• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

When you can shoot legally

J

JimConway

Instructor
Joined
Mar 3, 2005
Messages
946
Likes
92
Location
Pepperell, MA
Feedback: 2 / 0 / 0
A friend of mine has a very good discussion of the legal Restrictions on Self defense at http://www.stevemunden.com/selfdefense.html This is very important subject which need a great deal of discusion.
I strongly suggest that everyone read it and then we can begin one of our normal long discussions. If you just read the words, it looks to be very clear. It is not an easy subject to get your mind arround. One of the most misunderstood words is the article is the word "innocent"

Here is just one situation that will help explain. You started a fight and you are losing big time. You are now sure that your life is in jeopardy or at the very least broken limbs. You are carrying a gun. Can you legally shoot?

Here is another situation. You come arround a corner and see a big man beating a woman who is on the ground. Can you legally draw your gun? Can you legally shoot the man if he does not stop?

This situation happened in Las vegas. You are coming home from the range, armed and have just pulled into your driveway. As you get out of the car, you see 3 men carrying you best audio equipment and new HDTV to their car. You move behind your car, draw your gun and tell them to halt. Two of them drop the stolen goods and run. The third one turns toward you and begins to draw a gun. Can you legally shoot?
 
great stuff

i'll take them in order...

1. no, you are the agressor.

2. no again, can't positively identify the victim from the agressor,
call 911.

3. don't know, in Mass. i would gander a guess at NO, as you would
be the aggressor.

JimB
 
1) I wouldn't start a fight because I know I couldn't win it. Worst case I tase him :)

2) I watch to see what might be happening. I'll draw and tell him to stop, if he doesn't then depending on their location and mine and who is around shoot the ground or him. If the guy is 'huge' and attacking a woman, there's something wrong with that anyway.

3) The two guys running away no, the guy running at me, hell yeah. Oh wait.... I don't have a TV or stereo equipment...
 
1. I too avoid starting fights, but I agree with Jim B. You are the aggressor, so no.

2. I'd use pepper spray that I always keep with me - the non-lethal option.

3. If he draws a lethal weapon, appearing intent on using it, yes.
 
Bad idea to draw in all 3 cases. Illegal in case 1. Probably not illegal in case 3 but since you escalated a non-threatening situation, it is guaranteed you will be in some serious shit. You have no idea what is happening in case 2, so depending on the facts learned afterwards, you may be a hero or a murderer.

That firearm should always be the very, very last resort.
Case 1. Don't start fights.
Case 2. Don't draw. Be a witness. Call 911.
Case 3. Same as 2.
 
that is a well written article. Is he on this board?

1- you are the agressor to a fight, not the serious bodily harm part... it depends on your intentions of the fight...but its up to the courts at that point, I dont think theres a definate answer to any of the scenarios.
2- you must find out whats going on first. you dont want to say "I thought he was beating her up" ASS-U-ME (assume, dont do it!)
3- that wold depend of the state, in texas you can protect yor property. but again, dont asume! what if your wife is leaving you and hired movers?!

be SURE of the reason you are using your weapon!

my 2 cents.
 
The answers

The responses are very good. Now I will add some more info
In the first situation, you are the agressor and can not shoot.

In the second case, You have no idea who is innocent, so who do you protect? I am aware of one situation like this case where the woman had attacked the man and had severely damaged his eye

In the last case, you are not allowed to protect property, in most of the states. When he drew his gun he became the aggressor and could not shoot. Secondly there was no threat to his life or the possibility of grievous bodily harm. In the case that I am aware of, he was convicted and served time.
 
It is indeed a small world. About 13 years ago, Steve Munden recognized the resume of someone from the shooting community in a huge stack of resumes being considered and suggested it be put in the "bring in for interview" pile. Steve has moved on to other things, but I passed the interview and am still in that job.
 
Rob
Just because steve is a great guy, does not maen that he can not make a mistake.
All kidding aside, Steve will be in the Bill Jeans class at Pelham, NH, August 1, 2 & 3, if you want to visit or join the class and shoot with him
 
Jim,

This is a question about example three.

If you witness a crime aren't you allowed to stop the crime using force - but not lethal force? So, leave the gun in the holster and go to work. Otherwise you must watch people steal your possessions while waiting for the police to arrive? What if you don't have a cell phone and the criminals are between you and your house phone. This is why I love Texas ROE.
 
Example 3 brings about an interesting conflict between tactics and legality. If you call out to the guy, like "Hey, what's going on here?", and he draws a gun, you can defend yourself. But, this puts you in the very dangerous position of drawing on a drawn gun. Where is the line here? Could the good guy have drawn to a covert ready position and then called out to the thief?
 
When can you shoot

"Deadly force is justifiable to prevent the imminent, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent."

The key words in the above are "imminent", "otherwise unavoidable" and "innocent"

you should understand that how these words are used and understood will be decided by a jury.

"Furthermore, that threat must be imminent, meaning that you cannot wait any longer. If someone tells you that he's going to get a shotgun and return and kill you, that's certainly a deadly threat, but you would not be justified in gunning him down on the spot. You must wait until, if you wait any longer, the threat would be carried out. When exactly that tipping point occurs is impossible to say without knowing all the circumstances. But if the district attorney, and then the jury, decide that you reacted too quickly, the shooting will not be justifiable."

"It is crucial that the shooting be otherwise unavoidable. Killing someone must be a last resort, when all alternatives have failed. If you can escape, then do it. If you can drive away and call the cops and let them handle it, do it. If you can give up the parking spot he thinks should be his, do it. If you can apologize for spilling the salad on his suit and offer to pay for the cleaning bill, do it. Your self-esteem and need to save face will not weigh heavily in the jury's deliberations; they should not weigh heavily in yours."

"And finally, to the innocent. That phrase has two implications which can get you into serious trouble. First, you must be without fault. If the jerk in the car in the next lane cuts you off and you flip him off and pull over with him to settle the dispute, nothing which subsequently happens can justify your use of deadly force. You were a willing participant in the altercation, and we expect greater responsibility from armed citizens than you displayed. You killed a man because he changed lanes too close to suit you? Sorry, the district attorney isn't going to buy it and the jury probably won't either.

The second implication of to the innocent is that you can use deadly force to defend other innocent people. Those people do not have to be known to you. If that person could legally use deadly force to protect himself, you can use it on his behalf."

"Deadly force is justifiable to prevent the imminent, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent."
 
MRJ said:
Jim,

This is a question about example three.

If you witness a crime aren't you allowed to stop the crime using force - but not lethal force? So, leave the gun in the holster and go to work. Otherwise you must watch people steal your possessions while waiting for the police to arrive? What if you don't have a cell phone and the criminals are between you and your house phone. This is why I love Texas ROE.
Click to expand...

Remember that you can only use deadly force to protect an innocent who faces death or grevious bodily harm. Your use of force would only be acceptible if the person that you saved could have legally used deadly force.

This is a very perilous area, because you will rarely be there when the event started and will have to guess, assume or otherwise determine who the "innocent" is.

Consider a case in the midwest recently. A man entered a store and saw a man holding a gun on a man behind the counter and shot and wounded the man with the gun. What had happened just before he entered the store is as follows:

  1. Robber pointed a gun at the clerk
  2. Robber told the clerk to come out from behind the counter
  3. Robber went behind the counter and started stuffing the cash into a bag and when that bag was full he laid the gun on the counter as he grabbed another bag.
  4. The clerk grabbed the gun and held it on the robber
  5. The clerk was shot
 
Last edited:
"When you really couldn't care less at the moment what a jury might or might not say because they've only got a say in the matter if you're alive."

+1

I think 'when to shoot' is a 'know it when you see it' situation. While the discussion in this thread is very valuable to our mental conditioning, there are too many variables to say 'shoot'. Identifying 'no shoots' is probably easier.

AE
 
KMaurer said:
When you really couldn't care less at the moment what a jury might or might not say because they've only got a say in the matter if you're alive.
Click to expand...

+2. One for summing up the issue very well, and one for using "couldn't care less" correctly.
 
When to shoot

On "no shots" the best advice that have been given is "If you have the slightest doubt about whether you should shoot, DO NOT"

We have discussed the situations where lethal force is proper and defensibly. There is a lot of info that has to be processed in a very short time. The most important thing to is think about it NOW and not at the time of the need. There are a number of things that must be evaluated and courses of decided on. Does your religion prohibit "killing" or "murder"
Does the holy book that is the foundation of you religion say "Thou shall not murder" or does it say "Thou shall not kill"

What about the ethical and social aspects of taking a life? Have you considered them?

What I am saying is that you should think about these things now, and not while you are trying to make the decision to shoot or not shoot. Once you have pondered these things, it is now time to internalize these decisions so that they are ready should you ever need them.

I have been through this process and have reached my decisions.
I will flee if it is safely possible
I will appologise for what ever wrong the other guy thinks or claims that I did. I may be lying through my teeth, but I will sound to be humble and sincere.
If there is no other option, I will do what I have to do

If it gives you any peace, remember that over 90 percent of people that are shot are released from the hospital within 24 hours
 
JimConway said:
A friend of mine has a very good discussion of the legal Restrictions on Self defense at http://www.stevemunden.com/selfdefense.html This is very important subject which need a great deal of discusion.
I strongly suggest that everyone read it and then we can begin one of our normal long discussions. If you just read the words, it looks to be very clear. It is not an easy subject to get your mind arround. One of the most misunderstood words is the article is the word "innocent"

Here is just one situation that will help explain. You started a fight and you are losing big time. You are now sure that your life is in jeopardy or at the very least broken limbs. You are carrying a gun. Can you legally shoot?

Here is another situation. You come arround a corner and see a big man beating a woman who is on the ground. Can you legally draw your gun? Can you legally shoot the man if he does not stop?

This situation happened in Las vegas. You are coming home from the range, armed and have just pulled into your driveway. As you get out of the car, you see 3 men carrying you best audio equipment and new HDTV to their car. You move behind your car, draw your gun and tell them to halt. Two of them drop the stolen goods and run. The third one turns toward you and begins to draw a gun. Can you legally shoot?
Click to expand...

No
Yes
Yes
 
Law dawg
In case 2, you have no idea who is the innocent party. For all you know she could have just knifed him. We can only use deadly force to protect the innocent. The answer is NO
In case 3, the answer is again no. In Nevada, I believe that you can not shoot to protect property, so when he drew a gun, he ceased to be innocent. If the BG had fired a shot then he would be able to return fire and be okay. This was an actual case and the guy was convicted
 
JimConway said:
Law dawg
In case 3, the answer is again no. In Nevada, I believe that you can not shoot to protect property, so when he drew a gun, he ceased to be innocent. If the BG had fired a shot then he would be able to return fire and be okay. This was an actual case and the guy was convicted
Click to expand...
I can not agree with this. I don't know the particular case in question (and the devil is in the details).

I agree that (in most states) you can not use deadly force to protect property. However, your description of the situation was a follows:

This situation happened in Las vegas. You are coming home from the range, armed and have just pulled into your driveway. As you get out of the car, you see 3 men carrying you best audio equipment and new HDTV to their car. You move behind your car, draw your gun and tell them to halt. Two of them drop the stolen goods and run. The third one turns toward you and begins to draw a gun. Can you legally shoot?
Click to expand...

You can use deadly force if you are in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury. In this case, the third robber turning towards you and drawing a gun is an immediate danger. You do NOT have to wait for someone to shoot at you before you can shoot back.

I suspect that there was a lot more going on in the case than described above.
 
JimConway said:
Law dawg
In case 2, you have no idea who is the innocent party. For all you know she could have just knifed him. We can only use deadly force to protect the innocent. The answer is NO
Click to expand...
It depends.

Down and dirty definitions:
Lethal force - That force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.

Let's look at what is generally needed for lethal force to be allowed:
Means (do they have a weapon, or is the size/numerical advantage so great that the lethal force definition is met)
Opportunity (can they bring their force into play)
Intent (are they actively pursuing trying to harm you or a third party)

You have to have all three legs of the pyramid to use lethal force. Some states also require preclusion, some don't, but all require the above pyramid. If you guys get together to shoot two of the three are met but intent is missing. If a guy across a football stadium yells he wants to stab you he's missing opportunity (he can't get to you over that distance). If Mini Me yells he's going to f_ing kill you and attacks you viciously with his hands and teeth he's missing means.

As a rule one can use lethal force to defend another person to the same extent as one could oneself. With such a size disparity as the first case, his next blow might well kill her (lethal force is that force which is likely to kill or seriously injure). Does his size advantage meet this standard? I believe an argument can certainly be made. If so, you (as a bystander) are not expected to be psychic and know all that has happened before. You can act. This man is assaulting her. I don't care what she did before, he is now the aggressor. Once she's down and out, so to speak, he has to stop. If he continues on, the he is now the assaulter. Provocation does not permit retaliation. "Deserve" and "innocent" are fluid terms. Did what she do to "deserve" a beat down? Is the guy "innocent" now, seeing as he is now physically the aggressor? Tough calls. If you leave (preclusion) the woman may well die, due to such a size disparity. Like I said, his next blow may well kill her. She's on the ground. Her head has nowhere to go as it's on the ground. This has death and serious bodily injury written all over it.

In case 3, the answer is again no. In Nevada, I believe that you can not shoot to protect property, so when he drew a gun, he ceased to be innocent. If the BG had fired a shot then he would be able to return fire and be okay. This was an actual case and the guy was convicted
Click to expand...
I'm not in Nevada. ;)

Joking aside, though, people are coming out of your house. You have a family and guns inside, you don't know what is happening and what has happened. Simple prudence dictates that you arm yourself, not to mention the disparity of force (multiple assailants) allows lethal force in a physical confrontation. So, once you've armed yourself, if they complete the triangle you are good to go. Once he produces a firearm the triangle is complete. Even preclusion in this case is dependent. Do you have a duty to retreat in your home state? I don't. But even still, you have to go check on your family. You don't have to retreat in that instance. If they decide to get in the way of that, then you play the cards as they fall. In this case, they produced a gun. This isn't an episode of Kung Fu. You don't have to wait for him to shoot first.

Like most things, it's a matter of articulation. Why did you do what you did? A good shoot can be turned bad by one's statement. Know why you acted and say it well when you speak. If you can't do so, that's what lawyers are for. I've never gotten in trouble shutting the hell up, which makes me wonder why I don't do it more often. [smile]

As for pulling the trigger as a civilian, that's a tough one for me. I've always acted as a LEO. I have a duty to not retreat. As a civilian, I guess what it boils down to is what can you live with. If you can live with yourself if indeed the woman does die and you think it not worth getting involved because you don't know the details, then that is something that makes your decision easier. If you don't think you can live with yourself, that makes it tougher.

But any gunslinger had better know their mind before they walk out the door every day. The gun isn't about being cool. It's a damn big responsibility. Can I pull the trigger? When should I? What cost am I willing to pay? Because there is always, always, always a cost.
 
law dawg said:
Do you have a duty to retreat in your home state? I don't. But even still, you have to go check on your family. You don't have to retreat in that instance. If they decide to get in the way of that, then you play the cards as they fall. In this case, they produced a gun. This isn't an episode of Kung Fu. You don't have to wait for him to shoot first.
Click to expand...

You only have to retreat if it is safe to do so. We don't have the details of the incident, but you can't outrun a bullet...
 
My thoughts:

1. Who would more likley hesitate in action - a bad guy with a gun worrying about getting caught/shot or a good guy worrying about whether they can legally draw a firearm?

2. If you are going to retreat, quickly consider whether you can do so safely, then quickly do so. Your run needs to be as quick as your draw, and certainly quicker than their run or draw.

3. Never miss the opportunity to recollect your legitimate reasons for fearing peril of grave injury or death.

4. Remember the hundreds-of-thousands to millions of defensive gun uses per year that are said to occur, most without shots fired? Consider what small fraction of these occur with resultant law enforcement involvement and criminal litigation.

5. I don't think being a legally armed citizen neccessitates choosing between odds of criminal prosecution and victimization.

6. We need to discuss many more examples of situations where you CAN legally employ a firearm in self-defense versus situations where you cannot, or readers will end up mentally prepared to be armed victims.
 
So if the third scenario is "no" for the reasons Jim gave, let me ask for opinions on what the property owner's best course of action would have been. Drive away and then call the police from a safe location?

Myself, I would presume that any thief is possibly armed, and I would not want to make a confontation into a contest of who is a faster draw. So if I could not enter the scene with my weapon already drawn, then for me that makes any sort of confrontation not viable at all and the only option would be to retreat.

Then again, you could well get shot while retreating and be in a bad-to-impossible position to defend against it. This seems like a losing scenario for the property owner no matter how you slice it.
 
Last edited:
1. This is a tough one. While you are screwed because you started the fight, it does not give the other party the right to use lethal force if you have not. Like if you hit some guy cause he was being a douche and suddenly his 9 firends are stomping your head. If you have to use lethal force to stop them, then they are wrong, though you may not be right.

2. The man has a disparaging level of force and the advantage of a downed opponent. Unless he is trying to remove some kind of weapon, it's very likely hes the aggressor. It is certainly a situation that wants the drawing of a firearm. Personally, I would kick him in the head if he didn't stop with a gun pointed at him.

3. Some may say you should have gotten back in your car and left. Regardless of what you didn't do, the BG drew a weapon, he's dead meat.

Unfortunately the laws are junk. Your likely hood of prosecution lies solely with the prosecutors feelings and politics, as does your trial by jury(AKA lowest common denominator).
 
Last edited:
Dsm
In scenario #3, The only thing that he could have done would have been to have drawn his weapon and keep it hidden, say behind his leg. If the BG could not see it then the gun was not in play. If it were me, i would not dwell on exactly when I drew the weapon, if questioned by the police
 
JimConway said:
Dsm
In scenario #3, The only thing that he could have done would have been to have drawn his weapon and keep it hidden, say behind his leg. If the BG could not see it then the gun was not in play. If it were me, i would not dwell on exactly when I drew the weapon, if questioned by the police
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I can't agree. If the bad guy is drawing a gun, there is no law that says you have to wait until he draws and fires before you can respond.
 
In Massachusetts you are allowed to use lethal force if you have reason to believe serious body damage or possible death will result from the assault.Not for protecting personal property.
 

Similar threads

New shooter with a weird problem
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
AHM
AHM
Shooting with Movement
Replies
8
Views
2K
allen-1
allen-1
Cant shoot my carry pistol well
3 4 5
Replies
129
Views
13K
paul73
paul73
Advice for disabled shooter?
Replies
4
Views
726
a73elkyss
a73elkyss
Instructors - Do you charge more or less per person for Private vs Public classes?
Replies
10
Views
6K
EddieCoyle
EddieCoyle
Back
Top Bottom