Self Defense Rights

[Branko]

What I suspect in cases that the self defense wasn't lethal or didn't cause any serious bodily injury, a good deal of them go unreported. Back in my younger years that was the case many times. Someone gets the better of the assailant and all parties go home. I'm sure many times a bad guy had a gun to his face and changed his mind and the victim didn't report it.

Different country, but all the cases which I personally know of (meaning, I know the people involved) in my country were not reported unless someone was shot.

Eg. an example - someone whom I know had a burglar on the balcony trying to find their way in. Homeowner brought out the gun from the safe and displayed it casually, burglar saw it and decided he had urgent business elsewhere, fast.

Naurally the incident wasn't reported. Since there was no justification to shoot yet, a display of a firearm could be consituted as an illegal threat (not necessarily - a casually displayed gun in the home could be lawyered away without too much trouble, but why take the trouble), and it was an illegal gun (here, a misdemeanor punishable by a 2000$ fine and confiscation). So the homeowner didn't have an interest in reporting it. The burglar was of course caught doing something illegal and had no interest in reporting it either. Everyone walks and lives to see another day, pretty much the ideal outcome, but such a thing never shows up in statistics.

I know of a number of similar situations which were all not reported. The police are there to keep the peace, you don't want to disturb their peace Of course, in more 'civilized' parts of the world things might be different.

 

[44 AMP]

Score one for the good guys..maybe..

heard last night on my local TV news, (sorry, no link) a man in the Seattle area attacked some people with a hatchet. A licensed CWP holder (with no mentioned LEO affiliation) shot and killed the hatchet wielder after he had cut someone.

No mention of charges yet, but the matter is being turned over to the prosecutor for "review".

This seems to be a case where deadly force was used to stop an attack on someone else, which is provided for in WA law.

The Seattle metro area is politically the least "gun friendly" part of the state, it will be interesting to see what, if anything the prosecutor can make of what to me (based only on the 10pm TV news report, so far) seems to be a "good shoot".

 

[kilimanjaro]

The local anti-gun news ran the story, then dropped it. They did manage to ensure that the story mentioned CPL holders who had negligent discharges, and of course, the Zimmermann event.

The hatchet assailant managed to wound the clerk, he just missed getting the axe buried in his belly, but received a small slicing wound instead. I don't see how the prosecutor is going to able to do anything except call it completely justified.

The assailant was a prior felon, and probably on drugs at the time of the attack.

 

[44 AMP]

I fully expected the media to give this story as little coverage as they can, but it is the kind of thing we have been waiting for, or so it seems, so far, a common citizen, NOT a off duty cop or security guard, armed, who was there, AND used their gun lawfully to end a homicidal attack.

No "collateral damage" was mentioned. There seems to be NO ambiguity involved. And if someone tries to make a point of the "small belly wound", not being justification for shooting, remind them the difference between that "small slice" and having your intestines around your ankles is only about 1/4" or so, AND what do you think the axe wielder would do on their NEXT swing???

Not a cop. Ordinary citizen, armed. Stopped bad guy. No one else hurt. This should NOT be allowed to be forgotten, while the media continues to trumpet how "useless" it is to be armed...

 

[BobCat45]

Here is a link to the story in the city newspaper:
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/customer-shoots-masked-hatchet-wielding-attacker-in-burien-store/

A fair-use quote from the linked story:
"The 60-year-old customer buys coffee from the store almost every morning, West said, and he sits and chats with the clerks. He has a permit to carry a concealed handgun, West said."

So no, apparently not an off-duty police officer, simply a coffee-drinker with a CHL and the presence of mind to draw and deliver accurate fire when attacked. Without hurting anyone but the assailant.

 

[rickyrick]

I've seen stories like this shift from armed civilian to off duty cop before.
No disrespect and I sincerely am not disparaging any officers, but to me they are one in the same.

 

[44 AMP]

60yr old private citizen. CCW permit. Declines to speak to the press (smart private citizen)

Used deadly force to prevent assault with deadly weapon, if not outright murder. Clerk slightly injured, attacker dead on the scene.

THIS is the kind of event that should be thrown in the face of the antigun crowd EVERY time they start spouting off about how a CCW is "useless" and a "danger" to everyone.

Not a case of an officer/security guard who happened to be there, armed and trained.

While I want to protect the shooter's privacy, (which he certainly deserves) I would love to know ALL the actual details of the shooting. What gun, what ammo, how many rounds fired (all I know right now is "multiple" shots fired), and the other details that apply.

My understanding is that while the law allows the use of deadly force in cases like this, because the defender is not police, there is no legal requirement for a civilian to identify himself or announce his intent to shoot, prior to stopping the attack. He could, legally shoot the attacker in the back, without warning, I'm curious if he did, or what actually did happen.

I would love to be able to use this case as an argument FOR responsible CCW use, which, with the details we have so far, it could well be.

Right now, this case seems to be something that the other side can't twist to fit their arguments in any way. I hope it stays that way when we know more details.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Let's presume the citizen fired without warning, from the rear or side, and multiple times, just for argument. How does this change the event from justifiable self-defense?

 

[44 AMP]

Let's presume the citizen fired without warning, from the rear or side, and multiple times, just for argument. How does this change the event from justifiable self-defense?

It doesn't. Deadly force is justified in defense of another to prevent certain crimes, murder being one of them.

I was just wondering about the tactics used. Police are expected by the TV watching public to shout commands like "freeze" or drop the weapon" and then shoot if necessary. I know of no requirement in law for a citizen to do that.

 

[CowTowner]

Realizing this can vary between jurisdictions, are LEO's required to

shout commands like "freeze" or drop the weapon"

before the use of deadly force?
Has TV/Movies got it wrong? Yea, I know they're in their own world, but it seemed like a good question at the time.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

Cowtowner: Yes and no.

Officers are not required to yell commands before using deadly force, however they are trained to do so.

Under Supreme Court guidelines, police are required to give verbal warning prior to using deadly force if feasible.

 

[CowTowner]

Thank you, Gary.

 

[Photon Guy]

Photon Guy if you, or I use force in what we believe to be self-defense, whether that involves the use of a weapon or our bare hands, we have to be able to make a reasonable case that our decision was justified. Do you honestly think that a background in martial arts is not going to be brought up if your "perpetrator" is seriously injured or killed because of your actions?

You don't have to have a background in martial arts to seriously injure or kill somebody with your bare hands. There are other factors that come into play such as size difference, strength difference, ect. A much stronger person who has no martial arts background can injure or even kill a much weaker person with their bare hands. So if I was to seriously injure or kill somebody with my bare hands, which I would hope to never have to do, that doesn't mean the court will automatically assume I've got a background in martial arts.

What matters is, was the force used reasonable based on the situation. Deadly force has to be the last resort and the decision to use it should be examined carefully. What is the alternative

I believe that deadly force should only be used in extreme situations but sometimes you might immediately find yourself in such an extreme situation. For instance, lets say you all of a sudden see a man running at you with a knife and there is no clear escape, what would you do?

BTW a situation which I believe should allow the use of physical force, maybe not necessarily deadly force but physical force of some sort, should be any sort of sexual assault crime done by a male assailant.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...BTW a situation which I believe should allow....

Folks really need to avoid this sort of "I believe" business when discussing the law. What you believe should be is irrelevant. People believe a lot of things that aren't true, and believing them doesn't make them true.

We've outlined what the law is and how if works with regard to intentional violence against another human. If circumstances are such that under the law as it exists one can justify an intentional act of violence, that's one thing. But your belief one way or the other isn't material.

 

[Photon Guy]

In one sense the accused claiming self defense is not innocent. He did, in fact, commit an act of violence against another person: and he admits it. But the accused is claiming that his act of violence is entitled to be excused or forgiven by society because it was justified.

Alright I think see what you mean. Its against the law to use physical force against somebody with some exceptions and that by claiming self defense you've then got to prove that you fall under such an exception.

Much like its against the law to run red lights but that there are exceptions to that. For instance an emergency vehicle that's running its lights and sirens.

They will. You can't expect something like that to be, or stay, a secret.

A martial arts background is not as obvious and not as easy for people to know about as if I had used a gun, or for that matter if Im a big muscular guy in which case everybody would see that Im a big muscular guy. Unlike openly carrying or using a gun and unlike being big and muscular, you can't tell that somebody is trained in the martial arts just by looking at them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...you can't tell that somebody is trained in the martial arts just by looking at them.

Perhaps not, at least in general (the way someone carries himself or moves could be a tell under some circumstances). But that's not how you originally raised the question. You wrote in post 15 (emphasis added):

...Lets say Im an expert in the martial arts and I take down a perpetrator with my bare hands. Martial arts does not leave the kind of evidence that guns and bullets leave so for the prosecutor and the court to take into account my martial arts background, they would have to know about it first. The fact of the matter is, I did take somebody down although not with any weapons but what Im concerned about is how my martial arts background would come into play in court and how much of a difference it would make if I didn't have a martial arts background and still took somebody down with my bare hands. Again though, for them to take into account my martial arts background they would have to know about it in the first place....

So your question assumed you were on trial. I can guarantee that if you used unarmed force against another person and wind up in court over it, by the time you got to court your background will have been pretty thoroughly investigated, and the prosecution know all about your martial arts background.

 

[Spats McGee]

In one sense the accused claiming self defense is not innocent. He did, in fact, commit an act of violence against another person: and he admits it. But the accused is claiming that his act of violence is entitled to be excused or forgiven by society because it was justified.

Alright I think see what you mean. Its against the law to use physical force against somebody with some exceptions and that by claiming self defense you've then got to prove that you fall under such an exception.

Exactly. The way I've phrased it before is this: If someone is charged with a garden-variety crime, their best posture (legally) is often "The State can't prove that I did it." If someone is charged with a crime but claims self-defense, what they often have to say (to the court) is, "I did it, but I had a REALLY good reason."

 

[A pause for the COZ]

I find these discussions some what interesting as a time filler on the weekend.
Usually take a scenario or two. And run them through all the possible options and what if's.

The Lawyers chime in and over complicate the simple. Then the Layman pops on and over simplifies the complex.

Interesting no doubt.Useful in a real world context???? Not really sure.

We take one example of maybe the possible 100,000 ways you could find your self at risk. Them run 15 pages on it.

It would not be possible when faced with a threat, perceived or actual.
That you would be able to run through all the possible out comes in advance and then make a decision in the 2 seconds allotted for that decision.

Even the people who are trained in scenario actions ( the Police) make mistakes. But it does not stop them from acting.

For my self, I find it more useful to work on trying to control my risk. By limiting my exposure. ( if I am not involved. That's the best scenario of all) Then make the best decisions possible in a broad sense.

Because in that second or two that I have to decide what to do. I have to live with that decision. Lives may hang in the balance.

If I decide not to engage the person it appears is holding a gun on a store clerk and they get killed as a result. I have to live with that.

If I decide to act and shoot what turns out to be a kid pointing a pellet gun at the clerk who is a friend and they are just playing a joke on them.
Well I would have to live with that too.

Truth is.. Its much easier to just be a victim. Your never responsible for any thing that happens. Its much much harder not being the victim.
Do the best you can, Make the best decisions you can. Just know going in. No matter what, you will be held to account for those decisions. One way or the other.

 

[Photon Guy]

Folks really need to avoid this sort of "I believe" business when discussing the law. What you believe should be is irrelevant. People believe a lot of things that aren't true, and believing them doesn't make them true.

When I say "I believe" what Im saying is "I feel it should be this way." While Im not an expert in the law regarding self defense I do have opinions like everybody else. Just because the law is written a certain way doesn't mean I feel it should be that way and as an American citizen how I feel the law should be is not irrelevant. As Americans we have the right to voice our opinions whether the law agrees with them or not. Maybe I chose the wrong words in my earlier post. Instead of saying "I believe" I should've said "I feel this is how it should be."

 

[Photon Guy]

Exactly. The way I've phrased it before is this: If someone is charged with a garden-variety crime, their best posture (legally) is often "The State can't prove that I did it." If someone is charged with a crime but claims self-defense, what they often have to say (to the court) is, "I did it, but I had a REALLY good reason."

The way I would put it is, "I did it, but I had a justification."