Friend gets sucker punched by unknown, can we draw weapon?

[M-Cameron]

it is important that you be the first to report the incident. Should someone else report it first, your defense of justification may well be handicapped.

while i agree with that statement....because thats exactly what i would do...

...however, i have heard from a few LEOs that it really doesnt make a difference if you are necessarily the first person to call the police.......

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by M-Cameron: i have heard from a few LEOs that it really doesnt make a difference if you are the first person to call the police.......

It really shouldn't matter. But--consider the realities.

In most metropolitan areas, police calls are rather frequent, and manpower and time are not in excess supply. They need to wrap things up without undue delay. So--if officers are called to investigate a brandishing or aggravated assault charge, and they have descriptions of the suspect and the weapon, and you and your firearm meet those respective descriptions, the evidence that they have have gathered will corroborate the original report, and they will have much of what will be required to pursue charges. You will then present your side of the story, which may well be what just about everyone would say and what the officers already expect, and you will be on the defensive.

If, on the other hand, you are the first to report the incident and you do so immediatly, (1) your description and that of your firearm will have little importance in the case, (2) you do not start out on the defensive, and (3) your credibility "going in" should be at least somewhat enhanced.

See this sticky for more on the subject.

 

[One-Time]

Depends on the situation, in Florida you may use deadly force(a drawn weapon even not fired is deadly force in Fl.) to stop a forcible felony, as well as in fear of your life or the life of another etc

If they had knives bats bottles etc, yes, just hands, well so long as you were afraid for your life or the life of an other youd be GTG as the state has to prove otherwise, the burden of proof is on the state

 

[mljdeckard]

When you are there in the situation, you are the one who knows if you really feel your life is in danger. 'Getting hit by a stranger' is way too broad to say what force, if any, is justified. The person may be acting very aggressively and hit you very hard. It might just be a drunk guy, he hit you, not knowing who you were, didn't hit very hard, and fell over in the process. The second guy certainly doesn't deserve to get shot.

Shooting to defend a third party is a whole new can of worms. There is a VERY short list of third parties for whom I will use deadly force to defend. Lifelong friends and family members who also carry, and we have cross-trained on each others' weapons. I suppose these are also the people I would be likely to be walking down a street with.

 

[thump_rrr]

What's the point of carrying if you can't use it?
If you un holster a gun and present it to stop violence without actually shooting that would seem like an ideal outcome.
Obviously if you shoot someone you will have to defend your actions in court.

A gun is not a magic wand.
It is a tool which can be used in many ways.
Using your thinking a guy punches your friend in the face. It hurts him but it is not debilitating.
At that point there is no indication that your friends life is in danger. If you pull out your gun in an attempt to frighten the other party someone else in his party may pull out a gun and shoot you because they will definitely be in fear for their friends life since you're holding a gun.

A gun should only be used as a last resort. If you pull it out be prepared that you may have to use it and suffer the consequences.

 

[Yarddog]

"[If a reasonable person, from a subjective standpoint, could determine that being drug from their car could lead to immediate serious injury or death, then yes.]"


NO IF's Ands or Buts about it (Kidnapping) is FELONY ; )
Y/D

 

[Owen Sparks]

Any unarmed attack is potentially deadly. Several boxers have been killed in the ring by being punched with 12 oz gloves! A good punch will leave you stunned and totally at the mercy of your attacker who may choose to punch you again and again until you are unconscious, then he may easily stomp on your head and neck until you are DEAD! Do not bet your life on the good intentions of your assailant. Assault is not a sporting event. You did not choose to participate and are under no moral or legal obligations to fight fair or give your attacker a "sporting chance".

 

[fbernar]

Whether you know a person or not does not enter into the legality, but what is actually going on may not be what you believe you see. Would you really want to shoot people who are trying to arrest a felon, or who are defending themselves against a violent criminal actor? Have you considered how your story may not be consistent with all of the other testimony if you have intervened in an act of domestic violence?

Normally a group of people don't jump and assault someone that is walking down a street even if trying to stop a criminal (because he is just walking). Also, how are they defending themselves against a criminal if THEY jumped him?

I'm not asking if I can SHOOT someone if this all occurs. My question, and it is in the topic, is am I justified in DRAWING my weapon to stop violence. Once you are getting punched in the face it is too late. Be honest with yourselves. If you are getting wailed on in the face you are most likely NOT going to be pulling out your gun. Your body is in shock basically once hits are being landed and full connection is occurring.

 

[shiftyer1]

Someone stated random attacks rarely occur, what is considered a random attack. A semi-friend of mine was out with his wife over the weekend and when in the bathroom was attack by 3 guys. It started with a sucker punch and ended with a bunch of boots to the head. Turns out one of them was an ex boyfriend of his little sister. He had never had any words or problem what so ever with the guy.

The days of a fair fight are coming to an end it seems. Please don't convince yourself that it's rare. Or maybe it is, just not around here!

I'm not sure of the legalities but in his situation I think i'd grab whatever I could.

 

[Leadhead]

I guess it makes some sense to discourage people from presenting their guns at every bump in the of life but if someone was coming at me or my friends/family with unprovoked ill intent I'd have a hard time keeping it holstered!

I guess that's when you need to alert the other party that their actions are threatening and ask them to stop.

 

[thefamcnaj]

The gist of it is, you're going to get in trouble if you shoot someone, even if the law clears you.

I don't understand how you could get into trouble, even if the law clears you. Do you mean a civil case brought on you by the family members of the person you shot in self defense?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by thefamcnaj : Normally a group of people don't jump and assault someone that is walking down a street even if trying to stop a criminal (because he is just walking). Also, how are they defending themselves against a criminal if THEY jumped him?

The problem is that if you do not know the individuals and if you do not know what has already transpired, what you may perceive--for example, if you assume that you would be justified in defending someone--may not match reality. Someone attempting to subdue a violent felon for the purpose of making a lawful arrest may look a lot like someone attempting to beat him. Probably more likely is the situation in which one person is striking another, a third person intervenes with the best of intentions, and the first two accuse the third person of having attacked both of them. That happens with some frequency.

I'm not asking if I can SHOOT someone if this all occurs. My question, and it is in the topic, is am I justified in DRAWING my weapon to stop violence.

Yes, that was the question and it is in the topic, but see Post #16, which you must have missed:

Note that in your jurisdiction (as in most) you may not lawfully draw your weapon unless you are justified in actually using deadly force.

That does not mean that you have to fire if you have drawn, because the circumstance that initially justified your use of deadly force, and therefore your presentation of a weapon, may change very quickly after you draw.

You asked about legality, but let's introduce another aspect of reality into the equation. Let's add to your original question, "can I draw if I see someone who is about to shoot someone I do not know"?

Again, the answer may be yes, but it may not be a good idea for you to do so. Consider this: you see some kind of an altercation and you draw your gun with the idea of intervening. . A fourth person who has just arrived on the scene sees you pointing a gun at someone else, and believing that you are about to kill that person or that you are committing a robbery, he shoots you. You might consider it a bit ironic that he just might prevail in a defense of justification, based on his ability to present evidence indicating that he had a reasonable belief that you had constituted an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to someone else, or that he had been trying to prevent a forcible felony..

In most states, the law permits the use of deadly force when there is cause for a reasonable belief that it it is immediately necessary to defend a third person from death or serious bodily harm, or to prevent certain forcible felonies, but there are limitations that vary by jurisdiction. Consult a knowledgeable local attorney.

In only one state does the law specify that it may be permissible to draw a gun to stop violence in some instances in which the use of deadly force is not justified.

If you ever consider using your firearm to defend a third person, make very sure that you know all of the circumstances before doing so, and make sure that you do everything possible to avoid injuring bystanders. Carrying a gun does not make one a sworn officer with the duty to enforce the law and with indemnification against civil liability, and even sworn officers dread having to intervene in cases of domestic violence.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

I Florida:

s 776.012 Fla. Stat.: Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

s 776.08 Fla. Stat.: Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ml&StatuteYear=2010&Title=->2010->Chapter 776

So to answer your question, The sucker punch is physical violence - probably felony battery if there its an all out punch by an adult and consequent injury. However, if after the punch if the guy runs away you are no longer "preventing" anything. On the otherhand the guy is kicking your buddy while he is down you would be preventing aggravated battery. If he took his wallet it would be robbery. You would need to make sure that the perps actions can be one of the above.

If someone tries to enter your car, you would probably be preventing a car jacking, or at least burglary (entering an occupied car with the intent to commit a crime therein), However you would be stupid to draw a gun when you could just drive off, even 124hp beats 124g JHP every time.

You would need to look at Florida case law to determine how these laws apply to specific fact patterns. The opinions are available on at the District Court websites. Links are available here:
http://www.3dca.flcourts.org/opinions/opinions.shtml

 

[fbernar]

Thanks Sebastian. You pretty much cleared it up. THat was ON POINT.

 

[fbernar]

Also thanks to everyone else. Like someone else said, Florida CCWL classes leave more questions UNANSWERED than it does ANSWERED.

God bless you all.

 

[quatin]

I really hate seeing people dismiss hand to hand fighting as "non-lethal". You don't need to get punched a several times to go unconscious, one good hit to the chin, temple, behind the ear or back of the head will put you to sleep. One hard hit to the liver or the kidney will leave you unable to control your body. After that, you're defenseless. You are completely at the mercy of your attacker. He can stomp on your head or pull out a knife. All of this can take place in seconds. Way faster than most people can react and draw a weapon.

If you care for your friend, you should react immediately. If your friend goes down, it's more important that you disable the threat or at least get between your friend and the attacker. Lying on the floor, your friend is one kick away from being paralyzed. I'll restate that if you fire a gun, no matter the situation, expect consequences. Florida allows several non-lethal weapons as another option. With a CCW you are also allowed to carry a collapsible baton. Mace would be the easiest to use without training. Batons would require some training and I don't mean those 1-2 day seminars.

 

[Kleanbore]

posted by Sebastian the Ibis: ...the guy is kicking your buddy while he is down you would be preventing aggravated battery. If he took his wallet it would be robbery. You would need to make sure that the perps actions can be one of the above.

True...and that your action had been immediately necessary (no alternative).

And you would have to be able to provide evidence supporting your account of the event:

• To avoid prosectution, you would have to be able to prove, via a preponderance of the evidence, tha your act had been justified; failing that,
• ...to prevail if you are in fact prosecuted, you would have to get a favorable jury instruction, and convince a jury that there was at least reasonable doubt about whether you were guilty of improper exhibition of a firearm and/or aggravated assault.

Here's the rub: witnesses may not see things your way, and if there is more than one person whom you thought to have been attempting felony, your testimony may not outweigh theirs.

Things things do not take place on a sound stage, with the scene arranged to ensure that an audience sees all the right things, and with instant replay. The outcome will depend entirely upon evidence and testimony that exists after the fact.

 

[fbernar]

I haven't really considered a baton, but it's a great idea.

I hope I do NOT offend anyone, but I grew up in Jacksonville and Orlando and as a Puerto Rican we are raised to think that people that conceal weapons are "punks". However, approaching marriage and soon to have a family I have realized it is not about being tough or a punk. It's about protecting what matters. If you asked me ONE YEAR ago if mace made you a chump I would have said yes. However, as I am getting nearer to my wedding and one day soon a family I have realized that it does not matter what people say. It is about keeping what matters safe above all else.

I really appreciate all the input you all have given me. You are all amazing!

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Depends a lot on the laws and court precedents in the jurisdiction, as much as the actual circumstances of the incident.

The rule taught me was don't threaten or use lethal force unless the circumstance is such that the theoretical "reasonable person" (think a district attorney, grand jury, trial jury or judge in the safety of a courtroom) would agree that they would be in fear of death or greivous bodily harm if they were in your shoes.

If the consequence is just a black eye, bloody lip or bruised ego, the gun stays in the holster.

 

[Buck Snort]

Cancelled.

 

[Buck Snort]

"Someone stated random attacks rarely occur................"

I don't think that's true at all. I think "random" attacks are the rule rather than the exception.

 

[Owen Sparks]

How many foot pounds of force does it take to render you defenceless of some thug decides to stick his thumb you in the eye? Anytime someone tries to put their hands on you in mallice it is a deadly threat and should be treated as such.

YOU DO NOT OWE A CRIMINAL A FAIR FIGHT!

No matter what goofy laws your states legislature passes.

 

[fbernar]

If the consequence is just a black eye, bloody lip or bruised ego, the gun stays in the holster.

The thing is, Carl, that when someone is attacking you you can't ask them, "Wait so are you just going to give me a black eye or busted lip or are you going to break something? Oh, just a black eye ok."

When you are being attacked you are being ATTACKED. You either make the decision to defend yourself from the get go or you don't know what else will happen. Like I and others have said, once an attack begins it becomes a lot harder to draw your weapon.

 

[Owen Sparks]

It is really not that hard to kill a man with your bare hands. All you really have to do is get him stunned with a sucker punch so that you can get him down and apply a few stomps to his neck. Of course there are several more advanced ways but this is the most common. Do not bet your life on the good intentions of your attacker. If he is cold blooded enough to attack you wothout provication he is probably cold blooded enough not to stop until you are DEAD! Some people don't have a concious.

 

[Kleanbore]

Just to introduce a little reality here....the fact that a punch can kill or cause serious bodily harm is not likely to get one very far at all in a defense of justification if one has threatened or used deadly force against someone who was not armed.

For those who aren't aware of it, that legal principle does not stem from votes in "liberal" or "antigun" or "goofy" state legislatures; rather, it is rooted in many centuries of tested common law that formed the original basis of the law in all of our states but one. George Washington was bound by those laws both before and after Virginia's independence from Great Britain. For that matter, that principle actually goes back thousands of years into Roman law and into eras preceding same.

As a matter of fact, long-standing common law also held that, to be justified in the use of deadly force in self defense, the actor would first have to attempt to retreat "to the wall" before using deadly force. That requirement preceded the advent of firearms, of course, and many, but by no means all, of our states now have laws that eliminate the duty to retreat. Florida is among them.

So, if one does threaten or use deadly force and his assailant(s) turn out to be unarmed, what are his prospects? Well, he has two possible defenses: he can try to show that he had reason to believe that the attackers did have a weapon, or he can try to show that the number or size or comparative physical abilities provided the attackers with a favorable disparity of force.

Read more about that in the section on Ability in this.

The disparity of force argument may not be an easy one to win. There is a true story about an Arizona man who was attacked unprovoked by three people who were not armed; he tried to escape, though Arizona has a stand your ground law; he finally drew and fired as he was being brutally beaten. Larry Hickey ended up in jail for some months and in two criminal trials before finally being freed.

Read about it here.

That story will shed some light on this from Post #36: "I don't understand how you could get into trouble, even if the law clears you."

Larry Hickey was ultimately cleared, but he had more trouble than I have had in my lifetime.