self defense when there are no witnesses

This expert on firearms laws and self defensive use of firearms agrees

shoot for center of mass. If that doesn't work despite hits, shoot for the head or the groin. never shoot of the hands, arms or legs

 

Not exactly ...

About your examples ... ok, but there are videos. I have understood that the OP focuses the attention on situations where there are no witnesses [so also no video records of what happened].

Imagine there are no videos and a police patrol arrives at a shop alerted by an alarm signal from the shop. A policeman enters the shop and he notes a robber on the soil, dead, with a gun near him, a bit of confusion and the shopkeeper with a gun in his hand. The camera was broken and there are no video records.

Was it self defense? Yes, it was, if someone is not able to prove otherwise [and I think no one will be able to prove otherwise!].

But in Italy, there is the problem of "excess of self defense", so that [in Italy, because of our laws] the investigations will have to determine relative distances, timing of the action ... as I have already said, a shopkeeper in Milan has lives just such a situation, killing a robber and he has been accused of "excess of self defense".

Do I agree with Italian law about this? Partially. Sure it's a protective law, with the ratio to create a deterrent about the "easy" usage of weapons by legal owners. They point is how it is applied. So far I'm not aware of condemnation because of "excess of defense" for shopkeepers in similar circumstances.

Furthermore, the present Italian law about self defense recognizes some contexts in which, generally, there can be no excess of defense, like in case a robber enters a shop [in any case there has to be a trial to determine if the subject was a robber for real, if the shopkeeper hasn't anyway used the weapon not in a moment of real threat against his person and his property ...].

Italian Justice System is complicated ...

 

This is an interesting point. Theoretically also in Italy a wounded robber could sue the citizen for "damages to the person". But practically this doesn't happen, since in our Justice System the robber should first prove he was not there as a robber [in case of self defense the damages caused to the attacker are not in the category of "damages to the person", they enter that category in case of excess of self defense].

 

Two points to consider.

First of all in the intense situation of a "gun fight" even expert marksmen have a hard time hitting the target at all. Attempting a highly accurate "disabling" shot is impossible in such a situation. This is highly exacerbated in nighttime shooting conditions where often the gunsights aren't even visible and a person relies on "point-shooting" to hit the target. No, a disabling shot when you life is on the line is not an option because of the high probability of missing the target completely and you have to assume you'll only get off one shot before they kill you with return fire. Remember that even an expert realy only has a 50-50 chance of winning in a gunfight which is why a person should avoid a gunfight completely if at all possible.

Addressing the example this statement brings to light another question. Why didn't the accused take cover behind their automobile using it as a safety barrier to the oncoming armed individuals instead of shooting them? By taking cover behind the automobile the accused would have been relatively "safe" unless the two split up and came from opposite sides of the vehicle.

In the example provided there is no evidence that the two armed men were actually "attacking" the accused and he might merely have been between them and their destination. There was at least a 50-50 chance that they would have simply walked past him because the example doesn't estabish that he was any real consideration in what they were doing.

So why didn't the accused "take cover" behind his automobile as opposed to shooting the two oncoming individuals?

 

My point of posting the video is that in real self defense situations, there is no "shoot in the arm or leg". Generally SD shootings rarely use the sights on the gun, it is all one handed point shooting, hopefully at the center of mass.

 

This is nonsense. A person can file a lawsuit over almost anything but they won't win that lawsuit if a person was acting in self-defense.

The "castle doctrine" is not based upon self defense of the person from an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death. It addresses the use of deadly force to protect property and not persons.

The "stand your ground" laws are a distortion of "self defense" because they establish that a person can use deadly force as opposed to taking an alternate course of action that would prevent any necessity to use deadly force. Instead of the "flight or fight" the "stand your ground" laws lawfully justify the "fight" in all circumstances and they will result in the unnecessary killing of people and sometimes it will be the person that refused to leave a situation as opposed to staying. Anyone that chooses "fight" as opposed to "flight" when the option of "flight" exists is a complete idiot and the "stand your ground" laws encourage the idiots resulting in unnecessary deaths.

 

Castle doctrine is basically stand your ground, only it is for inside your home. It has doesn't necessarily have anything to do with property. A home invader may only be there to rape your wife and she is justified in shooting the home invader.
Stand your ground basically takes the Castle Doctrine and applies it outside the home.
Remember that the "unnecessary death" that you refer to is initiated by the aggressor. If the aggressor dies because he threatened imminent danger of someones life, then that was his poor decision. Please don't blame the victim. It is ok to kill someone to save your own life or the lives of your family.

 

I get your point, but you are optimistic about Italian Justice System. During the trial the court will evaluate the level of training of the shopkeeper about using guns. For example: think to the shopkeeper crouched down behind the counter. The robber is standing ... from a person with a certain training the Italian court would expect that he took advantage from his position to aim the legs of the robber.

Anyway, just the fact that Italian Justice is complicated makes it difficult to apply laws here.

It's evident that a simple and straight system of rules is better.

What I don't grasp of the US legalization is that particular that the robber can sue you if he survives. This sounds odd also to an Italian ...

 

Did anyone happen to notice that the accused was lying in his statement?

Two men approaching, one with gun drawn and one with a holstered firearm. The accused states he did not fire until the second person pulled his gun at which point he shoots the second man in the shoulder. He then shoots the first man in the head killing him and then, as the second man reaches for his firearm again, he kills the second man..... and then after approaching the two men the accused removes the firearm from the second man's holster.

The accused establishes the reason for him opening fire was based upon the second man pulling his gun from the holster but based upon the accused testimony he (the accused) removed the gun from the holster. The second man never pulled his gun from the holster!. The accused, based upon his own testimony, is lying about the events. If he was lying about the second man drawing his gun from the holster was he also lying about the first man having his gun drawn?

Let's apply a little "circumstantial" evidence that the prosecution could have related to the case. Both of the victims were known gang members trafficing in narcotics. The accused was suspected of drug trafficing but had never been charged or convicted. This was actually a drug deal going down where the accused knew the gang members were armed and he gunned them down in cold blood, took the narcotics, left the scene to deliver the narcotics to an accomplice, and then called police. Perhaps only one of the victims had a gun in a holster and the other gun was a plant by the accused?

Speculative circumstantial evidince to be sure but the fact that the accused lied about the second man having his gun drawn when shot would certainly raise questions about whether the first man had his gun drawn at all. The fact that the accused lied is huge in the case.

 

Here in Florida and I assume many states, you cannot be sued for a legitimate self defense shooting.

Here is the statute......
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.—
(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

OK, in the discussion there is who is saying otherwise, this is why I was doubtful ...

 

Good catch. Lol. I hadn't noticed that until you pointed it out. I would make a TERRIBLE juror or lawyer I guess.

 

Let me provide an example where the Castle Doctrine does not represent self-defense.

My wife and I are in bed and hear an intruder. We have a 12 ga Mossberg tactical shotgun for self-defense. I yell out at the intruder that I'm armed and chamber a round. So long as my wife and I do not leave the bedroom and/or the intruder makes no attempt to enter the bedroom we're not facing a situation of imminent bodily harm or death. Under the "Castle Doctrine" I can leave my bedroom to seek out the intruder and then I become the armed aggressor.

The intruder, by entering my home, committed an act of aggression against my property (they're there to rob me) but when I go searching out the intruder with a firearm I'm committing an act of aggression against the intruder where they have reasonable cause to believe they face imminent bodily harm or death based upon my act of aggression.

Also of note if I had an exterior door to the bedroom my wife and I could reasonably leave the bedroom without facing any threat from the intruder. "Stand your ground" would imply that I should not take this reasonable action to avoid a situation where self-defense could become necessary. It is a stupid law.

 

Under the law, the intruder or intruders that invade your domicile, are assumed to be a threat to your life and therefore you have the right to defend yourself and your family. Remaining behind cover and being armed in a "safe room" is a wise idea, but is not mandated by law.
Law makers do not make laws for each possible scenario. You may protect your castle and all who are in it against home invaders.

 

I totally agree. Nobody knows the intentions of a person, and I think if someone forces their way into my home uninvited, then they don't have any good intentions.

 

A citation of Washington state self defense laws are necessary for your claim to be accurate. Otherwise it is nothing more than your opinion.

Unless the intruder decides to shoot through the door in response to the announcement that you are armed.

It was their decision to commit the crime in the first place. They did so, knowing that they could face aggression.

 

I say he should go free. And one other thing I want to add - what the guy that lived should say. NOTHING! As soon as the cops show, just show your drivers license and ask for a lawyer. I once read about a guy who was perfectly in his rights to take out the bad guy, and afterwards he says "I feel so bad about what happened". That's all it took for some prosecutor to spin the story to the guy feeling guilty because he did something wrong.

I have card I keep in my wallet and have since the early 80s, and it was from the NRA. Kind of tore up and I don't wanna type out the whole thing but here are the main points:
1. Secure the weapon the assailant used.
2. Call the police and ask for emergency medical assistance.
3. Call your lawyer. Make NO statements to the police or anyone else whatsoever without your lawyer present. Explain to the police politely but firmly that you do not want to make any statements.
4. When the paramedics arrive, get medical treatment for shock even if you have no injuries.
5. Stay away from the news media.
6. Do not apologize for defending yourself.
7. Seek professional treatment for stress.

 

OP Tuni: How should I know? When was the last time the mainstream news media published the details of every holster purchased and owned in the USA? And if so, how did they publish that information? BTW - I only watch TV sporadically and typically I skip commercials because I have TiVO; and when I listen to Sirius XM I only listen to POTUS and The Grateful Dead Channel. And candidly, holster ownership statistics were not running through my head when I was being attacked. Fear for my life was.

 

Regardless of whether or not the suit will be won, the defendant must still address the suit in a court of law, which could take years to fully resolve, and require tens of thousands in legal fees before the resolution can be had.

 

This is an incorrect statement. Castle doctrine is a presumption by the state that a person is presumed to be under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm if a bad actor illegally enters a persons domicile. It disposes of the notion that a law abiding citizen in the safety of their own home must provide proof they believed they were under imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Property is not a factor.

No the stand your ground laws dispel a notion that someone else who was not present at the event gets to arbitrarily decide if the lawful citizen did enough to avoid an encounter that might lead to a deadly force encounter. The actions of the bad actor establish if a lawful citizen can use deadly force, not that they were merely present.

No wrong again. The actions of the bad actor is the deciding factor in whether or not deadly force is used....it has nothing at all to do with the decision of a awful citizen to remain or run. The bad actor gets the final decision.

Avoiding potentially harmful encounters of any kind is essentially basic human instinct. The notion that most anyone would consciously reflect that they have a right to be somewhere when facing a deadly force encounter is really an emotional response to a law that wasn't written to reflect that response. The primary purpose of stand your ground laws is bound in the belief that someone not faced with the situation the lawful citizen was facing, gets to decide if they did enough to get out of the situation. It allows the decision of prosecute or not prosecute to be about the legality of the use of force and not about the idiotic idea of run away or stay.

 

He is as guilty as sin.

 

What makes you say this?
Do you not believe a man has a preemptive right to self defense if he sees armed strangers approaching him? Or do you believe the law should require the man to allow himself to fall under the mercy of his would-be attackers?

What would you expect a police officer to do if he was in this man's situation?


My personal opinion is that there's really no completely good solution to how to handle this dilemma. Any murderer could just claim self-defense, but at the same time it is not right or fair to punish people for having appropriately defended themselves. Someone could find themselves in a terrible situation of having to choose between letting themselves fall into the hands off bad people up to no good, or later being punished for having taken preemptive action; essentially being forced to assume risk no matter what they do.

 

Anyone who walks up to the person they shot lying on the ground instead of running away and shoots them again is not in fear for his life.

 

I think that is excellent advice.

 

As my example provided it is a bad presumption. The only possible motive I would have to leave the security of my bedroom where I don't face an imminent threat of severe bodily harm or death would be to protect my property that's located in other rooms of the house.

Decisions by a jury are not abritrary. Those decisions are based upon evidence and testimony.

Based upon evidence and testimony a jury is fully capable of deciding if the person had the option of flight over fight.

Most people would choose flight if it's possible but there are some that aren't the sharpest pencil in the box that would ignore the option of flight and instead would choose to kill instead. The "stand your ground" laws can remove the possibility of prosecution for the person that would choose fight as opposed to flight.

The self-defense laws are all we really require and we don't need laws based upon the "castle doctrine" or "stand your ground" that removes the ability to prosecute when the use of deadly force for self-defense wasn't necessary.

BTW - What are your thoughts on the fact that in the example the "accused" lied when he said the second person drew his firearm when the accused later stated that the firearm was still in the holster after having been shot repeatedly and eventually dying from the wounds? If the accused lied about the second person drawing his firearm was he also lying about the first person having a drawn firearm when the two approached?