Don't Forget NON-Deadly Force!!

[Cosmoline]

A recent thread on this subject has reminded me of the old saying that if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.* I think there's a real tendency among us to rely too much on our single point strategy for self defense. This can have horrific legal consequences, since you are generally not allowed to use deadly force to defend against a non-deadly threat. And for better or worse, courts tend to view a "mere punch" as non-deadly. Both courts and juries alike are skeptical of a fistfight than ends with one man shooting the other, as well. In a discussion of hypotheticals with one of our bench's more experienced judges I was surprised to hear him discount any possible use of a firearm to defend against punches. Personally if I was wearing a robe I wouldn't be so quick to come to that conclusion but I'm not. Plus I think his view represents the conventional wisdom of DA's and judges across the land. If a man gets shot who isn't carrying a weapon, the de facto burden shifts to the shooter to show how he could have possibly been facing deadly force. The notion is deeply ingrained in the national mind. So deeply you can hear John Wayne give voice to it in Howard Hawk's "Rio Bravo": "Man gets shot that's got a gun, there's room for reasonable doubt. Man gets shot that hasn't got a gun, what would you call it?"

Now neither Hawks nor Wayne's word is law, but you have to assume the juries will have such a principle buried in their minds. I won't get into more specifics as the law in each state needs to be read and understood on its own. Read your self defense laws, both in code and as applied in the cases.

Beyond this, do NOT FORGET that you have a viable option of using non-deadly force in self defense. You are generally justified in using such force under a far broader range of circumstances than deadly force. Even if you're old and out of shape, a cane swipe to the groin or some knees will often give you some distance. The goal should always be to get away from a punchup, of course, but you can use various non-lethal means to do this. The range of personal defense sprays available should not be overlooked. And you can bet the juries won't overlook them. You need to think twice before adopting a strategy that if anyone "throws a punch at you" you'll draw iron. Give them a dose of mace and call the cops. The legal problems you may face in that situation are fastly less serious than the ones that can arise from blowing some idiot away who keeps trying to hit someone with a firearm.

*In full disclosure, my own personal history of shooting down trees with shotgun slugs gives me a certain inside knowledge of this problem.

 

[Grandpa Shooter]

Well stated! When I was co-teaching concealed carry classes we always stressed the need to retreat, avoid, encounter, and only as an absolute last option "go to the gun". Way too many "heroes" think they can just shoot because of a slur, verbal threat, or attempted robbery. Judges and juries need to decide upon what they are presented with, and increasingly side with the person shot, not the shooter.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Wait, a gun isn't the be all, end all solution for all of life's woes? Those kids on the interweb lied to me.

 

[REOIV]

To me when it is time to draw a gun is when you feel you have to use a weapon to solve a problem.

IE if you feel it is time to bring a knife, hammer, baton etc out, a gun will work as well. Since they are all deadly weapons. Hence the expression don't bring a knife to a gun fight. If you're pulling a knife on someone they can pull a gun on you.

That said you only use deadly weapons when meeting the same level of force and danger.

A funny note to this is my Great Grandfather (REO I ) was a professional boxer in the early 1900s (fought Fred Fulton in 1913 and then lied about his age saying he was young enough to serve and fought in WWI) and because of his history as a boxer and soldier he was told that his fists were considered deadly weapons. The gist was if he got into a fight in a bar etc and used his fists he could be charged with using a deadly weapon.

To remedy this he carried a .25acp pocket pistol from then on and would use it to pistol whip people instead of punching them since hitting people with a teeny tiny pocket pistol was considered less deadly than punching them with the fists of a 'trained boxer.' It just cracks me up because he always wore a hat, suit and tie no matter what and then I'd hear stories about how this is the bar where his friend 'bit so and so's ear off' and I'd just do a double take to imagine guys in suits just fighting like scruffy dirty bikers.

Gotta love the logic of the 1910s and 1920s.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Cosmoline, as I said in an earlier thread, that all depends on the circumstances and the state you live in and how the laws are written. I agree that only reasonable force should be used, but to give you an example, just recently here in Alabama a 81 yo lady found a homeless in his underwear in her laundry room washing his clothes. She shot him with a handgun when he came toward her. The man runs off and caught later and taken to the hospital. His is arrested later for first-degree burglary.

 

[Cosmoline]

I agree everyone should read and know how their own states deal with this issue. But you're likely to get more leeway both under law and in practice if you're an ancient woman shooting some bum in your washroom than if you're a grown man doing the same thing. An 81 year old woman has to do something really terrible before most states bother to put her in prison for it. IIRC prisoners are not able to get medicare, so that means mongo $$$ for the state. An elderly woman in custody could cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. Likewise if you have pancreatic cancer you might be let off the hook unless you get better.

Moral of the story--don't make old women angry with you!

 

[ServiceSoon]

good advice

 

[mekender]

ive always said, that the only reason to carry a gun is to stop a very bad situation from getting even worse... that being said, there are countless cases of people getting killed by someone that was just using bare hands... so just because someone isnt brandishing a weapon does not mean they are not deadly....

having been a food delivery driver for many years, i know this much... every single time i have encountered a potentially dangerous situation, there were many warning signs long before violence would have occurred....

 

[TCB in TN]

There is no situation that I can think of that I would use another weapon / none lethal force multiplyer over my gun if I had to use every one. I will attempt to leave, avoid the conflict to begin with, and when I say I am going I am seriously getting out of there. The only way that it will not happen is if I am then stopped from doing so. At that point I have certainly been threatened and my use of my weapon to stop their attack and to "persaude" the other party to cease would seem to be pretty much a no brainer. BTW my major concern with your point is that in very many cases the time spent for the thought process to decide am I going to draw pepper spray or my carry weapon, may very well be to long for me to successfully do either. IMHO where self defense is concerned KISS is just much better.

 

[ilbob]

Best solution is to run as fast as you can away from trouble.

I know that is not all that satisfying, but using force is going to get someone hurt, and it is just as likely to be you as the other guy.

 

[MachIVshooter]

A recent thread on this subject has reminded me of the old saying that if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.* I think there's a real tendency among us to rely too much on our single point strategy for self defense.

I agree, but with a slightly different take. I think most of us who speak of using a firearm in SD are imagining much graver circumstances than the average person thinks of when thinking self defense. I know that I, for one, don't think of needing my gun in the course of an altercation over a parking spot or somesuch, but rather being in a convenience store when a couple of strung-out hoods rob the cashier at gunpoint and threaten all of the customers.

So I would say it's not so much that we rely solely on a firearm for defense, but rather because we're better equipped to deal with worst case scenarios, that's what we tend to envision.

Just my $0.02

 

[Cosmoline]

At that point I have certainly been threatened and my use of my weapon to stop their attack and to "persaude" the other party to cease would seem to be pretty much a no brainer.

It depends on what kind of "attack" you're talking about. If someone is just muscling up to you and blocking your way out, do you think you'd be justified in shooting him?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Any reasonable sane person would/should always attempt to avoid a confrontation. But there can always come a time when its unavoidable. When that time comes if you are carrying you had better make the decision quick as to what amount of force and what type to use. And yes, NON-LETHAL FORCE should always be your first option. In addition, you should have prepared yourself prior to getting your CWL that if it becomes necessary to draw your weapon to protect yourself, a family member, friend, or innocent by-stander that you may face legal problems. That comes with the responsiblity of carrying a gun!

 

[mljdeckard]

The man who taught my CCW class did something that I think, in retrospect, was wise. He completely skipped 'escalation of force'. It really isn't possible, in a 2-3 hour class, to properly explain everything one needs to know to carry legally and go through the details of escalation. He explained a simple ethic: "You can use deadly force to protect yourself against serious bodily injury or death. Deadly force is the ONLY force. You should not commit to violence unless you commit to killing. Therefore, if it's not worth killing over, it's not worth fighting over at all."

In the broad view, when you are training people to use deadly force, this absolutely makes sense. I have conditioned myself to the idea that if I pull and shoot someone, I had better be able to convince a jury that there was absolutely no other option. (Stand your ground laws notwithstanding.) If I am in a physical scuffle, and all I am reasonably facing is a broken tooth, a black eye, maybe a cracked rib, and the violence ends abruptly, there is not sufficient reason to kill. If there is no reason to kill, there is no reason to pull in the first place. Everything leading up to the deadly force mark is grey area. Do what you have to, but understand that a story explained in a well-lit courtroom never sounds the same as it did on a dark street.

In a thread here, I got into a legal sparring match recently over a kid (I am assuming he was too young to get a carry permit in Utah) who was hanging out in a park in downtown SLC late at night, with a bowie knife on his belt. Two weird acting guys ran towards him, making weird howling noises at him. He thought they were going to tackle him or something, but they didn't. As they were walking away, he showed his knife to them. Did he show good judgement by going to a place he believed dangerous enough to carry a giant knife late at night? No. Did he seek to avoid the contact? No. Did he warn them to stay away? No. Did he flash a weapon at people who were no longer threatening him? YES. Catastrophic judgement. He is lucky.

I have some training in martial arts, although I would not say I'm an expert of any kind. I am in good enough physical shape to be in the army. In addition to a pistol, I ALWAYS carry a knife and a phone. But going back to the old woman example, my 84 year-old grandmother really doesn't have a lot of options for running or fighting. If the options for self-defense are to be universal, what applies to me must also apply to her.

Thus far in life, looking to keep my life violence free, picking good people to hang out with, good places to go, always looking for a back door, parking at the place easiest to drive out of, not letting strangers get close to me, and allowing my limited southern Utah educated brain to yell at me every once in a while has kept me alive AND out of jail.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

A recent thread on this subject has reminded me of the old saying that if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.* I think there's a real tendency among us to rely too much on our single point strategy for self defense.

Yes, and everytime you see a person her post that they feel defenseless without a gun (especially in 'no guns allowed' threads), then you know that is a person with a single point strategy for self defense. I always like how gun people consider themselves so much smarter than the rest of the human population because they are smart enough to carry a gun, and then you realize that there is a large percentage of them who don't practice regularly, who don't know their local laws, who don't have any alternatives for self defense, etc. We do have a lot of unprepared and/or ignorant gun carriers.

 

[Thumper]

I don't want to name any names, but we also have a fair share of physical cowards.

Edited to add: Very good thread, Cosmo.

 

[Funderb]

Most guns, even sidearms, make good clubs when you think shooting someone will make you go to prison. Of course your neighborhood liberal jury may still find that it is still "assault with a deadly weapon." ha.

 

[grampster]

I usually walk a couple miles each day. I fashioned a nice walking stick out of some local hardwood. It's light enough to be comfortable to carry and heavy enough to be a fine defensive weapon. Most of the time I don't carry my pistol as the threat level where I live, a rural township and a lake and river resort area,
is not high.

A stick like like mine is a fine deterrent if a couple of local mopes were to consider stopping there car and confronting me. It will also serve me well if confronted by a loose dog. My biggest concern, however, are the local single women who are constantly coming on to me. I think perhaps I'll get some mace to solve that problem.