cavnamvet and cmort addressed my thoughts, and Mr. Ayoob's, with drawing and hiding until needing the weapon. But a mention was made of policemen being able to downgrade the threat with talking- and I just wanta point out that when confronting a cop, a criminal hasw that instinctual hesitation to break the law in front of a law officer. As a civilian we don;t have that added ounce of prevention. One situation that I have worried about happening is, feeling seriously threatened and drawing- then the person shows they are unarmed and comes at me ready for a fight. I have two bad shoulders, a bad back and a bad knee- I can't run, pull one of my arms and I'll be easily controlled- but as an unarmed attacker am I safe in shooting the threat? I'm not really looking for an answer, I'll make the decision if it happens- but it does concern me. Ya know, I'm a working man- if someone put me out of work for weeks I would suffer financially- not to mention possible permanent damage to my shoulders- docs have already said after my surgeries, fuirther damage WILL result in loss of mobility to the arm. So, will a jury listen- pay enough attention- to the fact that I'm a kind of- special case- and was justified in shooting an unarmed attacker..? I hope , I pray,I never have to find out.
Now I can't speak for South Carolina, but I can speak for NC. In NC if you have a reasonable fear of life and limb you have the grounds for deadly force. So your reasoning for drawing the weapon was because you felt that your body could not handle a fight without being seriously injured or killed right? That justifies deadly force.
Not to be rude by comparison, but lets say for example a senior citizen was being provoked by someone to engage in a fight. And this senior knows that if he/she fights they will be seriously injured or killed where another person of able body would be able to fight. They have the right to use deadly force to protect life and limb whereas someone younger of able body might not have had the same grounds for use of deadly force.
Another comparison is this, lets say a small woman (who has no self defence training) is confronted hostilely by a large man, obviously she is at a disadvantage due to size comparison. Any reasonable person would conceive that she is at immediate danger because of this. She would be justified to use deadly fore to protect life and limb, whereas again, someone larger or with self defence training might not have had the same grounds for use of deadly force.
The law is firm about using deadly force, but it is leniant enough to acknowledge any sort of handicap.
I got this directly from the book "North Carolina Crimes" On page 11. Chapter 2 Bars and Defenses.
Defenses That Justify:
Self-Defense, Defense of Others and Defense of Property:
"Self defense, defense of others and defnse of property have been called 'Defensive-force defenses'. When these defenses apply, they justify conduct that otherwise would be criminal. Thus, for example, the law of self-defense provides, in part, that a person may kill an attacker if he or she reasonably believes that his or her acts are necessary in order to keep the attacker from killing him or her or doing him or her great bodily harm. Also, a person may, as a general rule, use force against another when the amount of force is reasonably necessary to protect himself or herself from the other person's assault, even when the other person's attack is not deadly.
..."
If you can articulate why you HAD to use deadly force, you should be just fine. The biggest word being ARTICULATE.
Sorry I did a horrible job quoting the book but I wasn't going to be too tedious about it, lol.