JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Seems like overall poor sittuational awareness by the victim. To let someone stand that close to you after aggressively coming on your property after a verbal altercation, and not be ready for a physical assault. The haymaker that guy threw would not have been hard to block, deflect or see coming.

If you are going to run your mouth, be prepared to deal with the consequences. That just being a tactical critique, in no way blaming the victim for the actions of the attacker. Just saying he needs to wake up a little. Probably will after this.

But if you handled it properly, you could be totally justified. Tell him to get off your property, keep your distance and draw. If he keeps coming his intent is clear. Would you be ok to just whip it out and shoot him while they are standing there like at the start of the video? No, but if he had handled the whole sittuation better, he could have been.

Absolutely right - that guy was WAY too close to the victim. I wouldn't have allowed him to get that close, even if it meant I had to back away. Elevated tempers, just no reason to be that close, and not also be completely in defensive mode.
 
A person in my home is an act of aggression and it will be dealt with using deadly force. Its noted on both my doors.

I give fair warning to B&E'ers as well as LEOS looking to enter my home without my consent.

Its not my job to interrogate them to find out if they are unarmed or not.
Of course verbal confirmation would take place and if it was a total stranger 911 would be on the phone while I deal with the immediate threat. Id avoid taking a life if I could, but when seconds count the reactions of the intruder dictate my actions of defense.

If he lunges or reaches for something he made his fate.
"Stop" and "Hands up" are clear directions. But I don't speak spanish so he's SOL if he does.

If the jury finds me guilty then I have no choice but to face the music.
 
I almost posted this in the TnT section but this is really more of a legal question. Recently in the news a man brutally attacked a person for no reason at all and broke his nose and appeared to knock him out in the video provided. In the following story (see link) the question I have is what are the legal ramifications if the victim had shot the suspect in self defense before the suspect could attack? You would have an unarmed dead attacker and an untouched "victim"... how would that play out? Before you answer that read on to the 'big' question...


to elaborate, IMO, the suspect clearly had violent intentions (based on what little info the story provides) is that opinion enough to use deadly force? According to the article the suspect "faces second-degree felony assault", under ORS 161.219 the victim can lawfully use deadly force in self defense. The big question however is where is the fine line between "just" a physical confrontation and a felony attack, or is there? ...and how to identify that?


<broken link removed>
If I was driving or walking by and saw someone getting beat like that...I would pull my CCW and put the attacker or attacker's in the dirt. :)
 
If I was driving or walking by and saw someone getting beat like that...I would pull my CCW and put the attacker or attacker's in the dirt. :)

What if you shot a grieving father putting a beat down on his daughters rapist?

There's what you think is going on, and what's really going on and if you get it wrong, you get to go to prison and live with innocent blood on your hands.
 
What if you shot a grieving father putting a beat down on his daughters rapist?

There's what you think is going on, and what's really going on and if you get it wrong, you get to go to prison and live with innocent blood on your hands.
In that case you probably would not go to court, but would feel bad later.

The basic rule of law is that you can only use force as long as there is a threat. Someone beating on a guy who is down and not able to defend himself is going past that point, hence the use of force to stop him is legal. From a legal perspective, it doesn't matter why the guy is beating on him, assuming the person on the ground is probably and seemingly no longer a threat.

What I would do at that point is let the guy doing the beating know that he has the option of stopping or being shot. If he still doesn't stop, even though he clearly heard the warning, then he gets shot. I am not going to let someone pound someone else into the ground just because he *might* be in the right. I am not going to be one of those people who just stands there saying "somebody should do something".

Of course real life is a lot more complicated than that hypothetical - they could be rolling around on the ground, with no clear winner, no clear aggressor or defender, no clear innocent.

It also gets a little more complicated if the person administering the beating is a cop - so I will leave that alone for now.
 
Let's look a bit closer at the laws in WA State;

First we need to know the legal definition of "Deadly Force"

RCW 9A.16.010 (2)

"Deadly force" means the intentional application of force through the use of firearms or any other means reasonably likely to cause death or serious physical injury."

The problem with that? There's no legal definition of "Serious physical injury" in the state. You can thank our mindless folks in Olymipa for that!

So what's next?

How about the definition of "Deadly Weapon"

RCW 9A.04.110 (6)

"Deadly weapon" means any explosive or loaded or unloaded firearm, and shall include any other weapon, device, instrument, article, or substance, including a "vehicle" as defined in this section, which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or substantial bodily harm"

Ah, now we're getting somewhere...we do have a definition for "Substantial bodily harm"

RCW 9A.04.110 (4) (b)

"Substantial bodily harm" means bodily injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily part or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily part"

Think this would qualify for using deadly force against an unarmed subject?
 
For me, I carry to protect me and mine. If I get involved in someone else's fight, it jeopardizes my first priority. I am calling the cops if I see this kind of thing going down.
 
According to FBI stats, about as many people are killed with hands and feet ("personal weapons" is their term) -as are killed with rifles and shotguns combined.

So defining "unarmed" depends on the intent, ability and opportunity of the attacker. Do you think a fit 20-year old male just out of marine boot camp could kill you with bare hands?

To me somebody is unarmed if they have no arms coming out of their bodies, and they better have no legs, either.

\
Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
 
Actually, law makers leave some parts of laws somewhat ambiguous so they can be decided in court instead of drawing an artificial line as to what is "serious bodily harm". The jury is then allowed to fit the law to the circumstances instead of being hogtied to what some legislator thought was "serious".

I think most people have a fairly decent idea of what "serious bodily harm" means.
 
I wish I could just copy and paste my response to this.And if your lawyer can't get it ,I believe you need a new lawyer
Are you supposed to interview the attacker ?Ask his if he is going to rob you? Just punch you? knife you?
Does he have any training? Has he killed before?
Do you know anything about this guy?

You don't know anything about the attacker and you should be afraid of your life
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top