When Is The Line Of Justified Crossed

[gun_with_a_view]

Because I had a similar experience a few weeks back in which a suspect asked me to give him a few bucks, the following story was of special interest in trying to establish when someone crosses the line between an inquiring mind (yea, right) and attempted robbery: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/20/man-with-knife-approaches-father-and-daughter-father-pulls-gun/

It's no secret many experienced sociopaths parse their words to reflect innocence as they approach their intended victims, in this case from the rear. That alone has to be a major factor in a decision to defend. Possibly the only factor necessary, especially if the suspect has a criminal history. You don't know that at the time, but one can almost count on it these days with those types.

With respect to the kidnapping allegation, given the presence of two male suspects nearby in a van, a stealth approach by one suspect from the rear and a request for money seems sufficient justification alone to defend, but I solicit other's opinions.

On a side note, there just something wrong with two dudes in a van in a park and sneaking up behind people with children present. This incident amply illustrates tendency for most criminals who are not too doped up to leave the scene in a hurry when the victim pulls out a deadly weapon.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Sounds like a winner to me.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by gun_with_a_view:It's no secret many experienced sociopaths parse their words to reflect innocence as they approach their intended victims, in this case from the rear. That alone has to be a major factor in a decision to defend.

I don't understand. Are you seriously saying that words that "reflect innocence" enter into a justification to use force?

Possibly the only factor necessary, especially if the suspect has a criminal history. You don't know that at the time, but one can almost count on it these days with those types.

That would be most unlikely to matter at all.

given the presence of two male suspects nearby in a van, a stealth approach by one suspect from the rear and a request for money seems sufficient justification alone to defend, but I solicit other's opinions.

It would certainly cause one to be very wary indeed. You may or may not have reason to believe that an imminent threat exists, but the next question is one of necessity. Do you have to "defend"?

 

[LemmyCaution]

I dunno. I watched the video at the site that Daily Caller was linking through. Our hero doesn't have the safest firearm handling skills I've ever seen, and was eager to re-enact the incident for the cameras with his carry piece in a public park. I'm of the mind that one doesn't draw unless one means business, so he looks like a bit of a doofus to me.

The story would be a lot more credible if the reporter had commentary from law enforcement on their investigation of the event.

So if you're looking for affirmation on your notions of when it's appropriate to draw, I'm afraid I can't help you out. You should maybe spend some time comparing and contrasting the phrases 'suspicion,' and 'reasonable fear.' You seem awfully keen to equate all panhandlers with this particular alleged knife wielding kidnapper.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

It's no secret many experienced sociopaths parse their words to reflect innocence as they approach their intended victims, in this case from the rear. That alone has to be a major factor in a decision to defend. Possibly the only factor necessary, especially if the suspect has a criminal history. You don't know that at the time, but one can almost count on it these days with those types.

Be very careful with that line of thinking. If you ever do feel the need to introduce or use deadly force, you will be judged on the facts available to you at hand, not feelings or suspicions about the real meaning of words or a criminal history you can't know about. You must act based on real circumstances presented, nothing else. We all know the often used lined about "needing some money for a bus/gas" or wanting a light for a cigarette. Yes those things are said by many would-be thieves and murderers. But that alone is not justification for presenting or using deadly force. God forbid you draw down on some guy who really did just run out of gas, and he ends up calling the police.

Anyone who carries or is considering carrying needs to research their state and local laws on brandishing and the use of deadly force. You will be judged with those laws whether you want to or not, and whether you felt justified or not. If you actions are not legally permissible, you will get nailed for it no matter how well meaning you thought you might have been. The old adage of ignorance of the law being no excuse is as true here as it can ever be.

If you really are the bewildered by the idea, it may be wise to try to call up one of those free legal consultation programs you hear about on the radio, or even better, save up some cash and buy an hour of time from a reputable defense attorney. Spend a long while getting a good list of questions and scenarios together and see what the attorney says. Record the meeting if you can. Don't rely on gut feelings or internet advice when it comes to something as serious as this. The DA prosecuting you for brandishing or unlawful shooting will not care who told you what online or why you felt some guy asking for spare change deserved a gun in his face.

Every state law is going to be a little different, but I'd bet all of them say something along the lines of deadly force or presentation of deadly force must be predicated upon a real and definable threat to your life or great bodily harm. And you will have a very difficult time convincing people that someone asking for spare change by itself is reason enough.

 

[RussellC]

Typical legal definition is that the threat, to the reasonable man, must put him in imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury.

1 Reasonable man: Does not necessarily mean you, but what the fictional "rational man" would feel.

2. Imminent: immediate reasonable fear that is about to happen Now, not maybe or possibly could.

3.Death or serious bodily injury: The threat viewed by the reasonable man, would lead him to believe that the attackers actions would cause death, or at least serious bodily injury, right now, with little time to consider given said threat.

As you could imagine, this covers a lot of territory, and can go a lot of different directions in various situations. May have, could have, looked like do not get you there without more Then, different jurisdictions may put various spins on this, Castle doctrine, stand your ground, etc

Hope this helps.

Russellc

 

[GAF]

What about the guy sneaking up and having a knife?
Seems that part of the story has been lost in this tread.
That would be enough for me to draw my weapon.

When was the last time a panhandler approached you with a knife in hand to ask for money?

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by GAF: What about the guy sneaking up and having a knife?....That would be enough for me to draw my weapon.

Yep.

But the question was about whether a comment from a person who "parse their words to reflect innocence as they approach their intended victims, in this case from the rear" would "alone ... be a major factor in a decision to defend".

And then something about the likelihood that the person might have a criminal record.

The real issue is the fact that a man approaching from within fifteen feet was wielding a knife.

Not a good situation; could have been too late.

 

[GAF]

Yep.

But the question was about whether a comment from a person who "parse their words to reflect innocence as they approach their intended victims, in this case from the rear" would "alone ... be a major factor in a decision to defend".

And then something about the likelihood that the person might have a criminal record.

The real issue is the fact that a man approaching from within fifteen feet was wielding a knife.

Not a good situation; could have been too late.

Is not intent what we a really talking about here ? We can only guess at that person intent. Empty hands show one kind of intent (maybe)( hard to judge) and a person wielding a knife , but saying nice words. We can see the intent.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Empty hands show one kind of intent (maybe)( hard to judge) and a person wielding a knife , but saying nice words. We can see the intent.

Maybe or maybe not. Everything depends on the totality of the circumstances. Remember that if you resort to violence and claim self defense you will need to be able to convincingly articulate why a reasonable person in like circumstance would have concluded that the "assailant" had --

• Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
  
  
• Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force; and
  
  
• 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 had the intent to kill or cripple.

For a more in depth discussion of the law regarding the use of force in self defense, see here.

 

[GAF]

Not very black and white is it?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Not very black and white is it?

No, it is not.

 

[DaisyCutter]

I've not shot people who've done far worse. I've had multiple justified shooting scenarios in the course of a 7 year police career. For me to be morally justified, the shooting needs to be necessary, not simply statutorily justified.

Quit looking for an excuse to pop someone.

 

[GAF]

Is a situation that i thought is was necessary to draw my weapon I would be looking for any excuse to not shoot and any way to exit .

THR is a good place to for prospective and some answers. For those people looking for answers for when it is justified to draw your weapon and use deadly force, read your states laws, read them again, reread them several more times all the while writing down any questions you have.

Find someone versed in these laws and ask them your questions.

Legalese can be hard to understand on the first reading as most of us are not lawyers.

 

[Davek1977]

Even with the factors presented as they are, I wouldn't draw upon someone begging for change, even if they approached from behind. Do you really think "He came up from behind me and asked for money, so I shot him" will stand up in court? If you don't, then drawing wouldn't be your most prudent move. I don't factor the knife in at all, because the OP never mentioned it in HIS scenario, but was reflected in the video link. However, our OP simply mentioned someone asking for change from behind, while other presumed undesirables were also on the scene in a van. The presence of a weapon changes things considerably, but I can't make the presumption the beggar was armed from the OP's statement.

 

[Derry 1946]

THR is a good place to for prospective and some answers. For those people looking for answers for when it is justified to draw your weapon and use deadly force, read your states laws, read them again, reread them several more times all the while writing down any questions you have.

Find someone versed in these laws and ask them your questions.

Legalese can be hard to understand on the first reading as most of us are not lawyers.

Yes, and the statutes will not give you an insight into pertinent case law and any local regulations. Your local CCP trainers likely have a good lay understanding of how justification works in your jurisdiction. The bar association may also be able to help you find a local attorney with relevant experience who would be willing to sit down with you, explain the law, and answer some questions. This will cost a lot less than defending a homicide prosecution. The mass media and the internet are rife with misinformation that could lead you astray at the crucial moment of decision. Concepts such as "castle doctrine," "stand your ground," defense of others, and use of force to "defend" property, are routinely oversimplified. Just as guns are complex and cannot be simplified (and still function) just by removing parts we don't understand, so the law cannot be boiled down to a simple rule of thumb that will reliably keep one out of trouble.

 

[Kleanbore]

"When Is The Line Of Justified Crossed"?

The words "...seems sufficient justification alone to defend..." in the OP imply that the question is one of when the use of force or deadly force is lawfully justified.

A defender should not be trying to decide whether force is justified. He or she should be trying to avoid the use of force, and should use it only if he or she really believes that it is immediately necessary as a last resort at the time.

If force is used in an encounter, the question of whether it was lawfully justified in that circumstance will ultimately be answered afterward by others, on the basis of the evidence available afterward.