Knowledge of Deadly Force

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Nivek

Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
61
I had a thought while reading the thread "A Righteous Shoot?" but I felt the discussion might veer too far off topic to keep it in that thread...

Regarding justified shootings, witness statements, and the right to remain silent, I wonder how much of a difference it can/would make for a defensive shooter to be well-versed in what defines justified use of deadly force. We see a lot of discussions about knowing local laws, having a good lawyer, and planning what to say if you ever have to use your weapon. My question, I guess, is what would be the best presentation of good intentions and a "right mindset" to inspectors, juries, and judges.

In my case, being a military member, I have recited on a nearly every-day basis for the last 5 years the Navy's rules of deadly force, which I will quote here.

DEADLY FORCE is that force which a person uses with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, or which that person knows (or should know) creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.
DEADLY FORCE is authorized only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot be reasonably employed. Its use is authorized under one or more of the following conditions;
-Self defense or defense of others
-For protection of assets vital to national security
-For protection of assets not vital to national security, but inherently dangerous to others if stolen or destroyed in place
-To prevent serious offenses against others
-To assist in the apprehension of, or prevent the escape of, a person who has committed, or for whom there is probable cause to believe has committed an offense of the nature specified above.

As far as I know, most branches of the military have a similar mantra or instructions regarding deadly force. So if one were to present this knowledge (or something similar) during investigation or trial, would it be helpful in proving sound mind and "righteous" intent?

Sorry this got kinda long-winded :)
 
If you get in a shooting on base, perhaps. :)

Off base, IMHO, no. You simply have to know the local laws in order to keep yourself out of trouble.

The only "one size fits all (almost)" was from Tiger McKee - "Will shooting save a life?". If not, probably need to rethink the shoot.

FWIW, www.corneredcat.com is a great place to get an overview on the rules of engagement.
 
To the on scene investigators, I would refrain from demonstrating my knowledge of the law. Reciting laws and definitions generally does not play out too well with responding law enforcement officers. Should you be well versed in definitions and knowledge of the law? Absolutely. That does not mean you expound on such matters on scene.

Now, fast forward to the jury, should it reach that level. You may be asked (read "will be asked") why you took the action that you did. You should be able to articulate in a coherent manner the actions that you took and why. If you use phrases such as "deadly force," and you likely will, you can expect to be asked a follow-up question about your definition of such. If it is asked by someone attempting to put you behind bars it will be a question designed to trip you up. If it is asked by your counsel it will be designed to demonstrate your justification. In either case, you should be ready with an answer. It does not have to be a verbatim definition as you have outlined above, but it should be sufficient to demonstrate your understanding and thereby, presumably, lend credence to the reasonableness of the action that you took.

You should understand that everything you say will be cross-examined. Therefore, a balance of showing yourself knowledgeable should be tempered with saying too much.

This is my take on that particular question, and I have been present for enough court cases regarding the use of force to form a strong belief.
 
Last edited:
In a criminal defense, the more knowledge you demonstrate, the higher the standard you will be held to as to whether or not you knew what you were doing. Every rule and condition you state out loud means something else the prosecution can pick apart.
 
Hmm, I can see the wisdom in not freely reciting this, but I do feel more comfortable about a potential incident, since I have this committed to memory. I think it's important to have a strong basis for personal definition and justification and a defensive shooting scenario. Even if it's never asked for or quoted during the trial, having some groundwork laid out would be beneficial!

Anybody have shorter versions, or any pre-planned explanations? Would be interested is hearing what others think.
 
This site provides a good primer in general use-of-force law in the civilian world.

Of course, laws vary somewhat by jurisdiction, and various "Castle Doctrine" laws change the landscape slightly (for the better) for the private citizen. However, one will usually be okay if he can satisfy the following standard:

To show that the use of lethal force in self defense was justified one must generally show that a reasonable and prudent person, in like circumstances and knowing what he knows, would conclude that lethal force was necessary to prevent otherwise immediate, unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to an innocent.

To demonstrate that there was indeed an immediate risk of death or grave bodily injury, one must show that the assailant reasonably appeared to (1) have the Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm; (2) have the Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; (3) put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he has the intent to kill or cripple; (4) circumstances Preclude other safe [to the defender] means of avoiding harm.

A person claiming self defense will need to be able to articulate why in the exact situation as it unfolded he concluded, based on the forgoing, that lethal force was necessary.

See also this post.
 
IANAL
A big part of the body law on justifiable is case law. Know your states case law. Look for phrases like" unprovoked by you", "While going about your lawful business"

Proximity, is another buzz word.

Is your state doctrine, castle, stand your ground, duty to flee or make peace?

One size does not fit all here.

Be aware of the political climate and the mind set of the area.
 
Lee Lapin said:
...IMHO ADEE is a better approach for the armed citizen to use than AOJP...
Click to expand...
I think both concepts are vital and serve different purposes.

[1] Avoid, Disengage, Escape, and Evade is a strategic model for a private citizen. Since he has no duty to confront or engage, avoiding confrontation is the best course.

[2] But if the confrontation is unavoidable, Ability, Opportunity. Jeopardy and Preclusion is a useful paradigm for deciding if force/lethal force is justified and articulating the bases of the decision.
 
I think I would use the Opportunity, intent and capability, and save the deadly force for my superiors. When I was doing navy security on my carrier, '06 to '08, the definition of deadly force changed like 2 times. If you have to recite it almost every day you must be an MA, or Gunners mate.
 
"This site provides a good primer in general use-of-force law in the civilian world."

The first sentence is not true.
 
Your concealed handgun is for protection of life only.
Draw it solely IN PREPARATION to save a life from the wrongful and life-threatening criminal actions of another.

Know exactly when you can use your gun.
A criminal adversary must have, or reasonably appear to have:
  1. ability to inflict serious bodily injury (he is armed or reasonably appears to be armed with a deadly weapon; you face multiple unarmed attackers; an unarmed attacker has an obvious, substantial advantage in physical ability and/or skill),
  2. opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm (he is physically positioned to immediately harm you), and
  3. intent (hostile actions and/or words) that indicates he means to do you serious or fatal physical harm.
When all three of these "attack potential" elements are in place simultaneously, then you are facing a reasonably perceived deadly threat that may justify an emergency deadly force response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

BringHomeTheBacon
  • Locked
Acts Justifying the Use of Deadly Force (AJDF)
Replies
3
Views
563
JShirley
JShirley
Elkins45
Physical force, deadly physical force, and knowing the difference in advance of the blow.
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
paladinFL
P
G
  • Locked
Is rape = great bodily harm
2 3
Replies
63
Views
3K
tellner
T
E
  • Locked
Use of Deadly Force
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
Fred Fuller
F
K
  • Locked
Why We Do Not Shoot to Kill
Replies
0
Views
821
Kleanbore
K
Back
Top