Question for gun owners.

[socialist_n_TN]

BTW, I am one. Do you think you're justified in using your weapon if you start an argument that devolves into fisticuffs and you find you're getting your ass kicked? Even if your opponent is still unarmed?

My answer, as a gun owner, is graduated response. I would never use a gun on someone that was unarmed. I'd take my beating and learn not to start shit in the future. How about you?

[AndyA]

1. WRONG FORUM.

There is a Guns forum.

[HERVEPA]

3. Of interest to those not gun owners also.

Why move it?

[Ron Green]

4. But this is the Ass-Kicking Forum, no?

[burrfoot]

23. Eeeeeaasy there, Big Fella!

The all-caps makes you sound so serious!

[tranche]

2. Shoot first. Then the argument won't evolve past "oops".

[socialist_n_TN]

5. Seriously? No graduated response for you..........

obviously. I think that would be considered murder.

[spin]

26. Perhaps one reason that the quote "an armed society is a polite society" ...

is accurate is that the majority of gun owners but especially those gun owners who have concealed carry permits avoid fights.

Arguments can resolved in many ways. My first rule is to never allow one to escalate to the point that violence is a possibility. If I see that I have started a conversation that riles the person I am talking to, I just say that I can see that we disagree and that I respect his opinion. I then break off the conversation and leave even if it makes me look like a coward.

Lethal force is reserved for a violent and unprovoked attack that threatens my life or might result in serious injury.

Firearms are not for everybody. If you have an anger management problem, than it would be wise to avoid owning one.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

6. Yes but what if

they are not armed yet they are bigger than you? I'd just wing 'em to slow them down a bit.

[Dappleganger]

7. Hmmm.

Nope.

I only start shit on the internet just to keep it safe.

:evilgrin:

[chrisa]

8. It's a tricky situation,

But I would say the best course of action is to avoid conflict in the first place, and resist any attempts to pick a fight with you.

But if it's some random guy off the street charging at you, I would say you could pull the gun on them, and if they continue towards you after a number of warnings, you would have no choice.

[Dappleganger]

9. +1

"Avoid the conflict in the first place."

[socialist_n_TN]

19. How can you avoid conflict?...................

Especially in the political arena? I'm NOT going to let some RW squirrel go unchallenged, verbally. What if he takes a poke at me? I defend myself and he gets scared and pulls a gun? I know that I would be justified in that case in using deadly force against him, but he DOES have a gun. If I get shot, who's fault is that?

These are things that I'm not sure get covered in gun classes.

[X_Digger]

24. Actually they do get covered in gun classes.

Maybe not in 'basic pistol' etc, but definitely in classes for concealed carry.

You, as a licensed gun carrier, have an obligation to avoid conflict. Sometimes that means walking away from an asshole.

In the case you mentioned above, law enforcement would hold him responsible for 'taking a poke' at you and escalating the verbal altercation into a physical one that ended up with you being shot.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Yes, it is covered.

In Texas, a large part of the classes are devoted to conflict deescalation.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. By law, if you started the argument, you share the blame.

You will not be acting in pure self-defense.

I have a Texas concealed handgun license, and I avoid starting stuff. If something does start then I am the innocent defender. I will only shoot if I genuinely fear for my life or serious bodily harm, but a person can be beaten to death with fists.

If you are armed - DON'T START SHIT!

[socialist_n_TN]

12. That's pretty sensible......................

What if it was a buddy of yours who started it and was being beaten up? When would you feel like you should step in with (or even without) your weapon?

I'm not just baiting here BTW. I'm REALLY curious about people's attitudes about this issue, especially with the proliferation of open and hidden carry states, TN being one of them.

[benEzra]

29. If your buddy could not legally claim self-defense because he started it,

then you can't justifiably defend him, either. Jumping in with a gun to try to save his ass from his intended victim would be aggravated assault at best, at least here in NC.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. It gets pretty ifffy.

If your friend has lost and is no longer in the fight but is still getting beaten, then you can help. But be real careful in how you help. Give the other guy warning.

Personally, none of my friends are the type to start fights. That is bad company to hang out with.

[slackmaster]

11. If you start a fight, you are generally not justified in using deadly force to end it

One lesson that gets taught in all self-defense classes (firearm and non-firearm) is the importance of avoiding fights.

In California the situation you describe would end up with the shooter getting charged with voluntary manslaughter or worse.

I've never been in a gun fight or started a fight of any kind. The last time I lost one I was 15 years old. Since then I've defended myself a few times, in fact I put two men in the hospital on the same day in separate incidents. One guy attacked me with a post-hole digger when I was unarmed. He ended up with a broken ankle. The other attacked me with his bare hands when I was armed with a car - Tried to grab me as I was driving off. I grabbed his arm and accelerated until he started begging for mercy. He got pretty messed up when I finally let go. :-)

[socialist_n_TN]

15. Agree with your first paragraph................

And I'll take your word for the second paragraph. What if it was a friend? When would you feel justified in stepping in?

[slackmaster]

18. California law allows use of deadly force in defense of self or others, or to stop a felony

So if you intervene in a fight, using deadly force to defend your friend (or anyone else) from a credible threat of injury or death is defensible.

Of course the exact circumstances would be very important. You probably wouldn't get away with shooting someone in order to stop a pillow fight or a slap-fest.

I would feel justified in stepping in to stop a fight in which one party has an obvious advantage over the other, and it appears that the weaker party is in grave danger of serious injury or death.

Two equally matched drunks fighting outside? I let them duke it out.

[socialist_n_TN]

22. That's reasonable, but my conundrum.............

about this has to do with graduated response. I'm usually not going to back down from a verbal challenge especially in the political arena. What if the one who started the physical part of the altercation was the one getting beaten up. IOW, what if the one defending himself from the original assault and battery were winning the fight? Do you intervene? What if it was your friend losing the battle?

[spin]

30. In most physical altercations, you are supposed to stop fighting ...

once your opponent is down and no longer presents a threat.

If your friend had stopped fighting and was being hit and kicked in a way that would lead to serious injury, I believe you would be justified in using a firearm to stop the attack. Still, this would be a situation that would entirely depend on the circumstances. If you are physically capable and have some training in a martial art, it might be better to use your physical skills to break up the fight.

Once you pull a firearm, things get real serious real fast. It may lead to who the authorities believe, you and your friend or the person who was winning the fight and his friends.

[rrneck]

42. things get real serious real fast

Sound advice. Seems to me the general objective is to slow things down and give everybody time to think (and cool off). Years ago my karate instructor told me that speed beats strength, and skill beats speed.

[benEzra]

31. Again, it doesn't matter who's winning or losing; it matters who is the original attacker.

If person A started beating up on person B and person B starts wiping the floor with him, person A cannot claim self-defense unless he discontinues the fight and runs away while giving clear notice that he doesn't want to fight. But if person A *does* run away and person B chases him trying to kill him, then person A would regain the right to self-defense.

[GreenStormCloud]

39. If you carry a gun, you learn to back down from lots of challenges.

You learn to discuss politics and other hot button subjects with courtesy.

It is also a good idea to carry a lesser method of defense on you as well as a gun.

[Travis Coates]

49. If the squirrel has a gun

and shoots you, will you feel better knowing that you hold the moral high ground?

Don't start no S H and there won't be no I T

[socialist_n_TN]

62. So, does that mean I can't argue.....................

with a Teahadist just because he might be armed and crazy? How do I know he's armed and crazy before I argue with him? It sounds like your advocating not exercising the right to free speech.

[Travis Coates]

72. What I'm advocating

Is not talking smack to people you don't know.

People are weird these days they will attack you over nothing. I don't get involved in other people's drama.

It really sounds like you're asking how far you can push it. The vast majority of gun owners are responsible, law abiding people but you might pick the one whack job in the crowd. Is it worth your life?

[socialist_n_TN]

85. "It sounds like your asking how far you can push it"

No, actually I'm asking if I have to be intimidated into giving up my free speech rights (STRICTLY verbal) out of fear that somebody has a gun.

Now, this doesn't often come up. I've had maybe one or two political arguments that got sort of heated, but it was always with someone I knew and I never felt like it was out of control. But it the supercharged political atmosphere of today, I think that it's worth thinking about. The RW has made a living on making aggressive assertions that didn't get challenged in the past. That's only changed relatively recently and I DON'T want to go back to unchallenged RW talking points. That's the way back to ANOTHER 30 years of Reagan's policies. Or worse.

[Travis Coates]

86. intimidated into giving up my free speech rights

Only you can decide to be intimidated, if some nut job is going to pull a gun on you he's going to do it wheather it's justified or not. Most gun owners are responsible regardless of their political beliefs.

[SteveM]

91. If you are packing, then maybe you should "suspend" your argueing...

That is what most people who carry concealed seem to be saying. Sure, you have a right to free speech, but when you are carrying, you are under increased obligation not to get into confrontational situations. If you are unarmed, then fist fights happen; I'm not really concerned. If the other person pulls a gun, then walk away.

[The Green Manalishi]

84. " I'm usually not going to back down from a verbal challenge especially in the political arena"

If the politics matter to you that much, then either learn serious martial arts or realize that an ass whipping comes with the territory.

If you start, escalate or continue an argument with someone who can kick your butt (regardless of how reprehensible their views) it means you have a butt kicking coming due to sheer stupidity; it does not mean that you can waste 'em, even if they are wearing Klan robes, a storm trooper outfit or are festooned with teabags.

But, to paraphrase Sun Tzu "If you find yourself in a fair fight - your strategy is idiotic and you are a fool'

[Travis Coates]

13. Not under Colorado law NT

[X_Digger]

14. If I started the argument? No, and the law doesn't call that justified.

But at the same time, I don't intend on meeting force in kind.

If I'm in fear of grievous bodily harm or injury, I'll shoot, regardless of the weapon the perpetrator is swinging at me- fist, knife, tire iron, beer bottle..

[pipi_k]

16. Number one rule

to a (relatively) peaceful life:


Don't start shit.



As for using a gun to "defend" oneself after starting shit, that's just outrageous.


Here in Mass, we can only use the force necessary for self defense...for example, if someone attacks with a pair of knitting needles, we can't respond with gunfire.

And if someone enters your house unlawfully and points a gun in your direction and you fire back, wounding or killing him, the bullet hole had better be going from front to back...not the other way.


PS...we own guns here

[GreenStormCloud]

40. Knitting needles make good short rapiers. Very deadly.

Back when I used to be a truck driver, I met a driver who learned how to knit so that he could have them in his truck. Federal law forbids truckers to carry weapons, as does most company policy. If he had the needles, but couldn't knit, then he could have been accused of having weapons. But he was able to demonstrate that he could, and did, knit, so he got to keep them.

[pipi_k]

43. You're not kidding...

I've sat on some of mine by accident


:cry:

[katzenjammers]

88. Charlie Rose sat on a knitting needle

Charlie Rose


:silly:
;-)

[gorfle]

17. Absolutely not.

If you initiate physical violence, you are going to have a very hard time justifying deadly self-defense.

Now you did not stipulate who initiated physical violence. You just suggested that I simply "started an argument". This is a little vague.

[socialist_n_TN]

20. Sorry about that. Post #19 explains a little more...................

about what I was considering. I'm thinking more about a verbal argument that is escalated by one party to physicality. So in your idea of self defense (or your understanding of the legality of same), whoever starts the actual PHYSICAL confrontation would have the most explaining to do, legally, if someone wound up shot. Is that a correct assumption on your position?

[gorfle]

27. It depends on what you said to start the argument.

If I'm standing on a street corner and I say, "Equal Rights for All!" and someone comes and calls me a fag lover and then physically assaults me, I'd say I'd have a pretty good case for defending myself with deadly force, even though I "started" the verbal argument.

If, on the other hand, I walk up to to men holding hands and say, "You fags all make me sick!" and a verbal argument arises out of that and I get physically assaulted, I might have a harder time making a good case for defending myself with physical force.

But in all cases, actions speak louder than words. Whoever initiates violence is probably going to be seen as in the wrong, unless that person had some reason, based on credible verbal threats, to think that they were in danger.

[socialist_n_TN]

67. So you're saying that there are some VERBAL

provocations that justify physical responses? I'm not sure I believe that would be legal and I DEFINITELY don't believe in it. Even saying, "I'm going to kill you" without being accompanied by an action (reaching into a pocket or a jacket for instance) would be enough for me to even hit somebody.

[gorfle]

80. Yup.

If you threaten to kill me and I believe the threat is credible for any reason I will act on that threat accordingly.

[burrfoot]

21. If you start the argument,

I agree that you bear some responsibility for the results. I'm totally ok with there being higher standards of whatever the legal term for a higher need-to-de-escalate-or-walk-away-ability is when you're carrying.

As far as defending a jackass friend, though, I think it's acceptable. I'd want to be damn sure that there was no other way to go about it, though, because any smart attorney would be taking a fine-toothed comb to the idea that there may have been collusion between you and your friend.

A thought about never pulling on an unarmed individual- if you google "beat to death with hands and feet" you get 7,430,000 results.
I didn't review them, but even if 99.9% of them are not about what they sound like, that's still seven thousand four hundred and thirty people who got their asses handed to them by an assailant with no weapon. It happens. It's not about how tough or well trained somebody is, or how willing they are to take a beating in order to avoid drawing their weapon.

I think it's pretty relevant that we don't have any way of knowing when the beating is going to end and perhaps shouldn't be relying on the assailant to stop before anything too awful bad happens to us.

Somebody walks up and pops me in the face and then stops, I probably don't want to draw. But if they pop me in the face and then keep coming at me, I'm going to do my best to have my gun out and ready whether they're armed or not.

YMMV, as always!

[benEzra]

33. More Americans are murdered every year with feet and bare hands

than with all rifles and all shotguns combined.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

[benEzra]

34. In NC (and a lot of other state), if you jump into a fight on the side of the aggressor...

and you are wielding potentially lethal force, then you are looking at aggravated assault to second-degree murder, depending on circumstances and how it plays out. Even if your friend is in danger of death or serious bodily harm, if HE started the fight, he (and by extension you) can't claim justifiability to avoid the sequelae of his initial unlawful assault.

[burrfoot]

89. Interesting-

I'd never thought about that. I guess it makes sense. So you really need to think about who you're with, as well as where you go, when you're carrying....

[jody]

25. "if you start an argument" then you need to (1) learn to control your temper and (2) choose better

companions.

What you describe is a person looking for a fight. :thumbsdown:

[benEzra]

28. Generally speaking, if YOU start the fight, YOU lose the right to self-defense

unless you first attempt to withdraw from the fight.

The general criteria that must be met for a shooting to be ruled justifiable self-defense are very similar in every state. The best phrasing I have found so far is in Steve Johnson, Concealed Carry Handgun Training, North Carolina Justice Academy, 1995, pp. 3-4, but these criteria would apply in every state.

(1) Justified Self-Defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was NOT an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."

In your scenario, the right to use potentially lethal force in self-defense would violate point (3) above. Or, let's say you start a fight and YOU are the one kicking ass, and he pulls a knife on you. Here in NC, you could not respond to that knife with equivalent (lethal) force; you started the initial fight, so you cannot now claim self-defense since you are the attacker here. However, if you disengage and run away, giving clear notice that you no longer wish to continue the fight, and he chases you down the block trying to stab you, then you would regain the right to self-defense. But, generally speaking, you must have the mantle of innocence in order to defend yourself.

Now, it *can* be justifiable to use potentially lethal force to stop a brutal beating by someone armed only with fists and feet, just as it is justifiable to use that level of force to stop any other unlawful attack intended to cause death or serious bodily injury, if THEY are the attacker/instigator and YOU are the victim. But if you started it, you're SOL.

BTW, I'm 39 years old and have never been in so much as a fistfight outside of martial arts classes. I've also held a CHL for about 15 years, FWIW.

[safeinOhio]

32. If you feel that you must shoot him, go ahead.

Just don't bitch about the 15 years you'll do in the joint.

[virginia mountainman]

35. I am a CCW holder, and I carry DAILY...

I can explain MY personal policy on this sort of thing..

If I am unarmed, and I am verbally assaulted, I will respond in kind, if it escalates to a fight, that is OK too, but I WILL NOT THROW THE FIRST PUNCH..

Think of a response in these terms.. 1 thru 10...With 1 being a dirty look, and 10 trying to kill someone. A fist fight would fall about 8, and a good cussing would fall about 4 on such a chart.

Now keep in mind, I HAVE NEVER STARTED A FIGHT IN MY LIFE, But, if approached, and assaulted, I would have no problem escalating to about 8 on that chart,

NOW, if I am armed, EVERYTHING CHANGES...

The most I would escalate anything is to about a "2" on that chart, which would be a "respectful disagreement" level. Their would be no swearing, no remarks about my assailant's mother...NOTHING like that..

If my assailant chooses to escalate, I will do everything in my power to DE-escalate the situation. Even walking away, even if struck by a fist, I will turn the other cheek (even if my mind is screaming beat him to a pulp)

My sidearm is a last resort, it is NOT a negotiating tool.

As long as I can walk away, intact, with my loaded .45 still hidden in it's holster, it was a successfully engagement.

When I carry a gun, that 1 to 10 escalation chart, only has 3 numbers on it in my mind, that is ONE, TWO, and TEN....Under no circumstances if I am forced to draw my weapon and fire it, can I be "part of the problem" because once that happens, everything "I" did, will go under the microscope in a court of law.

It is all too easy for a prosecutor to argue, that YOU DELIBERATELY escalated a conflict, knowing good and well, that you, would shoot him, when you finial "made him snap' and pull his pocket knife.

Carrying a gun, has turned me, into a pussy cat...

[jazzhound]

36. Thanks for artfully expressing what I believe to be the attitudes and positions

of the large majority of concealed carry permit holders -- even though I don't carry. (CA resident)

This is precisely how I'd see myself positioned if I were to (legally) carry.

[GreenStormCloud]

41. Very well said. N/T

[socialist_n_TN]

65. OK, here you go. This is a very reasoned post.........................

and close to what I'm after as far as responses. It goes into personal as well as legal reasons for your personal response to hypothetical situations.

I think that one reason that I DON'T carry is because I already have, in my training, the ability to escalate 1 through 10, not just 1, 2 AND then 10. I would never start a physical confrontation, other than to defend someone else, and, in spite of my disdain for bullies, I WOULD try to walk away if the verbal confrontation got heated to the point that I thought it MIGHT get out of control. But if it DOES escalate into physicality, I want the option to defuse the situation WITHOUT deadly force. IOW, I WANT to be able to go to 3, 4, 5, etc. Of course with a gun possibly involved, you always worry about the range factor. Nose to nose, it might be 50/50 or even 75/25 in my favor, but out 5 feet or more, it gets a WHOLE lot more iffy.

Since I also teach martial arts, it helps to be able to relate to my students what your options are in different situations. I teach appropriateness along with techniques, both the in WHEN to use the art (never is the best answer), in addition to WHAT technique to use. I use the situational phrase a LOT that "You don't break some drunk's neck for calling your gf a whore".

It's helpful to get some other opinions from people who maybe haven't HAD 30 years of martial arts training.

[MIprogressive]

44. If he attacked me first and just started punching me

then yes I would. Its self defense.

[safeinOhio]

45. Not me and I carry.

I use to box and have had my ass kicked many times, as well as kicking some ass. Getting beat up is not that big of deal. I fear a murder charge much more. However, one time I did shoot an unarmed dog that was about to get me.
Things happen in an instant. You have better have these things thought out well in advance. Focus on expensive lawyers and jail time. Even though I'm old and slow, I can't imagine myself ever pulling my side arm on another unarmed human. In fact I'd most likely hand over my wallet before I'd draw my gun, depends on the situation. The last thing I ever want to do is take another life.

[jazzhound]

46. "Getting beat up is not that big of a deal".

The problem -- as it always is -- is that you don't know if a beat-down will escalate to a manual strangulation or death by head-slam.

I once witnessed a guy getting saved by an off-duty cop who tackled the guy he was "fighting with" as he was getting his head repeatedly slammed into the heavy steel support post of a steel fence.

[safeinOhio]

48. Me

I'd take one final beating to fighting every day and living like an animal in jail. I saw my buddy get his head cracked open like a watermelon and die. I kept on riding for years. If you have to pull your gun because of fear of a beating, you might think about not carrying a weapon and just stay home.
The smartest thing anyone can do, with or without a gun is avoid dangerous places, never escalate an argument and always walk away. If you can't and the person pulls a weapon, pull yours. It that person throws a punch, defend yourself with your hands and feet or run away. If you walk around in fear of manual strangulation or death by head-slam, you'll still be afraid, even with a gun.

[jazzhound]

51. "I'd take one final beating to fighting every day and living like an animal

in jail".

Is it really fair to assert that a justified defensive shooting will necessarily put you in jail/prison? Hardly.

[safeinOhio]

53. I think you'll find

shooting an unarmed person will cost you in court. If not jail, lots and lots of money. Unless you are a 90 lb person going up against a much larger person. Even then you might be able to out run them. "Justified" can be a very gray area in court. I personally wouldn't want to try and justify my shooting an unarmed person. In fact, I'd take the beating, but that's me. You are the one that makes the point of a justified defense with deadly force against an unarmed attack, and we were discussing a verbal confrontation that escalates.

[jazzhound]

55. "You are the one that makes the point of a justified defense

with deadly force against an unarmed attack, and we were discussing a verbal confrontation that escalates."

I was speaking to a scenario which involved "deadly force against an unarmed attack" because that's the only scenario which would prompt me to pull a gun! You wouldn't find me starting fights, or pulling a firearm prematurely. For the record (as I've said a number of times) I live in CA -- so I don't carry.

You seem to assert that it is immoral to pull a firearm and shoot at an "unarmed" attacker who is charging a victim threatening them with serious bodily harm. Good thing for crime victims that there's not a state in the country that agrees with your take on this. Frequently the attacker is substantially more physically imposing that his victim. But regardless, your suggestion that a person "will pay a cost in court" for shooting an attacker simply because that attacker is unarmed isn't supported.

In a situation where an attacker and victim are roughly the same physical size with roughly the same offensive/defensive capabilities and there are no witnesses to the shoot I can obviously see a defensive shoot as legally problematic. But the law certainly doesn't require a victim to make an attempt to outrun his attacker unless circumstances dictate that it would be the best option.

If you're willing to take a severe beating or even risk being killed rather than taking the life of an attacker -- that's clearly your choice. Sure puts you in the distinct minority of firearm owners, though, so I'm not sure I'd want you as my spokesman.

[safeinOhio]

56. I've taken CCW classes in 2 states

both drove home the point that, most likely, even if you pass the criminal test for conviction, you will be sued by the family. It will cost you a bunch if not every thing you have. Going in front of a civil jury against some poor kid that got in with the wrong crowd and was now getting his life together and had been going back to church....... Check out any gun rights organizations advise on what to do after a shooting. You'll find it is "cover your ass" say nothing to the cops other than you were in fear for your life or safety, until you have a lawyer present, because anything you do say can be used in civil court also.

Most firearm owners would not want me as a spokesman. If they don't it's because they don't want the truth. Not many here liked it when I talked about securing their homes with locks and alarms. They thought it too expensive, like it'd be cheaper to shoot an intruder. It's not. A gun is only one small part of self defense and should always be the last resort.

[jazzhound]

58. Perhaps some of our resident legal scholars may wish to weigh in, but

I believe that there is a strong disincentive for a criminal gunshot victim to engage his prospective victim in civil court if the victim has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing. IIRC in a number of states the accused (prospective victim) would either have the right to counter-sue the criminal to recover court costs, or would automatically be awarded a judgement for those costs should the plaintiff lose his case. Also consider the fact that an attacker might have a great deal of difficulty finding legal representation due to the perceived difficulty in winning a case where the shooter was exonerated of criminal misconduct. I understand this situation well, because exactly such a scenario played itself out when I hit a doped-up guy on an extremely dark road as he attempted to commit suicide-by-car-strike. I was found innocent of wrongdoing at the scene by the elite accident investigation police squad, but the family of the young man tried to come after me in civil court. They went through three attorneys before they gave up. Each attorney obviously told them they had a very weak case, and realized that they'd have difficulty collecting their fee through a settlement. Getting back to civil suits resulting from DGU's, everything I've read/heard suggests that it is the exception, rather than the rule, for a righteous shooter to get badly burned in civil court.

But more importantly, you should know by now that the very large percentage of defensive gun uses don't even involve shooting the perpetrator of the attack. This greatly reduces the odds of taking a hit in civil court. You referred to other members as being truth aversive. Sure you're not guilty of said trait to some extent? As the saying goes, I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six --- while you prefer the reverse.

It does appear that we agree strongly on the issue of hardening the home to break-in. I have a friend that owns an extremely "soft" home. It's not much of an issue now, since it's a risky neighborhood for burglars/home invaders by virtue of how easily law enforcement could seal off escape routes. But in the event that the police department was overwhelmed with some sort of catastrophe his neighborhood would be a prime target, given the distance between homes and the fairly high income level of the residents. Although I live in a "safe" neighborhood my home is pretty hard. I'd like to install an extremely tough specialty composite glass product all around, but don't have the cash on hand. (this product aint cheap) When I can afford to install electronic security I'll do so, as fairly good systems aren't that expensive.

[safeinOhio]

59. You've really hit on my point exactly about law suits

An air tight case will discourage money grubbing law suits. Shooting an unarmed person lessens that chance, unless it is a vastly larger person. Just like your experience in civil law, if the person you hit had not been drunk and in a poor psychological condition and all the other facts the same, think how the case may have turned out. This with all the other facts the same you would have still hit the person as you couldn't see him.

Harding your home is very cheap now compared to even a few years ago. 3m has a film that makes it almost impossible to smash glass to get in. It is expensive and requires professional installation. If you Google it you'll find one or two other companies that make a similar product much cheaper that the homeowner can install. Simple and cheap things can be done like 3 inch screws in hinges and strikers. Wireless alarms are on line and available at Lowe's and HomeDepot. I have a motion detector ($51.) that calls my cell phone, allows me to listen in and there is no $30/month monitoring fee. Digital camera are very small and cheap now. I have insurance for my stuff, I just want the person caught. I also help keep crooks out with all kinds of signs and stickers that warn of a security system that they'll never find to disable because it's not there. Cheap motion detectors that turn on lights on porches and alleys are very effective too.
The best thing I have is a safe room that I can retreat to in case of an intruder. It has my gun safe and all of my last resort defense stuff. They'd have to kick in 2 fortified door to get to me while I'm on the phone. I'm safer without having to shoot anyone and clean up the blood and pay the lawyers.

[jazzhound]

73. Very good information in this post ---- thank you.

I'm copying and saving it.

Here's wishing that neither one of us is forced to exercise our choices/options w/regard to dealing with an attacker!

[X_Digger]

60. It's this very situation that the castle doctrine is meant to address.

In many states, the family will get nothing from such a lawsuit if the law refuses to prosecute.

You can't stop them from trying to sue, but it won't get past the motions stage.

[safeinOhio]

78. I don't think it counts on the street

only in your home or car.
Once again these types of law that limit jury trials are a clear violation of the 7th Amendment. Yeah for the 2nd and screw the 7th.

[X_Digger]

79. Depends on the state. It applies anywhere you have a legal right to be in TX.

States with a 'stand your ground' law (no duty to retreat, no civil liability)-
-Montana
-Alabama
-Arizona
-Florida
-Georgia
-Indiana
-Kentucky
-Louisiana
-Oklahoma
-South Carolina
-Tennessee
-Texas
-Utah
-Washington

States with 'castle doctrine' in the home (some have no civil liability)-
-Alaska
-California
-Colorado
-Connecticut
-Hawaii
-Kansas
-Maine
-Maryland
-Massachusetts
-Michigan
-Minnesota
-Mississippi
-Missouri
-Ohio
-Oregon
-New Jersey
-North Carolina
-Rhode Island
-Utah
-West Virginia
-Wyoming

[GreenStormCloud]

63. Texas, and some other states, have civil immunity laws.

If the shoot was righteous, then the family is out of luck.

[jeepnstein]

61. I can't say I disagree.

Most especially on the part avoiding dangerous situations and not escalating an argument. I've seen people who just can't get through life without a hassle and usually it centers around ignoring those two things.

A gun is a tool, nothing more. It's a very handy thing to have in some circumstances but the best weapon all of us have is the one between our ears. More often than not the firearm is not the best tool for the job in most social situations.

I took a pretty good beating from a suspect who I was supposed to be arresting one night. My training told me to keep control over my weapon as he was trying to rip it from the holster and look for an opportunity. Sure enough, I got a little bit of daylight between him and me and the tables turned. Could I have shot him? Probably at one point, yes. But I had other tools at my disposal that got the job done, namely a baton.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. How do you know your assailant is going to stop when he or she has 'just beaten you up'?

Kinda hard to know that going in, or is it possible your assailant might keep stomping until your head is flat?

I am very careful never to 'start shit' when carrying, for this reason. If you inadvertantly start a fistfight over whatever, it could escalate into you NEEDING to employ deadly force, real quick. Waiting until you're knocked half-out on the ground, to see if your attacker is going to start kicking you in the head or neck, or choke you out, before employing a firearm isn't the best plan I've heard of.

[jazzhound]

74. +1 n/t

[Caliman73]

47. I typically do not start arguments and would walk away from most

They are counter productive. I have been in enough confrontations to know that no good comes from fighting. Ego is not a big thing with me. The only way I would ever feel justified in using my firearm is to defend myself or a loved one against attack.

[safeinOhio]

50. Hey Cali

you get it.

[jazzhound]

52. Hey safeinOhio

Cali wasn't the first to make this point.

[east texas lib]

54. One of the first DGU's by a Texas CHL holder was to stop a beating...

I believe the shooter had a traffic altercation and was being beaten by the other driver through the window of the shooter's car. In a sense, he started the ball rolling by having the altercation and wound up having to use deadly force.

[TheWraith]

57. If you're in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, you're justified.

For instance, if you have a reasonable belief that this person is going to kill you with their hands and feet, or crack your skull open, or the like, then you are justified using any force necessary to stop the attack.

If you're just afraid of getting hurt non-lethally, then you are not justified in using a firearm--at least not for anything other than a threat gesture. That would be dubious ground legally, and you definitely couldn't legally fire it, but in some cases it might be appropriate to use it to back someone off even if they weren't going to kill you.

[socialist_n_TN]

66. So if you start the PHYSICAL confrontation

and your opponent hits you 3 or 4 times in a second and it HURTS, you have the right to pull your gun and shoot him? That doesn't seem fair. I mean you STARTED the physical confrontation and found yourself overmatched. Wouldn't it be better just to say, "Dude, sorry. I didn't mean it. I give up."

Plus, if you go into your pocket for your gun I, personally, am going to consider that a life threatening action and then I WILL try to disable or kill you. So it could easily be more deadly to you than it would have been otherwise.

[jeepnstein]

68. Starting a fight? Good luck with that.

If the facts of the case look something like this...
1) Strapped on a gun in the morning...
2) Go start a fight that afternoon...
3) Gett whipped...
4) You shoot the guy who you picked a fight with.
5) Your victim is unarmed.
6) Much hilarity ensues...

Depending on the circumstances surrounding the fight, well, that might very well win you a trip to Death Row. Did you plan on confronting this guy, or was it just something else that provoked your attack on him? Guaranteed you're catching a charge on something like this.

It's all fun and games until someone gets shot.

[socialist_n_TN]

69. OK, I misunderstood the post

that I responded to. And yes, that is pretty much the scenario I was thinking about. And yes, I agree you SHOULD spend a LOT of time in prison if that scenario comes about.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Getting into unqualifiable specifics.

If you walk up and punch some guy in the face, or do anything that will trip assault or aggravated assualt charges on yourself, will probably strip you of the right to claim self-defense in the eyes of a jury.

But there's a lot of grey area in here. What constitutes 'starting a physical confrontation'? Could be a lot of things. You come out from a store, and some guy is carving his initials into your car, and you grab his arm and say 'HEY MAN WHAT THE HELL', and it goes into a fight, you might be justified in using that firearm, even though you initiated physical contact.

It all boils down to whether a jury would consider you justified in using deadly force (A firearm, specifically, is not required, you can employ deadly force with your bare hands) for whatever situation you are in. And if you're going around starting shit, any leeway the jury might give you around that decision will quickly evaporate.

Remember, it doesn't matter what the police think. It doesn't matter what the DA charges you with. What matters is how justifiable your actions are, to 12 people, calmly discussing the situation, in an air conditioned room, with all the time in the world to think it over, who have likely never been in a fight for their lives, with or without a firearm.

Which adds one rule to my normal '4 rules' of handling a firearm when I am carrying. It becomes Rule Zero (or the Zeroth Law, if you please):

"Don't be an asshole"

[jazzhound]

75. "Don't be an asshole" LOL and thumbs up! (the Eleventh Commandment?) N/T

[spin]

77. The Eleventh Commandment is actually...

Don't get caught.

:toast:

[Remmah2]

64. Hey instigator, no guns for you!

If you have the type of personality that get you into fist fights then you should be the type of person that does not own firearms. If you are the type of person who gets into fistfights then you'll probably have a felony record and prevented legally from owning firearms.

The best way to win a fight is not to get into one.

There are a number of people with "in your face" type personalities who I am glad do not care to own firearms. Some of them post on this forum.

[spin]

76. Welcome to DU ...

most of the posters who actually have permits to carry a firearm will agree with your post.

We don't go looking for a chance to draw our weapon and blow some fool away. It may look cool in the movies, but in real life it is VERY serious and can lead to numerous legal problems and also severe psychological problems that can haunt you for a lifetime, even if you are in the right.

[rrneck]

81. Don't start nut'n, won't be nut'n. nt

[Lurks Often]

82. The law varies from state to state, but

a general rule of thumb as to when a firearm can be used to defend yourself is when in fear of death or grave bodily harm.

The other concept that needs to be kept in mind is disparity of force. As an example, a 50 year old female that weighs 100 pounds and has MS would LIKELY be considered justified in using deadly force against an unarmed male attacker 17 and up. However, I would not be justified since I am 5'10" and have no significant disabilities.

If you choose to carry a gun, you don't get to willingly argue with people, so if you want to get into arguments with RW's, leave the gun at home. Otherwise if something happens, you stand a pretty good chance of being found guilty of a felony charge and spending some time in jail.

[The Green Manalishi]

83. No.

Firearms are useful for protecting oneself against thugs such as burglers, carjackers, rapists and the like. the only good thug is one rapidly expiring from a gaping exit wound.

But if you get yourself in a fight you can't win either wimp out and apologize, run, or get your butt beaten; it'll teach you to not start an argument next time. It takes two to argue and if your machismo, or ideological purity, or patriotism, or 'face' is important enough to continue a social encounter that is going bad rapidly, and you fail to disengage, you deserve what you have coming.

[yay]

87. I woulden't be starting shit in the first place.

I know better, however if someone advances on me and I think they mean me harm you bet your ass my gun is coming out.

[DissedByBush]

90. My state law is good

If you start an argument, you can't shoot because you are the aggressor.

But if you try to extract yourself from the altercation (which you would normally do when getting your ass kicked), and the other person persists, then you can shoot because you are no longer the aggressor, he is.

In any case, only shooting in protection of your life, or for a woman sexual assault, is valid.

[old mark]

92. MOST gun owners - even RWers, even RABID gun owners will tell you

they have learned responsibility since beginning to carry a lethal weapon - they will avoid confrontations and walk away from situations they may have engaged before they started to carry a gun.

The people who do what you are talking about are really the marginal ones who should not be carrying anyway....there are a certain number of people who just can not be responsible or thoughtful or even rational and these people should not have access to guns....


mark

[VermeerLives]

93. Hmmm.....

I would not want an argument to get to that point! Would I use a gun on an unarmed person? That depends. As a woman, if I were being threatened by a man who was trying to attack me, or a group of assailants, then the situation would be different. Here in VA, women have more protection under the law in that regard.

"Freedom of choice includes the right to choose to prevail in a violent encounter."