A scenario that has me thinking...

[Straight Shooter]

Your highlighted quote does not show intent or ability to use lethal force.

In the real life scenario the OP did escape, so obviously that was an option.

 

[rainbowbob]

I meant to add this definition as used in the Revised Code of Washington State:

RCW 9A.16.010
Definitions.
In this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required:

(1) "Necessary" means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.

The "lawful purpose intended" includes resisting criminal violence of any kind.

In the OP's scenario, flight was not an option, and using one's fists is not required under the law.

That "necessary" force includes, at least for most reasonable people, the use of a deadly weapon. The mere show of such force may end the threat, and Kleck's study, as well as others, indicates this is true in the overwhelming majority of defensive gun uses.

If such show of force did NOT dissuade the unlawful attacker, then it could be concluded that "...no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended."


Of course, your state laws on the lawful use of force may be radically different from my state laws. You should definitely read yours. But unless they are indecipherable to you, I can't agree that we as citizens are necessarily dependent on attorneys to interpret everything for us.

 

[rainbowbob]

Your highlighted quote does not show intent or ability to use lethal force.

In the real life scenario the OP did escape, so obviously that was an option.

The OP's use of the phrases "certain attack" and "decided to harm you" necessarily indicates intent.

As for ability, it is a well established fact that any full grown man has the abilty to inflict great bodily injury or death with his fists and/or boots.

Further, I have shown that, at least in my state, an unlawful violent assault may be resisted with deadly force, if necessary, regardless of whether the intent of the assailant is to kill you, or "merely" rape, rob, or injure you.

And as for your last comment, this thread is not discussing the OP's real life adventure, we are discussing the scenario outlined in Post #1, in which escape had been attempted and was decidedly NOT an option.

 

[alohachris]

I have seen several men crippled from a single punch to the base of the skull/neck.

I have seen several cases where a single punch to the face landed as a knockout blow causing the victim to fall backward, strike their head on the pavement, leading to subarachnoid hemmorhage that caused seizures and death.

The men who punched them went on trial for murder and attempted murder.

 

[Straight Shooter]

The OP's use of the phrases "certain attack" and "decided to harm you" necessarily indicates intent.

As for ability, it is a well established fact that any full grown man has the abilty to inflict great bodily injury or death with his fists and/or boots.

Not every attack escalates to a life or death situation. You will have to prove that a reasonable person would have been in fear for his life or serious bodily injury. You're going to have to articulate reasons. What were his actions, not possible actions. What did he actually do.

If the BG is shot before a single punch is thrown, he's unarmed and there is no disparity of force, there is nothing to indicate his intent or ability to use lethal force.

Further, I have shown that, at least in my state, an unlawful violent assault may be resisted with deadly force, if necessary, regardless of whether the intent of the assailant is to kill you, or "merely" rape, rob, or injure you.

(Emphasis added)
There hasn't been any physical violence on the on the BG part. He was shot before throwing a single punch.

Also I was struck by the title of the section you quoted:

RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.

"Use of Force" not "Lethal Force" so I did a little digging (bold and underline added by me).

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.


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.

So then the question becomes what is felony assault?

RCW 9A.36.011
Assault in the first degree.


(1) A person is guilty of assault in the first degree if he or she, with intent to inflict great bodily harm:

(a) Assaults another with a firearm or any deadly weapon or by any force or means likely to produce great bodily harm or death; or

(b) Administers, exposes, or transmits to or causes to be taken by another, poison, the human immunodeficiency virus as defined in chapter 70.24 RCW, or any other destructive or noxious substance; or

(c) Assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm.

(2) Assault in the first degree is a class A felony.

 

[easyg]

I think that it's foolish to try and settle the situation by slugging it out with the enraged attacker.
After all, if he got in a lucky punch that knocked you out, even just for a few seconds, then he could take your weapon.
And then you would be at the mercy of an enraged attacker who now has a handgun!

In this scenario, given the constraints determined in the original post, I would draw my weapon and warn him one last time to stop.

If he then chose to continue his attack, I would shoot him.

 

[Kleanbore]

Quote:
RCW 9A.16.010
Definitions.
In this chapter, unless a different meaning is plainly required:

(1) "Necessary" means that no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist and that the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended.
The "lawful purpose intended" includes resisting criminal violence of any kind.

Though wording differs widely, this is generally what the law means in most if not all jurisdictions in this country.

In the OP's scenario, flight was not an option, and using one's fists is not required under the law.

While the OP offered two options, he did not say that safe escape was not possible.

I would never throw an unprotected fist against a hard object. However, as has been pointed out above by DFW 1911, one has open hands, arms, feet, legs, etc., to get the guy onto the ground, using impact, leverage, or non-impact pressure.

That "necessary" force includes, at least for most reasonable people, the use of a deadly weapon.

Hmmm--I contend that you will have a much better chance of finding peers who will agree with you if the assailant is larger, younger, more fit, or better trained, if not armed.

Equally matched persons? You may prevail, and you may not. I'd bet no, most of the time.

There is a very good reason that the legal literature, police training material, and self defense courseware all go into great length on the concepts of ability, opportunity, an preclusion. It is to provide a framework for evaluating what is immediately necessary, what is meant by imminent, and what is reasonable, so that justification can be established or ruled out--so that self defense can be distinguished from a criminal act.

There is also a very good reason why trial attorneys will not give a written answer to the OP's question. That is because real cases involve far too many variables, and an opinion based on a hypothetical case would not only be of little value, it could ultimately prove damaging.

One thing to always remember--the guy on the gun forum sees one of his kind as the good guy, and seems to believe that, as in movies, he will wear that identification from the time that the shot is fired.

Doesn't play out that way. Anyone who has been on a jury knows that there is no "good guy" at the outset--just a defendant and witnesses for both sides. Frankly, I would not want to be in a position of having shot an unarmed person of my size and strength after what, to "an outsider looking in ... look[ed] to be a run-of-the-mill street fight in the works."

I would prefer that the assailant be noticeable larger and younger--and then, if safe escape was not an option, I would pull the gun and warn him loudly and demonstrably. And if he were to proceed? Well, maybe we have a a meth head at hand..

 

[MannytheGreek]

I have to disagree with anumber of these posts

Hello all,

As an MD in practice for 2 years in a urban environment, I can tell you that the idea of "grave bodily harm" is a misnomer. Many of us might say, "hey I will take a busted lip and a black eye in exchange for not having to draw & escalate the situation further" I can completely understand. Given the choice, Id choose that route for myself.

Unfortunately, what might appear to be a minor scuffle can have major consequences. If someone hits you , and your head falls and hit the ground, think epidural or subdural hemorrhage= chance of paralysis or being a vegetable for the rest of your life.

This issue is very concerning for me because although a younger guy, my fighting skills are totally lacking. I will certainly run for my life if, God forbid, I will ever be in any situation. Yet at the same time I will draw and defend myself. Don't be afraid if you are in this situation, even legally, to say that you are afraid for your life. Dozens of physicians can testify for you in court saying that even seemingly minor injuries can have catastrophic results.

 

[Kleanbore]

Unfortunately, what might appear to be a minor scuffle can have major consequences. If someone hits you , and your head falls and hit the ground, think epidural or subdural hemorrhage= chance of paralysis or being a vegetable for the rest of your life.

Absolutely true.

Don't be afraid if you are in this situation, even legally, to say that you are afraid for your life.

Don't worry, that's not the problem; the problem is what your peers will believe about whether your fear was reasonable based on what you knew at the time.

Dozens of physicians can testify for you in court saying that even seemingly minor injuries can have catastrophic results.

And other expert witnesses can provide evidence that it is not likely.

Don't get me wrong. In a perfect world, where everyone knows that the shooter is a good guy defending himself and the other guy is a would-be criminal trying to hurt him, it would (at least me) be reasonable to shoot the "bad guy" to avoid being injured if, retreat were not an option.

Problem is, unlike a movie of the kind we have seen on screen or the kind people play over in their minds, there is no protagonist, there is no audience watching the important steps, and no replay. There's just the fact that an encounter of some kind has lead to injury or death; forensic evidence; and witness testimony, some potentially inconclusive and some possibly contradictory, particularly if both parties to the dispute survive. If things go down hill, it is left to others to determine from that whether there was an assault and battery, mutual combat that got out of hand, unlawful use of deadly force (maybe manslaughter), or justifiable self defense. The actor's future will be entirely in the hands of those others.

The legal constructs are designed to support that difficult process. It's been a complicated issue for years, and the problem here was the root of the original duty to "retreat to the wall" in the English Common Law in the days of edged weapons.

After all, don't you think that almost everyone who shoots someone else is likely to claim that he was afraid for his life? There has to be a way to sort out what was lawful and what was not.

 

[Kleanbore]

Perhaps This Will Help

Some of the recent posts have discussed the situation in Washington State. This portion of the Washington State Prosecutor's Manual may shed some light on the subject:

http://www.waprosecutors.org/manuals/dv/ch10.html

Some relevant excerpts:

The importance of the objective portion of the inquiry cannot be underestimated. Absent the reference point of a reasonably prudent person, a defendant's subjective beliefs would always justify the homicide. Janes, 121 Wn.2d at. "Applying a purely subjective standard in all cases would give free rein to the short-tempered, the pugnacious, and the foolhardy who see threats of harm where the rest of us would not...." Janes, 121 Wn.2d at 240 (quoting Susan Estrich, Defending Women, 88 Mich. L.Rev. 1430, 1435 (1990)); see also State v. Hill, 76 Wn.2d 557, 566, 458 P.2d 171 (1969) (If defendant were the sole judge as to the existence of the peril of great bodily harm confronting him and the amount of force necessary to protect himself against it, then "there would be no limit to the amount of force which a person could use in defending himself against such alleged peril."). The objective part of the standard "keeps self-defense firmly rooted in the narrow concept of necessity." Janes, 121 Wn.2d at 240.

With both subjective and objective aspects taken into account, the trial judge must determine whether the defendant produced any evidence to support his claimed good faith belief that deadly force was necessary and that this belief, viewed objectively, was reasonable. State v. Bell, 60 Wn. App. 561, 567, 805 P.2d 815 (1991). If the trial court finds no reasonable person in the defendant's shoes could have perceived a threat of great bodily harm, then the court does not have to instruct the jury on self-defense. Bell, 60 Wn. App. at 567-68, 805 P.2d 815; see also State v. Griffith, 91 Wn.2d 572, 575, 589 P.2d 799 (1979) (If any one of the elements of self-defense is not supported by the evidence, the self-defense theory is not available to a defendant, and the defendant cannot present the theory to a jury); State v. Walker, 40 Wn. App. 658, 665, 700 P.2d 1168 (1985)
State v. Walker, 136 Wn.2d 767, 772-73, 966 P.2d 883 (1998).

1. Fear alone not sufficient

An actual assault by the victim is not required to establish self-defense, however, a defendant's testimony as to fear is insufficient. "Some evidence of aggressive or threatening behavior, gestures, or communication by the victim" is required. State v. Walker, 40 Wn. App. 658, 663, 700 P.2d 1168 (1985). The court in Walker notes that a victim's threats to kill or a victim's movements to produce a gun will be sufficient to obtain a self-defense instruction.

3. Defendant Provokes Assault

If there is credible evidence that the defendant made the first move by drawing a weapon, the evidence supports the giving of an aggressor instruction. State v. Thompson, 47 Wn. App. 1, 7, 733 P.2d 584 (1987). An aggressor instruction is appropriate if there is conflicting evidence as to whether the defendant's conduct precipitated a fight. State v. Davis, 119 Wn.2d 657, 666, 835 P.2d 1039 (1992).

A handful of cases have upheld a trial court's decision to remove the issue of self-defense from the jury on the grounds that the defendant was the first aggressor.

E. DEFENDING AGAINST A CLAIM OF SELF DEFENSE

All of the issues discussed in the prior section as potential grounds for excluding a claim of self-defense, will provide fertile grounds for arguing why a jury should reject a claim of self-defense.

In addition to the technical defenses, certain factual issues will provide you with rebuttal to the defendant's claim. Frequently, a comparison of the physical heights and weights of the defendant and victim will provide you with the argument that based upon defendant's size alone, it was unnecessary for him to hit her with the amount of force used. For this reason, you should always ask the victim and the defendant about their height and weight.

Now, we all "know" that the guy with the gun is a good guy who was set upon by a rather disagreeab;e person, don't we? However, to "an outsider looking in ...[it] look[ed] to be a run-of-the-mill street fight in the works."

All of those determinations discussed above--objective and subjective evaluation of reasonable fear; evidence of aggressive or threatening behavior, gestures, or communication by the victim; who was the aggressor; whether excessive force was used--will be made on the basis not only of what the defendant says but also on the basis of that outsider looking in says he or she saw, forensic evidence, the testimony of any experts called in, and very likely, what the victim says happened.

Note that the manual refers to our "good guy" as the defendant, and to the other bloke as "the victim".

No guaranteed outcome here either way, but this doesn't seem to me to be a good situation in which to be.

 

[mrokern]

In other words, a CITIZEN may use force including deadly force to effect the arrest of a person in the act of committing a felony (i.e., a citizen's arrest).

"No more force than is necessary" and "any resonable means necessary" means just what it says, and includes the threat of force (i.e., pointing a firearm at someone) and the actual use of force, including deadly force, if necessary, to defend oneself or other innocents from violent crime.

There is nothing in there about the age, size, or gender of the parties, or whether or not the assailant is "unarmed".

It simply says that it is lawful to protect oneself and others by "...any reasonable means necessary...who is in imminent danger of, or the victim of, assault...or any other violent crime."

I don't understand - what is so difficult to understand?

Two notes:

1) Reasonable is defined by whatever a jury says it is.

2) If you kill the person, you are not covered under the statutes you listed. You would then be put under RCW 9A.16.050. Granted, those have broad definition, but the word reasonable is still there.

Reasonable to you may not be reasonable to a jury made up of people from the ethnic group / neighborhood / religion / economic status / astrological sign of the person you killed.

Not saying that you wouldn't be legally justified under your state's laws. Just saying that it's far from clear cut.

-Mark

 

[rainbowbob]

Homicide is also justifiable when:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer...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...

There you go...you've made my argument for me. Thanks, that is very helpful to the discussion.

So then the question becomes what is felony assault?

Actually, the question is what is a felony? The law you quote does not limit the use of force to the resistance of a felonious assault.

As to your question: You posted the elements of first degree felonious assault, but you didn't go far enough. The law allows the use of force against a variety of felonies, including ALL felonious assaults, which is far more inclusive than the elements required for assault in the first degree.

While the OP offered two options, he did not say that safe escape was not possible.

Yes he did. It's getting kind of tedious to have to continue to go back and forth quoting the OP every time someone posts another comment indicating they either didn't read the OP are unable to decipher it.

From the OP: You have already done everything possible to avoid, and nothing has worked. You have yelled, ran, called 911 and he's still on you.

There are times when deescalation is not an option, so I hope to avoid any comments like "walk away" or "don't be there in the first place."

Equally matched persons? You may prevail, and you may not. I'd bet no, most of the time.

The law (in WA State) says NOTHING (at least nothing I've been able to find) about disparity of force as a prerequisite for the use of force to prevent a felony or felonious injury to oneself or others.

When I post the applicable laws in my state, and despite it's meaning being plain as day, you continue to argue as though it isn't clear - well...no offense intended, but that's also getting tedious.

If the law says something different in your state, if it says something about disparity of force being a required element for the lawful use of force - post it. That would at least be useful information and relevant to the discussion. Unless the law in your state - or ANY state - DOES require disparity of force, I think you should refrain from insisting that lack of disparity (i.e., same size, same gender, same age, etc) should be considered as a prohibition against the use of force in defense of self and others.

I would prefer that the assailant be noticeable larger and younger--and then, if safe escape was not an option, I would pull the gun and warn him loudly and demonstrably. And if he were to proceed? Well, maybe we have a a meth head at hand..

I think you are slowly beginning to come around. You may prefer that the assailant be 8 feet tall with horns and gills so that he is readily identifiable to all reasonable people as a monster - but you don't get to pick your assailant. He picks you.

You have finally stipulated that you would draw your weapon and threaten your attacker, and if that was unsuccessful...

Then you drop off in your description of what would happen next (making an oblique reference to a meth head, as though the drugs he may have consumed are relevant in that moment to your decision to defend yourself).

You're over-thinking it - but you're getting there.

...the problem is what your peers will believe...

Actually, the problem at hand is whether or not you will survive the hypothetical assault. In a REAL assault, I hope you will be able to remain "in the moment" and effectively solve the very real problem of survival - without agonizing about what your "peers" will think after the fact.

If the trial court finds no reasonable person in the defendant's shoes could have perceived a threat of great bodily harm...a purely subjective standard in all cases would give free rein to the short-tempered, the pugnacious, and the foolhardy who see threats of harm where the rest of us would not...."

An actual assault by the victim is not required to establish self-defense, however, a defendant's testimony as to fear is insufficient. "Some evidence of aggressive or threatening behavior, gestures, or communication by the victim" is required.

We are reasonable people...right? We are not "...short-tempered...pugnacious...and foolhardy, who see threats of harm where the rest of us would not."

I'm sure no one here would shoot an assailant if there wasn't an adequate perception of a threat of great bodily harm.

In the OP's scenario, the threat clearly exists and can be articulated. If you did not respond with necessary force to resist the felonious assault, you would likely suffer injury or death. That is all that is required. To NOT resist such an assault with all necessary force - because you fear the judgement of your peers - might be legally prudent, but physically devastating.

Not saying that you wouldn't be legally justified under your state's laws. Just saying that it's far from clear cut.

The law is clear cut as written, but of course there are no guarantees that everything and everyone will agree with you. I will do everything I prudently can to follow the law in defending myself, and then must allow the legal chips to fall where they may against my still living, hopefully uninjured, hide. That is the best any of us can realistically do.

 

[Claude Clay]

medical issues for me are such that running isn't an option. if i have done all within my ability--honed by 40+ years on the streets of a inner city--to avoid and deescalate, and he is still on me.......my gun is there for situations such as this.

regarding the perps size----it does not matter.

shooting an alleged perp is the last thing you want to do
but i train and maintain proficiency because it may be what you need to do.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yes he [the OP] did say that safe escape was not possible...

OK

The law (in WA State) says NOTHING (at least nothing I've been able to find) about disparity of force as a prerequisite for the use of force to prevent a felony or felonious injury to oneself or others.

When I post the applicable laws in my state, and despite it's meaning being plain as day, you continue to argue as though it isn't clear - well...no offense intended, but that's also getting tedious.

If the law says something different in your state, if it says something about disparity of force being a required element for the lawful use of force - post it. That would at least be useful information and relevant to the discussion. Unless the law in your state - or ANY state - DOES require disparity of force, I think you should refrain from insisting that lack of disparity (i.e., same size, same gender, same age, etc) should be considered as a prohibition against the use of force in defense of self and others.

I'm not aware of any state in which the law specifies that homicide cannot be justified unless the assailant is armed with a lethal weapon or unless there is a disparity of force.

Lack of disparity of force, or lack of a weapon, is not a prohibition against the use of force, or even against the use of deadly force, in any state of which I am aware --not saying that there are none.

Where it becomes important is in how charging decisions are made and in how cases are tried under the law.

The salient point is that the defendant will need to show evidence that the he or she reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect agains death or serious bodily injury--or the jury won't even be instructed to consider self defense as justification.

Should the defendant succeed in that, unless the case is rather clear cut, the prosecution will challenge said evidence and present its own evidence, in an effort to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the use of deadly force was not justified--that is, that based on what the defendant knew at the time, his belief was not reasonable. A jury of peers will determine whether the defendant's belief was reasonable based on the evidence and testimony presented by both sides.

If the evidence is pretty clear that the assailant was the aggressor and that he was armed, that should be it, but strange things have happened in jury rooms. If the assailant proves after the fact to have been unarmed, a disparity of force can help a lot. Lack of disparity doesn't change your legal rights, but it sure could seal your fate in the judgment of the charging authority, a grand jury, and/or a trial jury.

That's where all of the literature, education, training , and advice on the evlauation of the alleged assailant's Ability (weapon, physical size and strength, numbers, training, skill, etc.), on his Opportunity, on the condition of Jeopardy, and on the subject of Preclusion comes into play. Those things are not written into state criminal codes, but they are of paramount importance.

If you consult the right kind of lawyer in your jurisdiction, he or she can explain it to you. In the mean time, study the links in Post 46 and the one in Post 69. And do heed attorney Michael Anthony's warning about trying to divine the meaning of a law (in the context of judicial principles, other laws, appellate rulings, and how a case will be tried) by a lay interpretation of the wording of the statute. I do not mean that to demean your intelligence or ability to read--it's just something that lay people need to learn. Believe me. I've known, and known of, people who learned it the hard way.

I think someone has already suggested the Firearms Academy of Seattle. Darn wise investment.

http://www.firearmsacademy.com/mhayes.htm

In the OP's scenario, the threat clearly exists and can be articulated.

Yes, but remember, the defendant's articulation of his subjective belief is only Step 1, and it would very likely be insufficient to even get an instruction on self defense. See the discussion of that in the Washington State Prosecutor's manual cited above; it is based upon relevant Appellate Court decisions.

If you did not respond with necessary force to resist the felonious assault, you would likely suffer injury or death.

I'm sure you meant to say serious bodily injury or death. That's the key question, isn't it?

Would physical force by a single person who is not larger or more fit be likely to cause death or serious bodily harm? That's what needs to be answered. It's possible that one's peers will say yes, but the prevailing thought in the literature (several items of which are cited above) is that that probably won't happen.

I hope this proves helpful.

 

[sidheshooter]

So long as we are on the subject of documented training, one more thing about LFI (I cannot personally speak to FAS, unfortunately, though I've heard good things, and am well aware of Hayes' affiliation as an LFI staff instructor) that training becomes a documented part of your mind set. A good portion of LFI-1 is lecture on video tape, and Mas keeps records as to what tapes were shown in class; as well, the titles are in your notes. When it comes time to articulate what exactly made you fear (reasonably) and what training exactly played into your decision making process, those tapes can be brought into the discussion; the jury then gets to go through the lecture portion of LFI themselves.

Note that I am not a legal scholar-not even close-but I can't help thinking that this is a good thing.

Just an aside to the discussion, FWIW.

 

[Leanwolf]

KLEANBORE - " ... A jury of peers ..."

Just as an aside here, there is no such thing as "a jury of peers," no matter that we see and hear it ad infinitum.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a Right to be tried "... by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..." It says nothing about a "jury of one's peers."

An example of a "jury of one's peers," would have been if in the O.J. Simpson murder trial years ago, the jury was made up of 12 male, professional football players, all running backs, some active and some retired, plus a couple of actors who had once been professional football players.

An "impartial jury" is what a defendant hopes to have... but that is not always the case either.

L.W.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Folks,

This meeting of the Washington State Bar Association is hereby adjourned. Let's get to Strategies and Tactics, please.

lpl

 

[rainbowbob]

This meeting of the Washington State Bar Association is hereby adjourned.

Fair enough (although I believe the statutes have been useful in developing the premise that disparity of force is NOT a required legal element of the use of force in self defense).



OK...strategies and tactics you say...


I think it's a poor strategy (or is it a poor tactic?) to agonize over the legally irrelevant notion of disparity of force in the moment you find yourself being criminally assaulted with no escape available to you.


This was essentially the question was it not?

Whether you may/will use deadly force, or the threat of deadly force, against an enraged and unreasonable assailant of roughly equivelent gender, size, age, etc.

Or whether you will/must confine your options in such a case to the use of "like" force (e.g., fists, etc).

 

[nitetrane98]

I like the idea of a loud verbal warning with the key points being "I feel I am at risk of serious harm or death.", "I do not wish to engage in any hostilities.", AND "I will use lethal force if you do not desist in causing serious harm or death to my person".

Yeah, this ought to work.
"I beseech thee, sir, turn away from your foul and ignominious actions, thou surely dost not travel upon the High Road." If that doesn't work, draw your lawyer from your IWB and threaten him with it.

Or maybe how about, "Buddy, I don't want no trouble with you, I am going to tell you one more time to get the **** out of my face or I'm going to shoot your *** where you stand."

I swear some of you people have never been in a real "Game on" situation. If you don't have the game to ratchet up the violence knob when necessary you should wear tennis shoes wherever you go and just run away screaming like a little girl. That should get enough attention for somebody to step in and save you.

I won't be assaulted by any crazy man for no apparent reason.

 

[mrokern]

I swear some of you people have never been in a real "Game on" situation. If you don't have the game to ratchet up the violence knob when necessary you should wear tennis shoes wherever you go and just run away screaming like a little girl. That should get enough attention for somebody to step in and save you.

I won't be assaulted by any crazy man for no apparent reason.

I have.

I can ratchet it up just fine. I prefer escaping. Less legal trouble, fewer bad dreams.

That doesn't mean I'm going to take a beating, it just means I'm not all that anxious to take it all the way.

Rainbowbob raises a very good point above. A life or death encounter is no time to decide what your true feelings on hurting another human being happen to be. You need to make that decision ahead of time.

I've made mine. I can hurt another person if need be. I don't have to like it, or hope today's the day.

Before I get the question, no, I've never shot someone. I have, however, given someone a permanently disabling injury with my hands. Yes, it was on purpose, and yes, my life was in danger. And yes, had I at the time been living in a state where I could have carried, I would have shot her.

-Mark

 

[nitetrane98]

A life or death encounter is no time to decide what your true feelings on hurting another human being happen to be. You need to make that decision ahead of time.

Well put. I didn't necessarily mean go straight to shooting.

I'm sure that even as oddly structured as this scenario is we all will tend to envision the actual deed somewhat differently. I envision a lot of bluffing and posturing going on before blows fall. Somewhere along the line the threat to at least "kick my ass" has to be made. Elsewise it would be "What would you do if somebody came up and punched you in the nose right out of the blue?" I'm no choir boy and I intend to at least verbally make it known that there will be dire consequences. The idea of performing for the audience has a bit of merit but to try to lay out your defense by quoting sections of the appropriate penal code really have nothing to do with stopping the imminent attack. You cannot reason with a crazy man. Threatening to assault a total stranger for no reason would certainly place one in that category. Mentioned earlier was the fact that once the fists start flying you're basically in mutual combat. You'd better stay in mutual combat and take your ass kicking or prevail over the guy and whip him. But you better not whip him any farther than making him stop whipping you. IOW, you can't teach him the err of his ways.
But I ramble on......

 

[Straight Shooter]

A life or death encounter is no time to decide what your true feelings on hurting another human being happen to be. You need to make that decision ahead of time.

Agreed, but a big chunk of this thread was a debate of whether or not this was a life or death encounter.

You should be able to determine quickly if your going fight or draw and fire. The situation along with your training and instincts should direct you. It's not something you need to ponder at length at the moment.

Also, even if you are in a situation where you should shoot. Who's to say you will be able to?

 

[Fred Fuller]

I believe the statutes have been useful

Once again- statutes are but ONE PART of the law, and sometimes a relatively small part at that. Case law is often far more voluminous and sometimes seems as if it turns parts of the statues on their ear.

If we are going to discuss "THE LAW" then we need to discuss ALL the law, not just part of it. And law in Washington State is not law here in the Old North State, and may differ widely from other jurisdictions as well. In other words- the subject is too broad on the one hand and too specialized on the other for a bunch of non-practicing non-criminal defense attorneys to do it justice.

The subject of statute law is the proverbial dead horse, and please let us not assail it with further blows.

As I say repeatedly here- there is no substitute for a good working knowledge of ALL the law regarding self defense in your own jurisdiction. And no web forum is a proper place to develop such knowledge IMHO, either.

lpl

 

[rainbowbob]

...there is no substitute for a good working knowledge of ALL the law regarding self defense in your own jurisdiction. And no web forum is a proper place to develop such knowledge...

A thread like this does stimulate the thirst and acquisition for more specific knowledge of the laws in one's own state, and to that end is a useful start.

 

[duns]

As I say repeatedly here- there is no substitute for a good working knowledge of ALL the law regarding self defense in your own jurisdiction. And no web forum is a proper place to develop such knowledge IMHO, either.

Lee, I've taken a CHL course and read my state's penal code over and over, and agonized over certain issues, especially the one raised by this OP. (read a few books too.) Where do I go next to acquire the good working knowledge of which you speak?