Someone goes for your gun

[gunhawk]

I agree wholeheartedly with model520fan that the answer to the OP is shoot where it's necessary to avoid death or serious injury, and do not shoot where it is not. That'll keep you out of trouble, for the most part.

It is also my opinion that a gun forum, particularly one titled concealed carry methods and issues, is a very appropriate place for questions and discussion about the laws of self defense.

 

[J274895]

In my CCW class, the instructor hammered home the rules regarding a justifiable shooting in three easy steps:

1. Intent- The perp must have displayed the intent to cause you or another serious physical injury or death.

2. Ability- The perp must have the ability to cause serious physical injury or death to you or another.

3. Opportunity- The perp must have the opportunity to cause serious physicial injury or death to you or another.

These are very brief explanations and can go into much greater detail, but you get the gist.

 

[Titan]

In Arizona (of all places), Harold Fish is doing 10 years for killing an unarmed man charging at him and threatening him in the wilderness.

As has been said, in the end, it will come down to the case you make before a jury.


In the Fish case (Google it for the facts), the jury members I saw interviewed, commented on the fact that he didn't need to shoot an unarmed man, even if the man was attacking him.

Personally I think Fish's lawyers failed him and mounted a very poor defense, including the fact that they didn't put enough emphasis on the danger to Fish if the attacker had overpowered him and used his own gun against him.

.

 

[straightshooter1]

I th ink it depends a lot on state laws, too. In Florida, which is about as gun and self-defense "friendly" a state as one might find, shooting an unarmed man would be a problem.

The OP's initial post is a bit vague on facts which would support such a shooting. One must be able, at least in my state, to articulate the FACTS which gave rise to the belief the unarmed person was trying for one's gun. If all the man was doing was trying to punch the OP in the snotlocker, the deadly force would not, according to our statutes, be justified.

OTOH, if the man was trying to grab the gun, then that would put another slant on it.

Now I understand that if the unarmed man punched the OP and knocked him down and he dropped the gun and the man picked it up.... But, that didn't happen in the scenario.

So, one would have to be able to explain HOW he reasonably believed that was the probable outcome so, to avoid that, he shot.

Tough call on the second hypothetical. At least in my home state.

Bob

 

[Pasifikawv]

Whether Sit 1 or 2, should the BG die, your reply to those that will grill you about the incident after the fact:

You felt your life (and/or your family) was in danger.

You never meant to "kill" anyone. You only wanted to "stop" the BG.

Never admit to intentionally meaning to "kill" -only wanted to "stop." You only squeezed the trigger out of fear for life and safety and you only wanted to "stop" the BG.

 

[Pasifikawv]

Originally posted by Pasifikawv:
Whether Sit 1 or 2, should the BG die, your reply to those that will grill you about the incident after the fact:

You felt your life (and/or your family) was in danger.

You never meant to "kill" anyone. You only wanted to "stop" the BG.

Never admit to intentionally meaning to "kill" -only wanted to "stop." You only squeezed the trigger out of fear for life and safety and you only wanted to "stop" the BG.

Oh yeah: Immediately after the fact, say little or nothing. Get a lawyer.

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by Pasifikawv:
Whether Sit 1 or 2, should the BG die, your reply to those that will grill you about the incident after the fact:

You felt your life (and/or your family) was in danger.

You never meant to "kill" anyone. You only wanted to "stop" the BG.

Never admit to intentionally meaning to "kill" -only wanted to "stop." You only squeezed the trigger out of fear for life and safety and you only wanted to "stop" the BG.

I understand that saying less is better, and the affirmative statement of wanting to 'stop the threat' is probably a good way to go, but I doubt anyone would believe you if you ever actually stated that you 'never meant to kill anyone'.

If you use hollow points, and follow standard training methods by aiming for the 'center of mass', it would be a VERY tough sell to convince someone that you never intended to kill.

.

 

[gunhawk]

Originally posted by Titan:

Originally posted by Pasifikawv:
Whether Sit 1 or 2, should the BG die, your reply to those that will grill you about the incident after the fact:

You felt your life (and/or your family) was in danger.

You never meant to "kill" anyone. You only wanted to "stop" the BG.

Never admit to intentionally meaning to "kill" -only wanted to "stop." You only squeezed the trigger out of fear for life and safety and you only wanted to "stop" the BG.

I understand that saying less is better, and the affirmative statement of wanting to 'stop the threat' is probably a good way to go, but I doubt anyone would believe you if you ever actually stated that you 'never meant to kill anyone'.

If you use hollow points, and follow standard training methods by aiming for the 'center of mass', it would be a VERY tough sell to convince someone that you never intended to kill.

.

I don't know, my self defense gun is loaded with hollow points and I practice shooting center mass, but I can say for certain that if I ever have to fire my gun in self defense it will be my intent to shoot to stop and not to kill. In fact I will be praying that the threat is completely stopped but not killed. The ammo and the practice are both the most efficient way to stop a threat. Of course they are also quite lethal. I think many people would understand the difference in intent.

Sometimes the most important thing a good lawyer can do for you is seat the right jury, shoud it come to that.

 

[The Big D]

Originally posted by Titan:

I understand that saying less is better, and the affirmative statement of wanting to 'stop the threat' is probably a good way to go, but I doubt anyone would believe you if you ever actually stated that you 'never meant to kill anyone'.

If you use hollow points, and follow standard training methods by aiming for the 'center of mass', it would be a VERY tough sell to convince someone that you never intended to kill.

.

This is puzzling. What would you suggest someone say?

FTR, I was a cop for 30.5 years and was taught (and now teach!) that stopping a threat is ALWAYS the intent of a non-criminal shooter. Yes, that applies to LEO's and non-LEO's. Bear in mind that statement of intent has worked with myriad juries, judges, and prosecutors over the years.

Be safe.

 

[straightshooter1]

I agree with Big D.

I teach Police Officers and civilians (yeah, I know-many don't like to think that police aren't civilians-but I use this to make a point) that one shoots another because of the threat to one's life or to prevent great bodily harm or, in Florida, to prevent the commission of a Forcible Felony.

One shoots at the largest part of the person offering the threat (center of mass) and one shoots to STOP the threat or Forcible Felony.

That the other person may or may not die should not be a consideration when it is NECESSARY to shoot, rather the reason for shooting is to stop the other person from continuing with the actions which caused the shooting to take place.

In other words, if the person lives, so be it, if the person dies, so be it. Stopping that person is the whole purpose in shooting.

Stop the threat and shoot until the threat is over (neutralized is the term most often used).

Bob

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by The Big D:

Originally posted by Titan:

I understand that saying less is better, and the affirmative statement of wanting to 'stop the threat' is probably a good way to go, but I doubt anyone would believe you if you ever actually stated that you 'never meant to kill anyone'.

If you use hollow points, and follow standard training methods by aiming for the 'center of mass', it would be a VERY tough sell to convince someone that you never intended to kill.

.

This is puzzling. What would you suggest someone say?

FTR, I was a cop for 30.5 years and was taught (and now teach!) that stopping a threat is ALWAYS the intent of a non-criminal shooter. Yes, that applies to LEO's and non-LEO's. Bear in mind that statement of intent has worked with myriad juries, judges, and prosecutors over the years.

Be safe.

As I said in my post, I agree in saying that it was your intent to stop the threat.

I was only pointing out that going the extra step and SAYING that you never intended to kill or that your shot could kill, simply strains credulity.


Anyone carrying a gun for self defense who isn't prepared to kill, should leave the gun at home.


Just imagine this question upon cross-examination after you've testified that you never intended to kill anyone....

"Mr. X, would you have the jury believe that, when you fired a 45 caliber hollow point at the center of the victim's chest, that you didn't realize it could kill him?"

.

 

[Titan]

Originally posted by straightshooter1:
I agree with Big D.

I teach Police Officers and civilians (yeah, I know-many don't like to think that police aren't civilians-but I use this to make a point) that one shoots another because of the threat to one's life or to prevent great bodily harm or, in Florida, to prevent the commission of a Forcible Felony.

One shoots at the largest part of the person offering the threat (center of mass) and one shoots to STOP the threat or Forcible Felony.

That the other person may or may not die should not be a consideration when it is NECESSARY to shoot, rather the reason for shooting is to stop the other person from continuing with the actions which caused the shooting to take place.

In other words, if the person lives, so be it, if the person dies, so be it. Stopping that person is the whole purpose in shooting.

Stop the threat and shoot until the threat is over (neutralized is the term most often used).

Bob

I agree completely.
.