(Disclaimer: IANAL, but have been present in actual courtrooms for both criminal and civil trials.)Why is it that a jury of my PEERS cannot be comprised of pro-2A people in their 60s or above? Those would be my peers.
Does Medic Alert make a charm bracelet?So, I have a question about self defense and health issues, especially if they aren't obvious. I have chronic back pain, breathing issues, bad knees (can't really run), fairly bad fibromyalgia, neuropathy in feet, legs and hands. Those are the main issues that limit me physically, though i have several more health issues.
What would be the outcome if I was forced into a self defense situation, (which I would try very hard to de-escelate or try to walk away as quickly as I could if escape was an option), since I am limited by medical issues that are not plain to see?
How would this senerio play out if worst came worst usually? If I submit my health record would authorities be more understanding? Thank you!
The right to trial by a jury of one's peers is British concept that means only that lords must be tried only by lords and commoners, only by commoners.Why is it that a jury of my PEERS cannot be comprised of pro-2A people in their 60s or above? Those would be my peers.
So, I have a question about self defense and health issues, especially if they aren't obvious. I have chronic back pain, breathing issues, bad knees (can't really run), fairly bad fibromyalgia, neuropathy in feet, legs and hands. Those are the main issues that limit me physically, though i have several more health issues.
What would be the outcome if I was forced into a self defense situation, (which I would try very hard to de-escelate or try to walk away as quickly as I could if escape was an option), since I am limited by medical issues that are not plain to see?
How would this senerio play out if worst came worst usually? If I submit my health record would authorities be more understanding? Thank you!
more accurately, you would likely be justified in using deadly force, which of course might result in a death. in situation in which another defender might not be.There's a legal theory which deals with just this: "The Man with the Eggshell Skull." I learned about it way back in the day during criminal justice in college, but I dug it up on American Handgunner for you:
Eggshell Skull: the Case of the Vulnerable Victim - American Handgunner
Situation: A 250-pound bouncer smashes the head of a brain surgery patient into a floor … and it’s deadly force Read the full article...americanhandgunner.com
Basically, if you're in fear for your life or welfare due to a medical condition that makes you more vulnerable than the average person to attack, then the disparity of force stipulations are different for you. If you have an "eggshell skull," for example, and can be killed by a punch to the head, you're legally justified in killing your attacker.
I asked a cop. If someone was tazing me can i shoot them. He said no. Then i told him i have heart issues. Then he said yes. I should email us lawshield about it.
Exactly and absolutely! The use of deadly force is conditioned on belief. Believing that you are in danger of being killed or seriously injured is a defense to justify self defense. When disparity of force is involved it adds credibility to establish you believed what you did was necessary. However, it is not a license to kill.Mas Ayoob wrote a great column in a recent issue of American Handgunner that covered this exact scenario -- a man with a serious medical condition, not visible to others, who was forced to employ lethal force to defend himself.olved te
What you are describing is something referred to as a "disparity of force" situation: one who could easily suffer serious bodily injury or death, due to age, injury, disability or infirmity, when confronted by another capable of superior physical force by virtue of age, size or training.
Absolutely, if your physical/medical conditions are well-documented, should you reasonably believe that you are in grave danger of serious bodily injury or death, being forced to use deadly force can be shown to be justified.
You will, however, require a sharp attorney skilled in use of force defense cases, thorough (and well-credentialed) medical doctor testimony, though likely will have to pray for a good judge and jury, and hope you live in a jurisdiction in which criminal assailants who end up deceased or gravely injured, are not likely to be painted as the victims by the media and your community (if you can read between the lines).
more accurately, you would likely be justified in using deadly force, which of course might result in a death. in situation in which another defender might not be.
It sounds like semantics, but it's critical to avoid this. Focusing self-defense discussions on, and phrasing everything in terms of stopping the attack or preventing an imminent attack, is really important. It's hard to overstate how important it is.I've started saying "killing your attacker"...
It sounds like semantics, but it's critical to avoid this. Focusing self-defense discussions on, and phrasing everything in terms of stopping the attack or preventing an imminent attack, is really important. It's hard to overstate how important it is.
- It helps people keep in mind that if the attack stops that there's no need for further use of deadly force. Talking about killing attackers makes it seems like that's the goal and it absolutely isn't. Most successful defensive gun uses do not involve anyone dying. Ingraining the proper mindset will help drive good tactics by keeping the actual goal uppermost in a defender's mind.
- It helps reinforce the idea that justifiable use of deadly force is exclusively about preventing an imminent attack or ending an active attack. Once someone starts talking about killing the attacker, the actual goal becomes less clear and the idea that it might be legal to shoot someone for retribution, or to punish them, or to better society, starts to sneak into things.
- It helps people get into the habit of talking about self-defense in terms that are consistent with the letter and the spirit of the law and that therefore "sounds good" to LE/the legal system. If it's automatic to talk about stopping the attack, that makes it so much easier to not say something that sounds bad after an attack. It also makes it less likely that someone could take statements made by a defender prior to an incident (say, on social media) and use those statements against them in court.
No. Go hire an actual lawyer that specializes in self-defense pay for an hour of his billable time and ask him some questions.Cops aren't attorney's. Ask the DA of whatever town you live in.
No. Go hire an actual lawyer that specializes in self-defense pay for an hour of his billable time and ask him some questions.
I don't know where you're at but in my world you don't just get an appointment to go in and sit down and ask the DA a question.That makes ZERO sense.
1. Not everyone can afford an attorney
2. Why pay an attorney to answer a hypothetical question
3. You are already paying the DA and he is responsible for charging
I can afford an attorney and would still go to the DA if for no other reason than to give him something to think about and learn something about his general disposition.
He's paid by you, he dang sure ought to be willing to meet with you, take a phone call or answer an email. If he's not, he should lose his job. Most also have plenty of assistants running around.I don't know where you're at but in my world you don't just get an appointment to go in and sit down and ask the DA a question.
Serious question, have you ever actually done this?He's paid by you, he dang sure ought to be willing to meet with you, take a phone call or answer an email. If he's not, he should lose his job. Most also have plenty of assistants running around.
Nope, I don't ask such questions. But I wouldn't hesitate to do so if the need arose.Serious question, have you ever actually done this?
Next time I see him, I'm going to ask our district attorney if he fields questions like this.He's paid by you, he dang sure ought to be willing to meet with you, take a phone call or answer an email. If he's not, he should lose his job. Most also have plenty of assistants running around.
I am sure you have read all the prior comments.....in lieu of having an attorney/lawyer on retainer, why not join 2A legal group like CCW Safe or one of the other similar groups. You have stated that you do not want to give up your right to walk where you want but the park appears to have a high possibility of negative interaction so, IMO, you should consider having some legal fall back.So, I have a question about self defense and health issues, especially if they aren't obvious. I have chronic back pain, breathing issues, bad knees (can't really run), fairly bad fibromyalgia, neuropathy in feet, legs and hands. Those are the main issues that limit me physically, though i have several more health issues.
What would be the outcome if I was forced into a self defense situation, (which I would try very hard to de-escelate or try to walk away as quickly as I could if escape was an option), since I am limited by medical issues that are not plain to see?
How would this senerio play out if worst came worst usually? If I submit my health record would authorities be more understanding? Thank you!