Unique scenario of deadly force

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...)

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.

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...)

Click to expand...

Yes, indeedy, you are charged with knowing know that HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense[suP]©[/suP] (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...

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)

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...)

Click to expand...

Yes, indeedy, you are charged with knowing know that HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense[sup]©[/sup] (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...

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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...)

Click to expand...

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.

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".

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?:question:

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?:question:

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?:question:

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!!




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

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.

imported post

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

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

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

Click to expand...

And beaches

Bronson

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/shortsharpscience/2008/12/fda-says-gun-for-the-disabled.html