 2016, 11:49 PM

http://m.wdsu.com/news/gunman-arrest...-says/38855596

Yes, apparently the guy was shot three times. Once, and he was pushed back. Then he came back and renewed the attack and was shot two more times.

I see a few things that may have helped, but maybe not.

The shooter was an instructor
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/04...lls-assailant/

Neither the police chief nor da had any plans to charge. The family appears to believe that the shooting was unjustified, and the family appears to be planning a suit.

The guy was an army veteran who had five kids. Mental health problems, probably. Makes the whole situation harder, since it turned out that he wasn't really a villain, just some messed up guy who went off the deep end.

http://m.waff.com/waff/pm_/contentde...id=od:8QDIZ11A

briandg · June 6, 2016, 12:04 AM

I never disagreed with the use of other nonlethal approaches. That is what it came down to. If the shooter hadn't followed him, it might have ended differently. If he had maced him, it might have been different. If a cop had used a taser, on and on, it may have ended with the guy alive. The circumstances worked out this way.there are never going to be nice, elegant solutions when crazy people go off the rails. Just because now we can look back and say "he ! Should have used mace" doesn't change anything. For that matter, when that guy was down on his knees, whether he put the gun against the guy's thigh or his belly, the difference is that maybe, just maybe, this guy would still be alive, and if the clerk himself was carrying his own mace, once again, more variables.

There are literally hundreds of variables, and maybe if his buddy hajd gotten out of the car and stepped in, it may have never happened.

**JohnKSa** · June 6, 2016, 12:18 AM

Quote:

The family appears to believe that the shooting was unjustified, and the family appears to be planning a suit.

Before it's over, the defender will, no doubt, wish that he had ended the confrontation some other way or avoided it altogether.

Quote:

I say a blast of OC in that guys face would have been a better option then the shoving match and potential gun take-a-way situation we watched.

That seems very clear. I can't imagine that anyone would think that the outcome was ideal.

One comment by the Assistant Police Chief in one of briandg's links is very telling. The officer made the statement: "<I don't know why he would> actually attack a subject that he knew was armed."

I mentioned earlier in the thread that a defender who can't get away and has made it plain that he's armed should be very concerned about an attacker who continues to attack in spite of the fact that he knows that doing so could lead to serious injury or death. I believe that the Assistant Police Chief is articulating a similar sentiment with his question.

briandg · June 6, 2016, 07:30 AM

I agree. To go toe to toe with an armed man, especially one who looked as if he actually knew what he was doing tell me to strong possibilities. First is that he was just plain nuts, that he was so certain that the guy would wimp out and not fire, that he could, in fact, gain the upper hand, get the gun, win the fight, and achieve whatever goal he had

The second thought is that he was just nuts, period. That nothing forced it's way into his consciousness. This guy took a bullet to the abdomen, and rather than yelling"OUCH!" And asking for an ambulance, he pressed on. Still determined, still violent. The guy was clearly nuts, and just blindly fighting, in uncontrolled rage.

Every time I think about this I think of something new. What was he carrying, anyone have a guess? Any ball ammo would have gone through, and some cheap hp bullets as well, right? This guy was professional, he was carrying serious hardware and the best defense loads he could gat, right? The aggressor took the first round of what may have been .45-.40 in the belly, and with a grievous wound, continued.

Granted, he took that round through fatty tissues and intestines, and his level of pain may have been low,but where was the shock of taking a bullet hearing the shot?

This thing was unbelievable. A verbal spat turned violent, rapidly escalated, and ended in that nightmare. I think that this thing is one for the text books. I can't stop analyzing it.

Lohman446 · June 6, 2016, 10:59 AM

That is a unique situation. We have been questioning if an unarmed attack really rises to a level that would allow or necessitate the use of deadly force. Interestingly enough advancement, even after the use of deadly force (the aggressor had been shot), seems to be evidence of the requirement of the use of deadly force.

While I get the point it seems tremendously circular.

briandg · June 6, 2016, 11:18 AM

Yes, it is a unique situation and it belongs in its own thread, and it belongs in a thread, imo, simply because it is so freakish. I dug into the history of this thing for well over an hour, and found very little information, but just based on some of the things I read online, the guy isn't being seen as someone who tries d to do the right thing, to help. that guy should not have left the parking lot, he was dangerous, and the precipitating event seems to be getting the license. He's either a hero or villain to the public.

**OldMarksman** · June 6, 2016, 11:42 AM

Quote:

That is a unique situation.

Every use of force encounter is unique.

Quote:

We have been questioning if an unarmed attack really rises to a level that would allow or necessitate the use of deadly force.

Actually, we started out looking at the justification of non-deadly force.

Quote:

Interestingly enough advancement, even after the use of deadly force (the aggressor had been shot), seems to be evidence of the requirement of the use of deadly force.

I don't see it quite that way.

The defender had a gun in his hand, and the attacker pursued him "to the wall" as he tried to escape, in a stand your ground jurisdiction. The risk was not one of the unarmed attacker's use of force to cause death or serious bodily harm; it was one of the attacker taking the gun and using deadly force.

Quote:

While I get the point it seems tremendously circular.

???

As has been said, the defender would have been a lot better off had he had the ability to use a less lethal option.

From a tactical standpoint, he would have been better off not leaving the store.

The existence of the video probably helped the defender a great deal in a number of ways here.

Lohman446 · June 6, 2016, 12:04 PM

OldMarksman:

I was writing this one off as unique because it kind of makes this thread different. My original argument was that there was virtually no situation (against an able bodied adult) where the use of force would be required that would not rise to the level of the use of deadly force. I basically argued that facing physical assault despite an attempt to deescalate and retreat (and being forced into a position where retreat was impossible) would allow the use of deadly force.

The arguments against my position were pretty strong.

What I see as unique about this is that the defender used deadly force and the police basically said "hey if he was going to advance against someone willing to use deadly force he must have intended severe harm". He was shot, distance was created, and then he attacked again. Basically the use of deadly force (more correctly the continued attack after the use of deadly force) is being used as evidence that deadly force was justified. While I get that the point might be accurate it is not something that we should be willing to use to color our discussions on the matter because of its circular nature.

Sharkbite · June 6, 2016, 12:11 PM

Quote:

The defender had a gun in his hand, and the attacker pursued him "to the wall" as he tried to escape, in a stand your ground jurisdiction. The risk was not one of the unarmed attacker's use of force to cause death or serious bodily harm; it was one of the attacker taking the gun and using deadly force.

A firearms retention situation rises to the level of deadly force. Thats not what we are discussing. The subject is an unarmed assailent violently encroaching on your personal space and showing the intent to assault you.

Baring some other circimstances that come to light (disparity of force, mtpl attackers, your serious medical contidions).... That does NOT rise to the level of justifing the use of DEADLY force.

So, you better have some other plan to deal with the situation. OC may not be the answer for you, but it is easy to use...reasonably effective in most situations and easily carried.

A small can slipped into your pocket each day, gives you an option that otherwise you are missing and you may end up (like the guy in the vid) shooting somebody that didnt really NEED to be shot.

Court costs, legal fees, loss of sleep, stress related medical problems. All of those are REAL issues following a shooting. Those issues are MUCH reduced (or eliminated) by spraying the assailant.

**OldMarksman** · June 6, 2016, 12:24 PM

Quote:

...the police basically said "hey if he was going to advance against someone willing to use deadly force he must have intended severe harm".....

I don't interpret it that way at all. Intent would only provide one part of a successful justification. It would not be sufficient. Remember A, O, J, P.

Quote:

Basically the use of deadly force (more correctly the continued attack after the use of deadly force) is being used as evidence that deadly force was justified.

Where do you get that idea?

The video shows pretty clearly that an unarmed man was trying to grab a man who had a gun. The only serious risk was that of the attacker acquiring the gun.

Quote:

While I get that the point might be accurate it is not something that we should be willing to use to color our discussions on the matter because of its circular nature.

I see nothing circular about it.

Sharkbite · June 6, 2016, 12:33 PM

Oldmarksman,

I understand the Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy part... What does the "P" stand for in you're example?

**OldMarksman** · June 6, 2016, 12:51 PM

Preclusion.

To be lawfully justified in using force, deadly or otherwise, the defender must have been precluded from employing some other safe means of avoiding injury or the unlawful use of force against him.

In some jurisdictions, that would include retreat, if safely possible.

Getting into the car and locking the door.

Moving your car out of his way, even if you are "where you have a legal right to be".

Stepping behind a barrier.

Shoving a shopping cart.

On and on.

June 4, 2016, 11:52 PM	#128
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	This brings up the point that being armed isn't the only way that you can see that a person is dangerous, and that a person can be even more dangerous when he's armed. Lots of people are unintentionally killed or crippled. A guy nearby was jumped by three "children" who were just out for a wild night and after the coma he was still neurological damaged to the point that he's completely disabled. I can't even begin to lay out scenarios. Each is different, and just the fact that it would be you instead of me changes everything. I've had brain surgery and a beating would kill me. Whenever I find myself in a situation of someone threat, whether it's real or just posturing, I have no choice but to take it very seriously. I will not let an assailant touch me. Mace when I have it on me is great, I don't have so many concerns if I blast a guy with mace. I'd prefer not to take risks like that but life isn't safe, fair, predictable, it's chaotic and dangerous. __________________ None. Last edited by briandg; June 5, 2016 at 12:16 AM.

June 5, 2016, 10:59 AM	#131
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	You are right, and for that matter, I would also be responsible for knowing in advance that the condition remains. It took a lot of time before the section of bone that was removed closed up, and of course,I should also know factually whether the area that was worked on was still at risk of serious trauma, but that still team s an issue of legal debate. When reality is that an individual makes threatening gestures and ignores your want kings, a person can only assume and act upon the worst case scenario . It would be really nice if the bad guys clearly labeled themselves. Let their intentions be known and do it in front of witnesses. Whatever happens, if force is used, there will be a percentage of people who will refuse to accept the logic of why it happened. A suspected thief attacked a police officer in his car without provocation. The thief was a big, powerful looking guy. The guy renewed his attack when the cop left his car, and the officer felt that he had no option but deadly force. That event sums up everything that's wrong with this issue.there are people who truly believe that a person cannot engage in preemptive measures, that the other guy must draw first, and that maybe he should even be allowed to prove his intentions by firing first. I think I've said everything I can say. Life is chaos, and non lethal force against another is necessary sometimes just like lethal force is. __________________ None.

June 5, 2016, 11:11 PM	#133
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	I understand it. This guy gave no clear indication that he was going to kill or seriously injure the victim, right? The problem is that there was no clear indication of what this mentally unstable guy was planning to do or where that encounter might go. By the time his intentions were made absolutely clear, his victim might have already been incapacitated and maybe dead. This brings up the idea of defense zones, or the line in the sand. NOBODY should ever cross that line at the desk, and the clerk would have been clearly justified in using non lethal force if an aggressive person pushed through that barrier, in a sense, trespassing, since he probably crossed an "employees only"sign, and maybe it would be illegal entry. He had an armed man up against a wall and was hitting him. This guy wasn't the employee, and I'm sure th a people could play the vigilante game or mess up justice otherwise, but it seems pretty clear to me. I would have pulled the trigger at that point too. I think that it would have worked better if deescalation techniques would have been effectively used, but without audio, I'm lost. For me the bottom line was that a guy with a gun was being beaten, and at any minute he was going to lose control of it and lose the fight. I sure as hell would not have wanted to be there. I'm not sure if I would have handled it well. __________________ None.

June 5, 2016, 11:22 PM	#135
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	I think that this is an absolutely perfect example of where the stand your ground laws come in.The shooter had done nothing to provoke a physical attack. An aggressor backed him to the limits of escape, and he fired when he began to fear for his safety. Understand a stand your ground law, he could have fired a disabling round into the guy's thigh before it went so far that he had no other option. I'm curious, how many rounds fired? I think that there may have been one shot that didn't stop him and he came back. __________________ None.

June 5, 2016, 11:49 PM	#139
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	http://m.wdsu.com/news/gunman-arrest...-says/38855596 Yes, apparently the guy was shot three times. Once, and he was pushed back. Then he came back and renewed the attack and was shot two more times. I see a few things that may have helped, but maybe not. The shooter was an instructor http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/04...lls-assailant/ Neither the police chief nor da had any plans to charge. The family appears to believe that the shooting was unjustified, and the family appears to be planning a suit. The guy was an army veteran who had five kids. Mental health problems, probably. Makes the whole situation harder, since it turned out that he wasn't really a villain, just some messed up guy who went off the deep end. http://m.waff.com/waff/pm_/contentde...id=od:8QDIZ11A __________________ None.

June 5, 2016, 11:22 PM	#134
OldMarksman Staff Join Date: June 8, 2008 Posts: 4,022	Trying to cause injury is often the issue, but it would seem here that getting the gun wit the serious risk.

June 5, 2016, 11:39 PM	#136
Sharkbite Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 2013 Location: Western slope of Colorado Posts: 3,679	And AGAIN, I say a blast of OC in that guys face would have been a better option then the shoving match and potential gun take-a-way situation we watched. Its NOT the perfect tool, there is NO such thing. But, if it keeps me from having to shoot that guy....its a better option. More tools in the toolbag, means a better outcome

June 6, 2016, 12:04 AM	#140
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	I never disagreed with the use of other nonlethal approaches. That is what it came down to. If the shooter hadn't followed him, it might have ended differently. If he had maced him, it might have been different. If a cop had used a taser, on and on, it may have ended with the guy alive. The circumstances worked out this way.there are never going to be nice, elegant solutions when crazy people go off the rails. Just because now we can look back and say "he ! Should have used mace" doesn't change anything. For that matter, when that guy was down on his knees, whether he put the gun against the guy's thigh or his belly, the difference is that maybe, just maybe, this guy would still be alive, and if the clerk himself was carrying his own mace, once again, more variables. There are literally hundreds of variables, and maybe if his buddy hajd gotten out of the car and stepped in, it may have never happened. __________________ None.

June 6, 2016, 07:30 AM	#142
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	I agree. To go toe to toe with an armed man, especially one who looked as if he actually knew what he was doing tell me to strong possibilities. First is that he was just plain nuts, that he was so certain that the guy would wimp out and not fire, that he could, in fact, gain the upper hand, get the gun, win the fight, and achieve whatever goal he had The second thought is that he was just nuts, period. That nothing forced it's way into his consciousness. This guy took a bullet to the abdomen, and rather than yelling"OUCH!" And asking for an ambulance, he pressed on. Still determined, still violent. The guy was clearly nuts, and just blindly fighting, in uncontrolled rage. Every time I think about this I think of something new. What was he carrying, anyone have a guess? Any ball ammo would have gone through, and some cheap hp bullets as well, right? This guy was professional, he was carrying serious hardware and the best defense loads he could gat, right? The aggressor took the first round of what may have been .45-.40 in the belly, and with a grievous wound, continued. Granted, he took that round through fatty tissues and intestines, and his level of pain may have been low,but where was the shock of taking a bullet hearing the shot? This thing was unbelievable. A verbal spat turned violent, rapidly escalated, and ended in that nightmare. I think that this thing is one for the text books. I can't stop analyzing it. __________________ None.

June 6, 2016, 10:59 AM	#143
Lohman446 Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2016 Posts: 2,192	That is a unique situation. We have been questioning if an unarmed attack really rises to a level that would allow or necessitate the use of deadly force. Interestingly enough advancement, even after the use of deadly force (the aggressor had been shot), seems to be evidence of the requirement of the use of deadly force. While I get the point it seems tremendously circular.

June 6, 2016, 11:18 AM	#144
briandg Senior Member Join Date: May 4, 2010 Posts: 5,468	Yes, it is a unique situation and it belongs in its own thread, and it belongs in a thread, imo, simply because it is so freakish. I dug into the history of this thing for well over an hour, and found very little information, but just based on some of the things I read online, the guy isn't being seen as someone who tries d to do the right thing, to help. that guy should not have left the parking lot, he was dangerous, and the precipitating event seems to be getting the license. He's either a hero or villain to the public. __________________ None.

June 6, 2016, 12:04 PM	#146
Lohman446 Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2016 Posts: 2,192	OldMarksman: I was writing this one off as unique because it kind of makes this thread different. My original argument was that there was virtually no situation (against an able bodied adult) where the use of force would be required that would not rise to the level of the use of deadly force. I basically argued that facing physical assault despite an attempt to deescalate and retreat (and being forced into a position where retreat was impossible) would allow the use of deadly force. The arguments against my position were pretty strong. What I see as unique about this is that the defender used deadly force and the police basically said "hey if he was going to advance against someone willing to use deadly force he must have intended severe harm". He was shot, distance was created, and then he attacked again. Basically the use of deadly force (more correctly the continued attack after the use of deadly force) is being used as evidence that deadly force was justified. While I get that the point might be accurate it is not something that we should be willing to use to color our discussions on the matter because of its circular nature.

June 6, 2016, 12:33 PM	#149
Sharkbite Senior Member Join Date: November 4, 2013 Location: Western slope of Colorado Posts: 3,679	Oldmarksman, I understand the Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy part... What does the "P" stand for in you're example?

June 6, 2016, 12:51 PM	#150
OldMarksman Staff Join Date: June 8, 2008 Posts: 4,022	Preclusion. To be lawfully justified in using force, deadly or otherwise, the defender must have been precluded from employing some other safe means of avoiding injury or the unlawful use of force against him. In some jurisdictions, that would include retreat, if safely possible. Getting into the car and locking the door. Moving your car out of his way, even if you are "where you have a legal right to be". Stepping behind a barrier. Shoving a shopping cart. On and on.