how your physical condition affects the legality of using deadly force to defend yourself

[waterhouse]

Yeah. Considering the number one murder weapon in the world is bare fists.

Surprising as it may be to some, the US is only a small part of "the world" and a rather unique one in many respects.

Do you have a cite that bare fists are the number one murder weapon in the world?

 

[Thibaut]

When it comes to killing humans, nothing comes close to the little fly. The female Anopheles. 725,000 in 2014 (give or take a year).

 

[FL-NC]

I'm over half a century old, with a clean record. Numerous ailments and injuries- in fact, to the point that the VA has declared me 100% permanent and totally disabled, and the DMV gave me a license tag to reflect this. I also have a great lawyer. Otherwise, I train accordingly and hope for the best.

 

[Kleanbore]

So the 672 murder victims killed in 2018 by unarmed assailants using personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc) should have been felonized if they had defended themselves with a deadly weapon and survived?

No.

I think that you are talking disparity of force here. Using a greater level of force is going to have to be justified at some point, as will identifying victim versus aggressor. Physically disabled or not.

Size, strength, disparate combative skills (as long as the defender knows of them in advance) and numbers can justify the use of deadly force wen necessary to defend against unarmed attackers, as long as all of the other requirements for the legal defense of self defense are met.

Do you have a cite that bare fists are the number one murder weapon in the world?

Very unlikely, I think.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Bronze allows access to the three most recent posts of the day.

I guess he's now counting linked podcasts as "posts", there was one a few days ago that looked interesting but was only available as audio.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Size, strength, disparate combative skills (as long as the defender knows of them in advance) and numbers can justify the use of deadly force wen necessary to defend against unarmed attackers, as long as all of the other requirements for the legal defense of self defense are met.

In the case of the older man on the Chicago train attacked by a mob, the mob members were much younger, outnumbered him seriously, and one of them actually used the horizontal bar in the car to hang from so he could kick the victim in the face.

 

[Kleanbore]

In the case of the older man on the Chicago train attacked by a mob, the mob members were much younger, outnumbered him seriously, and one of them actually used the horizontal bar in the car to hang from so he could kick the victim in the face.

I'm not familiar with the case.

Did he meat all of the requirements of a legal defense of self defense?

Did he use, or threaten to use, deadly force to defend himself?

Was his right to do so denied or questioned?

If so, why?

 

[old lady new shooter]

I'm not familiar with the case.

Did he meat all of the requirements of a legal defense of self defense?

Did he use, or threaten to use, deadly force to defend himself?

Was his right to do so denied or questioned?

If so, why?

I don't know the answers to those questions, only what I read at the Fox link I posted. There is video there of a lot of the attack that might be able to be used to answer the questions. The victim does not appear to have used or threatened deadly force to defend himself.

If deadly force would not have been considered appropriate self-defense in that incident, what would have been the appropriate response of a lone older person being physically attacked (even if only with fists and feet) by a large number of much younger assailants in an environment with no possibility of escape?

 

[Kleanbore]

I don't know the answers to those questions, only what I read at the Fox link I posted...The victim does not appear to have used or threatened deadly force to defend himself.

I'm afraid don't see any connection between that incident and the subject at hand.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I'm afraid don't see any connection between that incident and the subject at hand.

Post #8 by member Kendahl stated that this case was discussed by Andrew Branco, and it is the one I was unsuccessful in accessing.

Disability isn't a blank check to do whatever it takes to defend yourself. Recently, an elderly man was beaten on Chicago public transportation first by a pickpocket he caught in the act and then by a mob. Andrew Branca discusses the incident in detail on his website (www.lawofselfdefense.com). You must be a member to get access but the bronze level is free. Although the pickpocket is bigger than the old man, several decades younger, and has him down on the floor in a position of complete disadvantage, Branca maintains that the old man still wasn't permitted to respond with deadly force. He has stated on many occasions that you can't use deadly force to defend against a less than deadly attack. The implication is that, if you can't save yourself without resorting to deadly force, you are obligated to take the beating. Therefore, it's important to have a less than deadly alternative such as martial arts or pepper spray.

If deadly force would not have been considered appropriate self-defense in that incident, what would have been the appropriate response of a lone older person being physically attacked (even if only with fists and feet) by a large number of much younger assailants in an environment with no possibility of escape?

 

[Kleanbore]

Okay, I've found and watched the video.

To say "although the pickpocket is bigger than the old man, several decades younger, and has him down on the floor in a position of complete disadvantage, Branca maintains that the old man still wasn't permitted to respond with deadly force." is incomplete and therefore misleading.

First, no one is or is not "permitted" to use deadly force in the event. It is a matter of what is determined after the event.

Now, here's the scoop.

• When the sleeping man awoke to find his pocket being picked (a property crime), he was surely entitled to use non deadly physical force--which he did.
• When he was pulled from a chair and pinned down, things were a lot more dicey. But the man did not, at that moment, face an immediate threat of deadly force. But Branca says that he would have arguably been justified in using a higher level of less than lethal defensive force--such as OC spray. That, by the way might well have stopped the attack altogether.
• As soon as the man was being subjected to a deadly force attack, he most certainly would have been justified in the use of deadly force to defend himself.

And hopefully, the criminal justice system would have so found.

Of course, he would have had a lot of difficulties afterward. He would have been a pariah, and most likely, impoverished.

The lesson? DON'T SLEEP IN THE SUBWAY!

Had the man been awake and obviously alert, it is doubtful that anyone would have reached into his pocket in the first place.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Lesson drawn:
Unless you are in your safe place, stay awake, alert and aware of your surroundings & of any possible threats.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Okay, I've found and watched the video.

To say "although the pickpocket is bigger than the old man, several decades younger, and has him down on the floor in a position of complete disadvantage, Branca maintains that the old man still wasn't permitted to respond with deadly force." is incomplete and therefore misleading.

First, no one is or is not "permitted" to use deadly force in the event. It is a matter of what is determined after the event.

Now, here's the scoop.

• When the sleeping man awoke to find his pocket being picked (a property crime), he was surely entitled to use non deadly physical force--which he did.
• When he was pulled from a chair and pinned down, things were a lot more dicey. But the man did not, at that moment, face an immediate threat of deadly force. But Branca says that he would have arguably been justified in using a higher level of less than lethal defensive force--such as OC spray. That, by the way might well have stopped the attack altogether.
• As soon as the man was being subjected to a deadly force attack, he most certainly would have been justified in the use of deadly force to defend himself.

And hopefully, the criminal justice system would have so found.

Of course, he would have had a lot of difficulties afterward. He would have been a pariah, and most likely, impoverished.

The lesson? DON'T SLEEP IN THE SUBWAY!

Had the man been awake and obviously alert, it is doubtful that anyone would have reached into his pocket in the first place.

Maybe he wouldn't have been the subject of a pickpocketing attempt, but there are places where just riding the subway can get you attacked. Numerous such cases have been reported out of NY and other big cities in recent months.

I have to question the idea of using OC spray in a train car. In addition to the victim and the assailants, other people are present who do not have any possibility of escape, so even if the erstwhile victim manages to himself avoid the spray, what about the uninvolved people in the train car? Suppose one of the other passengers already has a compromised respiratory system or other medical condition for which exposure to OC spray could cause death, and in fact dies? Or one of the uninvolved people is a parent traveling with an infant and the infant dies as a result of the exposure?

 

[old lady new shooter]

.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Lesson drawn:
Unless you are in your safe place, stay awake, alert and aware of your surroundings & of any possible threats.

FWIW, personally I would not step foot in a subway.

 

[Kleanbore]

Maybe he wouldn't have been the subject of a pickpocketing attempt, but there are places where just riding the subway can get you attacked. Numerous such cases have been reported out of NY and other big cities in recent months.

The point is that if one chooses to ride one, he or she should stay in Condition Yellow.

I have to question the idea of using OC spray in a train car. In addition to the victim and the assailants, other people are present who do not have any possibility of escape, so even if the erstwhile victim manages to himself avoid the spray, what about the uninvolved people in the train car?

True. Andrew does mention that.

Suppose one of the other passengers already has a compromised respiratory system or other medical condition for which exposure to OC spray could cause death, and in fact dies? Or one of the uninvolved people is a parent traveling with an infant and the infant dies as a result of the exposure?

Well, I hate to put it quite this way, but if the user of the spray acted out of immediate necessity and did not unduly ignore that risk, that's their problem.

Shooting a firearm entails such risks, also.

 

[Kleanbore]

By the way, Andrew also points out that had there been a death, police efforts to find and apprehend the participants in the crime would have been extremely extensive and intensive.

 

[whughett]

God made man, Sam Colt made them equal. I'm not disabled but old and slow. Would hope a jury of my peers would take that into consideration.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm not disabled but old and slow. Would hope a jury of my peers would take that into consideration.

Don't rely on it carte blanche.

A disparity of force might justify the use of deadly fore, but it has traditionally been an up-hill battle.

By the way, trial bu a "jury of one's peers" was a right granted in the Magna Carta. It meant that lords would be tried a jury of lords.

We don't have that here.

 

[whughett]

Don't rely on it carte blanche.

A disparity of force might justify the use of deadly fore, but it has traditionally been an up-hill battle.

By the way, trial bu a "jury of one's peers" was a right granted in the Magna Carta. It meant that lords would be tried a jury of lords.

We don't have that here.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Well, I hate to put it quite this way, but if the user of the spray acted out of immediate necessity and did not unduly ignore that risk, that's their problem.

Do you have a cite to back that up? I remember that (at least in Cali) in the case of a traffic accident, the at-fault driver's liability for injuries to the not-at-fault injured person is not affected by any pre-existing conditions the injured person may have had, even if the pre-existing conditions resulted in the injuries being much more serious than would have been the case in their absence.

Shooting a firearm entails such risks, also.

Yes, and what is the liability of the person who fires, for the injuries or death of third-party bystanders in such a case?

Using a firearm in a train car would be extremely tricky, to say the least, it would be very difficult to avoid hitting other passengers. If your weapon is a revolver and the attacker is right on you, at least you could fire it with the muzzle pressed into the attacker's body, and have a chance (although not a guarantee) that the bullet would not come out the other side.

The more we discuss this, the firmer my conviction that staying out of subways is the best plan.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yes, and what is the liability of the person who fires, for the injuries or death of third-party bystanders in such a case?

If the actor is judged to have fired (or to have used OC spray) lawfully, with reasonable care, and that it was necessitated by the criminal acts of others, those others bear the liability.

That was the subject of a recent LoSD blog post.

Consider tis hypothetical scenario: Homer and Jethro enter Cain's shop with guns and announce a robbery. Cain fires, killing Jethro and, unintentionally, Abel. Homer never shoots his gun.

But legally, Homer would be guilty of the felony murders of both Jethro end Abel.

Sometimes when that happens in our area, the families and fiends of the accused consider it so unfair that they engage in protests.

The more we discuss this, the firmer my conviction that staying out of subways is the best plan

I avoid the Metrolink in St. Louis. Firearms are prohibited, but "gun violence" is not uncommon.

 

[FlSwampRat]

And I would like to ask Branca at what point a beating becomes deadly for any given individual, pretty sad.

Once it has turned deadly. You know, when breathing and heartbeat stop. Once you are clinically dead it is then proven to be a deadly attack and then lethal force can be resorted to.

 

[bdickens]

Do you have a cite that bare fists are the number one murder weapon in the world?

No, I don't.

That is a conclusion I reached on my own. I took pieces of information that I have both read and heard from multiple sources across multiple disciplines both inside and outside of the pro 2A/ RKBA community, collated it in my brain, extrapolated from that, made some suppositions and reached a conclusion.

So, no, there isn't "a cite" for that and I very seriously doubt there even is one. Since I didn't know I was going to have to defend my dissertation against the THR doctoral committee, I failed to document my research trail. Since none of my information came from classified sources, anyone with a real burning desire could probably find out for himself.

 

[Kleanbore]

That is a conclusion I reached on my own. I took pieces of information....

It is not true in this country, and since objects that can be used to cut, bludgeon, and strangle are available everywhere, it does not pass the smell test.