When to Shoot?

[Tom Goodrick]

Recently I have read books by Massad Ayoob and by Chris Bird about Concealed Carry in which they give some examples. The net result is that I won't be carrying until I can figure a few more things out. I have been around 68 years and have never encountered a case where I would have been better off having a gun ready for use. Also, I recently paid off my home mortgage and am aware that I could lose both the house and my freedom if I carry and make the wrong move. So one thing I have tried to figure is what situations would I be clearly justified in shooting someone. I can only come up with a few and they are not all that clear cut. Consider these:

1. A person I do not know or do not know very well forcefully enters my house holding a gun. I would shoot quickly aiming to kill.

2. I am sitting in my car, stopped, and a person with a gun walks up to my window pointing the gun at me. Bang, he's dead, even through the window.

3. Both you and the BG are outside. He has confronted you with a bad attitude and is advancing almost within arm's reach. Bang he is down whether he has a gun or not.

Am I right in these cases? Any others?

Most cases in those books required a trial to sort out and the outcome was never clearly in favor of the person with the CC protecting himself.

Here are some cases where I would never shoot:

1. The BG has turned his back and is retreating.

2. The BG has left your house and is not aiming a gun at you.

3. Both you and the BG are outside. He is making threats but is not advancing toward you. I would hold the gun on him ready to shoot.

I have a feeling even these carefully described situations have points of legal contention. I also understand that, in each of these cases, proving that it really was as described might be difficult. for these reasons I don't have a strong sense that I should charge out and try to do something about the BG's. I'll leave that to the professionals.

[Grampa]

Locality is important here. Some States have some version of the Castle Doctrine in place, other places you can't even have a handgun outside of your house or place of business. Some places have a "duty to retreat", others don't. Rural areas are usually more common sense, while some big cities subscribe to the notion of the moral superiority of being a victim.
Basically, outside the house can be questionable without there being an attack preceeding the shooting of the bad guy. Just saying you felt threatened by his presence could put a whole lot of people in danger. I have some friends who are just naturally big and ugly, but not dangerous, actually they are some of nicest people I know. I would hate to have them shot just for that, you know?

[Tom Goodrick]

I realize there are big differences between states. It is clear from what is going on in Florida now, just determining the actual circumstances is very difficult.

[sinclair]

Originally Posted by Tom Goodrick

Am I right in these cases?

The way you stated them can make all three go against you in court. Lets start with a quote from you in another thread which is a partial answer to your own question here.

Originally Posted by Tom Goodrick

When you carry you expose yourself to some potential legal problems that can mess you up for life. Learn about them.

Your first three points and the third point in the second list of three share something that is not compatible for self defense. If you don't see it right away, then read Grampa's last three sentences very carefully.

Lets sum it up in a single word. "Intent".

Your first item talks about a home invasion. You have cancelled all mitigating circumstances with the last three words. What is your intent ?

Your second item places you in your car instead of your home. Read your second (last) sentence. What is your intent ?

Your third item is the most troublesome of all. Read your third (last) sentence. What is your intent, especially considering the other individual may be unarmed ? Also, we will add another single word to this circumstance. "Brandishing".

The second list of three items, item three can be a very good example of "brandishing". In this instance, the court could portray you as the threat (BG) and the other person was then legally justified in the shootout. Tables turned on you just that easy.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and I don't play one on the internet. However, I have served on many jury sessions during my life, and in fact am currently serving as a juror on call for the next six months. In that sense, I, and potentially all other citizens of this great country are part of the legal system.

Should you ever face a criminal charge due to having a gun in a crisis, you have two very important things in your favor. You are inocent until proven guilty (and the burden of proof is not yours) and twelve fellow citizens (peers) must agree that the burden of proof has been met.

I need to add a response to the other point you brought up in the second post, but I end this post on the first topic. Very good discussion, by the way.

[Tom Goodrick]

Obviously, each condition needs a lot of background to make it realistic. Your question on "intent" can be very important. But here it would seem that if I have drawn my gun and am ready to shoot but not shooting, then I am "brandishing" while if I am shooting then my intent is to kill. It would be nice if we could stop any deadly confrontation by drawing a gun and holding it ready. Of course that would be "brandishing" in your view. It would also mean the BG would probably shoot me.

The question that arises when you know the intruder is a tough one. It obviously requires you to make a judgement about the state of mind of your neighbor. This is a problem today in the area where I live. People who have lived peaceably with their neighbors are going nuts because of loss of job and foreclosure. If you still have your job and your house, you become a symbol of what is causing them pain. Also, today drugs are prevalent at all levels of society. Combine a foreclosure-based depression with a drug and you can get a dangerous situation.

The situations that arise in our home are pretty clear most places in the US because of the Castle Doctrine. If an intruder uses force against you or your family, you can respond with deadly force. Any use of a gun is deadly force so I would not choose other words in a discussion like this. The intruder will get dead fast unless he runs away.

Self Defense situations are something else. Many of the situations I have come close to in the past have been property defense situations, not self defense situations. In those cases you cannot use deadly force.

[Tom Goodrick]

By the way, this is a good discussion. I am glad we are discussing the various aspects of this. It is not a simple topic. Too often gun forums that have sections on this topic just discuss size of guns, type of holster and where to carry the gun.

[sinclair]

Originally Posted by Tom Goodrick

Obviously, each condition needs a lot of background to make it realistic.

While I agree with that, I see you are missing my point. I am arguing from the legal aspect. Whatever the condition, if an arrest is made against YOU, you are going to go to court. Then the heartache begins. To be successfully prosecuted, a jury must be convinced that you are guilty of a crime. In a real self defense scenario the crime aspect will be difficult to show unless you can be shown to first have a criminal intent. Premeditated comes to mind. So even though the circumstances you laid out were generic, my point is that your intent was succinctly stated for each scenario. So my point is that given what you wrote here, a prosecutor having access to that could easily present it to a jury as a premeditated criminal intent.

Lets go all the way with this analogy. For the sake of discussion, lets say that you have a life threatening home invasion and the invader gets a free ride in a hearse. Due to completely unexpected complications, you are arrested and also get a free ride to the local four star barred motel. I could add any details necessary to make this really a complicated surprise for you AFTER the shoot but it is not necessary to the point I am making. Once you are charged, all the prosecutor needs is something to show your intent was not good. Lets also say, just for openers, the prosecutor gained access to your post right above this one. You have any idea where this quoted statement would be taken ? Remember that any statements like these before a self defense situation can be used to infer premeditation.

Originally Posted by Tom Goodrick

Any use of a gun is deadly force so I would not choose other words in a discussion like this. The intruder will get dead fast unless he runs away.

Finally, and I will be even more direct here, given what you have casually written in here (this is now public information) do you have any idea what a tense self defense situation will do to your system, with adrenaline up to your ears and an inherent desire to blabber your mouth off just to wind down. It isn't what you will say to first responders that is the biggest problem. No, the biggest problem is that you will not even remember what you said to them. Adrenaline easily kills your Miranda protection. That's also partly why Miranda is good. The moral is to keep your mouth shut until you calm down and can talk rationally. Better yet, wait for your attorney to be the first you talk to. Easy to say but very very hard to do.

Marker: I am going to reference back to this post when we get to the other topic.

[Tom Goodrick]

I guess I get your point but I am not worried about it. Your point seems to be that by writing this stuff where I say I'd kill the BG, I am setting myself up for a bad outcome in any trial that comes as a result of my self defense activities in the future. So be it. I am not afraid of what my words may do. They are not stated lightly. I don't state anything on this topic casually.

I am afraid that young people can get the wrong impression from reading many of the posts on the Internet about CC. It seems like CC is something everybody does. I am just trying to say what many of the experts have said: CC is complicated. Don't rush into it without thinking.

The law in most states gives the person defending his home (of course meaning anyplace he customarily lives) a legal edge when he uses a weapon in his defense. But that edge goes away when he walks outside his house carrying the same weapon even if he has a permit to do so. Outside our homes we are immersed in a complex world of social interactions mixed with criminal activity in ways that are not very clear most of the time.

What do we do? Can a discussion in a Forum like this help? I think it would help to discuss situations. But we must recognize that only the outcome of a trial will provide an answer in most cases. It is true that in today's world, any defense lawyer can Google our names and find what we have written on this topic to use against us. That just means we have to choose words with care.

[sinclair]

Originally Posted by Tom Goodrick

What do we do? Can a discussion in a Forum like this help?

I wish I had an answer. There may come a time in the near future where those who even participate on forums like this one will be vilified as uncivilized or worse. My discussion so far relates to the environment I grew up in. That is all changing and not for the better. Which brings us to the other topic.

Originally Posted by Tom Goodrick

It is clear from what is going on in Florida now, just determining the actual circumstances is very difficult.

Not really. You just have to see past the Trial by media aspects.

Trial by media is a phrase popular in the late 20th century and early 21st century to describe the impact of television and newspaper coverage on a person's reputation by creating a widespread perception of guilt or innocence before, or after, a verdict in a court of law.

Trial by media is not new. I think the best and earliest example was in 1893. Despite the public outcry of her guilt, Lizzie Borden was in jail for 10 months during her trial proceedings then released after being acquitted. The jury spent barely an hour in deliberating before the acquittal.

Most of what is known about Lizzie Borden is based on legend, innuendo and outright lies. Fact has been suppressed by fiction, and the fiction is much more interesting to a lot of people.

What makes the Florida situation different is the racial and political aspects, and the media now misreporting facts in a manner that is itself a lie. Lets take the NBC edit of the 911 tape to infer a racial slur when there is none on the tape. NBC took the race part from the 911 responder's question to Zimmerman about the race of the individual Zimmerman was calling about, and spliced his answer into his original call. At first, NBC claimed this was an innocent mistake. That didn't go down well so they have now claimed to have fired the producer. See this:

NBC News reportedly fires producer of edited George Zimmerman tape

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/07...est=latestnews

And that aint even the worst one. Once the media hooked the professional race baiter's into the fray, the real agenda starts to be apparent.

Self Defense Laws are a license to murder:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75043.html

Attack on gun rights and neighborhood watch program - by Bill Cosby no less:

“We’ve got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to be on neighborhood watch,” said Mr. Cosby

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...n-martin-case/

A family in hiding:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/zi...-on-your-race/

UN rights chief calls for Trayvon Martin probe:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...193514/1/.html

That UN reference is humorous in a way. It is way too late since Florida Governor Scott already appointed a special task force under Atty General Pam Bondi, the local police chief already stepped down, and the President of the United States already asked the DOJ to look into it. What else do they expect to be done? And what business is this of the UN ?

We all need to watch this one as it is heading towards a major 2nd ammendment attack.

This just in, Zimmerman charged with 2nd degree murder

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/04/11...day-afternoon/

And the exact agenda is contained in the article, Quote:

State attorney Corey said that if stand your ground becomes an issue in the case, “we fight it.”

There you have it, I could not say it more directly than Corey does.

[i_carry_a_9mm_24_7]

OK I am a big guy. My CCW instructor told us this lil rule. If a guy that is 5 feet tall, 100 pounds, limbs the size of soda straws comes up and screams I AM GONNA KILL YOU! and you shoot him you will be going to jail for shooting someone. Now lets do this whole thing over again. A man that is 6' 5", 345 pounds, arms and legs the size of tree trunks comes running at you yelling I AM GONNA KILL YOU! You shoot him because you are afraid for your life. The shooting would be more than likely judged as justified. There are so many laws and loop holes in having a CCW. Just remember, if you have someone attack you or you have to draw your weapon for ANY REASON you call the police first. The attacker may call and state you were the aggressor. Many things to keep in mind when you CCW...