Quote:
Originally Posted by zeke
Would be interested in list of specific times you think (or you instructor(s) think lethal force is warranted?. What exactly do you think a threat looks like? Like some have said, everyone has a different living situation. Am not law enforcement official on the job, but speaking as homeowner. Gee, if you see your wife sneaking back into the house at night and shoot her, guess what?
Would ask a law enforcement official, but am of opinion even a no knock warrant entails them identifying them selves as law enforcement coming through the door. Firefighters enter houses on fire, yea that fits a self defense scenario.
The example of the 8 year old down syndrome child doesn't even warrant an answer.
Am thinking all of us need some common sense.
Am not of the opinion an "unarmed" individual can not be a threat, as the tv commentators would like to indoctrinate the public to believe.
|
Any intruder(s) in my home would initially be considered a threat. That doesn't mean I would immediately or ever need to shoot them. There are many variables and every scenario will be different, but I think there are some general guidelines of when using lethal force is justifiable.
Here are some quotes from Massad Ayoobs book "In the Gravest Extreme" that would be prudent to follow on when it's appropriate to use lethal force irregardless of the specific situation or what your local laws happen to be...
1. "Only when undertaken to escape imminent and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm."
2. "The attacker must not merely have made the threat to attack, but must be in a position where he is obviously and immediately capable of carrying out that threat."
3. "The best rule is to resort to deadly force only when life and limb are in jeopardy."
"Reasonableness" should factor in greatly. You can't just say you felt threatened or viewed another individual as a threat. The threat must be real where a reasonable person would conclude that death or grave bodily harm is likely if lethal force is not used. No one would believe or agree that a young, strong 200 lb man that has a confused 100 lb 80 year old grandmother with Alzheimer's wearing nothing but a nightgown who accidently wandered into their home at gunpoint is a threat requiring lethal force. This concept was greatly distorted during the Zimmerman trial.
Don't underestimate the predicaments developmentally disabled children can get into. I am intimately familiar with the world of special needs kids and have witnessed it first hand. They are prone to run away from home and will sometimes attempt to enter random houses for harmless reasons such as getting a drink or using the bathroom unaware of what they are doing or the dangers involved.
An unarmed individual can indeed be a threat. I have a family to protect and an apparently unarmed man who is advancing on me or moving towards my family, I would most likely fire. If I had an individual at gunpoint, could see their hands and they are complying with my commands, then I don't see them as an immediate threat and would not fire. That could change at any moment and warrant a lethal force response. However, individual factors and "Disparity of Force" are/should be a consideration. An elderly individual in a wheelchair would have different capabilities and force options available to them than a 250 lb professional MMA fighter and a large or even average sized male would obviously be viewed and perhaps dealt with differently than a woman or child.
"I will not put myself or my family at risk, but I will do anything I can to avoid shooting another human being for legal and ethical reasons." I would recommend everyone have that mindset no matter where you live, local laws or your personal beliefs.
A lot of this is indeed common sense.