There was recently a few armed robberies in the town I frequent. The guy comes up to you in a parking lot as you are exiting your car and demands your wallet / purse and then leaves. In one instance he stole the victims car.
So, if that happens to me, and with my wife and kid present, should I attempt to draw my gun and shoot the attacker? Or give them my wallet and her purse?
I used to think draw and shoot would be the correct answer. But after reading this forum, about all the possible legal consequences, I’m thinking that giving up my wallet is the correct answer. And only if he becomes more violent, say, in trying to kidnap my wife or child, then should I commit to self defense via firearm.
I do try to be situationally aware of this sort of thing, but I think it could still happen.
You absolutely, positively, CANNOT get a definitive answer to this with respect to precise actions.
This is because your actions are going to be based on the totality of circumstances, which are going to vary from second to second. In fact, they may vary so much from one second to the next that the instant you made a legitimate decision to use deadly force may have change to the point where it's no longer required by law. We're talking about time scales where human reaction times become a significant factor.
Consider a scenario where an attacker presents a credible deadly threat to you and your family. You make the decision to draw and fire and as you're doing this the attacker drops his weapon, turns, and starts to run away. Do you shoot or not? Are you able, in fact, to stop what you put into motion at all, simply based on human reaction times and the stress of the situation?
There are so many variables to this that each and every one of us here could armchair quarterback this into oblivion and present whatever circumstances we see fit which would warrant whatever actions we take.
What you NEED to know, first and foremost, are what your jurisdictional laws say about deadly force and when it's justified and not justified.
Then you need to learn how NOT to approach any self-defense scenario with the attitude of "how can I justify the use of deadly force". I say this because there seem to be far too many people who focus on what would give them a legitimate reason (excuse) to use deadly force as an absolute.
There ARE no absolutes simply because circumstances may be so variable as any given scenario progresses.
What is "deadly force" in the first place? Way back in the 80s when I first entered the Navy, the definition I learned was:
"Deadly force is that amount of force which I know, or should know, will cause serious bodily harm or death, to be used as a last resort when all lesser actions have failed or cannot reasonably be employed".
Now, that was in the military...but civilian laws very closely parallel this with the major difference being not in the actual definition, but WHEN it's authorized to be used. Civilian life is NOT military life, therefore there are a few aspects of application which do not apply to to civilians. But the definition remains.
You will find very few statutes (if any) which state in plain words that deadly force is absolutely applicable under (precise circumstances). Essentially, you have to be in fear serious bodily harm or losing your life (or that of someone else) for the use of deadly force to be justified.
And guess what? Though you may make that judgement yourself under the circumstances as they play out, YOU are not the one who get to decide if they were correct. You will be judged by how other's see things, based on whatever evidence and testimony may be gathered, and under whatever the jurisdictional laws say. This is where the "reasonable person" part comes in with respect to the law...would a reasonable person, under the same circumstances, come to the conclusion that deadly force was, indeed, justified?
Since you're from Kentucky, take at look at your state statute 503.050 on this matter (below, with link to a legal site you can read):
503.050 Use of physical force in self-protection -- Admissibility of evidence of prior acts of domestic violence and abuse.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055.
(3) Any evidence presented by the defendant to establish the existence of a prior act or acts of domestic violence and abuse as defined in KRS 403.720 by the person against whom the defendant is charged with employing physical force shall be admissible under this section.
(4) A person does not have a duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly physical force.
https://suhrelawlouisville.com/kentucky-self-defense-laws/
ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER:
The use of deadly force MAY, in fact, be very clearly legally justified under a given set of circumstances...but your actions to employ deadly force MAY also endanger others or make the scenario worse.
The decision is ultimately YOURS to make. We cannot make it for you, nor can we presume to do so.
And while this may be somewhat redundant, the adage of "an ounce of preventive is worth a pound of cure" definitely applies. It is far, far better to apply skills that work to avoid such encounters than to have to actually employ that ultimate last resort of deadly force.
We carry should we NEED to employ such force. But we work to AVOID that need wherever possible.
