Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Use of deadly force.. when it's justified

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    Concidering that I am open carry now and dont have/dont want a CCW until they repeal the fingerprinting which I think will happen in Dec. 07 When is it LEGALLY justified to take a life in self defense?

    I know this is covered or somewhat covered i nthe ccw course which I havent taken yet due to scheduling issues but can someone overview, I also belive the gun club I go to has a pistoleer course but thats in a month



    Thanks

  2. #2
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Post imported post

    crtbc wrote:
    Concidering that I am open carry now and dont have/dont want a CCW until they repeal the fingerprinting which I think will happen in Dec. 07 When is it LEGALLY justified to take a life in self defense?

    I know this is covered or somewhat covered i nthe ccw course which I havent taken yet due to scheduling issues but can someone overview, I also belive the gun club I go to has a pistoleer course but thats in a month



    Thanks
    Sorry to burst your balloon, but the fingerprint requirement was only repealed for renewals, not the initial application.

    For deadly force legal issues, I recommend going to the "source" that is used in the CCW class: http://www.azdps.gov/ccw/procedures/CcwclassDPS2006.pdf

    Fred

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    crtbc wrote:
    Concidering that I am open carry now and dont have/dont want a CCW until they repeal the fingerprinting which I think will happen in Dec. 07 When is it LEGALLY justified to take a life in self defense?

    I know this is covered or somewhat covered i nthe ccw course which I havent taken yet due to scheduling issues but can someone overview, I also belive the gun club I go to has a pistoleer course but thats in a month



    Thanks
    In Utah for Example...,


    Utah Code Section 76-2-402




    76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined. (1) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the ...
    le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02022.htm - 5k - Cached - Similar pages

    76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
    (1) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
    (2) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if he or she:
    (a) initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
    (b) is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
    (c) (i) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and, notwithstanding, the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force; and
    (ii) for purposes of Subsection (i) the following do not, by themselves, constitute "combat by agreement":
    (A) voluntarily entering into or remaining in an ongoing relationship; or
    (B) entering or remaining in a place where one has a legal right to be.
    (3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(c).
    (4) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6. Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony. Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.
    (5) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
    (a) the nature of the danger;
    (b) the immediacy of the danger;
    (c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
    (d) the other's prior violent acts or violent propensities; and
    (e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties' relationship.


    Amended by Chapter 26, 1994 General Session
    Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 76_02022.ZIP 3,271 Bytes


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utah Code -- Title 76 -- Chapter 02 -- Principles of Criminal ...



    WP Zipped -- 2262 bytes -- Last Update 19-Apr-04; 76-2-405 Force in defense of habitation. WP Zipped -- 2215 bytes -- Last Update 09-Aug-02; 76-2-406 Force ...
    le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/76_02.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages


    76-2-405. Force in defense of habitation.
    (1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if:
    (a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or
    (b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
    (2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony.


    Amended by Chapter 252, 1985 General Session
    Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 76_02025.ZIP 2,215 Bytes


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utah Code Section 76-2-404



    76-2-404. Peace officer's use of deadly force. (1) A peace officer, or any person acting by his command in his aid and assistance, is justified in using ...
    www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02024.htm - 3k - www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02024.htm+76-2-404&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us]Cached[/url] - www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_02024.htm]Similar pages[/url]


    76-2-404. Peace officer's use of deadly force.
    (1) A peace officer, or any person acting by his command in his aid and assistance, is justified in using deadly force when:
    (a) the officer is acting in obedience to and in accordance with the judgment of a competent court in executing a penalty of death under Subsection 77-18-5.5(3) or (4);
    (b) effecting an arrest or preventing an escape from custody following an arrest, where the officer reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by escape; and
    (i) the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a felony offense involving the infliction or threatened infliction of death or serious bodily injury; or
    (ii) the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to others if apprehension is delayed; or
    (c) the officer reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.
    (2) If feasible, a verbal warning should be given by the officer prior to any use of deadly force under Subsection (1)(b) or (1)(c).


    Amended by Chapter 51, 2004 General Session
    Download Code Section Zipped WP 6/7/8 76_02024.ZIP 2,262 Bytes


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    Justifications for pretty much any kind of self defense are in ARS Title 13, Chapter 4. Deadly force is ARS Title 13, Chapter 4, Section 5. Isn't it delightfully vague? You can basically use deadly force when you're in a situation that a reasonable person would feel requires deadly force to protect you life.

    I strongly suggest reading through all of Chapter 4 and any sections that it references. It's best to get your information straight from the horse's mouth. You may also want to try to find some case law, and see what happens in the real world. Fortunately, they just put the burden of proof back on the prosecution, so you are innocent until proven guilty, again!

  5. #5
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Post imported post

    radwood wrote:
    Justifications for pretty much any kind of self defense are in ARS Title 13, Chapter 4. Deadly force is ARS Title 13, Chapter 4, Section 5. Isn't it delightfully vague? You can basically use deadly force when you're in a situation that a reasonable person would feel requires deadly force to protect you life.

    I strongly suggest reading through all of Chapter 4 and any sections that it references. It's best to get your information straight from the horse's mouth. You may also want to try to find some case law, and see what happens in the real world. Fortunately, they just put the burden of proof back on the prosecution, so you are innocent until proven guilty, again!
    And, being "justified" doesn't mean it's over. The best that can happen after a gunfight is that you retain what you have/own; your life, your finances, your family, your friends, your house, your assets, your sanity, your job, etc. Even if your are 100% legally justified youshould haveanswerd this questionway beforehand- Is what I am about to do worth the aftermath?

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    azcdlfred wrote:
    radwood wrote:
    Justifications for pretty much any kind of self defense are in ARS Title 13, Chapter 4. Deadly force is ARS Title 13, Chapter 4, Section 5. Isn't it delightfully vague? You can basically use deadly force when you're in a situation that a reasonable person would feel requires deadly force to protect you life.

    I strongly suggest reading through all of Chapter 4 and any sections that it references. It's best to get your information straight from the horse's mouth. You may also want to try to find some case law, and see what happens in the real world. Fortunately, they just put the burden of proof back on the prosecution, so you are innocent until proven guilty, again!
    And, being "justified" doesn't mean it's over. The best that can happen after a gunfight is that you retain what you have/own; your life, your finances, your family, your friends, your house, your assets, your sanity, your job, etc. Even if your are 100% legally justified youshould haveanswerd this questionway beforehand- Is what I am about to do worth the aftermath?
    +1

    Also, remember HankT's Postulate of Self-Defense:

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    azcdlfred wrote:
    radwood wrote:
    Justifications for pretty much any kind of self defense are in ARS Title 13, Chapter 4. Deadly force is ARS Title 13, Chapter 4, Section 5. Isn't it delightfully vague? You can basically use deadly force when you're in a situation that a reasonable person would feel requires deadly force to protect you life.

    I strongly suggest reading through all of Chapter 4 and any sections that it references. It's best to get your information straight from the horse's mouth. You may also want to try to find some case law, and see what happens in the real world. Fortunately, they just put the burden of proof back on the prosecution, so you are innocent until proven guilty, again!
    And, being "justified" doesn't mean it's over. The best that can happen after a gunfight is that you retain what you have/own; your life, your finances, your family, your friends, your house, your assets, your sanity, your job, etc. Even if your are 100% legally justified youshould haveanswerd this questionway beforehand- Is what I am about to do worth the aftermath?
    +1

    Also, remember HankT's Postulate of Self-Defense:

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.
    HankT, you have your own Postulates now!?! Ha!

    I think a lot of people buy firearms, not knowing full and well when deadly force can be used, such as people whom have been raped/mugged, I hear a lot of people talking about how they purchased a gun because of past events, and then I hear their anger, which is normal, I would be pissed as well, but the way I understand a lot of these folks it doesn't sound like they would reason through the correct steps in taking a life.

    But what Hank seconded, I will also agree with.


  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



    scenario: Man is beating on woman, you tell man to stop, man then turns on you in a threatening mannor and starts walking towards you again in a threatening mannor you draw tell him to cease and decisit, he keeps walking towards you in a threatening manor, without knowing if he actually hasa weopon, (he hasn't brandished one yet) do you drop him considering if he gets close enough he will take your gun and shoot you and possibly the girl?

    alternative options

    1) 2 in the chest (gtiven that you gave him multiple attempts to stop)

    2) shoot his legs out (assumption non lethal GSW)

    3) warning shot into the ground



    This scenario hypothetically played out since you dont know the guy is armed but can still at the very best scenario beat you senseless worse case kill you with your own weopon



    Thanks

  9. #9
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    crtbc wrote:
    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



    scenario: Man is beating on woman, you tell man to stop, man then turns on you in a threatening mannor and starts walking towards you again in a threatening mannor you draw tell him to cease and decisit, he keeps walking towards you in a threatening manor, without knowing if he actually hasa weopon, (he hasn't brandished one yet) do you drop him considering if he gets close enough he will take your gun and shoot you and possibly the girl?

    alternative options

    1) 2 in the chest (gtiven that you gave him multiple attempts to stop)

    2) shoot his legs out (assumption non lethal GSW)

    3) warning shot into the ground



    This scenario hypothetically played out since you dont know the guy is armed but can still at the very best scenario beat you senseless worse case kill you with your own weopon

    Is thewoman-beater guy armed? You didn't say in your scenario.

    If he is not armed, it's a bad strategy to shoot him.


  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Kent county, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    322

    Post imported post

    crtbc wrote:
    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



    scenario: Man is beating on woman, you tell man to stop, man then turns on you in a threatening manor and starts walking towards you again in a threatening manor you draw tell him to cease and desist, he keeps walking towards you in a threatening manor, without knowing if he actually has weapon, (he hasn't brandished one yet) do you drop him considering if he gets close enough he will take your gun and shoot you and possibly the girl?
    1. Man proves he is violent.
    2. when interrupted man turns and threatens you (walking toward you in a threatening manor)
    3. you draw and warn the man who still advances in a threatening manor.
    4. 11 Del. c. 1953, 465 reverts to 11 Del. c. 1953, 464.c) The use deadly force is justified if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat.
    5. I have drawn a gun and warned a man who has proven himself to be violent, and is threatening me( advancing on me in a threatening manor) in spite of knowing I have a gun, I must then conclude that he means me at least serious physicalharm and fire center mass to stop the threat.
    This scenario hypothetically played out since you don't know the guy is armed but can still at the very best scenario beat you senseless worse case kill you with your own weapon


    alternative options

    1) 2 in the chest (gtiven that you gave him multiple attempts to stop)


    2) shoot his legs out (assumption non lethal GSW)

    3) warning shot into the ground

    1. 2 in the chest (gtiven that you gave him multiple attempts to stop) YES

    2. shoot his legs out (assumption non lethal GSW)
    No. Although I have not seen a gun or any other weapon, In view of him advancing in a threatening manor on someone with a gun, I must conclude that he is armed. If I am justified in shooting (using deadly force) it would befoolish to use less. I am not bloodthirsty, think about it... you say "I thought I could stop him by shooting his leg so it was a non-lethal wound." That takes away the "...justified if the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect the defendant against death...", ie.. you are saying that you didn't really think that deadly force was necessary. you are going to jail and/or being sued.

    that being said, you don't shoot "TO KILL" you merely shoot to stop the threat. Once the threat is stopped (he falls and is not trying to pull a weapon, or turns to run away) stop shooting, there is no longer justification for deadly force.

    3. warning shot into the ground.No. a warning shot in the ground is a waste of time, a man can cover 21 feet in 2 seconds,and you are responsible for any bullet that leaves your gun (ricochet)



    To Hank T: many times you have said "It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person"

    BULL...." it is a bad strategy to shoot someone without justification" .


    edited for spelling

    IANAL


  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    43

    Post imported post

    ijusam wrote:
    3.¬* warning shot into the ground.¬*No. a warning shot in the ground is a waste of time, a man can cover 21 feet in 2 seconds,¬*and you are responsible for any bullet that leaves your gun (ricochet)
    This is a very good point. If any innocent person is injured, or any property is damaged due to your reckless discharge you now have neither the criminal nor the civil protections. If you're unlucky, you may have just commited manslaughter and killed an innocent person in the house next door. What's worse, like you said earlier, you just proved that you had no reason to use or threaten deadly force. As soon as you pull the gun you're pretty much commited.

    Use of deadly force should always be your last answer. But I tell you what, I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    HANKT::: I mentioned that I wouldn't know if he is armed or not but to the fact that he just got done beating a woman and now he is coming towards me in a threatening mannor after I attempted to stop him from beating her, presumably he is coming towards me to do the same as he did to the woman and after multiple requests for him to stop he keeps advancing



    This is just a scenario meant to be played out since it demonstrates that the would be attacker is unknown to have a weopon at time of engagment

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    crtbc wrote:
    HANKT::: I mentioned that I wouldn't know if he is armed or not but to the fact that he just got done beating a woman and now he is coming towards me in a threatening mannor after I attempted to stop him from beating her, presumably he is coming towards me to do the same as he did to the woman and after multiple requests for him to stop he keeps advancing



    This is just a scenario meant to be played out since it demonstrates that the would be attacker is unknown to have a weopon at time of engagment
    In Utah I would have been justified with Deadly force...It wouldn't have mattered Armed or Not.


    2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
    (1) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


    (3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(c).
    (4) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault,..."

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    crtbc wrote:
    HANKT::: I mentioned that I wouldn't know if he is armed or not but to the fact that he just got done beating a woman and now he is coming towards me in a threatening mannor after I attempted to stop him from beating her, presumably he is coming towards me to do the same as he did to the woman and after multiple requests for him to stop he keeps advancing



    This is just a scenario meant to be played out since it demonstrates that the would be attacker is unknown to have a weopon at time of engagment
    Scenarios are fine. Assumptions are crucial.

    Make any scenario you wish, with any assumptions you like.It doesn't matter really with regard to HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense1:

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


    Do any scenario you wish (or study anypopulation of real events) and you will see that HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense1 is accurate. I spent a lotoftime developing it.

    1. Revised title.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Make any scenario you wish, with any assumptions you like.¬*It doesn't matter really with regard to HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense1:

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


    Do any scenario you wish (or study any¬*population of real events) and you will see that HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense1 is accurate. I spent a lot¬*of¬*time developing it.¬*

    1. Revised title.
    With this revised title are you meant to imply that it's NOT bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person if you're not a civilian?
    -Unrequited

  16. #16
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    unrequited wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Make any scenario you wish, with any assumptions you like.It doesn't matter really with regard to HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense1:

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


    Do any scenario you wish (or study anypopulation of real events) and you will see that HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense1 is accurate. I spent a lotoftime developing it.

    1. Revised title.
    With this revised title are you meant to imply that it's NOT bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person if you're not a civilian?
    Nope.

  17. #17
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Post imported post

    radwood wrote:
    ijusam wrote:
    3. warning shot into the ground.No. a warning shot in the ground is a waste of time, a man can cover 21 feet in 2 seconds,and you are responsible for any bullet that leaves your gun (ricochet)
    This is a very good point. If any innocent person is injured, or any property is damaged due to your reckless discharge you now have neither the criminal nor the civil protections. If you're unlucky, you may have just commited manslaughter and killed an innocent person in the house next door. What's worse, like you said earlier, you just proved that you had no reason to use or threaten deadly force. As soon as you pull the gun you're pretty much commited.

    Use of deadly force should always be your last answer. But I tell you what, I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.
    A couple of other issues come to mind. First, tactically, you just wasted a round. Second if you fire a warning shot, it's kind of hard to argue that you feared for you life. If you truly fear foryour life, you shoot to stop the threat.

  18. #18
    Regular Member azcdlfred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    907

    Post imported post

    crtbc wrote:
    2) shoot his legs out (assumption non lethal GSW)
    If you have the time to carefully aim and get a leg shot, it would behard to later say you felt threatened, since that's such and unusual and difficult shot to do on purpose - especiallyunder stress. Looks like a purposeful assualt to a jury.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.
    It is a worse strategy to allow a woman to be beaten or killedand do nothing.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.
    It is a worse strategy to allow a woman to be beaten or killedand do nothing.
    In Utah I would have been justified with Deadly force...It wouldn't have mattered Armed or Not.


    2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
    (1) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


    (3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(c).
    (4) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault,..."

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    tarzan1888 wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.
    It is a worse strategy to allow a woman to be beaten or killedand do nothing.
    In Utah I would have been justified with Deadly force...It wouldn't have mattered Armed or Not.


    2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
    (1) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


    (3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(c).
    (4) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault,..."
    I have often said; "The next to the last thing I would ever want to do is use a gun to take another human life, BUT the last thing I would ever want to do is have someone I love or an innocent person hurt or killed and I stand by and do nothing."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    tarzan1888 wrote:
    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    tarzan1888 wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.
    It is a worse strategy to allow a woman to be beaten or killedand do nothing.
    In Utah I would have been justified with Deadly force...It wouldn't have mattered Armed or Not.


    2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
    (1) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


    (3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(c).
    (4) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault,..."
    I have often said; "The next to the last thing I would ever want to do is use a gun to take another human life, BUT the last thing I would ever want to do is have someone I love or an innocent person hurt or killed and I stand by and do nothing."
    So..tarzan1888,

    You and I disagree with HankTI guess ???


  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    tarzan1888 wrote:
    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    tarzan1888 wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.
    It is a worse strategy to allow a woman to be beaten or killedand do nothing.
    In Utah I would have been justified with Deadly force...It wouldn't have mattered Armed or Not.


    2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
    (1) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to defend himself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, that person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if he or she reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself or a third person as a result of the other's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


    (3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(c).
    (4) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault,..."
    I have often said; "The next to the last thing I would ever want to do is use a gun to take another human life, BUT the last thing I would ever want to do is have someone I love or an innocent person hurt or killed and I stand by and do nothing."
    So..tarzan1888,

    You and I disagree with HankTI guess ???
    Indubitably

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    Indub...? who ?

    Don't go Fancy on me being all Hillbilly and all:P



    Just kidding...

    Indubitably=Undoubtedly; unquestionably; in a manner to remove all doubt.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,436

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    Indub...? who ?

    Don't go Fancy on me being all Hillbilly and all:P



    Just kidding...

    Indubitably=Undoubtedly; unquestionably; in a manner to remove all doubt.
    Attached Images Attached Images

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •