Question regarding self-defense against a lethal force?
? asked:
I’ll start off with a hypothetical situation in which you have a gun (with license for all legal purposes) but you don’t want to use it unless completely necessary:
A man starts approaching you at night with no one around. You shine a flashlight at the man and ask who is he and what he wants. He responds by saying he has a bat and he’s gonna take your money. You then tell him you are armed (but not that you have a gun). He threatens to kill you if you don’t give him your money so you give him everything you have. He then precedes to attack you with his bat. You try to spray him with mace, but he knocks it out of your reach. According to a gun safety course i recently took, since your life is in danger, and you’ve done everything in your power to avoid using your handgun, you may now use it in self-defense without legal repercussion.
Now for my question:
According to the policeman i received the course from, even in self-defense, you can be held legally accountable for punching any person, unless you are a law enforcement attempting to restrain someone. In this situation can you be held accountable for using physical force (hitting, kicking, tackling) in an attempt to save yourself and restrain your attack without risking his life?
I know it sounds stupid, but i’ve heard a lot of stories about people being convicted of a crime that seemed perfectly excusable at the time due to unclarity of a law.
Also, would the situation be different if he was attacking with a knife? (more lethal than a bat) And what would happen if rather than using my fists or his bat in an attempt to save my life, i stabbed him with his knife or a small knife i had for work? (more lethal than a punch, but still not as much of a threat to his life as a gun shot would be while waiting for an ambulance)
Hannah
This entry was posted
on Saturday, November 21st, 2009 at 1:39 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
I’ll start off with a hypothetical situation in which you have a gun (with license for all legal purposes) but you don’t want to use it unless completely necessary:
A man starts approaching you at night with no one around. You shine a flashlight at the man and ask who is he and what he wants. He responds by saying he has a bat and he’s gonna take your money. You then tell him you are armed (but not that you have a gun). He threatens to kill you if you don’t give him your money so you give him everything you have. He then precedes to attack you with his bat. You try to spray him with mace, but he knocks it out of your reach. According to a gun safety course i recently took, since your life is in danger, and you’ve done everything in your power to avoid using your handgun, you may now use it in self-defense without legal repercussion.
Now for my question:
According to the policeman i received the course from, even in self-defense, you can be held legally accountable for punching any person, unless you are a law enforcement attempting to restrain someone. In this situation can you be held accountable for using physical force (hitting, kicking, tackling) in an attempt to save yourself and restrain your attack without risking his life?
I know it sounds stupid, but i’ve heard a lot of stories about people being convicted of a crime that seemed perfectly excusable at the time due to unclarity of a law.
Also, would the situation be different if he was attacking with a knife? (more lethal than a bat) And what would happen if rather than using my fists or his bat in an attempt to save my life, i stabbed him with his knife or a small knife i had for work? (more lethal than a punch, but still not as much of a threat to his life as a gun shot would be while waiting for an ambulance)
Hannah
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Avery
In Texas just the threat of severe bodily injury from the man with the bat is enough to justify you shooting him to death! You can defend yourself against any severe physical harm by with the use of deadly force. Some states have laws that say that you have to try to escape from your home when someone breaks in or that you have to determine if they are a threat or not before you use deadly force against them. Those states are stupid, period. I am not going to run from my own house, nor am I going to wait and find out if the intruder is a threat or not! You break in to my house and you get shot! If you survive you get shot again! Texas has the Castle Doctrine that makes it legal for you to shoot and kill anyone breaking into your home or car! They have deemed your car to be an extension of your home!
I still do not understand the thumbs down for stating facts!
All you have to do is look up the Castle Doctrine and Texas laws! I only stated the facts! You can defend yourself with lethal force to protect yourself or others from severe bodily injury or death!
November 25th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Julia
You may act in self defense, in defense of others, or in defense of property in most states.
If someone is attempting to rob you and is armed and poses a legitimate threat, you may protect yourself from the person with reasonable force.
After the fact, the burden of defending your level of force is on you.
- Stuart
November 27th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Dylan
The problems you talk about with self defense arise from people usually going overboard.
Self defense is just that, defense, not offense.
Once you have, as a civilian, neutralized the threat to you or others enough so you can get away you are done with defense and into offense.
So knocking a bad guy who has a bat down is OK. Punching him or kicking him when down is usually not OK. Blinding with pepper spray is OK, punching him in the stomach while he is blinded is not.
Once people start to fight they don’t stop, either from excitement or they simply do not know what they are doing.
Even professionals, boxers, need a referee to remind them in the heat of battle to stop when needed.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:14 am
Cameron
In your scenario you told up there you would be able to use your firearm in self defense because he threatened your life with a bat and you were in fear for your life that he was going to kill you that you didn’t have any other choice but to shoot him.