Not all fights are gunfights

A

AffordableArmory

New member
Well I’m not interested in wrestling someone either, but if it comes to that and they don’t have a gun or knife, I don’t feel that I’m legally justified in employing mine. In which case, some hand to hand combat skills would be very useful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
J

JohnKSa

Administrator
In a self-defense situation, generally speaking, the defensive actions need to be generally similar to the level of the attack.

For example, if you're 25 and 250lbs of solid muscle, you will go to jail if you shoot a 90 year old man who weighs maybe 125 and is trying to hit you with his fists.

On the other hand, if you're the 90 year old and the attacker is the 25 year old who's 250lbs of muscle, then you could easily justify shooting him even though he isn't attacking with any weapon but his hands.

So what happens if the person attacking you is unarmed and about your same level of physical capability? You'd better have a really good reason why you choose to shoot. If your reason is good and the circumstances fit your story, you'll likely be ok. But it's trickier from a legal standpoint than if you are defending against someone with a very obvious physical advantage or a weapon.
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
ghbucky said:
Not all fights are gunfights

I'm not sure about this. I'm not interested in wrestling with someone. If I'm defending myself from an attack, I've already done everything I can to get away and avoid the situation.
Click to expand...
Sad.

I used to respect Jim Wilson. This article looks like it was written by his evil twin, Skippy.
 
S

Shadow9mm

New member
It all depends on the laws of the state. In my state deadly force is permitted to prevent death, serious bodily injury, or a forcible felony.
 
J

JohnKSa

Administrator
Yup.

The first TX shooting involving a licensee was a rather small man who was trapped in his car and entangled in his seatbelt while a much larger unarmed man was beating him through the window of the car.

In spite of the fact that the defender could not get away and suffered permanent injuries from the attack, it still ended up going to trial. The defender was acquitted, but the trial highlighted the potential legal issues with shooting an unarmed person, even in what appears to be a dire situation.

If there's what appears to be a fairly level playing field, from a physical standpoint, shooting an unarmed attacker "in self-defense" is likely to be legally problematic.

Here's what Wilson says: "So, if we consider a reasonable response to a threat, I may not always be justified in using my gun against a man who comes at me with his bare fists. "

He's absolutely right. There are certainly scenarios where an unarmed attacker would NOT justify the defender shooting in self-defense.

One can take exception to his assertion that people "must" take martial arts classes so they have something in the toolbox available to use when a gun isn't appropriate, but the bolded quote from the article is unquestionable true.
 
G

ghbucky

New member
My issue with this is that if someone is coming at me with the intent to put their hands on me and I can't get away from them, then I very few options left. If they are physically capable of matching me and I am armed, then my immediate fear is they will take control of my weapon.

Heck, I've seen dashcam video of 2 cops tasing a guy and when they tried to cuff him, he escaped, grabbed a gun from his car and started shooting.

That is 2 trained cops using all the tools at their disposal and they still couldn't control 1 guy.
 
J

JohnKSa

Administrator
My issue with this is that if someone is coming at me with the intent to put their hands on me and I can't get away from them, then I very few options left.
Click to expand...
Well, to be frank, that's kind of the point of the article. Giving yourself some more options.

And, harsh as it may seem, having problems with the way the law is written doesn't change how it is written or interpreted. The reality is, regardless of how we feel about it, the law generally requires that the defender's response is on a similar level to the attack. If two people are pretty evenly matched in physical capability, it's going to be a hard sell to explain why the defender decided to shoot the unarmed attacker. The defender will need to provide reasons that explain why it was the only resort.
If they are physically capable of matching me and I am armed, then my immediate fear is they will take control of my weapon.
Click to expand...
This would be a reason you could provide as rationale for your actions, as I mentioned above. Whether it would be a good enough reason or not would depend on the circumstances.
 
S

SIGSHR

New member
Yes, good to check your state's and case histories. I believe there is something called "disparity of force" which covers this.
 
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
Let’s see... Mark Abshire, Gerald Ung, Harold Fish, Larry Hickey, George Zimmerman, the two guys in Amarillo, the guy in Houston who shot his firefighter neighbor while video taping it...

Those cases all had something in common... what was it?
 
F

FireForged

New member
I'm not sure about this. I'm not interested in wrestling with someone. If I'm defending myself from an attack, I've already done everything I can to get away and avoid the situation.
Click to expand...


Well Bro, unfortunately the law does not allow a person to simply use a gun to defend themselves against any manner of force imposed against them.

A person can certainly claim that their actions were lawful and necessary for this reason or that.. others are still going to have to agree if you expect to be cleared of it.
 
H

HiBC

New member
Seems like I heard something about "At Risk" persons.

At someplace around 65 yrs old,us "Olde Folkes" are no longer expected hold our own against an able bodied younger guy.

Old injuries make it slow and difficult for me to even get up off the ground.

I'll go to great lengths to avoid any fight,but realistically, any fight could kill or disable me. In other words,any fight is a fight for my life,by any means available.

I absolutely don't want to hurt anyone. I'll walk away from anything I can walk away from.

But at some point,the burden falls on the
younger man who ought to know better than to try to hurt an Old Man.

I don't have to take a beat down. I won't. How that works out is on the guy who insists.

On settling things with fights...honor fights,etc. Dueling was outlawed long ago. Any physical fight is a form of dueling,without the rules.

You never know when a lucky punch will put you down.You never know how many times you will be kicked in the head.
IMO,any fight is a fight for life and death.,at least until the winner is satisfied.

We are not allowed "warning shots" or "Shooting him in te leg" with a gun,because those options indicate it was not yet time for deadly force.

IMO,its the same with any fight.The Friday night get drunk,get in a fight ritual is no longer real.

Don't fight till its time to kill or die.
 
Last edited:
F

fastbolt

New member
A dismaying number of folks like to assume that their feelings will always prevail when it comes to the reasonableness of how fearful they feel about being harmed by someone, and especially their fear of being subjected to serious injury or death at the hands of another.

I agree with the author that it's prudent to consider getting some sort of legal advice, and paying an attorney familiar with the laws in your state is one way to get a legal opinion.

If you anticipate using force against someone, it's prudent to learn about the laws involving the use of force in lawful defense of self (or an innocent 3rd person) and how they're applied.

It's sadly become more common to hear someone claim they were afraid for their life, or in fear of their life. Well, there's an arguable and important difference in what the law may consider a bare fear, versus a reasonable fear. Learning to distinguish the difference may mean the difference between being on the wrong side of the law in some particular situation.

Disparity of force may come into play, but it's probably not wise to assume it's something that can be defined by any particular person however they may wish to define it at the moment.
 
Last edited:
F

FireForged

New member
A dismaying number of folks like to assume that their feelings will always prevail when it comes to the reasonableness of how fearful they feel about being harmed by someone, and especially their fear of being subjected to serious injury or death at the hands of another.
Click to expand...

exactly

There are plenty of people with the moral high ground who are sitting in prison.


I suspect that there are a good many people who probably need to get some training or education in regards to how such things are qualified.


Life is full of adversity, and sometimes life will yield a few lumps and bumps( some received, some given). I dont carry a gun to protect myself against a busted lip or hurt pride. I carry a gun to protect my life and although a lone and unarmed attacker may truly endanger my life, he is going to have to really-really-really convince me of it. I have had my rear end handed to me more times that I care to admit. That said, I am still here with only a few scars to show for it.
 
Last edited:
S

Swifty Morgan

New member
Not much of an article. The general rule is that force has to be reasonable in the situation at hand. If you know that and live by it, you don't need to read articles.

On a related note, it's too bad gun people don't talk more about the fantastic option of running away. When you have a good opportunity to run away, you should always take it. No one ever got prosecuted for homicide for running away.
 
B

Blue Duck

New member
A gun really is a last resort. Remember "what will a reasonable man do?" You actions need to pass the reasonable man defense, probably.
This is one reason, it's best to have other weapons on your person, besides a gun. I personally carry a large folding knife, and always have, that is big enough and heavy enough to used as a bludgeon even in the closed position, as a stop gap, when shooting is not the best choice. Of course large folders are not legal in many locals, but I have never been called out on one. But then again I don't go around displaying it for the world to see, either. A good heavy flashlight could be another option.

Martial arts training? Yeah maybe! But I have seen skilled martial arts people get the crap beat out of them by just a big man that could take a punch, and keep on coming, too.
 
B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
Martial arts training? Yeah maybe! But I have seen skilled martial arts people get the crap beat out of them by just a big man that could take a punch, and keep on coming, too.
Click to expand...

I once watched a rural deputy restrain a prisoner. The prisoner looked like an extra from “300.” The deputy looked like a ton of chewed bubblegum. I thought the deputy was going to get beat. But he just sat on the prisoner, and when the prisoner tried to resist, he smacked him. It turns out that if you have restricted maneuver space, “sit on ‘em and punch ‘em” is a perfectly valid martial art.
 
B

Brit

New member
Getting in to fisty cuffs, is dependant on being where trouble is? Thinking about the law, in the state you live? Might not be reasonable whilst protecting your 76 year old wife against two teen agers, obviously under the influence of drugs, whilst sitting in the rear of of a small Chinese Restaurant! At 4-pm on a rainy Monday afternoon? Did I say I walked into this business, without the aid of a walker or cane, aged 84? Holding my Wifes hand? OK I said it.
As always, wearing a loaded Glock 19, under a Florida shirt.
My smart savvy wife knows how loud a 9mm is indoors, would be most likly bent over with hands on ears! I would presume.
What happens next? Would be dependant on the two young men. Their actions.
 
A

Aguila Blanca

Staff
JohnKSa said:
Well, to be frank, that's kind of the point of the article. Giving yourself some more options.

And, harsh as it may seem, having problems with the way the law is written doesn't change how it is written or interpreted. The reality is, regardless of how we feel about it, the law generally requires that the defender's response is on a similar level to the attack. If two people are pretty evenly matched in physical capability, it's going to be a hard sell to explain why the defender decided to shoot the unarmed attacker. The defender will need to provide reasons that explain why it was the only resort.
Click to expand...
I was going to say that the law doesn't require us to "give ourselves options," the law presumes that we should be free to do anything legal without being assaulted. But ... we live in clown world today, so I should modify that to: I don't think the law requires us to carry "options" and, if it does, then IMHO the law needs to be changed.

Any physical assault carries with it the danger of serious injury, if not death. If I didn't invite an assault, then IMHO I should not have to worry about having to decide what I can or can't use to defend myself. That said, I'm a senior citizen with a mechanically repaired heart and an artificial hip that has not recovered well from the surgery 10 months ago. It would probably be easier for me to justify resorting to a firearm for self-defense than it would be for someone in their prime who is built like a professional wrestler and who is a black belt in multiple martial arts disciplines.

That said, I don't think even a martial arts expert should be required to go mano a mano with someone who assaults him (or her).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top