Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Training & Safety (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f55/)
-   -   Legally shoot in self defense? (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f55/legally-shoot-self-defense-1372/)

BrownH 07-24-2007 03:15 PM

Legally shoot in self defense?
 
Based on your training or other knowledge, in what scenario's would it be legal to use a firearm in self defense?

What if someone was attacking you with a knife?
If someone was after you with a baseball bat?
What if several people were attempting to jump you?

ranger_sxt 07-24-2007 05:42 PM

It all depends on what your state laws say.

In Arizona, if you are reasonably in fear of your life, meaning you think that you could convince 12 random people off the street that you were, you may use deadly force to defend yourself. A knife or a bat could kill you.

robocop10mm 07-24-2007 09:24 PM

Shoot
 
+1 on Ranger sxt's comment. In Texas, like Arizona you must be in imminent fear of serious bodily injury or death. That fear must be reasonable. There was a case in Walker County (Huntsville) of two vodoo practicioners. #1 made it known in the community that he had some "voodoo dust" that would kill anyone sprinkled with it. He planned to sprinkle it on #2. They crossed paths one day and, sure enough, #1 started sprinkling the dust on #2. #2 shot and killed #1. Kinda hard to find 12 jurors that believe in voodoo. The community standard would not uphold the resonablness of the belief. #2 took a plea to manslaughter and got 10 yrs probation.

Spartan 08-09-2007 06:44 PM

shoot to kill
 
i think that even if your state laws are specific to what the circumstances might be in which you can legally use deadly force, someone should still be discretionary in that venture, and even when your life is threatened, you do not necessarily have to use lethal force. obviously if the other person is armed and is threatening you or someone else, you have an obligation to put that person down and keep him down. in the state of washington, which is a stand your ground state, you have the right to use deadly force to stop the commission of a felony, that being said, essentially, you can shoot the suspect when he is breaking in to your vehicle, but once he is driving down the road, the crime has already been committed. if someone attacks you with a bat or a knife, the odds are that you should more then likely, if you are a person who is aware of your surroundings, which if you carry a gun and are not then shouldnt be carrying a gun, but odds are that you will notice the fact that you are about to be attacked with a knife or a bat, people really arent that sneaky unless you are completely oblivious to it. in that case, you have the ability to use force, but you should use it with discretion, there is no need to kill the attacker, when you can effectively shoot him in the leg or the arm and wound him. if it doesnt stop the attack, you can at that point resort to more force, though in the case of an attack with a gun, i wouldnt hesitate to use lethal force, cant ask questions later if you're dead. there was a case i read about in which a suspect broke into a home, the homeowner caught the suspect and pointed a gun at him, and told him to leave, the suspect laughed and advanced on the homeowner who fired a warning shot. the warning shot ricochetted and hit the suspect, killing him. the police arrived and arrested the homeowner. why? because the homeowner informed the police that he wasnt trying to kill the suspect and that he had fired a warning shot which had not been intended to hit the suspect. that being the case, he was tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter. the fact was, that had he told the police that he had fired in self defense while in fear for his life and in defense of his family and home and had in fact intended to kill the suspect, he probably would not have been charged or tried. the law is subject to interpretation, and that interpretation is never our own. i dont believe this individual was actually convicted by a trial jury i believe he plead because there were probably extenuating circumstances, but the facts are still the same despite who the people were, to even allow a criminal to file a lawsuit against a homeowner for being injured while attempting to commit a home invasion or a burglary is something one would only find in the united states. its ridiculous.

ranger_sxt 08-09-2007 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan (Post 6124)
in that case, you have the ability to use force, but you should use it with discretion, there is no need to kill the attacker, when you can effectively shoot him in the leg or the arm and wound him.if it doesnt stop the attack, you can at that point resort to more force, though in the case of an attack with a gun, i wouldnt hesitate to use lethal force, cant ask questions later if you're dead.

You made good sense up until that point. You need to stop watching TV, and spend some time at a training class. No legitimate trainer anywhere advocates shooting to wound. If you are in fear of your life, you are in fear of your life. You need to shoot to stop the threat. The best way to do that, under stress, is multiple shots to either the central nervous system (upper spine or head) or one of the major blood vessels in the center of the chest.

In another thread, you said one should never take head shots, because the head is too small to hit, and moves too much. Now you want people to shoot at the arm or leg, which is even smaller, and moves even more?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan (Post 6124)
there was a case i read about in which a suspect broke into a home, the homeowner caught the suspect and pointed a gun at him, and told him to leave, the suspect laughed and advanced on the homeowner who fired a warning shot. the warning shot ricochetted and hit the suspect, killing him. the police arrived and arrested the homeowner. why? because the homeowner informed the police that he wasnt trying to kill the suspect and that he had fired a warning shot which had not been intended to hit the suspect. that being the case, he was tried and convicted of involuntary manslaughter. the fact was, that had he told the police that he had fired in self defense while in fear for his life and in defense of his family and home and had in fact intended to kill the suspect, he probably would not have been charged or tried. the law is subject to interpretation, and that interpretation is never our own. i dont believe this individual was actually convicted by a trial jury i believe he plead because there were probably extenuating circumstances, but the facts are still the same despite who the people were, to even allow a criminal to file a lawsuit against a homeowner for being injured while attempting to commit a home invasion or a burglary is something one would only find in the united states. its ridiculous.

I think you just disproved your point. If one were to take your stance of shooting to wound, and accidentally kill your attacker, you could be charged with manslaughter.

pioneer461 08-09-2007 09:25 PM

"...effectively shoot him in the leg or the arm and wound him."

I'd like to see someone hit a moving leg under a combat situation. That is simply not a relilable option. If the agressor is standing still enough to give you a shot at his leg, then he really isn't much of a threat.

"...in the case of an attack with a gun, i wouldnt hesitate to use lethal force,..."

Any time you discharge a firearm, no matter what your intended target is, you are using lethal force.

"...fear for his life and in defense of his family and home and had in fact intended to kill..."

We don't train to "shoot to kill." We shoot to stop the threat.

Spartan, with all due respect, may I suggest you take a serious self defense class? Not CCW, or hunter safety, but a serious self defense class. Many of the things you say seem to be urban legend, or woefully misinformed. Please do not use TV, the movies, the Internet, or news media as a base for information involving use of force.

Don Lu 08-09-2007 09:33 PM

Be careful w/the advice you give....somone may actually listen to you. :o

Spartan 08-09-2007 11:23 PM

wow
 
lol, talk about jumping the gun, never said any of that was what i was trained to do or was it what i would do if it was me. bottom line for me, if i had to defend myself i would fire for the center of mass and i would fire more then once and i can guarantee that i would hit what i was aiming for and the guy wouldnt get up. in that same respect, if i felt that i could fire five rounds at a downward angle and hit him in the thigh four times as he advanced wounding him severely enough too the point that he was no longer a legitimate threat, providing he was not armed with a firearm himself, i would and when asked, i would simply state that i was shooting to kill and that i was just a bad shot. maybe youve never taken a life, but its a freaking horrible thing to have to live with, it doesnt matter if they are american criminals or iraqi insurgents, lethal force must be on a case by case basis and discretionary, if one cannot make that split second decision within half that split second time then they shouldnt be carrying. they ask you during your police office oral board whether or not you would be able to take a life if it was necessary, not sure how others fair in that question, but the hesitation is what i think disqualifies people, you have to respond quickly and effectively to the answer, you cannot second guess yourself. what i say and what i do are two very different things, deadly force if absolutely necessary, i would rather go home knowing i spared a life then that i took one.

Spartan 08-09-2007 11:28 PM

tv?
 
and just as an adendum, i havent watched tv since 1998, what the hell is there really worth watching? i dont even have cable. not sure what the reference is to tv, but keep the attacks coming they are definitely amusing. life isnt about being that charles bronson dirty harry john wayne shoot em up have no mercy kind of guy. discretion is the better part of valor, discretion, there is no question that you have to be decisive, but retain discretion, if absolutely necessary, there is no hesitation, a good man would no this and act upon it, only a fool would not recognize the dire straits of his situation. give them nothing, but take from them everything

ranger_sxt 08-10-2007 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan (Post 6170)
lol, talk about jumping the gun, never said any of that was what i was trained to do or was it what i would do if it was me.

But you are recommending it for everyone else? What makes you so special that you get to shoot to kill, whereas everyone else needs to shoot to wound.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan (Post 6170)
bottom line for me, if i had to defend myself i would fire for the center of mass and i would fire more then once and i can guarantee that i would hit what i was aiming for and the guy wouldnt get up. in that same respect, if i felt that i could fire five rounds at a downward angle and hit him in the thigh four times as he advanced wounding him severely enough too the point that he was no longer a legitimate threat, providing he was not armed with a firearm himself, i would and when asked, i would simply state that i was shooting to kill and that i was just a bad shot.

Once again, why are you so special that you can shoot that way, but you recommend to everyone else that they should only shoot to wound.

And you are suggesting that people perjure themselves?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan (Post 6170)
maybe youve never taken a life, but its a freaking horrible thing to have to live with, it doesnt matter if they are american criminals or iraqi insurgents, lethal force must be on a case by case basis and discretionary, if one cannot make that split second decision within half that split second time then they shouldnt be carrying. they ask you during your police office oral board whether or not you would be able to take a life if it was necessary, not sure how others fair in that question, but the hesitation is what i think disqualifies people, you have to respond quickly and effectively to the answer, you cannot second guess yourself.

Your spewings reek of internet commandoisms. Yes, killing someone can be a life-altering event. However, police boards are not looking for the steely-eyed killers you are eluding to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan (Post 6170)
what i say and what i do are two very different things, deadly force if absolutely necessary, i would rather go home knowing i spared a life then that i took one.

Why are you allowed to make these deadly decisions, and suggest to everyone else that they should just shoot to wound?


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:12 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.