• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Concealed Carry Question

Rexedgar

Rexedgar

Yo-Semite!
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Apr 6, 2017
Messages
75,608
Reaction score
71,121
Location
RMN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What's the general rule of thumb as far as deadly force use. If the aggressor is not armed as you are, when can you be justified in using a weapon against an unarmed but physically intimidating and aggressive perpetrator?
 
Rexedgar said:
What's the general rule of thumb as far as deadly force use. If the aggressor is not armed as you are, when can you be justified in using a weapon against an unarmed but physically intimidating and aggressive perpetrator?
Click to expand...

If you have to ask the question, don't shoot.
 
You must have a reasonable belief that your life or the life of another is at imminent risk of great bodily harm or death.

When you draw your weapon you are committing a crime. There may be circumstances that preclude prosecution for that crime and those circumstances are your only "out". To that end, you better be damned sure that what you're doing is absolutely necessary.
 
Rexedgar said:
What's the general rule of thumb as far as deadly force use. If the aggressor is not armed as you are, when can you be justified in using a weapon against an unarmed but physically intimidating and aggressive perpetrator?
Click to expand...

It depends on the state you live in.

You should 100% absolutely understand your state laws regarding the use of deadly force.

states like FL, TX, etc ... have what they call stand your ground laws. which means if you can prove that you are in fear for your life you can use deadly force.
the burden of proof though is on your to prove that.

If in your case if that person is charging and or throwing punches and is not stopping or backing down and you determine that you cannot physically stop them
and that you could suffer sever or deadly injuries related to this person then you would meet the burden of proof.

other states do not have this. you are required to retreat or attempt to get away from the person that is attacking you.
if you don't and shoot them then you are liable for assault with a deadly weapon up to murder.

this is also why all CCW permits require class room instruction on the law etc ...
other have great onsite training shooting scenerio's etc ...
 
Rexedgar said:
What's the general rule of thumb as far as deadly force use. If the aggressor is not armed as you are, when can you be justified in using a weapon against an unarmed but physically intimidating and aggressive perpetrator?
Click to expand...


IMO you need to research some case law within the state in which you reside as it pertains to your question
 
Rexedgar said:
What's the general rule of thumb as far as deadly force use. If the aggressor is not armed as you are, when can you be justified in using a weapon against an unarmed but physically intimidating and aggressive perpetrator?
Click to expand...


<- ex-cop, long time ccw'er.

Ok this varies by state, but here it is in a nutshell.

You have a self-defense claim for using force IF: you are "assaulted".

Lotta people think "assault" means they have to hit you first, or shoot first, but it isn't so. "Assault" is the crime of placing an innocent person in reasonable fear of imminent harm. Cocking a fist and stepping forward is an example of assault.


Like the "fire triangle", an assault claim requires three components.

The subject must have the Ability to harm you, he must have the Opportunity to harm you right now (imminent threat), and there must be an indication of Intent to harm you (also called Jeopardy).

Intent/Jeopardy: the subject must have made verbal threats, threatening gestures, or be acting in a clearly threatening manner.

Ability: the subject must have the ability to carry out the threat.

Opportunity: the subject must be able to carry out the threat right now, an Imminent threat... not a threat to kill you sometime later.


To pass for LETHAL self-defense, the threat must be of death or "grave bodily harm"... that latter term is subjective but typically means you are likely to suffer significant injury requiring medical treatment... more than just a black eye IOW.

All this must also pass the "Reasonable Man Test".... would a reasonable man in the same situation agree with your assessment of the threat?

BTW shooting is ALWAYS lethal force in the USA, do NOT claim you "shot to wound" (even if you did) it will ruin you in court. We "shoot to STOP".


Now in SOME states you have a "duty to retreat" before using lethal force, if possible to do so safely... this is very subjective and iffy and that's why a lot of states have removed the requirement.


And some states are more strict and prone to prosecute than others.


Final note: Relative ability is often taken into account. If a 100 pound woman shoots a 200 pound unarmed man acting like an imminent threat, she's probably ok in most states. If the physicality is roughly equal, then in some states you might be in need of a first-rate lawyer and some luck.
 
Last edited:
Rexedgar said:
What's the general rule of thumb as far as deadly force use. If the aggressor is not armed as you are, when can you be justified in using a weapon against an unarmed but physically intimidating and aggressive perpetrator?
Click to expand...

How do you know any of those things you attributed to the perp? The time it takes to find out could be your last.

Other than that, know the law in your state.
 
WCH said:
How do you know any of those things you attributed to the perp? The time it takes to find out could be your last.

Other than that, know the law in your state.
Click to expand...



Good point. In most states you aren't expected to be psychic. You can't know what he might have concealed about his person, even if he's just in shorts and no shirt.


If he says he's gonna stab you, and reaches into a pocket while standing within reach of me, I'll take him at his word.
 
Goshin said:
<- ex-cop, long time ccw'er.

Ok this varies by state, but here it is in a nutshell.

You have a self-defense claim for using force IF: you are "assaulted".

Lotta people think "assault" means they have to hit you first, or shoot first, but it isn't so. "Assault" is the crime of placing an innocent person in reasonable fear of imminent harm. Cocking a fist and stepping forward is an example of assault.


Like the "fire triangle", an assault claim requires three components.

The subject must have the Ability to harm you, he must have the Opportunity to harm you right now (imminent threat), and there must be an indication of Intent to harm you (also called Jeopardy).

Intent/Jeopardy: the subject must have made verbal threats, threatening gestures, or be acting in a clearly threatening manner.

Ability: the subject must have the ability to carry out the threat.

Opportunity: the subject must be able to carry out the threat right now, an Imminent threat... not a threat to kill you sometime later.


To pass for LETHAL self-defense, the threat must be of death or "grave bodily harm"... that latter term is subjective but typically means you are likely to suffer significant injury requiring medical treatment... more than just a black eye IOW.

All this must also pass the "Reasonable Man Test".... would a reasonable man in the same situation agree with your assessment of the threat?

BTW shooting is ALWAYS lethal force in the USA, do NOT claim you "shot to wound" (even if you did) it will ruin you in court. We "shoot to STOP".


Now in SOME states you have a "duty to retreat" before using lethal force, if possible to do so safely... this is very subjective and iffy and that's why a lot of states have removed the requirement.


And some states are more strict and prone to prosecute than others.


Final note: Relative ability is often taken into account. If a 100 pound woman shoots a 200 pound unarmed man acting like an imminent threat, she's probably ok in most states. If the physicality is roughly equal, then in some states you might be in need of a first-rate lawyer and some luck.
Click to expand...

I think it is fair to take relative ability into account as you mentioned in your final note.

If an unarmed someone like Mike Tyson or Brock Lesnar yells, "I'm going to kill you!" and runs at me in a rage, I'm drawing my sidearm.

However, if someone like Richard Simmons does the exact same thing, I'm drawing my phone so I can take a selfie.

:)
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I think it is fair to take relative ability into account as you mentioned in your final note.

If an unarmed someone like Mike Tyson or Brock Lesnar yells, "I'm going to kill you!" and runs at me in a rage, I'm drawing my sidearm.

However, if someone like Richard Simmons does the exact same thing, I'm drawing my phone so I can take a selfie.

:)
Click to expand...



:lamo :lamo :lamo


Good example, lol.
 
Goshin said:
Good point. In most states you aren't expected to be psychic. You can't know what he might have concealed about his person, even if he's just in shorts and no shirt.


If he says he's gonna stab you, and reaches into a pocket while standing within reach of me, I'll take him at his word.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
Rexedgar said:
You need to be busier....
Click to expand...

What does that mean? If you don't know the explicit laws in your state for use of deadly force, DP is most assuredly not the place to find them. Don't take the time to insult me...look it up.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I think it is fair to take relative ability into account as you mentioned in your final note.

If an unarmed someone like Mike Tyson or Brock Lesnar yells, "I'm going to kill you!" and runs at me in a rage, I'm drawing my sidearm.

However, if someone like Richard Simmons does the exact same thing, I'm drawing my phone so I can take a selfie.

:)
Click to expand...

:lamo
 
Rexedgar said:
What's the general rule of thumb as far as deadly force use. If the aggressor is not armed as you are, when can you be justified in using a weapon against an unarmed but physically intimidating and aggressive perpetrator?
Click to expand...

You can shoot if you feel any fear... that is the justification cops get off with after shooting an unarmed person in the back with.
 
MaggieD said:
What does that mean? If you don't know the explicit laws in your state for use of deadly force, DP is most assuredly not the place to find them. Don't take the time to insult me...look it up.
Click to expand...

DP is not a legal advice website stacked with laywers? Uhhh...
 
ludin said:
It depends on the state you live in.

You should 100% absolutely understand your state laws regarding the use of deadly force.

states like FL, TX, etc ... have what they call stand your ground laws. which means if you can prove that you are in fear for your life you can use deadly force.
the burden of proof though is on your to prove that..
Click to expand...

That's false. Fear of life or grave bodily harm is a standard self-defense defense. Stand your ground (FL) states that lethal force can be used in the prevention of a forcible felony, regardless of personal fear.
 
ecofarm said:
That's false. Fear of life or grave bodily harm is a standard self-defense defense. Stand your ground (FL) states that lethal force can be used in the prevention of a forcible felony, regardless of personal fear.
Click to expand...

Sigh. No it is correct.
Stand your ground only requires fear that your life is in danger or someone else.

(1) the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) the person acts under and according to the circumstances set forth in Section 776.013 (pertaining to the use of force in the context of a home or vehicle invasion).

See all those or's?
Also you have the burden of proof to prove that is the case.

Other states require you to flee and only use deadly force as a last resort.
 
ludin said:
Sigh. No it is correct.
Stand your ground only requires fear that your life is in danger or someone else.

(1) the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself, or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) the person acts under and according to the circumstances set forth in Section 776.013 (pertaining to the use of force in the context of a home or vehicle invasion).

See all those or's?
Also you have the burden of proof to prove that is the case.

Other states require you to flee and only use deadly force as a last resort.
Click to expand...

Bolded is SYG. No fear is required.

Fear of life or great bodily harm is standard self-defense defense. SYG added the bolded part.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
Click to expand...
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom