Self defence and health issues
- Thread starter borrowedtime69
- Start date
Old Dog
Member
(Disclaimer: IANAL, but have been present in actual courtrooms for both criminal and civil trials.)
As I understand it, first, the whole "peers" thing isn't defined by those citizens who would be your actual peers; it's simply a catch-all used to ensure that all available prospective jurors will come from a cross-section of your community. Peers means citizens of equal standing (in other words, simply those eligible for jury duty), not to be construed as requiring jurors of one's same age group, ethnic group, religious persuasion, gender or sexual orientation.
One suspects that any prosecuting attorney worth his salt, in a case involving firearm usage, during voir dire would try to exercise challenges for cause after getting prospective jurors to admit they were strongly biased in favor of guns and the RKBA. If a lawyer couldn't articulate a cause challenge, then he/she would not doubt attempt peremptory challenges.
Does Medic Alert make a charm bracelet?
Joking aside, as another with 2 bad knees, apnea, and an obvious weight issue I would make a point of letting cops know you were having trouble breathing (you will) and your other listed medical issues can mimic heart attack symptoms and you need an ambulance and to get checked by medical professionals (and you probably should). If nothing else it helps establish your health conditions at the time when they start taking your history.
The right to trial by a jury of one's peers is British concept that means only that lords must be tried only by lords and commoners, only by commoners.
It does not apply here.
In thr US, one ihas a right to a trial by a fair and impartial jury drawn from the population of the ditrict in which the crime was committed.
Joshua M. Smith
Member
There's a legal theory which deals with just this: "The Man with the Eggshell Skull." I learned about it way back in the day during criminal justice in college, but I dug it up on American Handgunner for you:
Eggshell Skull: the Case of the Vulnerable Victim - American Handgunner
Situation: A 250-pound bouncer smashes the head of a brain surgery patient into a floor … and it’s deadly force Read the full article...
americanhandgunner.com
Basically, if you're in fear for your life or welfare due to a medical condition that makes you more vulnerable than the average person to attack, then the disparity of force stipulations are different for you. If you have an "eggshell skull," for example, and can be killed by a punch to the head, you're legally justified shooting your attacker to stop the threat of that happening.
Regards,
Josh
Edited for accuracy.
Last edited:
more accurately, you would likely be justified in using deadly force, which of course might result in a death. in situation in which another defender might not be.There's a legal theory which deals with just this: "The Man with the Eggshell Skull." I learned about it way back in the day during criminal justice in college, but I dug it up on American Handgunner for you:
Eggshell Skull: the Case of the Vulnerable Victim - American Handgunner
Situation: A 250-pound bouncer smashes the head of a brain surgery patient into a floor … and it’s deadly force Read the full article...
Basically, if you're in fear for your life or welfare due to a medical condition that makes you more vulnerable than the average person to attack, then the disparity of force stipulations are different for you. If you have an "eggshell skull," for example, and can be killed by a punch to the head, you're legally justified in killing your attacker.
Joshua M. Smith
Member
That cop is wrong.
dweis
Member
Exactly and absolutely! The use of deadly force is conditioned on belief. Believing that you are in danger of being killed or seriously injured is a defense to justify self defense. When disparity of force is involved it adds credibility to establish you believed what you did was necessary. However, it is not a license to kill.
Joshua M. Smith
Member
Correct.
I used to go on this long tirade about shooting to kill vs shooting to stop and how death is a possible side-effect of shooting to stop.
I've started saying "killing your attacker" for both brevity and because one should never lose sight of that possible consequence, so that one may better be prepared for it.
But you're of course correct in specifying that one should "shoot to stop," and is never justified in administering a coup de gras to an attacker who has ceased hostilities.
Regards.
It sounds like semantics, but it's critical to avoid this. Focusing self-defense discussions on, and phrasing everything in terms of stopping the attack or preventing an imminent attack, is really important. It's hard to overstate how important it is.
- It helps people keep in mind that if the attack stops that there's no need for further use of deadly force. Talking about killing attackers makes it seems like that's the goal and it absolutely isn't. Most successful defensive gun uses do not involve anyone dying. Ingraining the proper mindset will help drive good tactics by keeping the actual goal uppermost in a defender's mind.
- It helps reinforce the idea that justifiable use of deadly force is exclusively about preventing an imminent attack or ending an active attack. Once someone starts talking about killing the attacker, the actual goal becomes less clear and the idea that it might be legal to shoot someone for retribution, or to punish them, or to better society, starts to sneak into things.
- It helps people get into the habit of talking about self-defense in terms that are consistent with the letter and the spirit of the law and that therefore "sounds good" to LE/the legal system. If it's automatic to talk about stopping the attack, that makes it so much easier to not say something that sounds bad after an attack. It also makes it less likely that someone could take statements made by a defender prior to an incident (say, on social media) and use those statements against them in court.
Joshua M. Smith
Member
Your points are well-taken. I'll go back to my old way of talking, which is very similar to what you say here, and for the reasons you say.
Before Stephen Camp died, I was very active on several boards and talked the way you suggest. In the 12 years (wow... it's been that long) since, I guess I've just forgotten how to type among polite society when discussing lethal force. My apologies.
borrowedtime69
Member
As before, thank you for your knowledge and wisdom, I'm soaking it all in!
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,150
No. Go hire an actual lawyer that specializes in self-defense pay for an hour of his billable time and ask him some questions.
That makes ZERO sense.
1. Not everyone can afford an attorney
2. Why pay an attorney to answer a hypothetical question
3. You are already paying the DA and he is responsible for charging
I can afford an attorney and would still go to the DA if for no other reason than to give him something to think about and learn something about his general disposition.
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,150
I don't know where you're at but in my world you don't just get an appointment to go in and sit down and ask the DA a question.
He's paid by you, he dang sure ought to be willing to meet with you, take a phone call or answer an email. If he's not, he should lose his job. Most also have plenty of assistants running around.
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,150
Serious question, have you ever actually done this?
Nope, I don't ask such questions. But I wouldn't hesitate to do so if the need arose.
Next time I see him, I'm going to ask our district attorney if he fields questions like this.
I think the answer you're going to get on a hypothetical disparity of force situation is going to be something like "it depends". If you got a yes or no it would come with qualifiers.
I don't think that any district attorney is going to make any statement regarding what he would or wouldn't prosecute based on a hypothetical case. There are too many factors that go into a charging decision for him to make any commitment to any charging decision in a hypothetical case. Every case is different.
epags
Member
I am sure you have read all the prior comments.....in lieu of having an attorney/lawyer on retainer, why not join 2A legal group like CCW Safe or one of the other similar groups. You have stated that you do not want to give up your right to walk where you want but the park appears to have a high possibility of negative interaction so, IMO, you should consider having some legal fall back.
For the record, I am 84, have a CCW, appear to live in a safer area than yours however I still opped to pay $149/year for SD legal help should I need it
It only equates to about 4 boxes of SD 45ACP or, if you will, only 7 lunches a year at any of the local cafes here in So. California (which my waist line could afford to miss.)
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,150
As long as we're here I'm going to recommend a copy of The Law Of Self-Defense by Andrew Branca
