Short article on when u can use deadly force

[Stomper]

Its more like a change in the way physical plant used to be conducive to cornhole due to the blind spots. Remove blind spots, add cameras and more checks, screen inmates for vulnerabilities and house them with people that aren't predators, that kinda thing.

Welcome to Prisney Land!

Anyone with a bunger has a vulnerability.... lollipops and pizza for everyone! (Get it? "Lollipops".... "Pizza")

 

[No_Regerts]

Anyone with a bunger has a vulnerability.... lollipops and pizza for everyone! (Get it? "Lollipops".... "Pizza")

 

[Xaevian]

 

[bbbass]

A group of "Mokes" (call it a personality type, as opposed to a racial group)

Ummmm hmmm. I only ever heard certain ethnic groups (in movies) use that word, but this is interesting to know:

Moke is a term used in the British Isles as slang for "donkey". In Australia it refers to a nag or inferior horse, and is employed by residents of the Hawaiian Islands in similar fashion as the British to derogatorily describe segments of the local Polynesian population.

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

house them with people that aren't predators

Come again???

 

[Bushman]

Its all about context. The blanket statement that you can't shoot someone who has pepper spray is false. Ever been pepper sprayed? I'd say getting your most important sense wiped out and the distraction of pain as a pretty serious threat. If you have been sprayed before, its even easier to articulate because you can explain the level of "incapacitation" you experienced. If the bad guy has buddies and they have bats or pipes and you've seen them destroying things.....you get the point. Its the totality of circumstances.

I'd have to agree with this, totality of the circumstances. Ability, opportunity, jeopardy.

My friend and I sprayed each other to see how it feels. That stuff feels like needles are poking your eyes as soon as you try to open them. That and like they are on fire. It's not as bad on the face or even the eyes when they are closed, but when opening them it's only for a second or so before you automatically close them again. It's involuntary IMO.

Now let's say the guy or guys have pipes like NR mentioned, they threatened to kill or beat the crap out of you. Yeah, I'd say you can shoot them. Trouble is, how will you see?

Personally I do NOT want to get sprayed and view someone trying to spray me as a serious threat. Once you're sprayed, you're already losing...HUGE tactical disadvantage.

 

[WillametteWill]

Thanks @ilikegunspdx for the OP. This is an area that I wish more people who carry would give more thought to. There is soooo much sketchy info out there that we really need to do the research, practice discernment in what we see, and continue to recognize trends. In about the past year I've spent over 100 hours attending classes, reading books, taking online courses, just for this topic. There are few absolutes so we need to play the best odds for our favor. Nice to see good posts by others.

 

[Bushman]

A good source of info about self-defense law is Andrew Branca. He's and attorney specializing in self-defense law for the past 20 years.

Yes, he aggressively markets his subscription services, but that doesn't make him wrong. It just makes him a successful entrepreneur taking advantage of the free market system.

I've paid for and sat through a couple of his seminars online (each was over six hours) and it is the best information I've found on the subject, and the best investment of all of the money I've spent trying to learn about self-defense law.

Given that this information is from an attorney that is practicing with self-defense clients daily, I'm much more likely to use the information he's providing than anything else that's offered out there in "internet land".

His information has significantly changed my ways of thinking and decision making on the use of deadly-force for defense of self or others. It is much more complicated than most of us think.

If you believe in half of the information Branca provides, then it is frightening how much we - as a firearms carrying community - do NOT understand about self-defense law.

I agree with @Cerberus Group - take the time to consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable in self-defense law (many attorneys are not). If you've done that - great. If you haven't, it's something seriously worth considering. It is truly an eye opening experience. And at the price of ammo today - it will probably cost you LESS and a 1000 round case of 9mm.

Cheers.

What state is he out of? Laws on the use of force vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. WA has very liberal laws on this. Car jacking = deadly force. Aggravated Assault = deadly force.

 

[No_Regerts]

Ummmm hmmm. I only ever heard certain ethnic groups (in movies) use that word, but this is interesting to know:



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




Come again???

They screen each new inmate to see if they are vulnerable to rape or if they are likely to rape. Then, they don't let them live together.

 

[bbbass]

They screen each new inmate to see if they are vulnerable to rape or if they are likely to rape. Then, they don't let them live together.

And my stepdaughter interviews ALL prisoners up for parole, says they will re-offend and the I-da-ho Parole Board lets them go anyway. I think I'd be keeping some duct tape around.

 

[No_Regerts]

And my stepdaughter interviews ALL prisoners up for parole, says they will re-offend and the I-da-ho Parole Board lets them go anyway. I think I'd be keeping some duct tape around.

They are pretty good about it since compliance = fed $$$

 

[Xaevian]

They screen each new inmate to see if they are vulnerable to rape or if they are likely to rape. Then, they don't let them live together.

Like multiple choice?
Do you prefer to:
A. Spit
B. Swallow
C. Chew

Do you sleep:
A. Naked
B. On your stomach
C. With one eye open

 

[bbbass]

They are pretty good about it since compliance = fed $$$

The cons get fed $$$ ???

 

[No_Regerts]

Like multiple choice?
Do you prefer to:
A. Spit
B. Swallow
C. Chew

Do you sleep:
A. Naked
B. On your stomach
C. With one eye open

Ha! I'm curious now. I'll call a buddy who works inside and ask.

 

[No_Regerts]

The cons get fed $$$ ???

The state

 

[bbbass]

The state

That was a weak reply. Com'on man!!! If you can't be at least a little bit surly, yer disrespectin me...

 

[washagonian]

What state is he out of? Laws on the use of force vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. WA has very liberal laws on this. Car jacking = deadly force. Aggravated Assault = deadly force.

Branca addresses laws in all 50 states. He is nationally known. Look him up and check out his stuff. It's worth it.

 

[washagonian]

A foundational component of Branca's training is the following (I am probably not doing this justice, but it impacted me so I'll share it): Personal self-defense law is very similar between states (property defense law is not). In his research and practice Branca has determined that the following 5 things MUST ALL be present if a person is to be found by a jury or judge to have legally used deadly force. 1.) Innocence; 2.) Imminence; 3.) Avoidance; 4.) Proportionality; 5.) Reasonableness. If a prosecutor can prove that just ONE of these five items was NOT operative in the use of deadly force, the defendant (shooter) looses.

Branca goes into a lot of detail on how he developed this model, as well as great detail regarding each of these five elements. They are NOT something new, but his description of how these have played out in real cases is very sobering. Each element is more complex than we would think. For example, Innocence. If person 1 initiates a verbal confrontation that escalates, resulting in person 2 initiating a physical attack with the possibility of deadly force involved, and person 1 uses deadly force to defend him/herself - it is very possible that person 1 will NOT be found to have used deadly force justifiably if the prosecutor can convince a judge / jury that person 1 started the confrontation - thus person 1 was not "innocent" in the situation. Both person 1 and person 2 may be found guilty of violating the law. It isn't as simple as one was right and the other wrong. Both can be wrong and legally liable. Branca goes into detail about this and other scenarios and addresses a lot of myths and misperceptions that exist in the concealed carry community.

I'm not trying convince anyone here about any particular thing - other than I found Branca's information very valuable and if you decide to check it out you won't be wasting your money (and his trainings are reasonably priced).

I hang out with a group that often refers to the following quote by a British philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer:

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Stay safe.

 

[Certaindeaf]

They sure do. I'm not a police officer, the rules are different for me.

I do think Mr Strickland would have been way better of if, after reconsidering the decision to shoot, he'd exercised better discipline and kept it pointed down as you describe. Defending the choice to not undertake the task of reholstering under duress should be pretty defensible I would think, but IANAL.

The waving it around with no intention to shoot anyone specific is assault I believe.

It may well have saved his life from those animals.

 

[Dinglenutz]

It may well have saved his life from those animals.

I find it more likely that if anything it saved some attackers lives. If they're not deterred by a hand on a holstered pistol, or a Glock at low ready, then they probably become a deadly threat shortly.

 

[Certaindeaf]

I find it more likely that if anything it saved some attackers lives. If they're not deterred by a hand on a holstered pistol, or a Glock at low ready, then they probably become a deadly threat shortly.

So he shoulda waited til his throat was cut?
I'm sure a good talking to by a lawyer would have helped him out immensely.