Not all fights are gunfights

G

ghbucky

New member
Aguila, your point is better worded than mine.

I guess my thought process here as a mid 50s guy in reasonable shape is that if it gets down to brass tacks, I'm not going to 'get physical' with anyone that I assess is a reasonable threat to me.

If a child kicks me or an old lady smacks me with a handbag, I'm walking away. But other than that, I'm going to try to retreat and if that fails... well, I guess I'll hope that I get treated better by the authorities than the St Louis couple.

There were 2 fairly recent self defense situations where I live that would likely result in charges on the victim in many parts of the country, but I never even learned what the details of the situation were and who the victim was.

I only knew about 1 because I had a police scanner and saw the cops going lights and sirens, and the other situation was a collision between 2 vehicles that resulted in gunfire. The local news reported it occurred, named the deceased, and that was the extent of it. No grand jury, no charges, whoever fired the shots was never named.
 
7

7.62 man

New member
I started carrying when I got old & couldn't hold my own in a fight or run fast enough to get away.
I realized that if in that situation I would need a helper so I needed to carry.
 
A

Armybrat

New member
There have been at least two incidents in Austin where young men who took single punches fell down and were killed after hitting their heads on sidewalks or curbs.

If anyone assaults me or my wife (both 75) with fists, they are getting shot.
 
D

Don Fischer

New member
I've wondered about the legal side of shooting someone quite a bit. Shoot someone and you spend at least one night in jail. Then they family sues you and maybe the state wants to put you away. If I had to shoot someone I'd leave post haste! they find the MTY case good for them, next they need to find the gun. The problem's you can have for doing nothing other than defending yourself and trying to be right about it are far to great. Fight back? Ya, maybe 30 yrs ago! I'm 74 and don't deceive myself that I can handle one or several young guy's, probably several. Seem's they seldom if ever attack one on one! And they don't attack to teach you a lesson about anything, like getting old is bad for you, they beat the person half to death and then throw in a few extra kicks and slams just for the hell of it on a person that can't even crawl anymore!

I do not care if the bad guy or guy's are not armed. You come to beat me up and your coming to a gun fight! Just think about how fast thing's would change if the bad guy's all started getting shot and the shooter walked away.

No, the more I think about it the more I think for me it's shoot and walk away. Years ago I drove over the road in 48 states and Canada. In New York City one time I was talking to a cop and he mention that they know most us driver's are armed in the city. He told me if I ever have to shoot someone just leave them lay and walk away, don't call the cops. He said, "we'll find them and if we don't know who did it there's less paper work". I think that was good advice!
 
G

ghbucky

New member
geez, Don.. I can't imagine that being even remotely good advice. Especially in this day and age where cameras are everywhere.

If you leave you pretty much throw out any legal self defense claim, I would imagine.

At least in KY, they have written into the law coverage for civil lawsuits if it is determined that your actions were legal.
 
T

TunnelRat

New member
Yeah I’m going to go out on a limb and say that leaving the scene of a shooting might be the worst advice I’ve read here.

For those concerned about the costs of the legal aftermath, there are insurance programs through a number of organizations that will provide legal expense coverage and bail money (USCCA, Second Call, CCW Safe, Texas Law Shield, NRA, etc). Please invest in one of those before taking the advice above.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
F

Frank Ettin

Administrator
...the more I think about it the more I think for me it's shoot and walk away. Years ago I drove over the road in 48 states and Canada. In New York City one time I was talking to a cop and he mention that they know most us driver's are armed in the city. He told me if I ever have to shoot someone just leave them lay and walk away, don't call the cops. He said, "we'll find them and if we don't know who did it there's less paper work". I think that was good advice!...
Click to expand...

No it wasn't good advise. It was stunningly stupid advise.

Post incident conduct is evidence and can be argued as evidence of guilt. For example see:
  • U.S. v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1990), at 1402:
    ...the instruction explicitly stated, "the jury may consider [the false statements] as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt." Id. at 1104. Second, we have approved the use of this instruction on false exculpatory statements. See United States v. Boekelman, 594 F.2d 1238, 1240 (9th Cir.1979) (court noted approval of standard Devitt & Blackmar instruction and distinguished Di Stefano in upholding a variation from the standard instruction); United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.1976)....
    Click to expand...

  • State v. Wimbush, 260 Iowa 1262, 150 N.W.2d 653 (Iowa, 1967), at 656:
    ...In Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed., section 276, Volume II, page 111, under the title 'Conduct as Evidence of Guilt' the editor states: 'It is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused's flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.'

    McCormick on Evidence, section 248, pages 532, 533, puts it thus: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth.' Many acts of a defendant after the crime seeking to escape the toils of the law are received as admissions by conduct, constituting circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and hence of the fact of guilt itself. In this class are flight from the locality after the crime, assuming a false name, resisting arrest, * * *.' See also Jones on Evidence, Fifth Ed., section 386, page 717.

    We have held many times that evidence of escape from custody and flight of an accused is admissible as a criminating circumstance. State v. O'Meara, 190 Iowa 613, 625, 177 N.W. 563, 569; State v. Heath, 202 Iowa 153, 156, 209 N.W. 279, 281; State v. Ford, Iowa, 145 N.W.2d 638, 641. See also 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, section 280, and 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625 a....
    Click to expand...

  • State v. Lonnecker, 237 Neb. 207, 465 N.W.2d 737 (Neb., 1991), at 743:
    ... Although Clancy involved evidence of the defendant's attempted intimidation or actual intimidation of a State's informant or witness, evidence which was admissible under Neb.Evid.R. 404(2) ("other acts"), the rationale for "conscious guilt" evidence is equally applicable in Lonnecker's case.

    Lonnecker's hiding in the crawl space was evidence of his "conscious guilt" concerning the marijuana located on the premises which were under his control, that is, a conscious guilt concerning possession and cultivation of marijuana as a controlled substance. ...
    Click to expand...

  • Martin v. State, 707 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.App.-Beaumont, 1986), at 245:
    ...In 2 RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL sec. 1538 (Texas Practice 3rd ed. 1980), we find:

    "Sec. 1538 Conduct as Evidence of Guilt

    "A 'consciousness of guilt' is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is consequently a well accepted principle that any conduct on the part of a person accused of crime, subsequent to its commission, which indicates a 'consciousness of guilt' may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged." ...

    See also Cuellar v. State, 613 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)....
    Click to expand...

A guilty person runs. An innocent person reports and makes himself available to explain his actions.

An intentional act of violence against another human is also, on its face, a crime. The law recognizes however that at times such an act of violence may be legally justified. But it will be up to the actor to present evidence supporting a claim of justification.

Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:
...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....
...

... Often, the defendant will need to testify in order to establish his subjective belief about the threat and need to respond defensively. This can be done through circumstantial evidence, but it is difficult....
Click to expand...

If a reasonable person in like circumstances would conclude that remaining at the scene would put him in danger you should --

  1. Leave and get to safety.

  2. Call 911 to report the incident as soon as possible. Tell the 911 operator your name, where you are, and provide complete contact information. Do everything you reasonably can under the circumstances to make yourself available to authorities.

  3. Be prepared to articulate why you left the scene.
 
J

JohnKSa

Administrator
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.
Click to expand...
The law doesn't require you to carry options or to give yourself options, but if you don't have them, you may find yourself in a situation where you can't legally use your gun and wish you did have some options.

While I agree that I shouldn't have to worry about the nitty gritty of whether or not there's sufficient disparity of force to justify using a firearm, that's not how the law is generally applied.

That said, if you DO have good reasons why you needed to shoot, this becomes much less of an issue. Maybe not a total non-issue, but less of an issue. Senior citizen, disabled, heart issues, serious surgery with persistent complications, etc. would all be good reasons. A person with that kind of a "resume" would likely find it fairly easy to justify resorting to deadly force against an unarmed attacker.
I guess my thought process here as a mid 50s guy in reasonable shape is that if it gets down to brass tacks, I'm not going to 'get physical' with anyone that I assess is a reasonable threat to me.
Click to expand...
Well, for example, if the person attacking you is "a mid 50s guy in reasonable shape" who is unarmed and you end up shooting him, you may find yourself in serious legal jeopardy.

The law isn't how we want it to be. It is how it is.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of the law being that way--just pointing out the reality of the situation.
 
Z

zukiphile

New member
The article's underlying point is sensible as training advice. More options will be better than fewer. I don't read it as legal advice except in as much as it encourages people to seek it.

GHbucky said:
I'm not interested in wrestling with someone.
Click to expand...

In my state, wrestling or grappling with someone may be construed as evidence that you've voluntarily entered a physical contest. Losing a voluntary boxing bout is unlikely to be viewed as good grounds for use of a firearm. If that alarms you, it probably should.

There are probably lots of downsides to being armed and entering a fist fight, but the least intuitive may be that use of your fists could invalidate a defense of your later use of your firearm.
 
D

Don Fischer

New member
Your probably right but my impression over the years is that if you shoot someone the burden of proof is on you and even if you were right, you may still rot in jail. It has occurred over the years that it seem's the laws are made to protect the criminal.
 
F

Frank Ettin

Administrator
Don Fischer said:
Your probably right but my impression over the years is that if you shoot someone the burden of proof is on you and even if you were right, you may still rot in jail. .....
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's not new. That's been law for a very long time -- going back to the foundation of our legal system, the Common Law of England. And it's not going to be changing any time soon, if ever.

Actually, today the defendant claiming self defense doesn't have the burden of proof in all but a few States. But he still has the burden of producing sufficient evidence to establish each legal element of a self defense claim. Doing so shifts the burden of proof to the prosecutor and will get the defendant a jury instruction on self defense. But the more convincing the defendant's evidence the harder it will be for the prosecutor to overcome it.

An intentional act of violence against another human is, on its face. a crime. One escapes criminal (and civil) liability by being able to demonstrate that intentional act of violence was justified.
 
B

Brit

New member
As a gun carrier, every day here in Florida. The chance of getting into a gunfight, as opposed to a non-owner of a defensive pistol, is just about100%.
The ingredients are right there, a man with Glock 19, loaded with 16 rounds of 9mm, criminals, and mentally deranged persons, free to travel, a lot of them owning mechanical means of transport, cars, and trucks.
We all, the bad and the good of society, are free to roam. And as an owner of a TV, I see violent meetings, in many Citys of this vast land of ours. Every day.
Actually you do not need to leave your home, trouble can arrive uninvited, right up to your door!
Without being paranoid, my message to all. Be aware. Carry always.
 
H

HiBC

New member
One "option" I have carried is a Surefire or similar high lumen (over 200) flashlight.
I'm not sure what the risk to my own vision was,but I blasted myself in the eyes with it when I bought it,
.There was a short time period ,maybe 10 seconds,I was blinded. There was a lingering large black hole in the center of my vision that lasted 15 or 20 minutes. For rough scale,like a larger than usual donut hole or sunny side egg yolk. You can have a less intense experience shining the light in a mirror.

IMO,the 5 to 10 seconds can be "Slip out the back,jack" time.

The hole in center vision makes it hard to see a blow coming.

The be all/end all SD tool? Hardly.

But I can comfortably carry the light having a couple of beers when I would not carry a gun.

I'd much rather explain shining someone with a flashlight to an LEO than bullet holes.
 
H

HiBC

New member
ghbucky...I made one quick search This is similar to mine. Mine is 200 lumens.

This one is 600 lumens. Use your own judgement. I can't tell you the ideal number of lumens.

I can tell you mine fits nicely in a 1 in Leupols QD scope ring,which will attach to a picatinny rail.

In darkness,itilluminates a 100 yd target well enough I can easily see my crosshairs through a 2.5 to 8X Leupold VX 3 mil-dot.. Thats with 200 lumens

https://www.surefire.com/products/illumination/flashlights/g2x-tactical/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top