Self-Defense: When Does it Become Plausible?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PeteCress

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
5
Aside from the "Reasonable Person Feels Endangered" thing....

Specifically:
  • I am shuffling down the sidewalk, cane in hand... will fall without it, barely able to walk - much less retreat from somebody (i.e. so much for Situational Awareness....)
    .
  • Three guys approach.
    .
  • As they get closer, they split up and flank me - still having made no physical contact.
    .
  • Knowing that the first time one lands a blow to my head I'm dead or living out my life as a vegetable (being on a blood thinner/anti-coagulant), I go premptively batshit crazy on the closest one
    .
  • I pull off the .0001% chance I have of getting in a lucky poke/strike, and he winds up on the ground significantly injured.
    .
  • The other two, of course, depart the scene - leaving me standing near Injured Guy.
    .
  • Police arrive on the scene.
    .
  • Injured Guy claims that this crazy old dude attacked him for no reason.
    .
How screwed am I?

Damage control suggestions?
 
It is plausible when it is plausible. Seriously, that's pretty much the criteria. Just remember that it needs to be plausible to OTHERS, not just to you.

One defender against three attackers is generally justification for deadly force, especially if the defender is obviously less capable than the attackers.

Attacking pre-emptively can be problematic unless you can articulate the reasons for your action in a convincing manner and in a way that is consistent with the evidence. You can't just start smacking someone with your cane without serious justification or you're the one who is committing a crime. If you can explain how you REASONABLY believed you were in immediate danger of being killed or seriously injured in a way that is consistent with the evidence then whack away. If you can't do that, then hitting the person is a crime. And, remember, "reasonable" doesn't mean "reasonable" to you, it means "reasonable" to the people you're explaining it to--the cops in the beginning, and potentially a jury later on.

If it comes down to two people in a: "Did too!", "Did not!" situation, you need to be the one with a clean criminal record, the appearance of a "normal person", the first one to have called 911, and the one who has the story that makes the most sense and fits the evidence the best.

Don't "what if" things to death--it's easy to come up with really hard scenarios. There is some simple stuff you can do:

1. Learn the basics of justified/legal use of deadly force--they aren't all that complicated. Keep in mind that you should NOT be looking at this topic from the standpoint of: "What's the recipe for when I can hurt or kill someone." It's not about that. It's more about not doing or saying stupid things so that you won't be prosecuted for saving your own life if you are forced into that situation.

2. Get some training so you have a chance of using the tools you have successfully and so you have a realistic understanding of their limitations and strengths.
 
How screwed am I?


No way to tell without finishing the story.

Assuming no witnesses -

Turns out the guy on ground is a choir boy and the three mates simply split around you to give you the middle of the sidewalk out of courtesy and respect since they were on their way to visit his granny in hospice. You're in deepest trouble. You're possibly facing assault with a deadly weapon or even second degree attempted murder.

Guy on ground is some minor trouble maker, but no record for strong arm robbery and no record of mugging old dudes. Still probably charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

Guy on ground is a bad dude with a record of strong arm robbery and assault on the elderly. Toss a coin and hope the cops pat you on the back.

Guy on ground is a bad dude with a record of strong arm robbery and assault on the elderly with his pockets full of cards and cash from the 2 other elderly folks he and his pals mugged into the hospital just a couple of hours ago. The cops pat you on the back, the paper writes an article about you making the world safer, the two other miscreants see the error of their ways and you adopt them raising one the be a cop and the other a priest...or they track you down an make paid for their buddy.

Change to witnesses-

If anyone says they heard or saw anything like a mugging in the making you're probably ok as long as the guy isn't the choir boy. But how are you going to know the personal or criminal record of three strangers? How are the witnesses going to be certain you were in imminent danger? How do you secure their motive?

So, there's no way to gauge how much trouble you're in since no one laid a hand on you before you laid out the guy. How do you know that your actions were reasonable unless you or someone else can show they had the means, opportunity and MOTIVE to attack you? The first two are easy, but how do you show motive?

This is no different than any situation with a deadly weapon, say ... a firearm. You have the same burden of reasonableness.
 
Last edited:
At the simplest level - I was taught informally that the winner of a fight went to jail - the loser to the hospital (if still living...). The differences between what a young recruit is taught in their Academy - and what they're actually taught on the street by their first training officer might just make a pretty good story (wait a moment didn't some guy named Wambaugh make a pretty good living writing those kinds of stories?)....

Your real problem in a self defense situation is that those who will decide what if any charges apply... were not on the scene, or threatened, or scared half to death by the circumstances... Not a lot of good outcomes for the potential victim that attacks first - but that's my street experience talking. Any lawyer will argue the point (from whatever side of the issue they're standing on....).

The fight or attack avoided is your absolute best outcome in every case. For those of us who have personal stories of one incident or other - they usually start or end with "-but I was younger then..."
 
I'm still an able bodied guy in his late 30s, should I be so lucky to live to the point that age requires me to rely on a cane, I think I will play the crotchety old man card first. If I feel 3 guys are circling like vultures, giving them some grouch about not looking for trouble should result in one of two reactions:

They are simply trying to go around you, give you a "what crawled up your keister, old man?" and are on their way around you.

Or they close in and try to make their move. Hopefully you ladle one and win the day.

My point is that it's not illegal to be cranky, and as long as you aren't antagonizing, it may clarify the intentions of others with no more of a risk than looking like an old buzzard.
 
Given those facts I would refuse to answer any questions (about the incident) without my lawyer present.

But if the OP is serious about answering the question, then a criminal defense attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in question should be consulted for an opinion.
 
I'd assume that to justify your use of self defense, you'd need to be able to articulate the A, O, and J of your attackers. Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy are often given as the plausibility test for lethal self defense. In your scenario, you have the first two.
Three young men against one old man gives them the Ability to cause you serious injury.
They are close, giving them the Opportunity to cause you serious injury.
However, with what you have written, you do not have a reasonable reason to feel in Jeopardy, since they have not attacked nor have they communicated to you that they desire to attack you.

Just my two cents.
 
Call the police after (if you can), tell them you were attacked and will cooperate after you have spoken to counsel. Be sure to explain your disability and request medical assistance for both yourself and anyone else requiring it. We pay lawyers to defend us in court.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top