How far away from home can you use lethal force?

deadly force

every state will have different laws pertaining to deadly force, you have to read your local statutes thoroughly. deadly force is obviously something that shouldnt be taken lightly, just because you carry a weapon or have the right to carry a weapon, own or possess one, does not mean that deadly force is warranted in every situation, obviously, if your life is threatened, you have the right to react accordingly, but in most states, your life has to be directly under the threat of serious harm, or your loved ones, before you can use deadly force. now that does not mean you cannot shoot back either. shooting back, and using deadly force are two very different things. remember also, that discharging a weapon within the city limits, in most jurisdictions, is still a punishable offense, more then likely if it is a situation of self defense, you will probably not face the hangman, but again, the burden of proof on that will be on you. Discretion is always necessary when carrying a weapon, because of the simple fact that you do have the ability to take life. even the life of a degenerate will still hang heavy on a good man's heart...they saying killing is a hard thing to do well, that is the true. some states also have a retreat clause, which states that you must retreat a certain distance before you can turn and fire back. other states are stand your ground states, which mean that once your clear leather, you can shoot. i greatest deciding factor will be in the end, how much of a threat were you really under. in most cases you would find that merely having a weapon in close proximity will persuade most individuals to do otherwise, then that which they had intended against you...others you may have to draw your weapon...very few will require a round to be discharged in self defense. they occur, but then a second factor comes in to play. if you point a weapon and someone in self defense, and fire it at that person, make sure you know how to use it, and are not firing in a panic. in most jurisdictions, the following applies: if you aim at the suspect and are intending to wound him, and you wound him, you are ok. now, if you fire at the suspect intending to kill him, and you kill him, you are ok. now here is the probably, because people have no grasp of the law...if you fire at someone intending to wound them and you actually kill them you can be charged with involuntary manslaughter, because you were not intending to kill them. and if you shoot at them intending to kill them but you wound them, not only can you be sued for the damages, but you can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or even attempted manslaughter. case in point, in washington state there was a case where a guy had his house broken into several times. he bought a gun. the suspect broke into his house again. now i do not know the relationship between these two individuals or how this all occurred, but for someone to continuously break into another persons house on more then one occasion would to me constitute some sort of recognition, or that they knew each other somewhat. so the suspect breaks into the house, and the home owner confronts the suspect with weapon drawn and tells him to leave. the suspect refuses and so the home owner discharges a warning shot. now, for pointers never fire a warning shot, its pointless, it makes noise, doesnt accomplish anything, removes the weapon from the target, wastes ammo, and will usually come back down and kill some unfortunate 6 year old on a trampoline. so he fires a warning shot, and the warning shot goes high and kills the suspect. the police arrive, the home owner tells them he didnt mean to kill the suspect, he fired a warning shot and it accidently killed him. wrong answer. he was arrested and charged with manslaughter and is in prison right now serving a seven year term. why? because he did not mean to kill the suspect and admitted it was an accident. had he simply stated to the police that he had fired his weapon in self defense and had in fact intended to take the suspects life to preserve his own, he would not have been charged. usually, in a situation when you have to fire a weapon, in 99% of the cases, the people have done so only as a last resort. best advice i could give, is if that ever happens, no matter how innocent you are and how obvious the self defense was, and how helpful and concerned the police might be, in that type of a situation, they are not your friends and anything you say can be used against you. say nothing, and contact an attorney before you give any sort of statement. because you will be put through the ringer on any sort of gun related situation. the last thing you want to do is lose your right to own a weapon because you defended yourself.

We should all thank Spartan for this timely reminder that not everything we read on the Internet is reliable.

"...shooting back, and using deadly force are two very different things."

This is ludicrous. Discharging a firearm at a human being is always and everywhere and in every circumstance "using deadly force."

"...in most jurisdictions, the following applies: if you aim at the suspect and are intending to wound him, and you wound him, you are ok. now, if you fire at the suspect intending to kill him, and you kill him, you are ok. now here is the probably, because people have no grasp of the law...if you fire at someone intending to wound them and you actually kill them you can be charged with involuntary manslaughter, because you were not intending to kill them. and if you shoot at them intending to kill them but you wound them, not only can you be sued for the damages, but you can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or even attempted manslaughter."

Talk about someone with "no grasp of the law"...

I defy Spartan, or anyone else, to show me ANY "jurisdiction", or any reputable firearms training program anywhere--police, military or civilian--that recognizes the concept of "shooting to wound" as a lesser, or indeed a separate, offense or act than shooting to kill. You don't even see that error in bad movies any more.

These ideas are not just wrong; they are glaringly, egregiously, and dangerously wrong. There are other errors and examples of fake "expertise" in this post, but these examples stand out as BS of the purest ray serene.

The nature of this post, and perhaps of this person, is painfully obvious; this is a guy who wants to sound like he knows what he's talking about, but in fact has not the dimmest understanding of the law, the proper use of firearms, or of logical and consistent thought.

He has never, for sure, had a single moment of actual training in the use of firearms or in the legal ramifications thereof; he's never read a book on these subjects; and I doubt if he's ever even read a magazine article about them. He's making up his "expertise" out of his own head, and I'm frankly puzzled by his apparent belief that no one will be able to see this a mile away.

So thanks, Spartan, for reminding us; advice you get on the Web is worth exactly what you pay for it.

And sometimes very much less...

cnorman18 said:

I defy Spartan, or anyone else, to show me ANY "jurisdiction", or any reputable firearms training program anywhere--police, military or civilian--that recognizes the concept of "shooting to wound" as a lesser, or indeed a separate, offense or act than shooting to kill. You don't even see that error in bad movies any more.

Click to expand...

I love a challenge

***THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS A PURE BLACK AND WHITE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. THE LAW HAS MANY GRAY AREAS, AND WHAT FOLLOWS IS NOT TO BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU THINK THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO USE SHOOTING TO WOUND AS A POTENTIAL MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE, PLEASE SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY, WHO WILL KICK YOU IN THE NUTS AND TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT.***

In Arizona, there is an offense called "Aggravated Assault" (ARS 13-1204). It builds on "Assault" (ARS 13-1203) adding circumstances, like serious bodily injury, or the use of a deadly weapon. If one were able to prove that he were only trying to wound the person, then he could not be convicted of attempted murder, as the culpable mental state required for an attempted homicide is intentionally.

He is correct, by an exact definition of the law, in Arizona. However, what the law says, and what is actually done, is usually very dissimilar.

***THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT WAS A PURE BLACK AND WHITE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW. THE LAW HAS MANY GRAY AREAS, AND WHAT PRECEDES IS NOT TO BE USED AS LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU THINK THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO USE SHOOTING TO WOUND AS A POTENTIAL MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE, PLEASE SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY, WHO WILL KICK YOU IN THE NUTS AND TELL YOU THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT.***

I'll stand by my point, thanks. If you've actually heard or read of "shooting to wound" being recognized as a legitimate concept by any court anywhere, let me know. Remember, Spartan said that that concept "applies in most jurisdictions."

I'd like to know if anyone out there believes that Spartan is really a cop with "15 years of self defense training and knife and weapons training". Besides the "shooting to wound" issue, among other things, Spartan (1) does not know that silencers are NFA-controlled devices and are otherwise illegal under Federal law; (2) advocates drawing a knife and leaving your gun in its holster when under attack at close range; (3) does not know that firing a gun at someone constitutes a use of deadly force; and (4) claims to hold a Washington CHL as well as numerous out-of-state CCW permits, and says that "there are only about 4 or 5 states i cannot carry in." (for those who don't know, since 2004, active or retired law enforcement officers may carry concealed in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of local statutes, by Federal law.)

Spartan is not a cop, and has received no training anywhere. I don't state that as "my opinion"--I state it as fact.

It would be easy for Spartan to prove me wrong without revealing his identity; he could just tell us the name of the training facility or program where he was taught to "shoot to wound" and to pull a knife instead of a gun at close quarters. I will contact that facility or program and verify the information (as can anyone else) and confess my error here, complete with abject apology.

Don't hold your breath.

Of course, even then, there's still that little matter of why a cop would go to the trouble of getting CHLs--and even taking classes!--to carry in states where he already had that right, if he were really a police officer...