|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 3, 2012, 08:53 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: March 1, 2012
Posts: 39
|
defending your self from force.
What is a reasonable threat? I live in Georgia and there is a video of some gang bangers beating a gay dude on the internet. Now why they did not do any great harm they could of, if he was armed could he of shot them? Do they have to be using a weapon or if someone threatens you with any violence can you defend your self?
|
March 3, 2012, 09:36 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 14, 2005
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,723
|
"Disparity of Force" is a legal concept that would likely apply if you found yourself outnumbered. Of course, remember that even if you're justified in using deadly force, there will always be people who will say, "But they were unarmed, why did he have to shoot them?" I don't say that to make you doubt yourself should you find yourself in such a situation, but rather to prepare you for some of the attitudes you'll likely experience after it's over.
|
March 3, 2012, 09:36 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 22, 2011
Location: OKC
Posts: 502
|
Don't know about GA but in Oklahoma I believe you could. Here there has to be a reasonably fear for life or serious harm .
|
March 3, 2012, 09:37 PM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: February 11, 2012
Location: nc
Posts: 93
|
In NC, if he felt in fear for his life, yes he could have used deadly force to protect himself. However, if he produced a firearm and they fled then he could not shoot them. Shooting in the back is always very hard to explain to a jury.
|
March 3, 2012, 10:29 PM | #5 |
Member
Join Date: November 12, 2011
Location: Anna, TX
Posts: 75
|
I believe here in Texas you could also use lethal force to defend yourself from a group, even if they were unarmed, disparity of force would apply, provided you were in fear of your life. I hope to never be in that position, but I would like to think that I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself or a loved one, if being attacked by a group of armed or unarmed persons.
|
March 3, 2012, 10:31 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Location: Brazos County, Texas
Posts: 1,038
|
This brings to mind the term, he was beat to death, I'm not going to take the chance of allowing that to happen to me.
|
March 3, 2012, 10:34 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 22, 2011
Location: OKC
Posts: 502
|
Quote:
|
|
March 3, 2012, 10:39 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 15, 2006
Posts: 101
|
If you can REASONABLY articulate fear of death or grievous bodily harm to you or others you can make an argument for use of deadly force most anywhere. Notice I said make an argument. There is never a clear cut case of use of lethal force not even for cops.
Now they'll ask could you have avoided the situation? Were you looking for trouble? Other stuff like that. That's why as a career LEO I tell people to avoid those stupid concealed carry license badges and other stuff that may make you look to some DA, a jury, or cops that arrive on scene like a wannabe or gun shop commando. Your CC License entitles you to carry so be discreet avoid trouble and when all else fails and the conditions above are met do what you feel you have to. You cannot worry about what may happen if in your reasonable mind you fear for your life of for the life of others. |
March 3, 2012, 10:39 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,930
|
In Texas I believe that there was an amendment to the carry law stating that if it looked like a possible force situation you could legaly draw, and present the weapon. So if you found yourself with a group of people that approached in a hostile way and you draw, and tell them to go away you would not be charged with the brandinshing, or assault with a deadly weapon. If they continued to approach afterwards and deadly force were used I seriously doubt that a grand jury would charge someone. (In Texas if deadly force is used a person has to appear before a grand jury. If they rule it is justified then that waves you from civil lawsuits.)
Note that if they already are physicaly attacking you it is perfectly legal to use deadly force to stop an assault of yourself or another person.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you. |
March 3, 2012, 10:50 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 11, 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 537
|
In Florida you are permitted to stand your ground. Deadly force is legal if you have a reasonable belief that you are in danger of death or serious harm. Even if the attacker is unarmed and alone. There is no requirement for a law abiding citizen to be beaten to death just because he was attacked by a lone unarmed assailant.
|
March 3, 2012, 11:53 PM | #11 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Caveat: I'm a lawyer, but I'm not a Georgia lawyer, and I'm not your lawyer. This post isn't legal advice. Relying on free advice, given by random, unknown people on the internet can be risky, particularly when your question is: "When can I shoot someone?"[/caveat]
With that said, and as others have noted, self-defense doctrines are matters of state law. A quick internet search turned up the following for Georgia: Quote:
Note that there are other relevant statutes out there that would need to be examined by someone licensed to practice in Georgia, but that looks like the primary one.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
March 4, 2012, 02:53 AM | #12 |
Member
Join Date: March 1, 2012
Posts: 39
|
thanks
That explains a lot I had never heard of the term "disparity of force" before
So that is where the confusion came in on reading the law. What is a reasonable threat to an 100 pound woman might not be a reasonable threat to an 180 lb. Man. |
March 4, 2012, 03:09 AM | #13 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Last edited by Frank Ettin; March 4, 2012 at 09:36 AM. |
|
March 4, 2012, 07:25 AM | #14 |
Member
Join Date: January 29, 2012
Location: Chicago Area IL
Posts: 75
|
No rights in this state.
You are talking about a group of gang bangers. In this case even if they are unarmed I would say you have the right to defend yourself. This is not a one on one confrontation. There could be a good chance they will kill you.
I live in one of the only state that has no conceal carry law. So we don't have the right to defend ourself even in this situation. We are trying to change this but so far have made little progress.
__________________
Criminals promote gun control. It make the rest of us easy prey. |
March 4, 2012, 07:49 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 10, 2011
Posts: 213
|
Quote:
|
|
March 4, 2012, 01:11 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2011
Posts: 342
|
in TX he could have shot all of them and walked home from court a free man. considering
1. a resonable person could have feared for their life (or grievous bodily harm), or the life of someone else (key point) 2. he made a REASONABLE attempt to retreat before shooting (1 step backwards while drawing usually suffices when being persued) 3. he stopped firing once the threat was no more (read: work on shooting in the T) God bless Texas! One of the last states where one is actually free to defend themselves and those around them from criminals. |
March 4, 2012, 04:13 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 970
|
Being 61 going on to 62 next month and disabled here. I fear that a younger, stronger and/or bigger BG may assail me so I can use lethal force knowing that I cannot fight back?
I never provoked anyone for any reason and never responded to such thing like flipping off a finger or name calling. Yes, I get that and I think they see me as an easy mark. Did I behave right? Since I don't provoke or respond to any I should be able to use lethal force if necessary? |
March 4, 2012, 04:32 PM | #18 |
Member
Join Date: March 1, 2012
Posts: 39
|
saving grace
Yes this guy was tiny and it was about 6 of them, including the guy filming it the only thing thst saved him I think was they really did not know how to fight. Which brings up another thing Georgia passes the stand your ground law but in a state with out it do you think one can retreat from six people? Any thoughts thoughts on avoiding a group or creating enough space to draw your weapon?
|
March 4, 2012, 05:24 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 389
|
I sometimes read posts on threads like this where someone might
believe that pulling their firearm is enough to convince a person or persons to stop their behavior. I believe that if the situation is severe enough to pull your gun it is (or should be) severe enough to use it. Pulling your weapon as a deterent is, imho, bad juju and could get you killed.
__________________
NRA Life Member Certified in laziness Certified in watching TV Certified in BBQ on the Green Egg |
March 4, 2012, 07:19 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 917
|
i believe trex is right a mob of six guys if he pulls and fails to use at the right moment he may just end up having it used on him! I also live in Texas have my whole life. I believe there is a law here stating something to the effect that if one is outnumbered by more than so many that lethal force can be used. I am no lawyer but outnumbered by six guys id have to take my chances there. Also, where i live there are "gang injunctions". Yes hispanic (mexican) hoodlums banded together have created enough problems here that laws have been passed against such activity and the gang does not have to be mexican. This gives one an extra measure of leaverage in court should one have to defend themselves from mobs of hoodlums.
|
March 4, 2012, 07:32 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,930
|
In Texas there is no duty to retreat. That was taken care of in 2007 when they changed the law, and added the castle doctrine, and lawful right to be laws. (You do not have to flee if you are somewhere you have a lawful right to be. You may use deadly force to defend yourself without having to attempt retreat.)
Also they made it legal to carry a hangun locked and loaded in ones car as long as it concealed, and on body as long as in the car, or from your place of residence to your car is legal.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you. |
March 4, 2012, 08:34 PM | #22 |
Member
Join Date: December 29, 2011
Posts: 57
|
One thing I've wondered is the definition of "great/grievous bodily harm" when it comes to use of deadly force to defend yourself. Where is the line drawn? At what point is enough bodily harm done to count? A black eye? A lost tooth? A broken jaw? Broken ribs/limbs?
|
March 5, 2012, 09:04 AM | #23 | |||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
For example, Section 1.07 of the Texas Penal Code defines "bodily injury" as "physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition," and it defines "serious bodily injury" as "bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ." So looking at some of your examples: Quote:
Quote:
Of course, those are not authoritative answers that you can take to the bank; but they do explain how the court will try and answer the question of whether it was serious bodily injury under Texas law. And like everything, a lot will depend on the specific facts of your case. Your state may have a different way of defining that which changes when you can use it. Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; March 5, 2012 at 09:14 AM. |
|||
March 5, 2012, 11:57 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 10, 2011
Posts: 213
|
Quote:
used deadly force might very well not be within the law in the same situtation. So in 9.41 3(a) below, if he believes that the land or the property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means, and this does not require that he be in fear of serious bodily injury before using deadly force, although it is mentioned in the section following it. But certainly nobody can utilize this information and apply it to any other state, even if they have a recipricoal agreement or unilateral one with Texas. I try to read the statutes of any other state I might travel in. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. |
|
March 5, 2012, 01:14 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 3, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 970
|
What about vandalism? Like breaking out car windows?
Also you said nighttime so what about daytime? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|