Self Defense Scenario Question

It's amazing the constraints that a LAC is under in a SD situation. We can't fire a warning shot, we dare not brandish, we dare not even say 'I haz a gun' (unless we don't have one), and we have to retreat, we dare not shoot an unarmed person even if they are a giant athletic type and we are a small person, and in the end we have to prove to a jury that we were, indeed, in fear for our lives. Even with that, a small female who accidentally discharges her firearm at an abusive spouse has the spouse testify against her and she faces a 15 year prison term.

However, LEOs can shoot a small female with a paring knife 5 times, can shoot an elderly person in his driveway 15 times, can taser a 14 yo child to death, can taser a 95 yo disabled elderly person to death and nothing at all happens to them.

I ask you who are the real danger to our lives and well being? It's not the typical bad guy on the street.

IMO a typical LEO probably breaks the law, be it constitutional or other ordinance (such as traffic laws) more times in a day than I do in a lifetime.

OC for ME said:

Thanks.

Here in Fly Over Country, my personal bubble is pierced when I get touched, unwantingly that is. Until then I am compelled by my law abidingness to wait and watch for obvious signs of imminent physical harm that would very likely justify my use of lethal force to prevent my personal bubble from being pierced. VA may be different than MO.

Click to expand...

I'm willing to yank you chain in response for you trying to yank my chain.

Does your response (above) mean that if you clearly see the presence of a weapon, displayed in an offensive manner, by someone approaching you either on a direct path or in a manner reasonably interpreted as being designed to cut off your avenue of withdrawal, that you will not/do not interpret those actions as part of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury? In otrher words, are you saying that any such threat must reach the point of being carried into action resulting in contact by a weapon before you are justified (personal decision or case law ininterpretation) in using lethal force to defend yourself?

What you wrote actually seems to be two contradictatory statements. 1 - That you must first be touched inpermissively; and 2 - that the identification of an imminent threat is sufficient.

I may be blind in both ears and deaf in one eye, but what's left of my mind is as sharp as the proverbial tack. Printing back at me in enlareged type will not change the fact that the explanation of what you seem to have been seeking was already supplied. But, just for the heck of reading my own words once again: there is no hard and fast rule in either Virginia statutory/case law or in my personal interpretation as a resident of Virginia of what one specific situation poses in the way of a threat - imminent or otherwise.

stay safe.

Nightmare said:

The road to Hell is paved with stones of what-if.

My plan is to not draw until it's time to shoot, and then in one smooth motion, that I have practiced many more than a thousand times, draw, aim COM fire Double Action, aim COM fire Single Action, decock, ... and the shooter's world turns to brown.

Click to expand...

I think you might want to consider that last step. If you train to fire two shots in that sort of situation, you'll fire two shots. Two shots might not be enough to end the threat, or they may be more than is necessary to do so.

As I understand it, the short answer to this is that you should draw your weapon only when you are legally able and morally compelled to do so. That means you must be facing an imminent risk to life.

Imminent is not the same as immediately. To put it another way - if you drew now and shot the guy, would you be able to stand in front of God and a courtroom and honestly say that you felt that you had no other viable option?

Lyndsy Simon said:

As I understand it, the short answer to this is that you should draw your weapon only when you are legally able and morally compelled to do so. That means you must be facing an imminent risk to life.

Imminent is not the same as immediately. To put it another way - if you drew now and shot the guy, would you be able to stand in front of God and a courtroom and honestly say that you felt that you had no other viable option?

Click to expand...

In VA, "no other viable option" is not part of the formula. For example, we have no so-called duty to retreat.

Citizen said:

In VA, "no other viable option" is not part of the formula. For example, we have no so-called duty to retreat.

Click to expand...

And there, boys and girls, is the difference between tactical and legal consideration. Also the reason why you do not bring the issue of tactical considerations into the courtroom.

If you do not get it, let me try these two tactical possibilities out and see if you can spot what they have to do with the absence of a duty to retreat from any place where you have the legal right to be:

When faced with an assaultive person, you could 1) eat a ham sandwhich or 2) knit a pair of mittens.

How would you counter the Commonwealt Attoney's assertion that you could have chosen either of the above tactical responses instead of remaining where you were and shooting the assaultive person in an attempt to stop the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury?

stay safe.

In other words

Skidmark, in other words, while we have no duty to retreat, if we don't retreat to the wall there might/probably be legal implications? Just trying to clarify for myself what you said, not arguing.

half_life1052 said:

Skidmark, in other words, while we have no duty to retreat, if we don't retreat to the wall there might/probably be legal implications? Just trying to clarify for myself what you said, not arguing.

Click to expand...

If we bring the subject up the Commonwealth at the criminal trial and the plaintiff's attrorney at a civil trial will more than likely try to push that we had an avenue of withdrawal and refused to take it because, to paraphrase, we had spent all our life just waiting for the opportunity to shoot someone. That's not a discussion I want to get into. Especially when I can direct the conversation to the fact that the BG carried the situation to the point of posing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Of course, being able to show that I was not in a stupid place with stupid people doing stupid things would be of great help to my side. Eliminating even one of those elements coud be helpful in establishing that I was not treasure-hunting for a stupid prize.

In some cases dioscretion is the better part of not only valor but many other things, and withdrawing would be a viable and reasonable option. In other situations even though an avenue of withdrawal existed taking it might not be appropriate - say for example, telling some 250-pound oaf, while you wewre sitting at the next table, that she should not beat up her 110-pound boyfriend even though he did forget to order a lemon slice for her iced tea.

There will never be an answer that provides "good" guidance for all situations, but some basic guiding principles exist. Go be guided and/or be principled.

stay safe.

half_life1052 said:

Skidmark, in other words, while we have no duty to retreat, if we don't retreat to the wall there might/probably be legal implications? Just trying to clarify for myself what you said, not arguing.

Click to expand...

If we bring the subject up the Commonwealth at the criminal trial and the plaintiff's attrorney at a civil trial will more than likely try to push that we had an avenue of withdrawal and refused to take it because, to paraphrase, we had spent all our life just waiting for the opportunity to shoot someone. That's not a discussion I want to get into. Especially when I can direct the conversation to the fact that the BG carried the situation to the point of posing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Of course, being able to show that I was not in a stupid place with stupid people doing stupid things would be of great help to my side. Eliminating even one of those elements coud be helpful in establishing that I was not treasure-hunting for a stupid prize.

In some cases dioscretion is the better part of not only valor but many other things, and withdrawing would be a viable and reasonable option. In other situations even though an avenue of withdrawal existed taking it might not be appropriate - say for example, telling some 250-pound oaf, while you wewre sitting at the next table, that she should not beat up her 110-pound boyfriend even though he did forget to order a lemon slice for her iced tea.

There will never be an answer that provides "good" guidance for all situations, but some basic guiding principles exist. Go be guided and/or be principled.

stay safe.

At least in my area from the information provided the person did not seem to present a threat of death and or serious bodily harm, so the use of deadly force would not be legally justified.

If in that situation i would get in the car and leave, if that was not possible I'd use the car as a barrier to him and keep circling the car as needed while on the phone with 911. I would not shoot him.

Lyndsy Simon said:

As I understand it, the short answer to this is that you should draw your weapon only when you are legally able and morally compelled to do so. That means you must be facing an imminent risk to life.

Imminent is not the same as immediately. To put it another way - if you drew now and shot the guy, would you be able to stand in front of God and a courtroom and honestly say that you felt that you had no other viable option?

Click to expand...

In Virginia, that would be serious bodily harm.