The subject of the use of force in defense of self or in the defense of others is necessarily interwoven with legal considerations, as defined in a number of inter-related state codes and in governing appellate court rulings.
We have strongly advised against attempting to interpret the meaning of the law by reading state code sections in isolation and by trying to draw conclusions from them.
Of course, having a good basic knowledge of what is lawful and what is not is very important, and it may prevent someone from unwittingly getting into a lot of trouble through the misuse of force, or improper threats of force, or even improperly discussing, displaying, or wielding a firearm, blade, bat, or pepper sprayer.
There are classes in civilian use of force law available, some of which can be taken on-line. One should not rely very strongly upon something said by a CCW instructor, policeman, or even most attorneys.
In a recent staff discussion, one of our staff mentioned that it seems that some people appear to fall into the trap of seeing deadly force laws as a recipe for shooting people legally, instead of properly viewing them as a safety net for those unfortunate persons who are forced into using the last resort available to save innocent life. There have been posts that might suggest that that is true--on the surface. That's no doubt a very natural consequence of the way most state codes are phrased: "A person is justified in using deadly force against another person if....."
That is the way in which use of force incidents are analyzed after the fact, when justification is the issue. But it really not a helpful way to consider situations before the fact, when self-preservation is the first priority.
Before the fact, the question should be one of whether one must shoot, rather than whether one may shoot.
Of course, what we are talking about is how people view the laws. No one in his right mind his has given one iota of thought to the subject would really want to shoot anyone else.
To put that in clear perspective, he noted that people don't buy fire extinguishers so they can set their house on fire and then put it out--they buy them for use in an eventuality that they hope with all their hearts will never come true. And he said that people don't buy cars with great safety ratings so they can take them out and crash them--they truly wish that there will never be a crash.
Similarly, he noted that we should view deadly force as an emergency contingency for a situation that we hope will never happen. We should beware of ever thinking "If this happens, THEN, I get to shoot him, right?"
It is inevitable that in some discussions we will get into the legal aspects of mentioning, threatening, or using deadly force. But we should never let that lead us into looking for formulae for justification.
There is no ruleset that can be applied in the general case. Every use of force incident will be unique, and it will be judged by others after the fact, and on the basis of whatever evidence can be gathered after the fact, and on which of that is ruled admissible.
To describe the best mindset, perhaps we can use the title of one of Massad Ayoob's books--
IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME
We have strongly advised against attempting to interpret the meaning of the law by reading state code sections in isolation and by trying to draw conclusions from them.
Of course, having a good basic knowledge of what is lawful and what is not is very important, and it may prevent someone from unwittingly getting into a lot of trouble through the misuse of force, or improper threats of force, or even improperly discussing, displaying, or wielding a firearm, blade, bat, or pepper sprayer.
There are classes in civilian use of force law available, some of which can be taken on-line. One should not rely very strongly upon something said by a CCW instructor, policeman, or even most attorneys.
In a recent staff discussion, one of our staff mentioned that it seems that some people appear to fall into the trap of seeing deadly force laws as a recipe for shooting people legally, instead of properly viewing them as a safety net for those unfortunate persons who are forced into using the last resort available to save innocent life. There have been posts that might suggest that that is true--on the surface. That's no doubt a very natural consequence of the way most state codes are phrased: "A person is justified in using deadly force against another person if....."
That is the way in which use of force incidents are analyzed after the fact, when justification is the issue. But it really not a helpful way to consider situations before the fact, when self-preservation is the first priority.
Before the fact, the question should be one of whether one must shoot, rather than whether one may shoot.
Of course, what we are talking about is how people view the laws. No one in his right mind his has given one iota of thought to the subject would really want to shoot anyone else.
To put that in clear perspective, he noted that people don't buy fire extinguishers so they can set their house on fire and then put it out--they buy them for use in an eventuality that they hope with all their hearts will never come true. And he said that people don't buy cars with great safety ratings so they can take them out and crash them--they truly wish that there will never be a crash.
Similarly, he noted that we should view deadly force as an emergency contingency for a situation that we hope will never happen. We should beware of ever thinking "If this happens, THEN, I get to shoot him, right?"
It is inevitable that in some discussions we will get into the legal aspects of mentioning, threatening, or using deadly force. But we should never let that lead us into looking for formulae for justification.
There is no ruleset that can be applied in the general case. Every use of force incident will be unique, and it will be judged by others after the fact, and on the basis of whatever evidence can be gathered after the fact, and on which of that is ruled admissible.
To describe the best mindset, perhaps we can use the title of one of Massad Ayoob's books--
IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME
Last edited:
