ending threat just by presentation?

[armoredman]

Hmmm

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

A reasonable belief that physical force is necessary is a prerequisite, and the law does not mention drawing a firearm.

2. Exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against another's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

I would hazard a guess that exposing it might mean holding it in your hand. When AZCDL helped push this one, it was meant to cover things like going to the low ready. Perhaps we should ask for a clarification to the law, but the legal opinions I've been "exposed" to said it covers unholstering.
Also, you juxtaposed two different things - physical force, and deadly physical force.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

A reasonable belief that physical force is necessary is a prerequisite, and the law does not mention drawing a firearm.

There are a couple of states that permit the actual presentation of a weapon under certain circumstances in which deadly force is not immediately necessary.

If you don't mind, the AZ definitions, since we strayed off into this territory;
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....13&DocType=ARS

...14. "Deadly physical force" means force that is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of creating a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.

...while physical force;

32. "Physical force" means force used upon or directed toward the body of another person and includes confinement, but does not include deadly physical force.

...and the law says,

A. The defensive display of a firearm by a person against another is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force.

So, using the AZ definitions, this law makes this state one of the ones you mention - it gives the right to display a weapon when there is no threat of DEADLY physical force, but it does require a threat of PHYSICAL force. I don't know if it's been tested in court yet - it's still new.
But, I've digressed, apologies to the OP, this thread wasn't just about one state. Hopefully the info was useful.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Armoredman: So, using the AZ definitions, this law makes this state one of the ones you mention - it gives the right to display a weapon when there is no threat of DEADLY physical force, but it does require a threat of PHYSICAL force.

The distinction is primarily one of whether one may lawfully present--draw--a weapon. I would not want to contend that I could draw because I could expose or display a firearm or place my hand on it.

Just to nitpick, in Arizona one is permitted to exercise defensive display when physical force is justified and when there is a reason to believe that it is immediately necessary to defend against physical force, while in one of the others, the law reads that one may lawfully draw when physical force is justified.

I don't know if it's been tested in court yet - it's still new.

Not to my knowledge, but before the law was enacted, people were being convicted for aggravated assault for what is now known as defensive display.

Arizona attorney Michael P. Anthony recommends that persons who do not face an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death do not draw. See page 40 of this. Anthony goes on to say (referring to Arizona law) that under other circumstances in which defensive display is justified, it should be restricted to verbally informing the aggressor that one is armed and/or placing one's hand on the firearm without drawing.

[MLeake]

Personally, I'd recommend getting some retention training if part of your plan is to notify the aggressor or to make a defensive display.

I recommend retention training to CCers in general, but the perceived need - to me - becomes that much higher to anybody who leans toward a deliberate revelation or display.

[Pilot]

I think very often, the sight of a firearm will end the threat, and have the attacker fleeing. However, many of these incidents are not reported, as nothing has really happened. No shots fired, and nobody harmed.

[Hook686]

If pulling the gun ends a threat (the assailant turns and runs, for example), you would not be justified in shooting. As Brian notes, laws differ on when you're justified in displaying a gun, but even in those where it's legal to display it only if lethal force would be justified, the point is that you should be prepared to use it, not that you must.

My main thought on the idea of holding fire when you draw if the situation has elevated to a lethal level is the conditioning that is being set. If the BG is 25 feet from you and moving toward you (creating the elevation to a lethal level) how much time do you have to react ? I think if you pause for that split second to see what the BG is going to do, you are dead meat if he has a knife.

Likewise I think it bad idea to draw when the BG is 50 feet away yelling about how he is going to kick your butt and slowly moving toward you. Are you going to draw at this point and hope the BG runs away ?

Again I think it depends upon your jurisdiction. As crappy as it sounds, in California the DOJ publication indicates that one is expected to take a beatdown before drawing a weapon.

[Don P]

As stated many time depends on your state law. Here in FLA they state statute states that presenting (brandishing) a firearm to gain the upper hand in a situation is a no-no. Felony, loss of CCW and jail time and worst of all no more owning of firearms.

[Brit]

I think very often, the sight of a firearm will end the threat, and have the attacker fleeing. However, many of these incidents are not reported, as nothing has really happened. No shots fired, and nobody harmed. ______________
Pilot

At 77 YOA, and being around guns all my life (even in England and Canada) it goes without saying I have experienced incidents.

Circumstances change, and things that happen, are based on the changing circumstances.

Case in point, trip to Rochester, from Toronto, when? My mind does not work that way, early 80s, say.

Me and a buddy, Jim, went to a PPC match, the snub nose portion, Jim was in bed! Instant flu. As I don't share rooms, only with my Wife, no inconvenience to me, but it meant I went off to compete on my own.

Holiday Inn? I think, on the main St. Gun case, aluminum brief case, with my match snubby, speed loaders, ammo, holster, etc. Plus my Colt LT in a holster, on belt, this was in the old days when we Canucks could get permits for NYS.

Coming back, all floors of the parking garage full, except the top one.

I parked, nose in, so I could get to the trunk, and started to head for the stairs, two young Black guys, jeans and big tee's, standing on each side of the entrance to the stairs, both in the same pose, leaned against a car, flat of the one foot against the car.
This meant when I entered that funnel, I would have been in between the two of them, three feet from both.

They both were looking at my Camera case, I stopped at twenty one feet from them, slid the case a few inches, on the gravel, both looking at it, when I stood up, .45 in both hands, pointed at 45' degrees. "You are in my way Lads" limy accent. The gun was the accent negater!

One took off across my front, left to right, in front of the parked cars, his buddy went the same way, but behind the cars.

I heard a dull clunk, and the guy at the rear of the cars, is now limping real bad.

They both headed down the ramp. I walked over to see what caused the Clunk!

Big old boat of a station wagon, with an extended tow bar! That must have hurt.

I told the desk Lady, two kids were hanging about, but no mention of my LT Weight Commander!

Did I report it? No Sir.

[allaroundhunter]

I have drawn (and presented) my weapon once and it stopped the threat.

A guy tried to grab my pistol out of my holster while I was out and about on the family farm. I reacted by putting him on the ground and then drawing my pistol to make sure he wasn't going to try anything else. After seeing the gun he mellowed out pretty quickly.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Pilot: I think very often, the sight of a firearm will end the threat, and have the attacker fleeing.

So do I. It has worked for me three times. Not a good thing to bet one's life on, however.

However, many of these incidents are not reported, as nothing has really happened. No shots fired, and nobody harmed.

I agree that many such incidents are not reported. That goes to the answer of original question. No, there are no really complete stats.

But, something has really happened. There has been a crime, or the defender could not have lawfully presented a firearm.

There are several very good reasons for the lawful defender to report such an incident. One is that by being the first to report it, he or she has a lower chance of being reported by a witness as having committed a crime. Another is to enable the police to pursue a dangerous criminal.

[44 AMP]

...Other researchers criticized his methodology, saying that his sample size of 1,015 respondents was too small for the study to be accurate..

Why is it that when some "news" group takes a poll of 1,000 people, (on any subject, other than guns) that the results are broadcast far and wide as gospel, and that it is automatically assumed that the rest of the 330 MILLION of us must feel and believe the same way?

But when some poll shows a favorable pro-gun or pro-delf defense outcome, it is challenged and called "not representative", or the "sample size is too small" for a meaningful, or accurate result?

The reason you won't find any "meaningful" statistics on how many times the mere presentation of a gun ended a situation is because that the vast majority of these times do not get reported to the police, and of the tiny number that do, it is only a tiny fraction of them that get notice in the press.

The cops don't track the numbers of crimes averted, because the potential victim chased the attacker off. They seldom get involved unless shots are fired, and even then often not. They already have more than enough to do.

Kleck estimates that defensive gun use, with no shots fired, happens over 2 million times a year. It is only an estimate, because data to base any firm conclusion on simply does not exist. The overwhelming majority of times when a gun's mere presence prevents some crime from happening do not get reported to police, or the news. They never become anything more than personal anequdotes.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by 44AMP: The reason you won't find any "meaningful" statistics on how many times the mere presentation of a gun ended a situation is because that the vast majority of these times do not get reported to the police, and of the tiny number that do, it is only a tiny fraction of them that get notice in the press.

The cops don't track the numbers of crimes averted, because the potential victim chased the attacker off. They seldom get involved unless shots are fired, and even then often not. They already have more than enough to do.

True--and there is precious little in the way of detail in reported crime stats anyway.

Many people seem to have come to believe that because of the existence and power of internet search engines, they ought to be able to obtain factual stats on anything. But if people do not record data and enter them into a searchable database in the first place, that cannot be done.

Kleck estimates that defensive gun use, with no shots fired, happens over 2 million times a year. It is only an estimate, because data to base any firm conclusion on simply does not exist. The overwhelming majority of times when a gun's mere presence prevents some crime from happening do not get reported to police, or the news. They never become anything more than personal anequdotes.

Not only that, but many crimes of violence that do occur are not reported. Estimating one's likelihood of becoming a violent crime victim during one's lifetime on the basis of reported crime statistics will result in understatement.

The answer? Surveys. A la Kleck.

[deepcreek]

There are several very good reasons for the lawful defender to report such an incident.

Unfortunately there are also several reasons not to report such an indecent.

Many people have called law enforcement for help or trying to be a helpful citizen only to find themselves in handcuffs facing prison time. Not that it is always the fault of the officers but we have a legal system that is not always looking out for the better of our citizens.

Someone calls law enforcement says they just scared off 3 robbers at gun point they now have one guy who has admittedly threatened people with a gun=felony. Then if they get the 3 guys they will just say something like "we just asked for a lighter.”
The only case law enforcement and prosecutor has is the guy with the gun. Sorry “it's the law..” Sorry “just doing my job..”

Not saying people should not call law enforcement but be careful. Results may vary.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Many people have called law enforcement for help or trying to be a helpful citizen only to find themselves in handcuffs facing prison time...

Let's see some evidence/documentation to support your claim.

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Someone calls law enforcement says they just scared off 3 robbers at gun point they now have one guy who has admittedly threatened people with a gun=felony. Then if they get the 3 guys they will just say something like "we just asked for a lighter.”
The only case law enforcement and prosecutor has is the guy with the gun. Sorry “it's the law..” Sorry “just doing my job..”...

Has this actually happened? If you claim it has, let's see some documentation. If you just made it up, at least have the courtesy to say so.

[breakingcontact]

-Many people carrying gun are not aggressive enough to use them and many people get them stripped away and used against them. Are you prepared to shoot an unarmed person who tries to strip your weapon?

This is an excellent point. For all the internet commandos out there who are built 5.11 tough, are they really willing and able to use deadly force?

I know we all like to think we could do it if necessary, but no one "knows" until they are actually there.

I'm not overly concerned about my willingness to do what I need to do, but I do get concerned about collateral damage, because unlike the police, us civilians don't get to spray bullets.

[deepcreek]

Let's see some evidence/documentation to support your claim.

Happens all the time, here are a couple "documented" cases from the first page of google.

Are you trying to say it doesn't happen? or has never been documented?

-----------------

A Missouri homeowner was arrested after running off a pair of thieves at gunpoint.

When the police respond to “man with a gun” reports and find a man with a gun, they tend to arrest the man and let the judge sort it out.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm...andishing-law/

NH HOMEOWNER ARRESTED FOR FIRING WARNING SHOT DURING BURGLARY

“The single grandfather had returned home to find that his home had been burglarized and spotted Joseph Hebert, 27, climbing out of a window at a neighbor’s home. Fleming said he yelled “Freeze!” before firing his gun into the ground, then held Hebert at gunpoint until police arrived.”

Sounds like a good outcome to most, doesn’t it? Apparently not to New Hampshire police.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...ring-burglary/

"Police did not investigate anything," Pierre said. "They just came and said, 'Let's lock this guy up'."

Pierre says he was taken to jail and charged with improper display of a weapon. But he maintains he was defending himself, and the judge eventually agreed.

http://www.610wiod.com/articles/wiod...tand-10095842/

Has this actually happened? If you claim it has, let's see some documentation. If you just made it up, at least have the courtesy to say so.

Well I was thinking of the Bernard Goetz case. "the 3 guys they will just say something like "we just asked for a lighter.” except I think they asked for some "spare change" with sharpened screwdrivers.

[Evan Thomas]

Deepcreek, in your first example, the homeowner was acquitted; faced with two conflicting reports, it's not clear what else the police could have done but arrest him. In your second example, the gentleman was arrested not for brandishing, but for reckless conduct -- he fired a warning shot, which is a no-no in most places, and is hardly an example of just "showing a weapon." In your third example, all charges against the homeowner were dropped after the investigation was finished.

In fact, none of these cases involved a person who were just, in your words, calling "...law enforcement for help or trying to be a helpful citizen only to find themselves in handcuffs facing prison time."

And the conclusion of the third article you cited is worth quoting:

The cases finding an act to be brandishing have first found the guest of honor to have threatened another person or persons with a weapon, or had uttered threats while holding a weapon. Displaying anger while in possession of a weapon is considered a sufficient substitute for threats. One cannot be found guilty of brandishing a weapon unless one is shown to have been angry or threatening. This is an excellent reason to keep one’s temper and mind one’s manners.

It's wishful thinking to believe that everyone who defends him- or herself with a gun is automatically a "good guy" and should be treated as such by police no matter what; real life isn't that simple.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Happens all the time, here are a couple "documented" cases from the first page of google....

Actually, the cases you cite are irrelevant and don't support your claim.

1. You wrote:

   Originally Posted by deepcreek

   ...Many people have called law enforcement for help or trying to be a helpful citizen only to find themselves in handcuffs facing prison time...

   In other words, the person claiming self defense reported the incident and suffered for it.
   
   
2. But in none of the cases you cited was the person involved and claiming self defense the person who reported the incident.
   
   
3. Indeed the author of this article from the USCCA (and to which you linked) advises the defender to report any incident:
   
   

   1. ...It is critical to be the first person to relate events to the police. The first report sets the tone for the case...

   2. ...It is essential that the citizen report every use of his gun, even if nothing more than displaying the gun for the benefit of threatening psychotics or thugs...

   
   
4. We also know that flight, which could include simply leaving the scene without reporting the incident, can be used as evidence of guilt. Here's what some cases say:
   
   
   • State v. Walker, 595 P.2d 1098 (Kan., 1979), at 1099 - 1100:

     ...the general rule that evidence of flight may be admissible in order to establish the defendant's consciousness of guilt. 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 280; 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625; ...
     ...
     It is well settled that conduct of the accused following the commission of an alleged crime may be circumstantially relevant to prove both the commission of the acts charged and the intent and purpose for which those acts were committed. Among such conduct is flight of the accused...

   • State v. Quiroz, 772 N.W.2d 710 (Wis. App., 2009), at 716:

     ...It is well established that evidence of flight has probative value as to guilt. See State v. Knighten, 212 Wis.2d 833, 838-39, 569 N.W.2d 770 (Ct.App.1997). Analytically, flight is an admission by conduct. State v. Miller, 231 Wis.2d 447, 460, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct.App.1999). The fact of an accused's flight is generally admissible against the accused as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and thus of guilt itself....

   • State v. Robinson, 360 S.C. 187 (S.C. App., 2004), at 195:

     ...See also State v. Beckham, 334 S.C. 302, 315, 513 S.E.2d 606, 612 (1999) (stating that evidence of flight has been held to constitute evidence of guilty knowledge and intent); State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 407, 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) ("[A]ttempts to run away have always been regarded as some evidence of guilty knowledge and intent.") (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Ballenger, 322 S.C. 196, 200, 470 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1996) (noting that flight is "at least some evidence" of defendant's guilt); State v. Thompson, 278 S.C. 1, 10-11, 292 S.E.2d 581, 587 (1982), .... (finding evidence of flight admissible to show guilty knowledge, intent, and that defendant sought to avoid apprehension); State v. Freely, 105 S.C. 243, 89 S.E. 643 (1916) (declaring the flight of one charged with a crime has always been held to be some evidence tending to prove guilt);...

   
   
5. As to the possibility of being arrested after defending oneself, I addressed that in some detail in post 33.

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Are you trying to say it doesn't happen? or has never been documented?...

If something isn't properly documented, how would we know what actually happened?

Originally Posted by deepcreek

Well I was thinking of the Bernard Goetz case. "the 3 guys they will just say something like "we just asked for a lighter.” except I think they asked for some "spare change" with sharpened screwdrivers.

Then you don't understand the Bernhard Goetz case.

You wrote:

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Someone calls law enforcement says they just scared off 3 robbers at gun point they now have one guy who has admittedly threatened people with a gun=felony. Then if they get the 3 guys they will just say something like "we just asked for a lighter.”
The only case law enforcement and prosecutor has is the guy with the gun....

But that's not what happened with Bernie Goetz.

Goetz claimed that four men tried to rob him on a subway train and that he shot them in self defense. Immediately after the shooting, he fled to Vermont and destroyed evidence. He successfully evaded police for a period before finally surrendering to police in New Hampshire.

Goetz was ultimately acquitted by a jury of attempted murder and assault, based on his plea of self defense. He was convicted of criminal possession of a gun and went to prison for that.

[Brit]

Frank, I delved into the Bernie Goetz story you posted, amazing. I had heard of this before, but not in depth.

What he was finally convicted of, and the few months he spent in jail? Amazing.

[Tactical Jackalope]

Originally Posted by Brit

Frank, I delved into the Bernie Goetz story you posted, amazing. I had heard of this before, but not in depth.

What he was finally convicted of, and the few months he spent in jail? Amazing.

Yeah that was amazing. Also amazing how they try to twist what he said or did. I believe what he said in his quotes to Myra 100%.

I'm glad he was released. That was a time we didn't have 17+ round magazines. 6 rounds all met their mark. According to what he said I'm glad he didn't have a speed loader handy. Then it would have been murder.

[Tinner666]

My shop is still on the Newtown/Blackwell border in S. RIchmond.

I've had to draw without shooting 15-20 times over the years. Drawn and shot once.

I was prepared to shoot each time but some snakes can spin so fast they'd have caught the bullet in the back.

I once drew and addressed two dudes in my shop yard poking around. Wife covered with a drawn firearm in one hand, phone with PD in the other. It was two LEO's investigating last night's crime. They were in civies and slowly showed ID, badges, and holstered weapons. We stood down and they said we correctly handled the situation.

Once, while helping PD arrest two suspects, somebody stepped out of the crowd with a pistol in his hand and LEO's had their backs to him. I drew and hollered. He froze, saw me pointing at him and the LEO's turned to see the commotion and he took off through the crowd. I had a very real chance of hitting innocents and it was a tense 1/2 second or so. This happened when there were 'bounties' on Richmond PD. LEO's said I did it correctly.

I got out my truck once and some idiot starting shooting at me. I drew as I took cover. Behind him was a busy street with pedestrians. I held fire and he realized I was aiming at him. He took off and I let him go. I didn't even bother reporting it.

A crazed addict on something tried coming through my screen door at the shop. Reason wasn't working and I finally said I would shoot on the count of five. At three, he stopped and saw the pistol through a hole less than a foot from is head and stepped back. He screamed a lot of stuff, but the threat was gone. He left. He could even have been the one in the previous incident. No PD called either.

Recently, I heard voices outside and then, "Not here! He shoots!" the voices receded and the 7-11 was robbed with two shot an hour later.

Such is my life and the incidents have slowed.

There is NO cut and dried answer.

My front yard.

[deepcreek]

If something isn't properly documented, how would we know what actually happened?

I agree they are not properly documented, so we have foggy stories here and there, some pop up in the news, some get told by co workers, if you know people in law enforcement you get to hear some. I have never found a reliable source of statistics form any law enforcement agencies.
I have heard enough news stories and stories from from friends in law enforcement to come to the conclusion that if you pull a gun on someone you very well might face felony charges.

I agree what “actually happened” can be vague with different sides but it can also be common scene, usually a guy doesn’t break your door when you are gone because “he thought he was at his friends house”

Then you don't understand the Bernhard Goetz case.
Originally Posted by deepcreek
...Someone calls law enforcement says they just scared off 3 robbers at gun point they now have one guy who has admittedly threatened people with a gun=felony. Then if they get the 3 guys they will just say something like "we just asked for a lighter.”
The only case law enforcement and prosecutor has is the guy with the gun....

"Give me five dollars." Canty and Ramseur testified at the criminal trial that they were panhandling, and had only requested the money, not demanded it.

“Paramedics and police did find a total of three screwdrivers on two of the men.”

Basically the same concept the bad guys try to rob him then say they just asked for change. No way to prove they were trying to rob him in court, but common sense tells us that 4 guys do not usually surround you with sharpened screwdrivers just politely asking for some spare change.
Goetz just gets to prove he acted in self defense.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...so we have foggy stories here and there,...

And foggy stories make poor bases for learning. The value of data is proportional to the quality and accuracy of the data. Poor data produces poor conclusions.

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...I agree what “actually happened” can be vague with different sides but it can also be common scene,...

"Common sense" is just another way to say "guess." Of course there can be good guesses and poor guesses, and how good a guess might be will depend a lot on the education, training and experience of the person making the guess. And it was once "common sense" that the earth was flat.

As another member here so well stated here:

Originally Posted by zombietactics

...There is such a thing as "common sense". It's roughly what would be commonly apparent to someone reasonably well-versed in a topic or field of endeavor.

People often leave out the reasonably well-versed part, and substitute a kind of "I am smart/cool/awesome/tough enough to figure it out without actually knowing anything" attitude. This is often little more than a thin veneer of bluster painted over a surface of raw ignorance.
...

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Basically the same concept the bad guys try to rob him then say they just asked for change. No way to prove they were trying to rob him in court, but common sense tells us that 4 guys do not usually surround you with sharpened screwdrivers just politely asking for some spare change....

But that has nothing to do with the claim you made in post 87 that:

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...there are also several reasons not to report such an indecent....

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Goetz just gets to prove he acted in self defense...

That is the nature of a claim of self defense. As I explained here:

...Basically --

[1] The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt -- basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step 2.

[2] Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

[3] Now it's the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.

Let's go through that again.

In an ordinary criminal prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to say anything. He doesn't have to present any evidence. The entire burden falls on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the crime you're charged with is, for example, manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that you were there, you fired the gun, you intended to fire the gun (or were reckless), and the guy you shot died. In the typical manslaughter prosecution, the defendant might by way of his defense try to plant a seed that you weren't there (alibi defense), or that someone else might have fired the gun, or that it was an accident. In each case the defendant doesn't have to actually prove his defense. He merely has to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

So in such cases, it probably doesn't pay for you to say anything to the police, at least early on. Let them do the work of trying to amass evidence to prove the case against you. There's no reason for you to help.

But if you are going to be claiming self defense, you will wind up admitting all the elements of what would, absent legal justification, constitute a crime. You will necessarily admit that you were there, that you fired the gun, and that you intended to shoot the decedent. Your defense is that your use of lethal force in self defense satisfied the applicable legal standard and that, therefore, it was justified.

So now you would have to affirmatively present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In some jurisdictions, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you don't have to convince the jury. But you will at least have to present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

Then it will be the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury (in some jurisdictions, he will have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt) that you did not act in justified self defense. And even if you didn't have to prove self defense (only present a prima facie case), the more convincing your story, and your evidence, is, the harder it will be for the prosecutor to meet his rebuttal burden.

[deepcreek]

And foggy stories make poor bases for learning. The value of data is proportional to the quality and accuracy of the data. Poor data produces poor conclusions.

So where do you get your "learning" stats from ? link? Yes mine are rather poor, I have never seen good "documented" ones.

edit Self Defense situations are basically fights. you do not agree with someone intentions and you fight them.

So their is a fight police get involved and 2 people have are fighting, weapons, guns, etc. Fact: Felonies can and do come out of these situations who is the "bad guy" ??? who ever wins the legal fight. Do good guy always win the legal fight?

But that has nothing to do with the claim you made in post 87 that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by deepcreek
...there are also several reasons not to report such an indecent....

Reason -1- Back to the fact that many people in self defense situations have been charged with felonies.

Reason-2 By reporting an "incident" you are giving statements and possible incriminating your self in a crime without consulting legal advice.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by deepcreek, in support of the earlier assertion "there are also several reasons not to report such an indecent....":

Reason -1- Back to the fact that many people in self defense situations have been charged with felonies.

Reason-2 By reporting an "incident" you are giving statements and possible incriminating your self in a crime without consulting legal advice.

Yes, people have been charged with felonies following various kinds of use of force situations, including those in which they claimed self defense. As a matter of fact, knowingly presenting a firearm in a confrontational situation is a felony, absent the ability to mount a sufficient defense of justification.

The problem is, the armed citizen who displays a weapon risks being reported by (1) the persons whom he or she claims to have been the aggressors; (2) other witnesses; and/or (3), security camera images.

In the not unlikely event that the incident is reported by someone else, incriminating evidence will already exist, and as Frank Ettin has explained, it is then up to the armed citizen to present evidence supporting lawful justification.

Failure to report the incident would generally be looked upon as an indication of guilt; being first to report it is strongly recommended by most knowledgeable people.

[deepcreek]

In the not unlikely event that the incident is reported by someone else, incriminating evidence will already exist, and as Frank Ettin has explained, it is then up to the armed citizen to present evidence supporting lawful justification.

It is not "unlikely" but in some situations it might not be that likely.
Maybe the armed citizen doesn't have any "evidence supporting lawful justification" video, voice recording, witnesses, So basically they would be admitting to a felony with no evidence of justification.

Failure to report the incident would generally be looked upon as an indication of guilt; being first to report it is strongly recommended by most knowledgeable people.

I agree reporting in many cases is a good strategy and a winning one. But.. fights are not always black and white. and one strategy is not always the winning one.

The only point I am trying to make is calling 911 might not always be the best strategy. and that the good guy does not always win in court.