A simple bare handed punch may in itself not be "deadly force" but it can render you unable to defend yourself from the next one, and the next one, and the next, and the next...
Lethal force,an explanation from an expert
- Thread starter gym
- Start date
- Status
There are essential differences in the legal status of sworn LEOs and armed citizens in confronting criminal acts. We cannot afford to overlook those differences, though for various reasons some people don't really care to have those differences pointed out. "Some people" being LEOs in some cases, and armed citizens in other cases.
A CCW is not the same thing as a commission card... and official reaction to the differences in the two documents at several levels of the judicial system, from the first responding officer to the DA/ADA/prosecutor/county attorney etc. and all the way through the court system is not going to be the same. Thus IMHO our individual approaches to dealing with potentially or demonstrably violent criminals as armed citizens must needs be different in certain aspects from the ways LEOs might be expected to act under similar circumstances.
LEOs are sworn to enforce the law. There is no expectation from any quarter I know of that a LEO will back down/back off from doing just that. In some circumstances it might be necessary for a LEO to call for and wait for backup- with every expectation it will arrive ASAP- before proceeding, but that is not likely to change the ultimate outcome of a situation. Another thing to keep in mind is that the governmental entity for which a LEO works is going to backstop any action that LEO takes which can be presented as legitimate.
Those things are not true of the armed citizen, however. The armed citizen has no clear mandate to enforce the law- he is permitted the defense of himself and others under certain circumstances, but no more than that. The armed citizen is bound about with legal restrictions on where he can go while armed, and on how he is expected to conduct himself while armed. There is no one an armed citizen can call on with a real expectation that help will appear at breakneck speed, and there is no entity in place to pick up the tab for any legal defense that might be necessary as a result of his actions.
Those are just some of the major differences that need be kept in mind when evaluating how best to react to situations involving potential or actual violent criminals as an armed citizen. It is critical for any legally armed citizen to have a clear understanding of both black letter law and case law regarding self defense in their jurisdiction, and to be prepared to conduct themselves in accordance with the expectations of the law. In addition, it is critical that the armed citizen be prepared to describe clearly the factors which influenced the decision to use lethal force in a given criminal encounter, and to iterate the reasons why no other option would have sufficed under the circumstances which prevailed at that instant.
JMHO, YMMV,
lpl
A CCW is not the same thing as a commission card... and official reaction to the differences in the two documents at several levels of the judicial system, from the first responding officer to the DA/ADA/prosecutor/county attorney etc. and all the way through the court system is not going to be the same. Thus IMHO our individual approaches to dealing with potentially or demonstrably violent criminals as armed citizens must needs be different in certain aspects from the ways LEOs might be expected to act under similar circumstances.
LEOs are sworn to enforce the law. There is no expectation from any quarter I know of that a LEO will back down/back off from doing just that. In some circumstances it might be necessary for a LEO to call for and wait for backup- with every expectation it will arrive ASAP- before proceeding, but that is not likely to change the ultimate outcome of a situation. Another thing to keep in mind is that the governmental entity for which a LEO works is going to backstop any action that LEO takes which can be presented as legitimate.
Those things are not true of the armed citizen, however. The armed citizen has no clear mandate to enforce the law- he is permitted the defense of himself and others under certain circumstances, but no more than that. The armed citizen is bound about with legal restrictions on where he can go while armed, and on how he is expected to conduct himself while armed. There is no one an armed citizen can call on with a real expectation that help will appear at breakneck speed, and there is no entity in place to pick up the tab for any legal defense that might be necessary as a result of his actions.
Those are just some of the major differences that need be kept in mind when evaluating how best to react to situations involving potential or actual violent criminals as an armed citizen. It is critical for any legally armed citizen to have a clear understanding of both black letter law and case law regarding self defense in their jurisdiction, and to be prepared to conduct themselves in accordance with the expectations of the law. In addition, it is critical that the armed citizen be prepared to describe clearly the factors which influenced the decision to use lethal force in a given criminal encounter, and to iterate the reasons why no other option would have sufficed under the circumstances which prevailed at that instant.
JMHO, YMMV,
lpl
Hi everyone,
I'm the author of the quoted material, something I originally wrote for the self-contained informational website http://useofforce.us/. Sorry for breezing through a little late; I just found this thread.
The issue about giving the mugger your wallet is unequivocally the most contentious section of that site, and I get more questions and complaints about it than anything else. In fact, most correspondence I get about useofforce.us are either people thanking me, people asking permission to use it for various training courses, people inquiring about that paragraph, and big penis spam. Oh, and people telling me that Packing.org is dead, which used to be the link I gave instead of HandgunLaw.us.
My answer basically speaks to the broader response that ALL of this material needs to be understood in context, which in part means read from BEGINNING TO END. I have, in fact, refused permission several times for it to be reused without the stipulation that it would be distributed in FULL, rather than the cherry-picked pieces that people tend to reprint. Many of the questions raised in this thread, such as regarding individual state laws, would be made clear if you get the overall picture, and understand how this info was meant to be used.
That said, I may not have been clear about this specific matter, given how often confusions arise. So let me clarify it in this way:
Because it's impossible for me to prescribe specific instructions to everyone, without knowing your exact local laws, your situation, and your moral code, what I've done is give a generalized explanation that comes out as the SAFEST POSSIBLE APPROACH.
What I mean by this is that the principles I describe, if followed, should not violate the law in any state in the US. If you're standing on American soil and you do no more than I indicate, you will be within your legal rights. My PERSONAL moral beliefs place human beings very highly, and according to those you will also be acting morally; however, you need not share those views. I am not telling you how to act, just telling you which door provides legal safety. You're free to go wherever your own compass guides.
I liked Mr. Ayoob's general framework for this, specifically the AOJP idea, not because it's some kind of ubiquitous language you'll find in your state's legal codes, but because it's both simple and clear enough that it leaves little wriggle room. That contentious "Preclusion" element provides much of this. I could give a more lenient framework, and it would make some people happier, but that would not be the "safest" model because there would be situations and places where it would suggest breaking the law.
I hope this makes some sense. In the example of the mugger, the ultimatum "your money or your life" could be read to indicate jeopardy; perhaps it suggests to you that you're dealing with an unhinged madman and is not a true "choice" but rather the indicator of a ticking bomb. Or it could be read as a decision between defending moral staunchness or giving in to might-makes-right. Or maybe that's the audio trigger you've trained with to prompt drawing your weapon and he'll be ventilated by the time he gets to the "-iiiife...." I don't care. Do what you have to do. And certainly, in some states, in some extenuating circumstances, perhaps even in some trials with some juries or with some political climates, you would come out on the side of the angels. But in ALL states, you would be borne out if you gave him your money. So that's what I'm suggesting here.
I'm not able to look into every one of your souls and prescribe answers, especially when most of you seem well-informed and have already walked that path for yourself. But if I'm going to give a roadmap that applies to EVERYONE, it can only be the most conservative sort. That's all I've tried to do. Use it, abuse it, ignore it -- it's just a tool and a resource.
That said, the website is a living document (although not modified very often), and I'm willing to accept any suggestions or corrections if they're put forth.
I'm the author of the quoted material, something I originally wrote for the self-contained informational website http://useofforce.us/. Sorry for breezing through a little late; I just found this thread.
The issue about giving the mugger your wallet is unequivocally the most contentious section of that site, and I get more questions and complaints about it than anything else. In fact, most correspondence I get about useofforce.us are either people thanking me, people asking permission to use it for various training courses, people inquiring about that paragraph, and big penis spam. Oh, and people telling me that Packing.org is dead, which used to be the link I gave instead of HandgunLaw.us.
My answer basically speaks to the broader response that ALL of this material needs to be understood in context, which in part means read from BEGINNING TO END. I have, in fact, refused permission several times for it to be reused without the stipulation that it would be distributed in FULL, rather than the cherry-picked pieces that people tend to reprint. Many of the questions raised in this thread, such as regarding individual state laws, would be made clear if you get the overall picture, and understand how this info was meant to be used.
That said, I may not have been clear about this specific matter, given how often confusions arise. So let me clarify it in this way:
Because it's impossible for me to prescribe specific instructions to everyone, without knowing your exact local laws, your situation, and your moral code, what I've done is give a generalized explanation that comes out as the SAFEST POSSIBLE APPROACH.
What I mean by this is that the principles I describe, if followed, should not violate the law in any state in the US. If you're standing on American soil and you do no more than I indicate, you will be within your legal rights. My PERSONAL moral beliefs place human beings very highly, and according to those you will also be acting morally; however, you need not share those views. I am not telling you how to act, just telling you which door provides legal safety. You're free to go wherever your own compass guides.
I liked Mr. Ayoob's general framework for this, specifically the AOJP idea, not because it's some kind of ubiquitous language you'll find in your state's legal codes, but because it's both simple and clear enough that it leaves little wriggle room. That contentious "Preclusion" element provides much of this. I could give a more lenient framework, and it would make some people happier, but that would not be the "safest" model because there would be situations and places where it would suggest breaking the law.
I hope this makes some sense. In the example of the mugger, the ultimatum "your money or your life" could be read to indicate jeopardy; perhaps it suggests to you that you're dealing with an unhinged madman and is not a true "choice" but rather the indicator of a ticking bomb. Or it could be read as a decision between defending moral staunchness or giving in to might-makes-right. Or maybe that's the audio trigger you've trained with to prompt drawing your weapon and he'll be ventilated by the time he gets to the "-iiiife...." I don't care. Do what you have to do. And certainly, in some states, in some extenuating circumstances, perhaps even in some trials with some juries or with some political climates, you would come out on the side of the angels. But in ALL states, you would be borne out if you gave him your money. So that's what I'm suggesting here.
I'm not able to look into every one of your souls and prescribe answers, especially when most of you seem well-informed and have already walked that path for yourself. But if I'm going to give a roadmap that applies to EVERYONE, it can only be the most conservative sort. That's all I've tried to do. Use it, abuse it, ignore it -- it's just a tool and a resource.
That said, the website is a living document (although not modified very often), and I'm willing to accept any suggestions or corrections if they're put forth.
The advocate enters...
As is the feeling of guilt experienced by those that did nothing, though they had the chance.
As it could should you comply with the predator as well...
While there are criminals that take the money and run, there are also criminals that take the money and proceed to do further evil things that will torment the soul for the rest of ones life.
What's the "right" answer? I've got no clue, however, I do have a plan based on my experiences and what I believe I know about state laws. At best, a court will judge my actions. At worse, I'm pushing up daisies. Not a great compromise imo...
While not everyone will agree on the "right" answer to EVERY particular nefarious encounter one may find themselves in, we can ALL agree that it SUCKS being put into that position and being FORCED to make that choice.
Know your state laws, and be prepared to defend your actions. NOW is the time to think these things through and NOT when some criminal has you or a loved one by the throat.
Good luck.
The advocate leaves...
SSN Vet
Member
This whole conversation reinforces in my mind why every state needs the castle doctrine codified....
A very important point. Bear in mind, however that there is no law or international treaty that says if you do what he wants, he won't hurt you.
I am not afraid of the concept of killing someone in the defense of my family and property.
I feel that it's extremely unfortunate that somebody can break into my house, tell me that I need to give everything valuable I have or they'll hurt me, and to respond by shooting them will more often than not get me prosecuted in a court of law.
It's very sad.
I feel that it's extremely unfortunate that somebody can break into my house, tell me that I need to give everything valuable I have or they'll hurt me, and to respond by shooting them will more often than not get me prosecuted in a court of law.
It's very sad.
That varies by state. In Arkansas, for example, the law presumes that any force used in repelling a home invader or arsonist is reasonable. If charges are filed, the judge is required to read that law to the jury in his summation.
I'm talking about the Pennsylvania laws (my state). The fact that court is even held for such an event or that a criminal has a right to self defense ALTHOUGH he is the primary aggressor is just a totally foolish to me. Someone can break into my house, I confront them with a firearm, and they're justified in shooting me? What?
I understand the laws aren't crystal clear in this matter, but that's what I'm getting from my state laws. It kind of makes me just want to shake my head.
I understand the laws aren't crystal clear in this matter, but that's what I'm getting from my state laws. It kind of makes me just want to shake my head.
I assume that's the Philadelphia influence.
My in-laws lived in Philadelphia. Their house was robbed and the police caught the burglar with a huge stash of stuff stolen from many different homes. When he came to trial, with the homeowners standing by ready to testify, the judge started dismissing the charges on the grounds that the robberies were "too long ago." My in-laws were burglarized just a couple of months before they caught the guy, but that was dismissed, too.
My conclusion is that in Philadelphia the muggers, rapists, burglars and home invaders run the city.
My in-laws lived in Philadelphia. Their house was robbed and the police caught the burglar with a huge stash of stuff stolen from many different homes. When he came to trial, with the homeowners standing by ready to testify, the judge started dismissing the charges on the grounds that the robberies were "too long ago." My in-laws were burglarized just a couple of months before they caught the guy, but that was dismissed, too.
My conclusion is that in Philadelphia the muggers, rapists, burglars and home invaders run the city.
Yeah. I reckon to agree with you. The thing is that PA laws concerning when to shoot back are intentionally vague. Although I'm not sure what purpose that would serve...
I just don't understand why we're giving criminals so many rights anymore. My philosophy
is (and I understand this isn't law) if I break into somebody's house, and they confront me with a gun, I'm screwed and that's what I get for breaking into people's houses.
I just don't understand why we're giving criminals so many rights anymore. My philosophy
is (and I understand this isn't law) if I break into somebody's house, and they confront me with a gun, I'm screwed and that's what I get for breaking into people's houses.
- Status
Similar threads
