Does being somewhat handicapped?

[LevelOne]

Does being somewhat handicapped change the regualtions/laws when it comes to concealed weapons/use of...?

Or can someone who is slightly handicapped (physically not mentallY) allowed more wiggle room in the "I felt in fear of my life" statement. Because they couldn't defend themselves as much as a regular person.

Just doing some reading on the 2nd ammendment book here in Florida and it does not address this issue yet but I haven't read the entire book yet.

Any input would be appreciated? Thanks.

 

[LevelOne]

Does being somewhat handicapped change the regualtions/laws when it comes to concealed weapons/use of...?

Or can someone who is slightly handicapped (physically not mentallY) allowed more wiggle room in the "I felt in fear of my life" statement. Because they couldn't defend themselves as much as a regular person.

Just doing some reading on the 2nd ammendment book here in Florida and it does not address this issue yet but I haven't read the entire book yet.

Any input would be appreciated? Thanks.

 

[Spotteddog]

While I'd never want to be perceived as speaking for one of our members of the bar, I seem to recall one or two saying in the past that age and infirmity were things called "mitigating", what ever that means?

 

[elcruisr]

My wife has advanced MS. In and out of a wheelchair and she is unable to flee from anything. Talked it over with two defense lawyers here in FL when I started carrying.

The short answer is maybe. For me it meant since flight is not a viable option when facing a threat a prosecutor and jury are going to take that into account. With the states current expanded castle doctrine, though, I think it's a bit of a moot point.

Can you be more specific?

 

[LoboGunLeather]

The word "mitigating" applies to facts and circumstances that would reduce the severity of an alleged offense.

A large part of any argument pertaining to self-defense will always be based upon the "reasonable man" approach. Was the actor's fear for his life, or that of another person, reasonable when considered in light of all known facts and circumstances? Was the force used that which a "reasonable man" would have elected to use under these circumstances?

The use of deadly force can seldom, if ever, be justified in defense of property. Only when someone is actually engaged in conduct which can likely be foreseen (by the "reasonable man") to cause death or grievous bodily injury to a person can deadly force be justified.

Many states have adopted so-called "castle doctrine" legislation, which essentially means that no one has a duty to retreat, placing the onus for the outcome of a violent confrontation on the person who initiates and perpetrates the violence. This is fine, as far as it goes, but avoidance and retreat should not be discounted as viable means of ending a confrontation.

Most prosecutors, and certainly most jurors, will be largely sympathetic towards a person who has been subjected to actual or threatened violent assault, and takes steps to defend himself. That said, remember that "sympathetic" might just mean being charged with a lesser offense than homicide or aggravated assault (perhaps manslaughter or a lesser degree of assault).

As I have posted before, when it comes to confrontations of any kind:

1. avoid whenever possible
2. walk away if you can
3. run away if you must
4. deal with if you have to.

It is always better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six. When the worst happens, you will certainly be vigorously investigated, and certainly be judged.

Beyond the initial "I was in fear for my life so I defended myself", the only statement you should make is "I need to consult with an attorney right away". Shut up, lawyer up, let the guy in the nice suit do all your talking for you, and ride out the storm. No comments to the press. No comments to your friends, co-workers, golf buddies, or anyone else (speak freely to your spouse, such communications are privileged; but only if your spouse can be trusted not to talk about it to others).

The legal aftermath of such an encounter will certainly last for months, perhaps years. You will be investigated. You might be prosecuted. In today's litigious society, you will very likely be sued. It will be difficult, frustrating, frightening at times; but you will be there to live through it. And that is the object of the exercise!

 

[The Shottist]

In Az and Tx the answer is "YES!"

That was addressed during our CCW class. The law considers "disparity of force" when determining the justifiable use of deadly/ lethal force.

Ex #1
200lb man being hit by 95lb woman. He would not be justified in using lethel force.

EX #2
115lb woman alone and being advanced on by 200lb attacker; or surrounded by multiple assailants. She would be justified.

EX #3
Any person in a wheelchair, or similarly disabled, threatened with violence by any person not restricted in a wheelchair. The disabled person would be justified. My wife is handicapped, so our CCW instructor used her for the 3rd example in our class.

Our state laws spells it out very plainly and clearly.

Our state does not require you to retreat, you only need to be in a situation of impending violence. Our law also allows "good Samaritan" actions. You may shoot a person that is attacking another person, even if they are strangers to you.

 

[GatorFarmer]

Check your state laws and talk to a competent attorney lisc'd to practice in your state.

Of course then if you talk to two or three lawyers, you'll get six different opinions as the joke goes.

If you want some real fun, get one of the thick tomes on criminal law and dig through the footnotes of the cases.

 

[ZO6Vettever]

LevelOne, I don't know about being prosecuted but, I use a cane to get around and can't run. I'm 61 years old on SS disability and couldn't defend myself against too many people with just my fists. That is the reason I got a CCW, just in case. It would be the absolute last resort and I know the legal crap will make life miserable for a time but I will still have my life. These SOB's now ain't happy with your wallet and car, they gotta beat you down too. I'm not a young man any more and am a little more fragle than some years back so I'll do what I have to for the protection of me and my wife. She is also thinking about getting a CCW. It sucks to have to carry a weapon but the more of us that do carry the less assaults these thugs are going to commit.

 

[RobO]

The law considers "disparity of force" when determining the justifiable use of deadly/ lethal force.

This is what I was going to say.

 

[Hook686]

It sucks to have to carry a weapon but the more of us that do carry the less assaults these thugs are going to commit.

Perhaps one day only thugs will cary a gun. I doubt then that there will be less assaults.

 

[torrejon224]

I am rated 100% disabled by both the VA and Social Security although you sure wouldn't know it if you met me.My main disabilities are very severe back, neck and hip problems with a big touch of Post Traumatic Stress. I talked with a lawyer about this and basically was told that it would definitely make a jury sympathetic about your case. Like I said I'm not confined to a wheelchair but have to use a cane quite a bit and IMO it will come down to whether ir not it was a "good" shoot. I personally know that I don't have the ability to turn and run like some would be expected to, if ever attacked I have a choice to make and God forbid if it comes down to lethal force I hope I make the right one. Honestly, in court I don't expect to be treated any differently than a person with no disability.

 

[DougE]

I asked my CCW instructor this very question when I took my class since I'm disabled. My spine is in bad shape after 20 years as a tree trimmer and I've had 2 surgeries on it so far. I'm in no shape to be mixing it up with anyone and if someone were to start pounding on me I'm quite certain it would cause me severe bodily injury. My instructor advised against the use of deadly force unless my attacker is armed even if I am limited in my ability to physically defend myself.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by DougE:
My instructor advised against the use of deadly force unless my attacker is armed even if I am limited in my ability to physically defend myself.

Doug, I would not listen to him. Look up the definition of severe injury in the Kentucky Statutes. I bet your state's code has one.

As far as the law is concerned, it matters not if your attacker has a weapon or not. A fist or boot is a weapon if it can reasonably cause death or severe injury in the manner in which it is being used.

A kick with a sneaker to someone's behind is FAR different, legally speaking, than repeated kicks to the head with a boot-shod foot. Applying deadly force in self defense of the former will land you in prison most likely. Applying deadly force in self defense of the latter will save your life and will be very easy to articulate why a reasonable person would have done the same.

Same can be said for a single punch to the face vs repeated punches to the temple.

 

[DougE]

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp:

Originally posted by DougE:
My instructor advised against the use of deadly force unless my attacker is armed even if I am limited in my ability to physically defend myself.

Doug, I would not listen to him. Look up the definition of severe injury in the Kentucky Statutes. I bet your state's code has one.

As far as the law is concerned, it matters not if your attacker has a weapon or not. A fist or boot is a weapon if it can reasonably cause death or severe injury in the manner in which it is being used.

A kick with a sneaker to someone's behind is FAR different, legally speaking, than repeated kicks to the head with a boot-shod foot. Applying deadly force in self defense of the former will land you in prison most likely. Applying deadly force in self defense of the latter will save your life and will be very easy to articulate why a reasonable person would have done the same.

Same can be said for a single punch to the face vs repeated punches to the temple.

I hadn't planned on taking his advise. If I were to be attacked by an unarmed assailant and felt that there was no other way to avoid severe bodily harm to myself, I would do whatever I need to do to stop the attack no matter what I've been told. I doubt I'll ever have to worry about anything like that happening in the first place but I have given it some thought none the less.

 

[Dusty Miller]

Originally posted by Wyatt Earp:Same can be said for a single punch to the face vs repeated punches to the temple.

A SINGLE punch to the temple with put you down and render you defenseless.

 

[pps]

If I am on your jury and you are handicapped, I will give you A LOT of leeway in claiming you were in fear for your life. I just doubt I'll make it into your jury pool.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Originally posted by DougE:
My instructor advised against the use of deadly force unless my attacker is armed even if I am limited in my ability to physically defend myself.

That makes perfect sense if you keep in mind that your instructor is an idiot, is not a lawyer, doesn't know what he's talking about, and doesn't lose anything if you go to the hospital or the morgue.

You want your kidney stone removed, at least hear what a urologist has to say. You want a legal opinion, . . . .

 

[Spotteddog]

So Mr. or Mrs. wheel chair bound handicapped person, I wish to know why you found it necessary to park the largest wheel of your chair, on the defendants throat after shooting him thrice?
I see, you felt had you not, he'd have continued being a threat...?
I can see then why you chose to shoot him three times. You were being merciful, and didn't want the defendant to suffer unduly.

Note to O/P, this will only work if I'm on your jury...

 

[pps]

Originally posted by Spotteddog:
So Mr. or Mrs. wheel chair bound handicapped person, I wish to know why you found it necessary to park the largest wheel of your chair, on the defendants throat after shooting him thrice?
I see, you felt had you not, he'd have continued being a threat...?
I can see then why you chose to shoot him three times. You were being merciful, and didn't want the defendant to suffer unduly.

Note to O/P, this will only work if I'm on your jury...

The defendant was trying to flee uphill but the wheelchair rolled backwards over the deceased persons throat. Continuing to perceive a threat, there are at least a dozen bloody tire marks on the criminals throat...pity the defendant lacked the strength to open up the airway. Yeah, wouldn't fly here in Ca, unless I was on the jury.

 

[greyhawk178]

Originally posted by DougE:
I asked my CCW instructor this very question when I took my class since I'm disabled. My spine is in bad shape after 20 years as a tree trimmer and I've had 2 surgeries on it so far. I'm in no shape to be mixing it up with anyone and if someone were to start pounding on me I'm quite certain it would cause me severe bodily injury. My instructor advised against the use of deadly force unless my attacker is armed even if I am limited in my ability to physically defend myself.

________________________________________________

Sounds to me like your instructor is in a CYA/ liability avoidance mode.