Originally posted by rosie:
Wyatt Earp quotes the Michigan laws on CCW wherein the statute for use of deadly force, among others, is defined "to defend ones self-----from imminent unlawful use of force by another individual". My question concerning this statement is as follows: Suppose you are walking down the street or to your car, or are stopped in your car and cannot move (ie accident or breakdown), and a person or group are approaching you with "attitude" and loud mouths and their conversation is provocative and they are now 10 ft from you (no weapons of any kind shown), can/should you draw your gun so it can be seen, fire a warning shot (they are within striking distance even though nothing has been shown)or actually fire at him/them. What ifs are aplenty and the scenario has many twists and turns but there is no doubt that you are scared, worried and have a degree of fear--is that good enough for you to think "imminent unlawful use of force" against you?
This is a very difficult question to answer, albeit a very good one to ask. It is also probably the most difficult and stressful scenario for an armed citizen to be in.
f150guy's "ABSOLUTELY NOT" answer is wrong.
Number one, I would not fire a warning shot. EVER. Rosie, you are accountable for every projectile that leaves your weapon. Where is this warning shot going to go? What if the ground is asphalt or concrete? Do you know where the bullet will ricochet to? What if you carry a revolver? Your ammo supply is limited by modern standards and you just wasted 17% of it for nothing.
That said, IF you cannot safely retreat or escape, then you have to keep your wits about you. What are the verbal provocations? Are they insults or are they explicit promises of physical harm or death? You have to consider the totality of the circumstance. Words threatening rape, murder, or a severe beating, when uttered by a group of men who look like they mean it against one sole victim would put me in fear of death or severe injury. If I ever got cornered to that point, I would probably draw and give some extremely strong verbal commands to be left alone. If those commands are not complied with immediately then deadly force would be applied to stop what I percieve is a an imminent threat of death or at least severe injury.
It matters not that they have not shown a weapon. Two or three against one (when the three are of equal or larger size than the one) can easily and quickly degenerate in a severe beating that will break bones, create deep lacerations, and head trauma. All those injuries are universally accepted in court as prima facie evidence of severe injury or bodily harm.
If anyone in the group flashes a weapon, any weapon, including blunt objects (2x4, piece of pipe, baseball bat, club, anything heavy made of steel, etc.), then there will be no warnings. Those so armed will be hit first without so much as a word of warning, to be followed by those who still wish to stand and fight.
shooting is different and the reasons are likely to also change.
