Deadly force authorized

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Doug.38PR

member
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
338
I was talking with someone over in Louisiana the other day who told me they took the CHL course but chose not to send out for the license. He said that it had to do with the way law was written (at least in that state).

He said that if two unarmed men attacked him on the street and tried to beat him with their fists, he couldn't use his gun unless they pulled some kind of weapon.

He said also that if 10 men were beating up a little old lady in the parkinglot he couldn't pull his gun and stop them either.

Said that cops couldn't do this either.

Now...in Texas (as I understand it) you can do this....IF you feel your life is in danger or the life of someone else is in danger.

Regardless of what the law says, I don't think I'd be able to just not pull my gun in either of such situations. Furthurmore, though I would likely go to court, I don't see how there would be a jury in the world that would convict me or any cop.

If someone is attacking on the street beating you up...they are threatening your life. Period. They are willing to beat you (possibly to death) and will certainly kill you if they overcome you and find their way to your gun :eek: (in which case it is too late for you to pull it).

If 10 men are beating up an old lady, they are threatening her life.

For the police: If you were faced with either of these two situations, how could you not pull your gun. If you were attacked by two men (assuming you didn't have mace or tazer), how would you not pull your gun? You know you can't overcome them, and if they overcome you they are 99.9 percent sure going to kill you. Likewise, if you see an old lady being beaten in the parkinglot, you surely aren't going to pull your cell phone or jump on your radio and call for backup and just wait for them to arrive to pick up the poor old lady's body.

for CHLers: How do laws such as this (if the law actually does mean this) affect what you will do? (theoretically)
 
I am not familar with LA's deadly force laws, but here in CO, I could (and would) use deadly force in all of the situations you mention. When I took my CHL class (and follow on classes), we were all hammered with the following. Your gun is a deadly force object, it's only to be used in a deadly force situation. Someone with a weapon, someone MUCH bigger then you, or multiple subjects are the big "yes" deadly force situations. A drunk frat boy talking trash doesn't count (in my town, thats a common occurance).
 
A copy of my post in the "unarmed bad guy" thread, but it is also pertainant here:

"Let me give you TWO examples. One warrents deadly force, one doesn't.

1. I was confronted by a guy my size who was upset with me for something I'd said to his friend a while ago. He punched me in the face. scuffle-scuffle-scuffle... Long story short, I ended up losing a fight. I could easily have saved myself a shattered tooth and a trip to the doctor by pulling a weapon, but that wouldn't have been legal because he didn't have the means to give me concern for my life.

2. I tried to talk to a man nearly twice my size (looked like the hulk, if he was native american.. not to mention he was VERY drunk) who was holding my friend by the throat and about to throw him off a balcony, and convince him to put the guy down. He did, and immediately put a nice "chuck norris" roundhouse kick to my chest, knocking me down (and the wind out) and quite a ways away from him. I stood up clenching my chest with my right hand, and reaching a flattend palm out with the other in a "stop" motion and said, "hey, this isn't my fight, back off"... *WHAM* Another, this time to the stomach, and smashing me into the wall behind me. I sank down, but he wasn't done, so I forced myself back up, and backpeddled, at this point fearing for my life (this man could easily have beaten me to death, and it looked like that was going to happen because he was too drunk to know when to stop and ENORMOUS). I grabbed my concealed handgun from my hip, and pointed it at his head, and again told him to stop. He was about ten feet away, and hesitantly took another step toward me. Immediately, I cocked the hammer and took a half step toward him, and with more volume and authority repeated "BACK AWAY!" This time he complied. I made haste to my car and left, and my friend retreated from the scene.

Case 1 wouldn't have justified the use of a handgun. Case 2 did. Thank God I didn't have to shoot him. The only reason I hesitated and gave him so much of a chance was that this happened at a motel, and his drunk wife and 2 year old sleeping son were only a few doors away. I didn't want to kill the man in front of his family."
 
Physical beating is a threat to life. Plain and simple. That includes both of your situations expvideo. While you may not have had to actually use deadly force, you would have been justified in showing deadly force in both situations. There is no such thing as "just a fight". You may end up with just a broken nose, or you may die. But halfway into the fight is the wrong time to realize that you're in over your head. I'm glad you got through both situations OK, but for the first one, I think you didn't handle it the best way. IMO, you should have not gotten in the fight. Preferably by leaving, and if it comes to it, drawing. But a fight is a threat to your life. Using deadly force and drawing are not the same thing. Like in your second situation, you drew, but did not fire. You didn't use deadly force. You should him that you could. And that would have worked for situation 1 as well, and could have saved your life. As it turns out, luck saved your life that time. It may not the next.

And no matter what the law says, life is more important. I'm not going to risk getting beaten to death, and I won't let others get beaten to death. That's my stand, and the law can either be with or against that. If a draw and save someone's life, I'll do the time. But I won't watch someone get assaulted just to save my own ### from legal trouble. And I'm not going to let myself get beaten to death either.
 
I have to disagree with you, DRMMR02.

In situation 1, I was not affraid for my life, as it was clear to me that the young man was just angry and wanted to hit me. It was a judgement call, and I was pretty sure that he was not inteding to severly hurt me, just to have a scuffle. I also noted that he was my size and unarmed. That takes away "Ability" from the 3 steps leading to a justified self defense shooting. And I would have backed away, as suggested, but I was cornered. Yes, I could have flashed a gun, but I didn't feel he was threatening enough. I don't draw a weapon if I'm not willing to use it. In situation 2 I would have used it if it came to that, but fortunately it didn't. Situation 1 didn't justify deadly force.

It's as simple as this: Situation 2 had "ability" to cause serious bodily harm or death, and situation 1 didn't. While Display of force is not use of force, it is brandishing, and not worth the legal battle. I'd rather a few bruises.
 
Well I'm not gonna let myself get in a fight and then realize after I am getting my ### kicked that maybe I should have stopped it before it began.
 
Just getting my ### kicked doesn't justify me killing someone. I can handle loosing a fight against someone who's just standing up for his friend. He wasn't there to kill me, or to seriously hurt me. He just wanted to stand up for his friend. Under different circumstances, I may have flashed a gun, but this was just some teenage kid who had a strong will to be a friend to someone else. He was doing what he believed was the right thing, and I had no reason to believe that a person fighting me for moral reasons was going to lack the morals to stop when the fight was over.

Now if I was confronted in an alley for no reason by someone who had never met me... that's a different story.

I wasn't in a position to leave the fight, or I would have. I would always recommend leaving. But just becuase someone plans to hit you doesn't mean you HAVE to pull a gun on them. If the fight escalates to the point where I am going to be at his "mercy", I'm going to stop the fight by displaying a firearm. However, I do know how to fight, and I know how to assess a situation.

Perhaps I didn't state the event clearly enough, but if you were there, you would understand that some over-oppinionated kid that wants to stand up for his friend is NOT a threat to my life. It was a serious fist fight, but at no point was I concerned for my life, so it did not warrent a gun.

Legally, I suppose it may have been ok. Depending on the judge. But morally, I'm not going to pull a gun to avoid a punch in the face from some kid. I have my pride.
 
If you can articulate that you were reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury, then you should be OK (speaking from a Texas law perspective). I say "should", because you never know what 12 crazy jurors may do.
 
If you can articulate that you were reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury, then you should be OK (speaking from a Texas law perspective). I say "should", because you never know what 12 crazy jurors may do.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that you would find 12 people willing to believe that a healthy adult male was reasonably in fear for his life from a mere punch in the nose, anywhere in this country ... even in Texas.

pax
 
I was talking with someone over in Louisiana the other day who told me they took the CHL course but chose not to send out for the license. He said that it had to do with the way law was written (at least in that state).

He said that if two unarmed men attacked him on the street and tried to beat him with their fists, he couldn't use his gun unless they pulled some kind of weapon.

He said also that if 10 men were beating up a little old lady in the parkinglot he couldn't pull his gun and stop them either.

Said that cops couldn't do this either.
Click to expand...

Even if the wrong information was true, your friend has some serious reasoning issues. So because he thinks he could not use a gun against unarmed people, he refused to send in his paperwork to get a license? That just doesn't even make sense. I wonder if maybe he realized that he could not quality for a CHL in LA and cooked up a dummy reason why he would not send in his paperwork.
 
I'm not talking about 2 guys "fighting" for a few minutes and having a few beers afterwards. I mean a real "guys waiting for you outside a bar in an alley wanting to really kick you ###" fight. A true beat-down. Head trauma is a serious thing. And a real fight most certainly can be life threatening.
 
a real fight most certainly can be life threatening.
Click to expand...
Sure. But it might not be. And the way the law is written in most states is that you have to fear you'll be killed or crippled, before you can use lethal force to defend yourself.

It's not reasonable to believe you'll be killed by a punch in the mouth. And you probably won't convince a jury you knew you'd fall and hit your head and die, if you were punched in the eye.
There is no such thing as "just a fight". You may end up with just a broken nose, or you may die. But halfway into the fight is the wrong time to realize that you're in over your head
Click to expand...
The law says there is such a thing as "just a fight". If halfway through the fight, you become sure your opponent is going to beat you so bad you'll be killed or crippled, that's when you can draw your gun. But it's much better to avoid fighting entirely......
 
Well DirtyBrad...

Well DirtyBrad, it can make you nervous all you want. It solved the situation and everyone involved is still alive with no injuries except to egos. So I wasn't wrong in my actions, and I won't be picked apart by armchair commandos a year and half later. This ISN'T the point of the thread. I cocked the hammer while the gun was pointed at him and restated my serious request for him to back down. If that isn't your way of doing things fine, but don't accuse me of making a mistake, just because of what "could have happened". The situation was resolved with no blood spilt. That means that whatever I did was the right thing to do, and changing anything about it would be very unlogical.
The resolution is good, so do you really need to question my judgement?! I am a very level headed person with a LOT of practice with my weapon. I know what I'm doing, and I'd appriciate it if you didn't question my actions and decisions, just as I don't question yours.
But if we're going to judge eachother's tactical choices... If you aren't sure about cocking a hammer while the gun is pointed at someone, then I seriously doubt your resolve when it comes to firing a gun at another person. Good trigger control along with a quality firearm make this a fine choice in tactics. And again, it resolved the situation so please mind your own business and try not to tell me how to do mine.
 
First, Doug, the person you talked to was absolutely wrong about the laws concerning deadly force in Louisiana. The actual laws are available on packing.org if you would like to look. As stated by Lonnie, recent Louisiana laws have only strengthened the lawful defender of life's position in court, if charges are even brought by the DA.

One of the more recent incidents of a defensive killing, by an armed citizen who was not being attacked himself, but who was defending another individual, occured in Baton Rouge. No charges were brought against the defender, and the DA no-billed the case. This is one of many such incidents in Louisiana.

I strongly suspect the person you were talking to either realized during the CCW class that he could not clear the background check, or perhaps he just did not have enough incentive to finish the requirements to get a CCW. Regardless of the reason, he is wrong about Louisiana law, and his credibility on the matter is nil. These are the kind of bozos that I just nod at and smile. They are not worth arguing with, and I won't waste my breath.

Regardless......Here's my take on the matter. If you truly feel your life is in danger, no matter where you are, even if you are in a San Francisco bath house, you should defend your life with any and all means at your disposal. This includes firearms, whether they are legal or not. Why? Because the law will not matter to you if you are dead! If you are truly in fear of your life, your life will matter more to you than the law. If it does not, then you are not in fear of your life, or you need a mental evaluation by a trained professional.

This does not mean shoot first and worry about it later. It does mean that your perspective of life and legalities changes when you are inches away from death. People who have never experienced that have little appreciation for it. It is similar to driving down the highway and suddenly having an 18 wheeler come at you head on in your lane. You will swerve to avoid it and save your life, whether it is legal to do so or not. Afterwards you will not argue about traffic laws, but rather be grateful for going home instead of to the morgue.

expvideo,
While I cannot agree with you, your actions, or your rationalizations, I will not pick you apart after the fact. You should do that yourself. The fact that everyone lived is indeed an empirical indicator of success. That is true. It is not, however, an indicator that everything done was correct, nor is it an indicator that things could not be done better. There are times when everything works out well despite what we do, kind of Murphy's Law in reverse. We are not always that lucky though.

Actual defensive encounters are intensely personal things that should not have to be defended. When we post our accounts on a public forum though, we must expect that they will be scrutinized and questioned. This is often the best way for others, as well as ourselves, to learn. To benefit from the debate, we must get past the sting of repudiation.

I am not going to ask that the questioning of your accounts cease, but I am going to ask that it be done in a gentlemanly fashion with no personal attacks from either side. I will try to withold my opinion unless you ask for it.

HB1097
 
That seems like a very reasonable reaction to what I said.
Click to expand...
Again with the criticizing. Can you please leave it alone? Besides, your comment was uncalled for, small as it may have been, you attacked my judgement and experience in handling firearms. That's not a nice thing to do on a firearm forum. This thread is about justified or unjustified use of force. If you want to criticise me, start a "Things expvideo should do differently" thread. Right or not, it has nothing to do with this thread.
 
Quote:
If you can articulate that you were reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury, then you should be OK (speaking from a Texas law perspective). I say "should", because you never know what 12 crazy jurors may do.

I do not believe that you would find 12 people willing to believe that a healthy adult male was reasonably in fear for his life from a mere punch in the nose, anywhere in this country ... even in Texas.

I wasn't saying that in response to any situation presented in the thread. I was paraphrasing what the law says about use of deadly force in general. How it is applied is really up to the DA and a jury.
 
"I also noted that he was my size and unarmed."

FYI, my friend weighs ~130lb and is 5'4" and he could kill me, while unarmed, with a quickness, though i am more than twice his weight and have 8" of height on him. Assuming that someone who (a) is your size or smaller and/or (b) appears to be unarmed is actually not a threat to your life is IMO a big mistake. Not to say that i'd have shot him in your situation...just saying, size and appearance of being armed is only an appearance and does not account for hidden weapons or deadly training that you can't see at a glance.
 
I apologize. I lost my mind utterly there and made a comment about something said in a thread that wasn't 100% related to the original topic. I swear I will never do that again.
 
How does one know the fight will stop with a punch to the nose? How does one know this? It seems to me if someone attacks you then your life is in danger unless you just came from a crystal ball reading. The use of force in both instances is just in my little old eyes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
The minimum threat level to present your gun?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
Whitewolf 508
W
C
  • Locked
Deadly force against "unarmed" attackers
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
5K
Fred Fuller
F
P
  • Locked
Getting beat up, do you draw?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
TallPine
T
Skribs
  • Locked
19 year old almost attacked by police impersonators
Replies
13
Views
646
Kaeto
Kaeto
R
  • Locked
Castle Doctine: You can, but should you?
2 3 4 5
Replies
112
Views
3K
Fred Fuller
F
Back
Top