Lessons from a confrontation today

Hungry Seagull · Mar 10, 2009

I too enjoyed a good scrap in my time. It sings in the blood. But with the health and age... have to get back and clear out hopefully without any shooting. And I aint that big, actually a shrimp myself. *Shrugs

Regarding the comment about the wife engaging both of you yelling "Ive had enough of this ****!!!"

that can be really... bad. Kind of throwing gas onto a fire. Ive had to hold back my spouse a time or two.

spittle8 · Mar 12, 2009

I get it...this is another well disguised satire - right? You're supposed to use the smiley-winky doo-hickys - so us gullible old farts can tell the difference. Ya had me goin' there again!

If someone tries to avoid a fistfight with me by pointing a firearm in my face, they're going to have to use it or lose it. I don't go around looking to start fights, but if I get into it with some guy and it's going to get violent shortly, he'll regret pulling a pistol on me, he'll have to choose between a little humiliation or a homicide charge.

If you're prepared enough to have a concealed firearm on you, you can carry some fricken mace or learn some grappling.

Byron Quick · Mar 12, 2009

If someone tries to avoid a fistfight with me by pointing a firearm in my face, they're going to have to use it or lose it. I don't go around looking to start fights, but if I get into it with some guy and it's going to get violent shortly, he'll regret pulling a pistol on me, he'll have to choose between a little humiliation or a homicide charge.

Sir, I won't try to avoid a fistfight with you by pointing a pistol at you. I will try to walk away without saying anything to you. Due to physical infirmity, if you follow me to have your fistfight, I will again not 'point' a pistol at you. I will shoot you until you stop trying to have your fistfight and let a jury decide if, due to physical deficits, I was reasonably in fear of death or grave bodily injury.

That won't do you a whole lot of good, now will it?

I've seen mace and pepper spray fail too often. I've learned the grappling and other martial arts but due to physical deficits this is no longer an option. Insist on a fight with me and you insist on a gunfight. There won't be any 'pointing.'

rainbowbob · Mar 13, 2009

I don't go around looking to start fights, but if I get into it with some guy and it's going to get violent shortly, he'll regret pulling a pistol on me, he'll have to choose between a little humiliation or a homicide charge.

Well...I guess that puts YOU in the cat-bird seat then.

Seriously, spittle, Let's see if I've got this right...

You're not looking for a fight, but if you DO happen to get into an argument with somebody, it might get violent, so the other guy better shoot you? And if he does, he might be in big trouble?

You might want to re-think those survival tactics.

Byron Quick responded so succinctly to spittle's recent post that I will only add this:

The physical infirmity or disparity of force of the victim in an assault is unnecessary to establish the basis of self defense. Laws differ, but I believe here in Washington, as in many states, there is no duty to retreat, and the victim need only be in reasonable fear of serious injury or death to justify shooting their assailant.

Like Byron, I'll walk away if I can. If I'm followed by somebody initiating an assault, I'll use whatever force necessary to end the threat.

In the incident reported in Post #1, I had no immediate opportunity to retreat when he made his rush toward me with my wife and grandchild standing nearby. My intent was to stand my ground and verbally de-escalate the situation with apologies if possible. The other guy would have to decide what happened next.

If he had initiated a physical assault, no spray irritants would have been involved, and hopefully it would have been short-lived.

Kleanbore · Mar 13, 2009

The physical infirmity or disparity of force of the victim in an assault is unnecessary to establish the basis of self defense. Laws differ, but I believe here in Washington, as in many states, there is no duty to retreat, and the victim need only be in reasonable fear of serious injury or death to justify shooting their assailant.

"I believe" seems to be the operative word. I wouldn't rely on that. Before you get into a position of having to pull a gun, consult a local criminal trial attorney.

Generally speaking, "reasonable fear" is not adequate. The actor may be afraid or calm. The issue is whether he had reasonable belief that the act was immediately necessary, and that will be tested after the fact against what is generally called the reasonable person standard.

I'm not sure how the absence of a duty to retreat would remove the disparity of force consideration.

According to my lay reading, deadly force is justified in Washington if it is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a felony upon the actor or certain others (is a punch a felony?) or to prevent the assailant from "do [ing] some great personal injury" (would the physical condition of the actor enter into that determination?).

If I'm followed by somebody initiating an assault, I'll use whatever force necessary to end the threat.

This is a lay opinion, but having someone follow you would not seem to necessitate the use of deadly force to prevent a felony or prevent great personal injury.

Here's the law, but it's a good idea to not try to interpret it without knowledge of how the courts have administered it.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.16.050

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.

rainbowbob · Mar 13, 2009

I'm not sure how the absence of a duty to retreat would remove the disparity of force consideration.

I didn't mean to imply that was the case. They are two separate issues.

What I meant was that "I believe" (as in: it is my opnion based on my reading of the WA State RCW) neither retreat NOR disparity of force are required for a determination of self defense where the person who shot held the belief they (or others) were in imminent danger of sufferring grave bodily injury or death.

...is a punch a felony?

Is a punch a violent assault?

...would the physical condition of the actor enter into that determination?

Does the physical condition of the actor prevent the assailant from causing grave physical injury?

Perhaps if the assailant is 4' tall with a 12" reach...and/or the potential victim is 8' tall with a 36' reach. Otherwise, not so much.

Kleanbore · Mar 13, 2009

What I meant was that "I believe" (as in: it is my opnion based on my reading of the WA State RCW) neither retreat NOR disparity of force are required for a determination of self defense where the person who shot held the belief they (or others) were in imminent danger of sufferring grave bodily injury or death.

I understand that there is case law obviating any requirement to retreat.

The remaining question would seem to be whether, absent a disparity of force or physical weakness on the part of the actor, a reasonable person (juror, for example) would believe that there actually existed "imminent danger of such design [felony or great personal injury] being accomplished" at the time deadly force was used. I have my doubts.

Is a punch a violent assault?

The relevant question is whether striking someone with a fist is a felony in Washington. My lay reading is that unless the victim is a child, or unless the violence is directed against a court officer or peace officer; a school bus driver or transit operator or one of several related occupations; a fireman; or physician or nurse, the crime would be a gross misdemeanor. Not sufficient to justify use of deadly force, as I read the law.

Don't rely on that or on your opinion based on your reading of the law. Consult a qualified attorney.

While you're about it, I suggest that you ask whether or not, if you produce a weapon and point if at someone who has been speaking offensively to you (no actual aggression on his part yet) and he ends up killing you, he is likely to be acquitted on the grounds of self defense.

This may shed some light on things.

http://www.useofforce.us/

If this has already been posted, pardon the clutter. It would probably be worth reading before investing in the advice of an attorney.

2000Yards · Mar 13, 2009

If someone tries to avoid a fistfight with me by pointing a firearm in my face, they're going to have to use it or lose it. I don't go around looking to start fights, but if I get into it with some guy and it's going to get violent shortly, he'll regret pulling a pistol on me, he'll have to choose between a little humiliation or a homicide charge.QUOTE]

Like others have said, you may want to rethink this. One thing that some firearms schools teach their students is to draw and yell "Stop" if they perceive a threat. If that threat continues toward them, from a reasonable person standpoint the schools teach that the threat should now be treated as lethal or intending to commit grave bodily harm. Their rationale is that no reasonable, sane, or otherwise law-abiding person will continue towards another who just yelled stop and is pointing a gun at them.

You say this hypothetical person has to choose between a little humiliation and a homicide charge; ~~he's thinking "Do I live, or does this guy?" Yeah, you may have no intent to kill them, but are you really willing to gamble your life, health and future on their state of mind?~~

taprackbang · Mar 13, 2009

Always AVOID the fight, if you can.
I managed to defuse a roadrage situation between myself and
a crazy guy trying to run me off the road.

Kleanbore · Mar 13, 2009

One thing that some firearms schools teach their students is to draw and yell "Stop" if they perceive a threat.

"Perceive a threat?" Slightly oversimplified, I think.

Where I live, the gun must be concealed, and, unless I am a law enforcement officer, it is unlawful for me to exhibit it ("in a dangerous or threatening manner") unless I am justified in using it for self defense. True in a lot of places.

In some states merely drawing a gun--even unloaded--has been judged to actually constitute the use of deadly force. Texas has seen fit to specify that that is not the case, but that does not mean that you can draw it unless force is justified.

Also consider this: you "perceive" a "threat" and draw a gun. Who is threatening now? Is the other person now justified in shooting you?

rainbowbob · Mar 13, 2009

This may shed some light on things.

http://www.useofforce.us/

Kleanbore: You have brought up some excellent questions and have pointed out some not-so-obvious pit-falls. The link you provided looks very good. I haven't seen it before and hereby promise to read and consider every word of it.

Thanks.

Hungry Seagull · Mar 13, 2009

Kleenbore, your link of useofforce is a very good one. I will read it tonight in full.

Drawing firearm and yelling stop when percieve a threat is a problem for me. I cannot see it happening if percieved person who is a possible threat has done anything.

Little 4 foot shrimp CCW walking into bar by mistake filled with 8 foot angry beserkers drinking away thier troubles. No way that shrimp gonna draw a gun and yell stop just because the percieved atmosphere is very threatening.

I have trouble with some words and percieved is one of those.

I think shrimp will be better off never ccw'ing into a bar and number two turning around and leaving said bar if there is a percieved threat.

I found myself in a ethnic bar once and didnt know better. I never got past the doorframe.

rainbowbob · Mar 13, 2009

Kleanbore: I'm reading that Use of Force link as I promised. But I already find myself questioning their conclusions, and I'm only on the second page.

If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack.

As I have mentioned, several well-publicised instances where a man punched another man have occurred here in the last year. One was instantly fatal, another caused permanent brain damage, and a third ended in the justified homicide of the guy doing the punching.

I do NOT agree that a punch should be considered a "non-lethal attack". I do NOT agree that I have a duty to take a beating in the hope that it causes no permanent injury or death.

Casaba · Mar 13, 2009

I can sum my thoughts up simply...
"judged by 12 is preferred to carried by 6"

I would hate to ever have to take anothers life but I feel that I can do it if I ever had to

Kleanbore · Mar 13, 2009

I'm reading that Use of Force link as I promised. But I already find myself questioning their conclusions, and I'm only on the second page.

OK.

Don't rely on your lay thoughts. I worked directly under the general counsel of a major business for two years and closely with the law department for about twenty. I soon found that my opinions were not necessarily meaningful.

See your lawyer.

Here are two more:

http://www.teddytactical.com/archive/MonthlyStudy/2006/02_StudyDay.htm

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument&Click=

I do NOT agree that a punch should be considered a "non-lethal attack". I do NOT agree that I have a duty to take a beating in the hope that it causes no permanent injury or death.

While that might (and does in my case ) sound reasonable to someone my age, there have been centuries of legal discussion and deliberation on that question. Your agreement is neither required nor determinative.

While where you live you have no duty to retreat, that option may be our best route to safety and freedom.

JWarren · Mar 14, 2009

This is a good discussion.

However, I will take my chances with "Disparity of Force" before taking my chances that I will be beat down and survive.

While I am in pretty good shape, and I have a black belt, I also have 16 years of desk jobs behind me. I'm not in the shape that I was.

When a person has chosen to physically assualt you in a situation where you are on the receiving end, you become AT THE MERCY of the other person's choices as to what the extent of your injuries will be.

I am NOT comfortable with that situation. I've seen more than one person sustain severe injuries from a fist fight. I've seen a detached retina in the ring, and I stopped a guy's heart when I was in a fight once(in the ring). When my father was in college, he had a friend get killed from a blow in a bar fight.

If I am actively trying to avoid a confrontation and someone is hell-bent on physically assaulting me, that creates a situation where I SHOULD be in fear for my life since there I am obviously dealing with a person in a rage.

People can fight. I've defended myself in the past. Defense is dramatically different from Assault. A rational, clear-thinking person can defend themselves. A person who is ASSAULTING is practically ALWAYS in some form of rage and/or giving into some desire to "punish" another person. At that time, the assualter is NOT sane. I will not take my chances in the belief that this person will demonstrate any level of restraint. Nor should I be expected to.

I will not allow myself to serve as the medium by which this person will vent their anger and come to a sane condition. I don't know how long that will be or what the end result will be-- all while I am AT THE MERCY of that person.

After all, you can now see what we are talking about here:

spittle8 wrote:

If someone tries to avoid a fistfight with me by pointing a firearm in my face, they're going to have to use it or lose it. I don't go around looking to start fights, but if I get into it with some guy and it's going to get violent shortly, he'll regret pulling a pistol on me, he'll have to choose between a little humiliation or a homicide charge.

Son, be careful putting people in positions like that. What you are doing is describing what you will do as you are assaulting someone.

If you put people in positions like that, one of these days someone is going to decide that they are OK with what's behind Door B.

They may or may not have to defend that action later, but you won't know the outcome. You'll be 6 feet under with a recent 45 caliber hole.

How's this... YOU decide if YOUR desire to "humiliate" someone via a physical assault is worth your life.

I ALWAYS assume that anyone willing to assault me IS carrying a weapon. I've seen too many fist-fights turn into knife-fights in the blink of an eye.

You DO NOT want to put people in a position where they have to make a split-second decision between you or them.

RATIONAL people always choose themselves.

-- John

Kleanbore · Mar 14, 2009

I have a friend who was once a police officer and who is now an executive in a large multi-outlet retail company.

He once said to me "the only time my gun is ever coming out is when I am about to die."

The only question for me is the definition of "about."

So, what would I do in an unpleasant situation in which an antagonistic person was acting aggressively but not displaying a weapon? If I were alone, I would back away quickly--if possible.

I do not intend to get into a fight with anyone--ever.

I've recently decided to avail myself of a less than lethal option:

http://www.pepperblaster.com/

It is a supplement, not a replacement, for a firearm.

rainbowbob · Mar 14, 2009

I soon found that my opinions were not necessarily meaningful...See your lawyer...Your agreement [whether or not a punch should be considered a "non-lethal attack"] is neither required nor determinative.

Kleanbore: In the incident I described in post #1, my lawyer was nowhere to be seen.

In that situation, or any situation in which I am in fear of being assaulted, the ONLY "meaningful, required, and determinative" opinion will be mine.

Everything else is after the fact - hopefully with me still alive and trying to sort out the legal issues.

Discussing the legal issues here is very useful toward sharpening our thinking in regard to tactics and strategies and attempting to conform them in advance within a legal framework that will allow for the best possible outcome.

But the legal considerations are only meaningful if we survive the encounter with our faculties in tact. Ensuring that is the first order of business.

So, what would I do in an unpleasant situation in which an antagonistic person was acting aggressively but not displaying a weapon? If I were alone, I would back away quickly--if possible.

In the incident described, I was NOT alone, and had the safety of my wife and grandson to consider. In any case, I would not have been able to walk backwards faster than he was coming at me. Turning my back on him and running would have been an unsound tactical decision.

Even in retrospect, I can only see one viable option left. Stand my ground, take a defensive position with my hand wrapped around the stocks of my pocket snub, and attempt to verbally dissuade his aggressive advance in the few seconds left before all hell breaks loose.

What would you have done differently in the circumstances presented in the first post (other than avoid it altogether by not speaking to him in the first place)?

Consider: An enraged and aggressive younger man is moving rapidly in your direction with a certain unmistakable "look" in his eye and "tone" in his voice. His body language suggests he is gearing up for violence you neither invited nor desire. He has closed from 20 yards to within 10 feet in seconds.

Your turn.

JWarren's excellent post provides a bottom line that bears repeating:

RATIONAL people always choose themselves.

And I would add that holds true...even when the law disagrees.

Hungry Seagull · Mar 14, 2009

"Your turn" indeed.

I dont wanna play. But if I see it coming... well... let's see who has to play the game of back off or get shot.

Rage on the Aggressor is as strong as the tide coming or going. Sometimes the only way to stop it is to match it with a force sufficient to disable. Add drugs to the mix or strong drink, then you must increase the force. Sadly some people cannot be stopped until they are dead.

But if such a attacker gets a grip upon you or your family. That attacker is going to probably tear you apart on his or her terms. It's not about you anymore, it's the gluttonus partaking in the lust to fulfill the rage that burns.

I dont see it as any better than a school bully picking on a student who is only a mouse and cannot fight back.

Until said kid grows a pair and does fight back.

But that is school stuff.

Out here in the real world, there is a limited amount of time that runs rapidly through the hour glass with the last few grains of sand... your life? Or that of another?

Kleanbore · Mar 14, 2009

In the incident I described in post #1, my lawyer was nowhere to be seen.

I'm sure you understand that my recommendation was for you to get some qualified legal advice about some of your assumptions posted here, such as how the judicial system would likely judge the justifiability of using a firearm against a man with fists.

In that situation, or any situation in which I am in fear of being assaulted, the ONLY "meaningful, required, and determinative" opinion will be mine.

At the time. But as you say,

Everything else is after the fact

That includes bringing forth the evidence and having it judged. But you will not be able to make a criminal action (should that have been your action) legal after the fact.

In the incident described, I was NOT alone, and had the safety of my wife and grandson to consider. In any case, I would not have been able to walk backwards faster than he was coming at me. Turning my back on him and running would have been an unsound tactical decision.

Even in retrospect, I can only see one viable option left. Stand my ground, take a defensive position with my hand wrapped around the stocks of my pocket snub, and attempt to verbally dissuade his aggressive advance in the few seconds left before all hell breaks loose.

What would you have done differently in the circumstances presented in the first post (other than avoid it altogether by not speaking to him in the first place)?

First, your priorities are correct, and I agree that running was entirely out of the question. I wasn't there but I would have done everything possible to bring about an amicable agreement, including apology, admission of my having been in the wrong, or whatever.

I have changed to a pocket holster primarily because of questions raised by this discussion and by watching a blurb on SDTV with Mas Ayoob. Hands in pockets are less threatening than reaching under a shirt for a gun in a belt holster, and you can delay the moment of pulling the gun should it come to that.

And as mentioned above, I've added a less than lethal option.

If I had to use the pepper blaster there would still be legal risk, but I wouldn't be in the position of trying to argue that lethal force had been necessary against an unarmed man when the rest of the evidence showed conclusively that I had just shot one down. Absent favorable and convincing witness testimony that the man had in fact put me in serious danger and that my actions had indeed been necessary, and that I had not started started the confrontation or had been actively attempting to withdraw, I might really be in a pickle.

And the outcome would be most unpleasant if I had drawn, he had gotten the better of me and blown off my lower jaw, and he was acquitted because his action was found to have been necessary to prevent my commission of a felony against him or to prevent my doing "some great personal injury" to him.

An enraged and aggressive younger man is moving rapidly in your direction with a certain unmistakable "look" in his eye and "tone" in his voice. His body language suggests he is gearing up for violence you neither invited nor desire. He has closed from 20 yards to within 10 feet in seconds.

Scary indeed. You may feel that you have no choice but to shoot, and I may well agree. But remember, absent favorable witness testimony, his rage and the "unmistakeable 'look' in his eye and 'tone' in his voice" will be difficult to enter into evidence except through your own testimony, which will be subject to cross examination that could easily defeat its effectiveness.

If the incident were recorded on sound stage, that tone and look might show, but that isn't the way things work. In the eyes of the law, you may find that you are no more considered to have been the "good guy" than he.

Thankfully the whole thing is over, no one was injured, killed, arrested, indicted, tried with whatever outcome, and there were no civil suits.

scrooge · Mar 15, 2009

My 2 cents

From a Cop

Deadly force can be used in most states if you are in fear of serious bodily injury or death to yourself or another person. Look up your state statute to be sure of the verbage.

Be able to articulate that fear to the Police and the courts. From your previous posts you have done that sufficiently.

Most states don't REQUIRE you to retreat or de-escalate......that might be a police option, or a desire of the police, but certainly not a mandated requirement. Train!

Comparing the Police response to an incident is neither realistic nor prudent. Many factors come into play here. Why do you think that police are issued tasers, batons, spray? So they don't have to fistfight!

Last but not least......a fist fight is a 50/50 proposition at best, who knows what the thug might do if you are out cold?

Protect your family, all else is secondary!

rainbowbob · Mar 15, 2009

One of the suggestions from the Use of Force was to look for your state's criminal jury instructions in regard to the lawful use of force.

The following are excerpts from the Washington State jury instructions. Your state may differ.

This is what the 12 folks who may hold your future in their hands will be told by the judge. There are a few surprises.

Justifiable Homicide—Defense of Self And Others

It is a defense to a charge of murder or manslaughter that the homicide was justifiable as defined in this instruction.

Homicide is justifiable when committed in the lawful defense of [the slayer] [the slayer's [husband][wife][parent][child][brother][sister]] [any person in the slayer's presence or company] when:

(1) the slayer reasonably believed the person slain [or others whom the defendant reasonably believed were acting in concert with the person slain] intended [to commit a felony][to inflict death or great personal injury];

(2) the slayer reasonably believed that there was imminent danger of such harm being accomplished; and

(3) the slayer employed such force and means as a reasonably prudent person would use under the same or similar conditions as they reasonably appeared to the slayer, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as they appeared to [him][her], at the time of [and prior to] the incident.

The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the homicide was not justifiable. If you find that the State has not proved the absence of this defense beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.

It appears from this instruction that what the jury believes is in the defendant's mind is determinent of guilt or innocence, and that the state has the burden to prove the defendant did NOT believe he was in imminent danger.

Self-defense Reimbursement

Based on your verdict in this case, there is an additional issue that the law requires you to decide.

The defendant has alleged that [he][she] acted in self-defense. Under our state's law, if the defendant's use of force was [lawful][justified], the defendant has the right to be reimbursed by the State of Washington for the reasonable cost of legal fees and expenses involved in [his][her] defense as well as for loss of time.

Surprise! If a person found innocent of unlawful use of force, the state must reimburse related costs of defending themself in court including loss of time.

No Duty To Retreat

It is lawful for a person who is in a place where that person has a right to be and who has reasonable grounds for believing that [he][she] is being attacked to stand [his][her] ground and defend against such attack by the use of lawful force. The law does not impose a duty to retreat.

Lawful Force—Actual Danger Not Necessary

A person is entitled to act on appearances in defending [himself][herself][another], if [he][she] believes in good faith and on reasonable grounds that [he][she][another] is in actual danger of injury, although it afterwards might develop that the person was mistaken as to the extent of the danger. Actual danger is not necessary for the use of force to be lawful.

It is enough that a person acted on their good faith belief, based on appearances alone, that the danger was real.

Kleanbore · Mar 15, 2009

It appears from this instruction that what the jury believes is in the defendant's mind is determinent of guilt or innocence, and that the state has the burden to prove the defendant did NOT believe he was in imminent danger.

Almost! There's also the little issue of whether a reasonably prudent person would have used the same force. In this case, would the jurors decide that they would have shot an unarmed man?

Even so, it's not enough for the slayer to say that he reasonably believed something. Think about it. If that were true, every single killer in the state of Washington would be acquitted.

The jurors will have to examine the evidence. They will listen to the testimony. If the man who was shot survives, and that is what happens in the vast majority of cases, his testimony will enter into the thought process, and I'll wager it wouldn't agree with yours. And his credibility going in is no less than yours.

The State of Arizona has on it's website an excellent seventy five page paper by Arizona Attorney Michael Anthony covering many aspects of the laws there. Most of us don't have such a resource. We must consult with an attorney. As Anthony says, "The legal principles used by the courts to interpret the meaning of criminal statutes have evolved over centuries, and scholars argue endlessly over how the laws should be interpreted. In other words, you should not assume that you understand the meaning of a criminal law by simply reading a statute and attaching your own meaning or dictionary definitions to it."

That advice is good everywhere.

So the question remains, how have the courts in Washington treated cases in which a man with a gun used deadly force on an unarmed man? What were the circumstances and conditions that influenced the outcome? You won't find it on the web. Spend a couple of hundred dollars on consultation and improve your chances of navigating through risky territory in the future.

No one I have known, or known directly of, who has run afoul of law or regulation, was not supremely confident going in that his actions had been completely proper and that he would be able to defend them.

Our attorneys came to quietly quote Gomer Pyle: "Suprise, surprise, surprise!"

Deanimator · Mar 15, 2009

Most states don't REQUIRE you to retreat or de-escalate......that might be a police option, or a desire of the police, but certainly not a mandated requirement. Train!

In Ohio, Castle Doctrine covers your home and automobile. Elsewhere, you must retreat IF YOU CAN DO SO IN PERFECT SAFETY.

That means that if I can just walk away, I have to.

That doesn't mean I must turn my back on my opponent and run.

That doesn't mean that I must endanger myself to protect him.

That doesn't mean that I must take a beating.

It just means that if I can withdraw without increasing the danger to myself, I must do so. If I try to retreat and you don't LET me and put me in reasonable fear of imminent threat to life and limb, it sucks to be you. It especially sucks to be you with a sucking chest wound.

rainbowbob · Mar 15, 2009

Our attorneys came to quietly quote Gomer Pyle: "Suprise, surprise, surprise!"

Good ol' Gomer...

Lessons from a confrontation today

member

Member

Moderator In Memoriam

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

member

Moderator

Member

member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

member

Moderator

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Similar threads