Rab/bit
New member
At what point can you pull and shoot for self defence?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
self defence
- Thread starter Rab/bit
- Start date
Welcome to OCDO.
Bend over, put your head between your legs, look up and kiss that round part goodbye, as you are about to get dogpiled. Even though the search function is wonky at best, even a newbie might think to use it before posing a question as basic as yours. The issue has been discussed so much that whenever it comes up we all chant the answer, in unison, like a Greek chorus. Sometimes it is downright scary.
You should at least have a basic understanding of your local laws when you begin carrying. There's no need to take a concealed carry class to learn them. You can select from a number of classes that the NRA offers http://www.nrainstructors.org/searchcourse.aspx that will cover the matter and still not qualify you for a concealed carry permission slip.
stay safe.
PS - "When you are in imminent danger of death or serious/grevious bodily injury [and, if your state requires it, you have met the duty to retreat and stll are in imminent danger]."
And we only shoot to stop the threat, not to wound or kill or scare them (warning shot).
Learn the 4 Rules http://www.thegunzone.com/therules.html or http://www.corneredcat.com/article/firearms-safety/the-four-rules/ or in the original http://thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html Here's a poster you can print off http://mondaynightshootingleague.org/pdf/FourBasicRulesOfFirearmSafety.pdf
Bend over, put your head between your legs, look up and kiss that round part goodbye, as you are about to get dogpiled. Even though the search function is wonky at best, even a newbie might think to use it before posing a question as basic as yours. The issue has been discussed so much that whenever it comes up we all chant the answer, in unison, like a Greek chorus. Sometimes it is downright scary.
You should at least have a basic understanding of your local laws when you begin carrying. There's no need to take a concealed carry class to learn them. You can select from a number of classes that the NRA offers http://www.nrainstructors.org/searchcourse.aspx that will cover the matter and still not qualify you for a concealed carry permission slip.
stay safe.
PS - "When you are in imminent danger of death or serious/grevious bodily injury [and, if your state requires it, you have met the duty to retreat and stll are in imminent danger]."
And we only shoot to stop the threat, not to wound or kill or scare them (warning shot).
Learn the 4 Rules http://www.thegunzone.com/therules.html or http://www.corneredcat.com/article/firearms-safety/the-four-rules/ or in the original http://thefiringline.com/Misc/safetyrules.html Here's a poster you can print off http://mondaynightshootingleague.org/pdf/FourBasicRulesOfFirearmSafety.pdf
OC for ME
Regular Member
Do not take too seriously the comments of skidmark, except the sage and well proven comments (paragraph two and beyond) below the snarky comments (paragraph one). Here on OCDO skidmark is many things, providing wrong advice is not one of those things in my experience.
Welcome to OCDO.
P.S. Just ask the question and take your lumps, stating that the search function is wonky is being extremely polite in my view.
Welcome to OCDO.
P.S. Just ask the question and take your lumps, stating that the search function is wonky is being extremely polite in my view.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Unless you are in multiple states the question really should have been state specific.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
If you are serious about this issue and of a mind to keep and maybe carry a firearm for your protection, I strongly, strongly advise you to take a course in the use of deadly force in your state. Not a surface styled carry course, though that can get you started, but a serious course in the subject at hand. If you can't find one in your area, there are books on this subject as well as videos. Those are a good place to start so take advantage of them.
Lastly, learn to separate the BS from facts. The fact that you came here to ask your question is a good thing; you'd be surprised how much crap people will tell you, with an air of authority, with this topic. Skidmark already gave the cast in stone variant for you answer... take this further and do your research. Learn and know the laws of your state and what your responsibilities are should you ever have to use a firearm.
Lastly, learn to separate the BS from facts. The fact that you came here to ask your question is a good thing; you'd be surprised how much crap people will tell you, with an air of authority, with this topic. Skidmark already gave the cast in stone variant for you answer... take this further and do your research. Learn and know the laws of your state and what your responsibilities are should you ever have to use a firearm.
ncwabbit
Regular Member
welcome to OC Forum...you will learn to smile sweetly and duck quickly every now and again to keep the barbs from seriously damaging your ego or persona..
wabbit
ps: might go to KY and look to see if they have a sticky on that state's statutes...
pps: comments below are right on guidance...
wabbit
ps: might go to KY and look to see if they have a sticky on that state's statutes...
pps: comments below are right on guidance...
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
When it is lawful.
When is it lawful? Aye, now THAT be the question!
Ask in your State forum.
And...Welcome!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
When is it lawful? Aye, now THAT be the question!
Ask in your State forum.
And...Welcome!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
self preservation
Regular Member
At the top of the KY forum is a sticky thread on KY laws. Read, read and read..
KYGlockster
Activist Member
503.010 Definitions for chapter.
The following definitions apply in this chapter unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Deadly physical force" means force which is used with the purpose of causing death or serious physical injury or which the defendant knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious physical injury.
(2) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(3) "Imminent" means impending danger, and, in the context of domestic violence and abuse as defined by KRS 403.720, belief that danger is imminent can be inferred from a past pattern of repeated serious abuse.
(4) "Physical force" means force used upon or directed toward the body of another person and includes confinement.
(5) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(6) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
_____________________________________________________________
503.050 Use of physical force in self-protection -- Admissibility of evidence of prior acts of domestic violence and abuse.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (
1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055.
(3) Any evidence presented by the defendant to establish the existence of a prior act or acts of domestic violence and abuse as defined in KRS 403.720 by the person against whom the defendant is charged with employing physical force shall be admissible under this section.
(4) A person does not have a duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly physical force.
_______________________________________________________________
503.055 Use of defensive force regarding dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle -- Exceptions.
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) of this section does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
(b) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used;
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a peace officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a felony involving the use of force.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
___________________________________________________________________
503.070 Protection of another.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person; and
(b) Under the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when:
(a) The defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect a third person against imminent death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055; and
(b) Under the circumstances as they actually exist, the person whom he seeks to protect would himself have been justified under KRS 503.050 and 503.060 in using such protection.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
_________________________________________________________________________
503.080 Protection of property.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:
(a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or
(b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
____________________________________________________________________________
503.085 Justification and criminal and civil immunity for use of permitted force -- Exceptions.
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in KRS 503.050, 503.055, 503.070, and 503.080 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom the force was used is a peace officer, as defined in KRS 446.010, who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a peace officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1) of this section, but the agency MAY NOT arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff, if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1) of this section.
______________________________________________________________________________
503.100 Prevention of a suicide or crime.
(1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent such other person from:
(a) Committing suicide or inflicting serious physical injury upon himself; or
(b) Committing a crime involving or threatening serious physical injury to person, substantial damage to or loss of property, or any other violent conduct.
(2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1)(b) only when the defendant believes that the person whom he seeks to prevent from committing a crime is likely to endanger human life.
(3) The limitations imposed on the justifiable use of force in self-protection by KRS 503.050 and 503.060, for the protection of others by KRS 503.070, for the protection of property by KRS 503.080, and for the effectuation of an arrest or the prevention of an escape by KRS 503.090 apply notwithstanding the criminality of the conduct against which such force is used.
____________________________________________________________________________
You can read the statutes in their entirety here: http://lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/CHAPTER.HTM
Last edited:
self preservation
Regular Member
KYGlockster
Activist Member
Always gotta 1 up me, don't ya?:lol:
HAHA. Hey, he asked!
KYGlockster and self preservation -
Wonderful responses, but you compltely and utterly failed to answer the OP's question. It's all well and good to know what the law says about the use of physical force, incliding deadly force, and all that other stuff, but you still have not told the OP
And to be honest, neither did I.
How will the OP know that the threat is of death or serious/grevious bodily injury, as opposed to merely a really bad asswhooping?
How will the OP know when the threat is imminent, as opposed to whatever-the-word-is-for-really-soon-but-not-imminently?
How will the OP know that the third party is an innocent one, as opposed to having some degree of culpability for being in their situation?
And before any of the attorneys show up and give us that BS they spout when their client is on trial, just where do the expect to find that mythical "reasonable man" they always talk about? (I am not even going to go to the fact that the argument is sexist in that they never bring up the notion of a reasonable woman.)
The best answer I can come up with, after days of considering the question, is: "Just at the moment when you need to; not a second before and not a second after."
My second-best answer is: "When the jury will believe you can be excused* for having done so."
stay safe.
* - My experience has been that only cops are justified in commiting a homicide - all the rest of us can only be excused.
Wonderful responses, but you compltely and utterly failed to answer the OP's question. It's all well and good to know what the law says about the use of physical force, incliding deadly force, and all that other stuff, but you still have not told the OP
And to be honest, neither did I.
How will the OP know that the threat is of death or serious/grevious bodily injury, as opposed to merely a really bad asswhooping?
How will the OP know when the threat is imminent, as opposed to whatever-the-word-is-for-really-soon-but-not-imminently?
How will the OP know that the third party is an innocent one, as opposed to having some degree of culpability for being in their situation?
And before any of the attorneys show up and give us that BS they spout when their client is on trial, just where do the expect to find that mythical "reasonable man" they always talk about? (I am not even going to go to the fact that the argument is sexist in that they never bring up the notion of a reasonable woman.)
The best answer I can come up with, after days of considering the question, is: "Just at the moment when you need to; not a second before and not a second after."
My second-best answer is: "When the jury will believe you can be excused* for having done so."
stay safe.
* - My experience has been that only cops are justified in commiting a homicide - all the rest of us can only be excused.
KYGlockster
Activist Member
I have given him the definitions for the chapter and the relvant statutes that apply in Kentucky. The statutes clearly state when lethal force can be used. If we are not involved in one of the instances expressed in the statutes then I would not pull the trigger. If we are in an occupied vehicle (notice "vehicle" is considered ANY conveyance that transports people) or our residence or dwelling we can use lethal force on anyone that is attempting to break in or that already has done so as long as they do not have a legal right to be inside either place. That is as straightforward as one can get in my opinion. He must study the chapter definitions to understand what is considered a dwelling and residence. A dwelling is considered many things, even an occupied tent.
As for being out on the street, he will have to make his own determination based on the STATUTES. If he doesn't know the statutes (which he obviously doesn't) then he is in no posistion to make a decision concerning the use of lethal force. Now he can study the statutes, and based off of those he can come to his own determination as to when lethal force can be used outside of his dwelling or occupied vehicle.
I would not use lethal force unless my life was in jeoprady. I would use lethal force to protect my children from the actions expressed in the statutes. I would NOT use lethal force to stop a felony unless I believed someone else's life was in danger (this is outside of my home or occupied vehicle; I will use lethal force to stop anyone from entering my home or occupied vehicle or from committing a felony in the same).
Now that he knows what he is legally allowed to do he can make his own determination as to when he believes lethal force is warranted.
Last edited:
self preservation
Regular Member
Skidmark. Maybe this will provide the OP with some better info.
The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. — Massad Ayoob
That statement by Mr. Ayoob, one of the premier authorities on these matters, is a succinct summary of the basic elements of any justifiable use of force in self-defense. Essentially, it is very simple: In order to determine justifiability, the courts want to know that you had to do what you did. Since “had to” is a pretty subjective judgment, it is legally defined, usually in the following way:
Ability
Your attacker must have the ability—the physical, practical ability—to cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does context. A gun gives your attacker ability (lethal ability, in fact); a knife gives ability as well. Indeed, most weapons qualify, all the way down to glass bottles, baseball bats, and screwdrivers. While the latter are not designed as weapons, if they are applied as such, they can certainly kill you just as dead.
Other “ability” considerations include disparity in size or physical power between you and your attacker—a very large man versus a very small man, a strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a bookworm, a man versus a woman, all can apply. And don’t forget disparity in numbers—four men attacking one can very easily kill or cripple, unless that one is a Hollywood action hero.
Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal force uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and break your nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.
In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this point. The important question is simply whether, as far as you know, the attacker has the ability to harm you—kill or maim you, if you respond with lethal force, or lesser degrees of danger for equivalently lesser uses of force.
Opportunity
Although opportunity can be viewed as a subset of ability, it is an equally important criterion. Basically, while your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you harm, it means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so—right here and right now. After all, there are probably countless criminals in the world who “could” kill you and might do so, given the chance; but they aren’t standing in front of you at this moment, so they don’t have that opportunity.
The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn’t reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.
Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity. For instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a threat? Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through the door, that would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he started—successfully—breaking the door down, then he would promptly become dangerous again. Again, use common sense.
Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.
In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)
On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.
It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.
The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!” is meaningful.
Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy” condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.
Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.
In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.
The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.
Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, “He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask, “Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.
Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.
The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.
Always remember:
1.The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2.Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3.Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain.
Knock your attacker over—then keep stomping on him while he’s down and not moving? Bad. Pull a knife and slash—and keep slashing when your assailant pulls away? Uh-oh; now you’re not only breaking the rules, you’re leaving “defensive wounds,” a signature of cuts and marks which forensics experts will use to prove that he was an unwilling victim
The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent. — Massad Ayoob
That statement by Mr. Ayoob, one of the premier authorities on these matters, is a succinct summary of the basic elements of any justifiable use of force in self-defense. Essentially, it is very simple: In order to determine justifiability, the courts want to know that you had to do what you did. Since “had to” is a pretty subjective judgment, it is legally defined, usually in the following way:
Ability
Your attacker must have the ability—the physical, practical ability—to cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does context. A gun gives your attacker ability (lethal ability, in fact); a knife gives ability as well. Indeed, most weapons qualify, all the way down to glass bottles, baseball bats, and screwdrivers. While the latter are not designed as weapons, if they are applied as such, they can certainly kill you just as dead.
Other “ability” considerations include disparity in size or physical power between you and your attacker—a very large man versus a very small man, a strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a bookworm, a man versus a woman, all can apply. And don’t forget disparity in numbers—four men attacking one can very easily kill or cripple, unless that one is a Hollywood action hero.
Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal force uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and break your nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.
In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this point. The important question is simply whether, as far as you know, the attacker has the ability to harm you—kill or maim you, if you respond with lethal force, or lesser degrees of danger for equivalently lesser uses of force.
Opportunity
Although opportunity can be viewed as a subset of ability, it is an equally important criterion. Basically, while your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you harm, it means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so—right here and right now. After all, there are probably countless criminals in the world who “could” kill you and might do so, given the chance; but they aren’t standing in front of you at this moment, so they don’t have that opportunity.
The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man with a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn’t reach you with his knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that time span.
Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity. For instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a threat? Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through the door, that would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he started—successfully—breaking the door down, then he would promptly become dangerous again. Again, use common sense.
Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy requirement, sometimes called “imminent jeopardy.” This criterion requires that, in your specific situation, a “reasonable and prudent” person would have believed himself to be in immediate danger.
In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The reason you aren’t “defending” yourself against them is because you have no reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would they?)
On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you, any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause you harm.
It’s important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person’s intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake, or he wouldn’t actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because you could not have known those things.
The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is meaningless, but “I’m gonna kill you right now!” is meaningful.
Finally, it’s essential to understand that the “immediate jeopardy” condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.
Preclusion
Preclusion is not so much an individual consideration as it is an all-encompassing lens through which to view your actions. More complex than the others, it is nevertheless just as important. It is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to use force only as a last resort—that is, only when the circumstances preclude all other options.
In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that “something” if you have no other safe options.
The word “safe” is key there, because at no time does the law ever require you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm’s way, you are not required to do so.
Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments, and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal citizens in a dispute. You can say, “He tried to hit me,” but then the police and the courts will ask, “Why didn’t you _____?” You must have no options to offer to fill in that blank—there must have been no other courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the use of force. Otherwise, you’re just fighting because you want to, and that’s a crime.
Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like “give me your money or I’ll hurt you” requires you to, well, give him your money? Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law values “life and limb” above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not respond with a fist. He’s giving you a choice, which, by definition, means that you still have options other than force.
The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably cannot justifiably shoot him, because that’s a lethal response to a non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound boxer punches you, you may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be deadly as well.
Always remember:
1.The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2.Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3.Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment—and if the results are glaring (e.g., you killed him), it’s nearly certain.
Knock your attacker over—then keep stomping on him while he’s down and not moving? Bad. Pull a knife and slash—and keep slashing when your assailant pulls away? Uh-oh; now you’re not only breaking the rules, you’re leaving “defensive wounds,” a signature of cuts and marks which forensics experts will use to prove that he was an unwilling victim
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I found this video helpful. The speaker, Massad Ayoob, wrote one of the first books for citizens about various aspects of deadly force, In the Gravest Extreme. He has a school for citizens named Lethal Force Institute.
Unfortunately, the last ten minutes of the video are missing, and I didn't see any other versions that include all of it.
Just understand that the speaker is speaking broadly. Your state law may vary. For example, some states have a duty to retreat, but not others.
[video=youtube;m7sbHfBg92w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7sbHfBg92w[/video]
Unfortunately, the last ten minutes of the video are missing, and I didn't see any other versions that include all of it.
Just understand that the speaker is speaking broadly. Your state law may vary. For example, some states have a duty to retreat, but not others.
[video=youtube;m7sbHfBg92w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7sbHfBg92w[/video]
KYGlockster, self preservation, and Citizen -
I guess you took me too literally.
Most noobs that ask "When can I shoot?" are looking for a short, sweet answer that has less than a dozen words, none of which are over three syllables long.
Having been around the block a time or two, we know there is no such thing as a short, sweet answer. Your follow-ups to my last post demonstrate that vividly.
Since we have not heard back from Rab/bit since early yesterday morning, we can only guess if he was satisfied with what he got, was overwhelmed with what he got, or is just sitting back watching us bust our backs trying to figure out how to put a detailed, all-encompassing answer to his question into less than a dozen words, none of which are over three syllables long.
stay safe.
I guess you took me too literally.
Most noobs that ask "When can I shoot?" are looking for a short, sweet answer that has less than a dozen words, none of which are over three syllables long.
Having been around the block a time or two, we know there is no such thing as a short, sweet answer. Your follow-ups to my last post demonstrate that vividly.
Since we have not heard back from Rab/bit since early yesterday morning, we can only guess if he was satisfied with what he got, was overwhelmed with what he got, or is just sitting back watching us bust our backs trying to figure out how to put a detailed, all-encompassing answer to his question into less than a dozen words, none of which are over three syllables long.
stay safe.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Nothing personal, but I wasn't taking you at all. I was just replying to the OP question.
Also, I was taking into account any new readers or lurkers who may not be familiar. This is why I often write out the words reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) the first time I use the term in a post--I know the veteran OCers already know it; I'm writing it for the new guys and lurkers.
Last edited:
self preservation
Regular Member
You're right about them (noobs) looking for a short and sweet answer. And you're also right that such a complex and serious question can not be answered in 10 words or less. It's like asking someone to explain in detail how women think using 10 words or less. Impossible:lol: Maybe we did provide more info than what OP wanted. But back when I was asking the very question that OP ask, I'm glad that folks like you took the time to give me the real answers and not just some watered down version of an answer. I just wanted to try to do the same for a new guy.
I took the time to read and study those long answers and were so thankful that some folks on OCDO took the time to provide them to me. As far as what OP does/does not do with the info we provided........I guess it's like the old saying that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. And I also agree with you that since OP hasn't been back that he didn't really have much interest in learning to begin with.