Stunning conviction

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by manta49

You tell me , if someone takes a swing for you, is it OK to shoot him, would that be seen as resaonable force. ?

Has news about what is being called in the U.S. the "knockout game" reached the shores of Ireland? The entire premise of this little "game" is for an assailant (because that's what the "players" are, in fact) to sneak up on an unsuspecting victim and attempt to knock the victim out with one punch.

Some of the victims have died.

There have been many instances of fist fights that resulted in one of the combatants having been killed by a blow.

Then you seem to overlook the fact that, in general, American law does not limit the use of deadly force to those situations in which you fear death. I haven't read the laws of all fifty states, but I have read a number of them. The words chosen may vary ("deadly" vs. "lethal" force, or "serious" vs. "grievous" bodily harm), but the common element is that a victim is legally allowed to employ deadly/lethal force in self defense if he fears death or grievous bodily harm.

As I posted previously, I am a senior citizen. I was never a "hunk," and I have never studied martial arts or boxing. If someone attacks me physically, I AM going to be in fear for my life, or at least in fear that I will suffer "grievous bodily harm." Therefore I will defend myself with whatever means I have available. If that makes me a coward in your eyes, I can live with that. I have a box of Army medals that speak to my level of cowardice-- how many do YOU have?

If you choose to accept a whuppin' because you think that makes you a man, by all means carry on being a punching bag. It doesn't make any sense to me, but different opinions are what make horse racing interesting.

[manta49]

Has news about what is being called in the U.S. the "knockout game" reached the shores of Ireland? The entire premise of this little "game" is for an assailant (because that's what the "players" are, in fact) to sneak up on an unsuspecting victim and attempt to knock the victim out with one punch.

Some of the victims have died.

There have been many instances of fist fights that resulted in one of the combatants having been killed by a blow.

Then you seem to overlook the fact that, in general, American law does not limit the use of deadly force to those situations in which you fear death. I haven't read the laws of all fifty states, but I have read a number of them. The words chosen may vary ("deadly" vs. "lethal" force, or "serious" vs. "grievous" bodily harm), but the common element is that a victim is legally allowed to employ deadly/lethal force in self defense if he fears death or grievous bodily harm.

As I posted previously, I am a senior citizen. I was never a "hunk," and I have never studied martial arts or boxing. If someone attacks me physically, I AM going to be in fear for my life,

No that has not reached N Ireland yet that I am aware of. But there have being cases of one people being killed with one punch. But they dinint see the punch coming, and in the cases in America if the idea is sneking up on someone and punching them, again they are unlikely to see it coming. In your case being a senior citizen could be seen as a defence as you would have difficulty defending yourself. But i am sure that wouldn't be the case for all people.

but the common element is that a victim is legally allowed to employ deadly/lethal force in self defense if he fears death or grievous bodily harm.

I am not sure just saying or thinking that you feared death or grievous harm would be enough in all cases from what I can read.

[KyJim]

Generally, the amount of force deemed reasonable is that which is necessary to defend one's self based upon all the circumstances. That includes age and physical condition of the parties. In some states, what the victim/defendant knows about the assailant's reputation for violence or his skills at martial arts may be factored into the equation.

In my state, and some others, if a person subjectively believes in the need for deadly force but that belief is not reasonable, he or she may be convicted of an offense less than murder -- manslaughter or reckless homicide. The use of force is often not a black and white question. There are many shades of gray and, as we have discussed here before, results may differ based on factors other than the law and the facts, such as community attitude.

[manta49]

In my state, and some others, if a person subjectively believes in the need for deadly force but that belief is not reasonable, he or she may be convicted of an offense less than murder -- manslaughter or reckless homicide. The use of force is often not a black and white question. There are many shades of gray and, as we have discussed here before, results may differ based on factors other than the law and the facts such as community attitude.

What I read in another link bellow , sounds like good advice. And as you say what might be OK in one state might not be in another.

Always remember:
1.The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2.Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3.Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.

If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain

[Tom Servo]

In my state, and some others, if a person subjectively believes in the need for deadly force but that belief is not reasonable, he or she may be convicted of an offense less than murder -- manslaughter or reckless homicide.

The doctrine is known as imperfect self-defense. The Zimmerman case (and we are not going there) was an example of this.

Mr. Green may have genuinely believed he was in fear for his life, but if he contributed to the situation, his claim of defense suffers. I know a few MMA fighters. Those guys could do me an immense amount of harm. Of course, since I don't go picking fights with them, I don't have to put that to the test.

[amd6547]

Manta...since you seem to have a mental image of trigger happy, cowardly Americans going to the gun at the first sign of a "simple" black eye, allow me to give you my mental image of your context...
A couple good, honest boys down a few draughts of Guiness and get in an argument about a lass or a soccer team. Fists are raised in bare chested John L. Sullivan manner while the rest of the pub cheers...after a few blows are exchanged, they buy each other more Guiness and laugh about the whole thing.

I have lived to the age of 57, so far...and I have managed to avoid fighting or shooting anyone...this in spite of having carried most of the time since I was 21.
I hope to keep it that way until the end of my days.

[manta49]

Manta...since you seem to have a mental image of trigger happy, cowardly Americans going to the gun at the first sign of a "simple" black eye, allow me to give you my mental image of your context...
A couple good, honest boys down a few draughts of Guiness and get in an argument about a lass or a soccer team. Fists are raised in bare chested John L. Sullivan manner while the rest of the pub cheers...after a few blows are exchanged, they buy each other more Guiness and laugh about the whole thing.

You seem to have a mental image of brawling Guinness drinking Northern Irish. Its funny the stereotypes people have, for one I doint like Guinness and few of my friends do. I doint think people in America go around shooting people for throwing a punch. I asked the question would people see someone throwing a punch at them as justification for shooting them, there is a difference. Maybe you already knew what my reply was going to be , as you seem to know what I am thinking. PS Who is John L Sullivan.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Manta49

I am not sure just saying or thinking that you feared death or grievous harm would be enough in all cases from what I can read.

In such cases, juries are supposed to be instructed to view the circumstances as if they were the defendant. It's called the "reasonable man" test, and it calls on the jury to answer the question: What would a hypothetical reasonable man have done if he were in the same situation?

The jury instructions also tell the jury (or are supposed to) that they are to ignore facts that were not known to the victim ("victim" being the person who was assaulted and used deadly force to protect himself). In other words, you see a mugger pointing a gun at you, so you draw your gun and shoot him. (As advised by the Dalai Lama.) After the fact, it is discovered that the mugger's gun was a plastic airsoft with the red tip removed from the muzzle. The jury is not allowed to decide that your use of deadly force was excessive, because at the time you could not have known that the mugger's gun wasn't real.

Whether a person sees the punch coming or not, even you acknowledge that a punch can kill, and a punch can certainly cause serious bodily injury. In the case of an assault (as opposed to "consensual combat," wherein two macho men agree to step outside and settle it "like real men"), anyone in his or her right mind would (or should) fear death or serious bodily injury if assaulted. How can you know the attacker's intent? Too many people have been curb-stomped after being punched to the ground for it to be anything but stupid to think that one should NOT use whatever means he has available to defend himself because "A real man can take a punch."

You never know what you're up against. Example: A long, long time ago I came home from the Army for Christmas leave. I had a 16 hour bus trip, a 2-hour wait, then a 2-hour bus trip, then I had to take a cab from the bus terminal to my parents' home. As I got in the cab, the cabbie asked if I would mind sharing the ride (and the fare) with another man going in the same general direction. This was around 3:00 in the morning and there were no other cabs around, it was cold, so I agreed. The other man's stop was on the way to my destination but, when we got to the neighborhood, the guy couldn't quite remember where he was going. We drove around several blocks, then when the cabbie stopped and asked if anything looked familiar the guy opened the door and bolted.

The cabbie called his dispatcher, who called the cops. The first officer who arrived heard the story, and then said to the cabbie (and I quote), "Jesus, you didn't touch him, did you?" The answer, of course, was no, but I wondered why this had seemed so important.

The cops couldn't find the deadbeat, and eventually they gave up looking. The cabbie was [extremely angry], but not so angry that he took it out on me. As a buck private, I was traveling in uniform because I got cheaper bus fare that way, so he knew I was a soldier. He reset the meter to zero and we went on from there. En route to my home I asked why the cop had made such a big deal out of touching the deadbeat. The cabbie answered that he was a U.S. Marine hand-to-hand combat instructor at the local reserve training center, and that for him to have laid hands on the deadbeat could be construed in court as assault with a deadly weapon. Now, the cabbie was maybe 5'-10" tall, medium build, and rather nondescript in appearance. Not anybody's stereotype of a walking lethal weapon, but apparently that's exactly what he was.

YOU ... CAN'T ... KNOW.

In my view, if you DON'T fear death or serious injury from a physical assault, you're either not sane or you're on drugs. Your view is apparently either more benign, or based on having seen a lot less of real life than I have seen.

[manta49]

In my view, if you DON'T fear death or serious injury from a physical assault, you're either not sane or you're on drugs. Your view is apparently either more benign, or based on having seen a lot less of real life than I have seen.

I think most people fear injury from an assault. But I don't fear it enough to escalate what could be a few punches thrown with no real injuries to a lethal encounter that you could end up in jail. Believe me living here for 50 years I have seen more than enough of real life.

Every day of the year marks the anniversary of someone’s death as a result of conflict in and about Northern Ireland.1
3,720 people were killed as a result of the conflict.2
Approximately 47,541 people were injured.3
There were 36,923 shootings.4
16,209 bombings were conducted

You say that a jury can be asked to put themselves in your situation and decide if what a person did was reasonable. That's a bit of a lottery that you would be better trying to avoid. What one person would see as reasonable others wouldn't. I would take a person having a swing at me every time before I would put myself in that situation. I think the advice below makes sense, point 2 says it all.

Always remember:
1.The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2.Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3.Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.

If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by manta49

I think most people fear injury from an assault. But I don't fear it enough to escalate what could be a few punches thrown with no real injuries to a lethal encounter that you could end up in jail. Believe me living here for 50 years I have seen more than enough of real life....

This is getting far too circular. The real point is that there is no automatic answer. It all depends on the exact circumstances.

If you use lethal force in self defense, you will need to establish that your use of lethal force satisfied the applicable legal standard. A good outline of that legal standard may be found at useofforce.us. You might be able to satisfy that standard and establish, on an object "reasonable person" basis, that your use of lethal force was legally justified, even if the person you used force against was unarmed. It has happened and has been done, but it is necessarily difficult to do.

If you use lethal force against an unarmed person you will start in a hole you will have to climb out of. Shooting someone who is unarmed will definitely go against the grain of the average juror. So you're going to need to do some fairly fancy convincing to get a jury to go along with you. You will need compelling facts. Again, it has been done, but only based on unique and compelling facts.

And it sure looks like the facts were not compelling in the case noted by the OP.

The take home message needs to be that if you use lethal force defending against an unarmed person, you will need to be able to articulate why it was absolutely necessary and that a reasonable person would have concluded that there was no other way to avoid immediate death or grave bodily injury.

[amd6547]

"...You seem to have a mental image of brawling Guinness drinking Northern Irish. Its funny the stereotypes people have, for one I doint like Guinness and few of my friends do. I doint think people in America go around shooting people for throwing a punch. I asked the question would people see someone throwing a punch at them as justification for shooting them, there is a difference. Maybe you already knew what my reply was going to be , as you seem to know what I am thinking. PS Who is John L Sullivan..."

Manta, my friend...I don't really have that stereotype, I was making an exaggerated context which I feel equals the exaggerated discription of "cowardly" self defense you made.
I happen to like Guiness very much, and it is my sincere hope to sometime visit Ireland and drink it there.
As for John L Sullivan, here, for your education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Sullivan

[manta49]

I happen to like Guiness very much, and it is my sincere hope to sometime visit Ireland and drink it there.
As for John L Sullivan, here, for your education:

You should visit you will have a good time. Be sure to go to N Ireland when you visit, things like Titanic Belfast the birthplace of the Titanic are worth seeing. As for what we were discussing post (60) makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately you won't be able to bring your firearm with you.