Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Unique scenario of deadly force

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    I have a nasty health condition, with doctors orders not to work due to the dangers associated with physical activity. (Doctors are backing it and I have the paperwork)
    I am in the application and appeal process of Social Security Disability (have not yet been approved).

    Now, here's the problem that always weighs heavily on my mind. If someone were to physically assault me, it could paralyze or kill me. To me personally this would justify fear of great bodily harm or death. That fear is always there for me however, a physical confrontation would seriously increase that fear. Having it hold up in court may be another story.

    Thoughts? (Yes HankT, I know your HPCSD...)



  2. #2
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845

    Post imported post

    Disparity of force means that if you are unable to fend off an attacker even though they are smaller than you ( IE your medical condition makes this so) and you could be injured or paralyzed from just a scuffle then I would think deadly force would be justified. I am basing this on the self defense laws in MI.

    NOTE I am not an attorney and this is just my opinion.
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  3. #3
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    ethernetweb wrote:
    I have a nasty health condition, with doctors orders not to work due to the dangers associated with physical activity. (Doctors are backing it and I have the paperwork)
    I am in the application and appeal process of Social Security Disability (have not yet been approved).

    Now, here's the problem that always weighs heavily on my mind. If someone were to physically assault me, it could paralyze or kill me. To me personally this would justify fear of great bodily harm or death. That fear is always there for me however, a physical confrontation would seriously increase that fear. Having it hold up in court may be another story.

    Thoughts? (Yes HankT, I know your HPCSD...)


    Yes, indeedy, you are charged with knowing know that HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense© (HPCSD) because it always applies, even for people who are disabled. There are no exceptions to HPCSD. Ever.

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


    I'm so glad you understand this EW.

    However, you appear to have a made a fundamental error in referring to a justification for using deadly force. Although the laws do vary across the great states of our land, none of them, as far as I've seen, justify deadly force because of "fear of great bodily harm or death." (orequivalent wording)

    Yours isa common error, evidenced in numerous posts here and on other gun forums, to leave out that one little word...

    Actually, your statement that:

    "To me personally this would justify fear of great bodily harm or death."

    indicates that you are on the right track to fully understanding both the problem you have ... and the solution.

    Good luck, EW. I'm sure you'll do well. Asking questions about important stuff is a good sign...




  4. #4
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Although the laws do vary across the great states of our land, none of them, as far as I've seen, justify deadly force because of "fear of great bodily harm or death." (orequivalent wording)

    Not to piss in the wind here but isn't that basically what the Michigan Self Defense Act of 2006 says?


    780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

    Sec. 2.

    (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

    (a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

    (b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

    (2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.


    Bronson

    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arizona, ,
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    The 3 things you need to know about using your deadly force.

    Means, Oppurtunity and Intent.



    If your attacker has ALL THREE feel free to shoot him.
    Freedom isn't free, but this is America! We will find a way to outsource it and save some money - Jeremy

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arizona, ,
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    The 3 things you need to know about using your deadly force.

    Means, Oppurtunity and Intent.



    If your attacker has ALL THREE feel free to shoot him.
    Freedom isn't free, but this is America! We will find a way to outsource it and save some money - Jeremy

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Arizona, ,
    Posts
    431

    Post imported post

    The 3 things you need to know about using your deadly force.

    Means, Oppurtunity and Intent.



    If your attacker has ALL THREE feel free to shoot him.
    Freedom isn't free, but this is America! We will find a way to outsource it and save some money - Jeremy

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Try to add extra layers of protection...
    Medical ID bracelet that says 'don't strike' on its warning.
    That way you have warned the bad guy in writing not to attack.

    Are you watching for that medical palm fired 9mm device?
    Yes it is single shot, but doesn't mean you can't carry a better
    designed model as primary / backup. Would be harder for the DA
    to prove you wrongfully used your medically proscribed gun. :?

    Only other thing is... How anti is your doctor? If he hates guns more
    than his patient you still have a problem.

    There are so many variables even in a flat out good shoot, you just
    need to take every precaution you can to protect yourself, then just
    hope for common sense to prevail afterwards.

    One other thing in your favor though. The medical / safety costs of locking
    you up would add a little to the scales in your favor with the budgets shortfalls
    around the country. DA would really have it in for you to bankrupt the system
    locking you up for removing a piece of garbage from the system.

    Don't know the leo in your area, but do you hang around and be tackled by the
    ones arriving on site after a shooting? That is a tough one to flesh out in advance,
    but will have to be figured out while you are calm and collected before an incident.




  9. #9
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    ethernetweb wrote:
    I have a nasty health condition, with doctors orders not to work due to the dangers associated with physical activity. (Doctors are backing it and I have the paperwork)
    I am in the application and appeal process of Social Security Disability (have not yet been approved).

    Now, here's the problem that always weighs heavily on my mind. If someone were to physically assault me, it could paralyze or kill me. To me personally this would justify fear of great bodily harm or death. That fear is always there for me however, a physical confrontation would seriously increase that fear. Having it hold up in court may be another story.

    Thoughts? (Yes HankT, I know your HPCSD...)


    Yes, indeedy, you are charged with knowing know that HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense© (HPCSD) because it always applies, even for people who are disabled. There are no exceptions to HPCSD. Ever.

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


    I'm so glad you understand this EW.

    However, you appear to have a made a fundamental error in referring to a justification for using deadly force. Although the laws do vary across the great states of our land, none of them, as far as I've seen, justify deadly force because of "fear of great bodily harm or death." (orequivalent wording)

    Yours isa common error, evidenced in numerous posts here and on other gun forums, to leave out that one little word...

    Actually, your statement that:

    "To me personally this would justify fear of great bodily harm or death."

    indicates that you are on the right track to fully understanding both the problem you have ... and the solution.

    Good luck, EW. I'm sure you'll do well. Asking questions about important stuff is a good sign...


    Hank.... what you fail to understand is that your "postulate" does not cover all situations that are encountered in the real world and your "postulate" fails to address the simple fact that each and every human being who is born physically normal is equipped with hands and feet that can be used as weapons to inflict great bodily harm and/or death if used in that manner.

    According to your "postulate" it would be a bad strategy for an old frail woman to shoot a young and healthy man who is strangling her with his bare hands.

    The truth is... it is a good strategy to use what ever force is necessary to stop an attack that prevents imminent great bodily harm and/or death.

    Bronson wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    Although the laws do vary across the great states of our land, none of them, as far as I've seen, justify deadly force because of "fear of great bodily harm or death." (orequivalent wording)

    Not to piss in the wind here but isn't that basically what the Michigan Self Defense Act of 2006 says?


    780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

    Sec. 2.

    (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

    (a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

    (b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

    (2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.


    Bronson
    Hence Hank... your "postulate" is false.

    What worries me is that someone who is uninformed and new to self defense might actually believe your "postulate" and end up being harmed or killed because they thought they couldn't shoot to save their life from an "unarmed" assailant.

    Hank... After perusing many of your posts throughout this website it is my unasked for and politically incorrect opinion that
    your arguments pushing this "postulate" fit the leftist playbook of carefully juggling facts with an arrogant expectation of people being so dazzled by the purity of intellect that no one would dare question the blatantly obvious incorrect conclusions reached in that "postulate". And, like the typical leftist, any and all facts that prove the "postulate" to be false are completely ignored in the hopes that no one will pay attention to pesky facts but will continue to be dazzled by the great purity of intellect that the "postulate" proves.

    Hank... you have lost all credibility with me.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    ethernetweb wrote:
    I have a nasty health condition, with doctors orders not to work due to the dangers associated with physical activity. (Doctors are backing it and I have the paperwork)
    I am in the application and appeal process of Social Security Disability (have not yet been approved).

    Now, here's the problem that always weighs heavily on my mind. If someone were to physically assault me, it could paralyze or kill me. To me personally this would justify fear of great bodily harm or death. That fear is always there for me however, a physical confrontation would seriously increase that fear. Having it hold up in court may be another story.

    Thoughts? (Yes HankT, I know your HPCSD...)

    I fit your situation also Ethernetweb with disabilities that make running away impossible and a hard shove or punch to the chest could result in death. In both our cases the "disparity of force" wording in the law would work in our favor because of our disabilities. It would be in your best interests to do an internet search of Michigan law for the exact explanation of "disparity of force" in the actual black letter law.

    My choices are, in order of importance:

    1. Don't go anywhere where violence/crime is known to happen.

    2. Be aware of everything going on around me and leave (if possible) if anything starts to happen that could result in violence.

    3. Talk/apologize/defuse the situation/escape (if possible).... my way out of it.

    4. When a physical attack begins...do what ever is necessary to survive.

    In court it will be necessary for me to show that:

    1. The attacker had the intent, the opportunity, and the means ("means" can be anything from empty hands/fists to a knife, gun, ball bat, rock, RPG), to harm/kill me.

    2. The attacker implemented his intent, took that opportunity, and used the means.

    3. I responded with enough force to end the attack... but did not use excessive force.

    I am NOT an attorney and the above is my very simplified understanding of how it works.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Grand County, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    249

    Post imported post

    Thank you everyone for all the input.

    @HankT, I understand what you mean about my wording. "Fear" is not the correct word to use. Fear of death or bodily harm can occur anywhere any time. It has to be "imminent danger of".


    @Slackware, (hmm *nix guru?) ... I like the idea of a medical bracelet stating that. Good call!

    I have never heard of the 9mm device! You have any links or documentation regarding the device? I'd be interested in this.

    I think when LEO's arrived, I would speak very loudly "I have a medical condition, I will not resist!" or something to that effect. I have contemplated this scenario also.


    @Bikenut, The list of things you mentioned, I always practice if possible.


    We need some attorneys to provide information... we should locate some pro-gun lawyers that would answer some of these difficult questions for us out of "courtesy and care for american gun rights".

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    roseville,mi, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    i soo understand what you guys are saying!!!!

    u are thinking about this too much,i think?

    if someone is going to punch or hit you and you have a condition that might make that hit great bodily harm,then in fact you have to shoot the person or persons to stay alive!

    cut and dry!!! shoot them to stay alive!!

    and for that matter, what if someone like..............a cage fighter is going to punch you or fight you...all of us would endure great bodily harm correct?

    now how do you know if any person is that skilled in hand to hand combat?

    im not, so do i take a beating or shoot?



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    roseville,mi, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    i soo understand what you guys are saying!!!!

    u are thinking about this too much,i think?

    if someone is going to punch or hit you and you have a condition that might make that hit great bodily harm,then in fact you have to shoot the person or persons to stay alive!

    cut and dry!!! shoot them to stay alive!!

    and for that matter, what if someone like..............a cage fighter is going to punch you or fight you...all of us would endure great bodily harm correct?

    now how do you know if any person is that skilled in hand to hand combat?

    im not, so do i take a beating or shoot?



  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    roseville,mi, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    i soo understand what you guys are saying!!!!

    u are thinking about this too much,i think?

    if someone is going to punch or hit you and you have a condition that might make that hit great bodily harm,then in fact you have to shoot the person or persons to stay alive!

    cut and dry!!! shoot them to stay alive!!

    and for that matter, what if someone like..............a cage fighter is going to punch you or fight you...all of us would endure great bodily harm correct?

    now how do you know if any person is that skilled in hand to hand combat?

    im not, so do i take a beating or shoot?

    now before someone climbs up my ass,about my comments, i mean them when there is no chance of escape...and this is your only option!!! just so its understood!!


    [img]http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTb_x_TcVKSz8AxvqjzbkF/SIG=12n1s8oh2/EXP=1254530815/**http%3A//www.luttemedia.com/images/9/94/200px-Brocklesnarportrait.jpg[/img]

    i think if this guy were too hit any of us,we would be in BIG trouble!!!


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belleville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Well frankly the HankT postulate sounds communist to me, certainly not American. This is the worst type of propaganda there is.

    ethernetweb, by Michigan law you may protect yourself when threatened, plain and simple. Americans should not feel that they would be a criminal when protecting themselves.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    roseville,mi, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    well its seems like you and i are on the same page....like in another post!!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belleville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    Ha! I noticed that too! Funny how that works out. Bronson and a couple others were in on that one too. We picked up a few more on this one, maybe the HankT postulate has some value after all. :celebrate

    I feel that the reason 2A is important is based on selfprotection from any threat. Loose that, you have lost it all. All the discussion here is as important as is about any American rights.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    roseville,mi, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    yep! COULNDNT HAVE SAID IT BETTER MYSELF!!! the 2nd amen is the 1 that protects the others



    "There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country, and not one of them will have an accident today. The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period." - Ted Nugent

    "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." - Ted Nugent

    "If you carry a gun, people will call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid for.":celebrate

  19. #19
    Regular Member Bronson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Battle Creek, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,157

    Post imported post

    johnnyd74 wrote:
    "...The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period." - Ted Nugent

    And beaches :P:P

    Bronson

    Those who expect to reap the benefits of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Well the government screwed you already on the 9mm. :X
    Don't look for Obama to fix this wrong any time soon.
    I just thought it would be a great idea to get a generic 1911
    insted of the 9mm one shot model, after all the pres thinks
    you should have the choice when buying prescriptions.

    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...-disabled.html



  21. #21
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Wglide90 wrote:
    Well frankly the HankT postulate sounds communist to me, certainly not American. This is the worst type of propaganda there is.
    Hmmm, that's an odd statement.

    How in the world is HPCSD© communist?

    I would think it's quintessentially American!

    Why, Wglide, do you think it's communist?

    HPCSD© would never apply in a communist country...it only could exist in a capitalist country, governed by rule of law....

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belleville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    HankT,

    I asked you this before; For what state do youdo research and what type of reseach do you do?



    You never answered.



    So how'bout it?

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Belleville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    126

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Wglide90 wrote:
    Well frankly the HankT postulate sounds communist to me, certainly not American. This is the worst type of propaganda there is.
    Hmmm, that's an odd statement.

    How in the world is HPCSD© communist?

    I would think it's quintessentially American!

    Why, Wglide, do you think it's communist?

    HPCSD© would never apply in a communist country...it only could exist in a capitalist country, governed by rule of law....

    HankT, While you're figuring out what youresearch and from where you perform that research, think about this:

    Your communistic postulate is a poor attempt to indoctrinate your oppressionistic viewsupon free Americans who's rights, values and laws provide protection for free Americans to protect themselves.

    Your postulate is based on the premiss that self protection is a strategy, this is a falacy, self protection is an Americanright. (Think about this long and hard, since it is very basic and totally comprehensive.)

    Thus your postulate is proven wrong.


  24. #24
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Wglide90 wrote:
    Well frankly the HankT postulate sounds communist to me, certainly not American. This is the worst type of propaganda there is.
    Hmmm, that's an odd statement.

    How in the world is HPCSD© communist?

    I would think it's quintessentially American!

    Why, Wglide, do you think it's communist?

    HPCSD© would never apply in a communist country...it only could exist in a capitalist country, governed by rule of law....
    I've read many, if not all, of Hank's posts within this entire website (you know... researching the subject) and any arguments that those posts put forth pertaining to Hank's completely false "postulate" follow Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" playbook.

    For those who would like to understand the playbook elitist leftist thinking people live by... and attempt to require everyone else to live by... go to:

    http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm

    Please note rule # 5...

    Hank's "postulate" appears to have legitimacy on it's face with the wording used but does not stand up to the cleansing light of common sense applied to the real world.

    But the insidious thing about that "postulate" is it could be believed by the uninformed and create a situation where the victim of a crime believes they cannot shoot to save their lives unless the attacker is using some kind of conventional "weapon". This alone makes that "postulate" an extremely anti self defense concept... and anti self defense concepts are commonly held by elitist leftist thinking folks.

    Oh ... and I'm very curious how Hank's "postulate" can address this:

    From The Free Dictionary.com

    deadly weapon n. any weapon which can kill. This includes not only weapons which are intended to do harm like a gun or knife, but also blunt instruments like clubs, baseball bats, monkey wrenches, an automobile or any object which actually causes death. This becomes important when trying to prove criminal charges brought for assault with a deadly weapon. In a few 1990s cases courts have found rocks and even penises of AIDS sufferers as "deadly weapons."

    After reading that I would suggest that there is, in the real world, no such thing as, what Hank's "postulate" refers to, an unarmed person unless they have no arms to bludgeon with, no legs to kick with, no teeth to bite with, and no deadly diseases to pass on sexually with.

    To the mods... I am well aware of the rules pertaining to keeping discussions oriented (although sometimes a bit loosely) to OC but I am of the opinion that any misinformation, or outright disinformation, concerning the use of a gun in self defense situations desperately needs to be addressed regardless of if that situation occurs within the home, while concealed carrying, or while open carrying. If I am wrong about this please contact me and I'll drop it.
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Evil Creamsicle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Police State, USA
    Posts
    1,270

    Post imported post

    Bikenut wrote:
    I am of the opinion that any misinformation, or outright disinformation, concerning the use of a gun in self defense situations desperately needs to be addressed regardless of if that situation occurs within the home, while concealed carrying, or while open carrying.
    +1

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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