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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe stand your ground and castle doctrines to be good things. Have also seen some instances where folks made claims of such when not warranted.

Their false claims should not put good people on an enhanced legal defensive, or push for some form of defensive political correctness on a gun forum.

The antis will go for a gun owners throat no matter what.

Moderating this forum to less than scary views will not appease them.
 
Last post.

IMHO one should never carry a gun out of fear. Its simply shouldering the responsibility of safety, for that person or those around them.

It is a logical thing.

We cant control as much as we wish. Age and injuries happen.

For some, physical limitations may make them feel vulnerable.

IMHO being attacked has one already at major disadvantages. Delay, lessened dexterity, tunnel vision.... training?

Even strong good people are probably in trouble.

Thankfully most will go through life without bad things like this happening.
And thankfully, when it does.... usually the sight of a well armed defense is enough to stop it.
 
One other thing: while the statement "I will not take a beating, period" could be used after the fact to convince a jury that a defendant may have been predisposed to employ disproportionate defensive force, and therefore not meet the requirements for a legal defense of self defense, that does not necessarily mean that one may not lawfully act in accordance with that construct, if the defender's particular physical condition is such that a beating would really constitute deadly force. The use of anticoagulants might qualify, for example.

I did not mean to appear to state otherwise.
 
Yes indeed, and they make them vulnerable in fact. That's one of the important points in this discussion.
Yes and I don't think it necessarily has to be a vulnerability to sudden death, it could be a vulnerability to injury more serious than a person without the vulnerability would experience, for example osteoporosis.
 
Yes and I don't think it necessarily has to be a vulnerability to sudden death, it could be a vulnerability to injury more serious than a person without the vulnerability would experience, for example osteoporosis.
"More serious" may not suffice. It's death or "serious bodily harm", and "serious bodily harm has a legal definition.

The LoSD Level 1 Course is scheduled for April 25.

On other thing: the defender's own subjective concerns about how much injury might occur would probably not go very far in a defense of justification without other evidence.
 
"More serious" may not suffice. It's death or "serious bodily harm", and "serious bodily harm has a legal definition.

The LoSD Level 1 Course is scheduled for April 25.

On other thing: the defender's own subjective concerns about how much injury might occur would probably not go very far in a defense of justification without other evidence.

Did I suggest claiming a pre-existing condition without providing evidence of same?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2246#4
18 U.S. Code § 2246
(4) the term “serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty;

Since I used osteoporosis as an example, here is information about the effect of hip fractures in the elderly, emphasis added:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-06-hip-fractures-elderly-death-sentence.html
One in three adults aged 50 and over dies within 12 months of suffering a hip fracture. Older adults have a five-to-eight times higher risk of dying within the first three months of a hip fracture compared to those without a hip fracture. This increased risk of death remains for almost ten years.
 
Did I suggest claiming a pre-existing condition without providing evidence of same?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2246#4
18 U.S. Code § 2246
(4) the term “serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty;

Since I used osteoporosis as an example, here is information about the effect of hip fractures in the elderly, emphasis added:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-06-hip-fractures-elderly-death-sentence.html
One in three adults aged 50 and over dies within 12 months of suffering a hip fracture. Older adults have a five-to-eight times higher risk of dying within the first three months of a hip fracture compared to those without a hip fracture. This increased risk of death remains for almost ten years.
I'm not sure that a "higher risk of dying" at a later date would meet the legal requirement.

Should believe that one's physical condition would pose such a risk that punches would meet the legal definition deadly force, one should (1) obtain expert medical and legal advice supporting that belief and (2) create admissible evidence in advance that proves that that information was known in advance.

One recognized expert in use of force law suggests sealing the information in an envelop, sending the envelop to oneself via registered mail, and keeping he unopened envelop in a secure place.

Regarding the definition, that looks close, and the US Code definition might suffice, but what would help more is something from the jurisdiction would be better.
 
Increased risk of death is not the only item from the definition that would apply. A broken hip means the patient will be immobile (= protracted impairment) and in great pain for some time.

The punch itself might or might not be the problem, although a punch in the chest would likely break the sternum and/or one or more ribs (which BTW happens commonly when chest compressions are done). The danger of breaking the hip would be a result of the punch causing the victim to fall to the ground. I picked breaking the hip for my example because it's known to be associated with increased mortality, but breaking the sternum and some ribs or fracturing some vertebrae would also not exactly be a walk in the park.
 
Increased risk of death is not the only item from the definition that would apply. A broken hip means the patient will be immobile (= protracted impairment) and in great pain for some time.
Do you know how the courts might define "protracted impairment".

I don't.

Whatever the likely answer may be, and there may not be a definitive one, a parson who has been diagnosed with some degree of osteoporosis, or with any other serious chronic medical condition, would be well served to read Post 83, equip oneself with the professional advice of the experts, and go from there.

My lay opinion would be that a broken hip would most likely be interpreted as serious bodily harm by most experts, and that most juries would probably tend to agree, but no one would accept my lay assessment of the risk of such an injury, or about what degree of risk would cause an attack involving what would otherwise be classified as non-deadly force to be considered deadly force.

One should not try to interpret the code in isolation using dictionary definitions. I cannot over emphasize that.

This is more important: a legal defense of self defense will hinge upon what the defender knew at the time, and that is something that may well have to be validated by evidence that existed before the fact.
 
Did I suggest claiming a pre-existing condition without providing evidence of same?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2246#4
18 U.S. Code § 2246
(4) the term “serious bodily injury” means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty;

How have the courts interpreted this statute? Without relevant court decisions it’s hard to get a read on what a “serious bodily injury” is.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-06-hip-fractures-elderly-death-sentence.html
One in three adults aged 50 and over dies within 12 months of suffering a hip fracture. Older adults have a five-to-eight times higher risk of dying within the first three months of a hip fracture compared to those without a hip fracture. This increased risk of death remains for almost ten years.

What court has accepted that definition? Has it been affirmed by an appellate court? A layman’s or even a doctors definition of “serious bodily injury” no matter how correct it seems, isn’t necessarily the same definition the court will apply.
 
The only court case involving the question of self-defense that popped when I googled the term was this:
https://www.pdsdc.org/professional-...-court-must-define-it-for-the-jury-when-asked
which I think isn't really on point for our current discussion but might be of interest for other reasons.

FWIW, the instructor in my concealed carry class was a burly retired police officer somewhere around 6'3", and without even mentioning possible medical conditions, kept using me as an example when he was talking about disparity of fighting capability, saying that in my case I would be down by age, size and gender...(There were a couple of other women in the class but I was by far the oldest and smallest person)... He made it humorous by comparing the difference of him threatening/grabbing me without displaying a weapon vs vice versa and said I would likely be found justified in shooting in the first case, but he would not be in the second.
 
FWIW, the instructor in my concealed carry class was a burly retired police officer somewhere around 6'3", and without even mentioning possible medical conditions, kept using me as an example when he was talking about disparity of fighting capability, saying that in my case I would be down by age, size and gender..
That, along with disparity in numbers, is the most commonly cited scenario. Probably on point.

In general, however, I would not consider a CCW instructor or a policeman to be an authoritative source on use of force law.

He made it humorous by comparing the difference of him threatening/grabbing me without displaying a weapon vs vice versa and said I would likely be found justified in shooting in the first case, but he would not be in the second.
Of course, evidence of the necessity would be essential, and a couple of eyewitnesses who sympathized wit the big guy wouldn't help.
 
Disability and what that disability is, will always be legally a factor in determining if the shoot is legal and justified. Simple as that.

With any legal shooting, many factors always come into play.

Location, level of threat, duty to retreat if any, who the attacker was (animal or human).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top