What circumstances do you believe are justifiable in deadly force?

[Tawnos]

imported post

Pavegunner wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Pavegunner wrote:

The subject(s) should have the intent, capability, and opportunity to inflict serious bodily damage or harm to yourself or another. All 3 elements should be present.

Then you should use only that force necessary to stop the action or threat from continuing.

"Necessary" means no reasonably effective alternative to the use of force appeared to exist, and the amount of force used was reasonable to effect the lawful purpose intended (i.e. defending yourself or another).

Your personal perception of the threat has alot to do with your defense of the lawful use of force used on another. Especially when selling it to a panel of idiot jurors and scumbag lawyers who will ask why your familydid not jump out of a 2 story house to get away from the meth-man at 3 AM.

Iheard of people who keep unmarked, untraceable, "throwdown" knives available in their homesto eliminate ANY question of lawful force used. Is itwrong? They think it is no more wrong than charging or suing a homeowner for defending themselvesor their familiies from being injured, kindapped, or raped.

They think dead men tell no tales, nor do they sue you in civil court with the help of the ACLU or NAACP.

With the help of modern forensic science, dead men do tell tales and family members can and have filed civil suits.

Do nothing to alter the scene of a shooting - it can and will bite you.

To those that give advice that crosses the line or even approaches it sideways: Stop. You are doing no one a favor.

Yata hey

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2397719/posts

Man in custody after beating an intruder with a brick. Thislaw-abiding homeowneris done in civil court, that is if he beats the criminal rap.

This happens all the time.

It's an interesting look at how the law is interpreted. With a brick, baseball bat, etc you have to answer "was too much force used in the application of this weapon." A gun has one force level - deadly, so the question is much simpler: "was deadly force justified."

 

[FMCDH]

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

It's an interesting look at how the law is interpreted. With a brick, baseball bat, etc you have to answer "was too much force used in the application of this weapon." A gun has one force level - deadly, so the question is much simpler: "was deadly force justified."

Ahh, but as with most "weapons" available to the general public, death may be the ultimate outcome, but is by no means the guaranteed outcome unless pushed to that extreme.

I could ensure someone is dead by brick, bat, dagger or paperclip just as well as I can by firearm, given enough time and will.

When it comes to choosing a weapon to defend ones own life, the question has to come down to one of efficiency and adaptability to that end, not in probability to the possible "ultimate" outcome.

A brick, like anything else, can be used correctly in the function of self defense, but its not very efficient in doing so. So as any other item, it can also be misused.

You cant just focus on the item, you have to focus on the person controlling the item, whatever it may be.

my .02 cents


edited for clarity