With the recent high profile cases concerning self-defense, I have a question for the rest of you. If someone should randomly assault you in a public area, like striking you in the head with fist or feet, do you think the use of potentially lethal force is justified? No I don't mean necessarily two idiots engaging in mutually agreed combat I mean just a straight up sneak attack for no reason. I hear comments around here sometimes to the effect of "it's just a fight". Any fight can potentially end in you being crippled or killed. I remember this kid in high school sucker punched some other kid, the kid he punched fell into a coma and was taken off of life support. He was charged with some sort of manslaughter charge and got 12 years in prison. If anyone comes up and assaults me I will assume you mean me great bodily harm at the least, and I will respond with whatever weapon may be at my disposal at the time. In the State of Florida such an attack would justify the use of deadly force. We still have that right not sure about all the other states though. You may have heard it said that an armed society is a polite society and there is a reason for that. When potential assaulters do not know if they're victim may or may not be armed they realize that their actions may have grave consequences. So my question is simply to seek opinions. Do you feel responding with such force would be justifiable? And if you do not then why?
I'd suggest the format of your question indicates a major part of the problem. You are subconsciously thinking of lethal force as a response to (or even revenge for) some kind of attack. In truth , the purpose of lethal force (indeed, any kind of force) should be to just stop the attack. The "justification" for lethal force isn't based on the type of attack, it is based on what is strictly necessary to prevent the attack and protect yourself (and potentially others). And it is the minimum necessary force to achieve that which should be applied, which is why lethal force should be a last resort. Obviously the complex realities of the world and the heat of the moment are factors in what actually happens, all of which can and should be taken in to account, but it is still important to be clear on what the underlying principles should be and legally are. It should also be noted that any emotional response, media coverage or political intervention in any given case should have absolutely zero impact on those principles, in any direction. Why would need to assume in a specific situation? You will be able to assess the motives of a (perceived) attacker and all of the other relevant factors based on the specific details of that incident. Violence, even in defence, isn't the default. The key question is why are you choosing to use lethal force in a given situation. The answer to that question is key to whether that level of force is justified or not.
Hard to say really... in my case I haven't been able to physically "run" since I was 28, a 3-year-old could leave me in the dust, so "retreating from the danger" is NOT an option available to me, soooo..........and I'll take MY chances with a jury.
Have to go with Honest Joe's post above which sums up the letter of the law pretty accurately. Point is in your scenario lets assume you draw a firearm and the assailant sees you drawing it and immediately stops the assault and/or starts to step back. At that point technically you no longer have the legal justification to use force because the threat of imminent death or serious injury has ceased. So you can't fire. Alternately he or she doesn't see the firearm (or doesn't care) and continues with the physical assault. All other circumstances being equal you may well be entitled to fire and by doing so potentially kill or injure the assailant but (and this is the key point) your intent has to be to end the threat, not kill the person. The two things are legally entirely different. Yes by shooting (presumably at the visible center of mass) there is a high likelihood of death or serious injury but that is incidental to your intent, a consequence of your actions not the aim. Your aim is to end the threat, full stop, end of story. (And your lawyer will coach you on this point this over and over in the event it ever becomes necessary.) Of course if the time comes we ever get Star Trek phasers with stun settings then the use of lethal force is going to became very cut and dry.
Thanks for proving my point, they never know who might be armed. A handful of my co-workers are armed at all times. While I don't carry a gun I always keep a knife.
See you are mistaken there. I'm simply referring to a vicious assault. If it comes down to someone else or me I'm going to choose me every single time. Now I should hope such a thing should never become necessary in anyone's life but remember you and only you are responsible for your personal safety and well-being. I give people the same courtesy I expect from others, I keep my hands to myself.
I agree with that 99 percent. You utilize whatever force is necessary to stop the attack. You also bring up a good point, just the mere presence or display of a firearm has stopped many a fight without a shot ever being fired. I had an event in my life about 20 years ago where that was exactly the case. But I disagree somewhat on the phaser part, we already have non-lethal means of self-defense, such as stun guns and tasers..... With one caveat though... They are unfortunately not 100% 100% of the time
When faced with this situation, you likely have only seconds or milliseconds to decide on a course of action. Then a jury spends weeks or months deciding on whether it is justifiable. Make darn sure that is the only course of action that is going to save your life or prevent serious injury. Walking away after getting slugged might be the smart decision.
Any attack is a fight for the control of my weapon, whether they know about it or not. If I am attacked for no reason and I cannot get out of the situation without violence, then I am justified in responding with deadly force as long as my carrying of the gun is legal.
Qpart from those with mental health issues - who assaults other people “for no reason”? In most jurisdictions the defence must be proportional to the perceived threat. This does make it problematic but if what hit you in the head is a nerf gun projectile then no you cannot kill the kid aiming that toy but if you are being threatened by someone with a gun then you might be justified in using a gun in return
In my case I think there would need to be two factors to justify my shooting. One is my age. I'm 87 and an attack on me would likely be fatal and two, the attackers behavior once he realizes I have a gun in hand.
Why why why do Americans think they can only defend themselves with guns? I tell you some of those walking frames are DEADLY in the right hands
Really? 84 year old against some twenty year old out getting his jollies by beating up on old people.
So far the assailant has not been identified But yes, there certainly have been 20 year olds come off worse because a walking stick CAN be an effective weapon. Tell me - why is it that places like Australia and the UK are LESS violent than the USA?
If you say you are going to kill me and then make a move towards me, in my opinion I can use deadly force against you. Same opinion if you strike me with your fist or an object. Same opinion if you point a gun at me.
First of all, not all of us are trained in hand to hand combat and that should not be a prerequisite for survival. A reasonable capable twenty year old can come up under a walking stick or the walker you talked about earlier. Once he is inside, he has the upper hand. After spending some time in Australia, I fail to see why the Aborignines let themselves be treated like I saw a few times.
You DON’T have to be trained in hand to hand : You know you CAN a successfully defend yourself without a gun And how were our Indigenous people treated?