Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Monkey wrote:Interesting...is a weapon required on the part of the assailant in order to use deadly force?

no, but is makes for a VERY weak position to defend legally. Especially when the threat was verbal, and no action had yet occurred.

jdonovan wrote:

Monkey wrote:Interesting...is a weapon required on the part of the assailant in order to use deadly force?

no, but is makes for a VERY weak position to defend legally. Especially when the threat was verbal, and no action had yet occurred.

So you would taser someone over a verbal threat before drawing a gun? Notice, I didn't say fire a gun, just draw, at least until you have some evidence that he is armed or is going to harm you. If they were not armed and the threat was purely a verbal bluff, he would most likely back down or run. If he came at you, especially if a large man comes after a woman with a child, you'd be perfectly in your rights to fire. Trust me, a criminal that takes off when you draw is not going to call the cops for you brandishing a weapon.

Now if someone made a verbal threat only, and did not yet make a move to carry out the threat and you actually attacked them with a taser, you could be the one arrested. The guy could just say "I asked her for some money so I could get some gas and that crazy chick lit me up", and all evidence shows that you assaulted him. Also, If the guy did have a gun and you pull out a taser, he could just back up and shoot you and your child before you get close enough to use it, or just attack you and take his chance with the taser. Remember, this is a large man against a woman with her child. Odd are she could be easily over-powered, and she'd have to hit him with the taser before he kicks it out of her hand or grabs the child. I suppose you could just pull a taser and threaten to use it if he doesn't leave, but if that's the case, I'd rather have gun drawn and threaten him with that...only because I can't fit a squad of Marines in my holster.

Stratojaxter wrote: So you would taser someone over a verbal threat before drawing a gun? .

based on advice from my lawyer, if I felt threatened, and it was not a deadly force response justified threat, yes I would.

Based on what I read, the assailant was close enough to do harm to the child. Not knowing the physical size and stature of the assailant (because I wasn't there), it's hard for me to assess capability. I would assume that the victim felt the assailant was capable of harming the child. Assailant clearly stated intent.

I think there's enough there to make a solid legal defense.

In the heat of the moment, I'm not looking to choose between spray and lead. When the triangle closes, I'm looking to make this a one-sided heresay argument.

Just sayin'

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Now, I'm not usually so "shoot first; ask questions later", but this one has no gray area at all in my mind. Any male approaches me late at night in a parking lot and threatens to *kill someone*? He dies then and there unless he gets prone before I shoot and stays that way until police arrive.

That's different than someone breaking into my car or house - things covered by insurance. If a guy *only* wants to take my TV and I could somehow be sure of that, I'd rather let USAA buy me a new one than have the Stanley Steamer Violent Crime Cleanup Squad try to get blood and meth-rotted brains out of the speaker grilles, houseplants & carpet.

Not that these scumbags shouldn't die for trying to convert my hard-earned treasure to their own, but its a matter of my convenience and preference. Making a threat against a life is a completely different matter.

thekinetic wrote:If you have to ask then it wasn't. But she could of chose a non lethal area to shoot so as to neutralize but not kill the assailent such as the leg or shoulder.

Please Lawdy Jebus, tell us you were kidding, man!

j1mmyd wrote:Now, I'm not usually so "shoot first; ask questions later", but this one has no gray area at all in my mind. Any male approaches me late at night in a parking lot and threatens to *kill someone*? He dies then and there unless he gets prone before I shoot and stays that way until police arrive.

That's different than someone breaking into my car or house - things covered by insurance. If a guy *only* wants to take my TV and I could somehow be sure of that, I'd rather let USAA buy me a new one than have the Stanley Steamer Violent Crime Cleanup Squad try to get blood and meth-rotted brains out of the speaker grilles, houseplants & carpet.

Not that these scumbags shouldn't die for trying to convert my hard-earned treasure to their own, but its a matter of my convenience and preference. Making a threat against a life is a completely different matter.

^ ^ ^ This. Inside of 21 feet? If you turn to disengage before I...draw...aim...fire, you get to live. That is HEAP BIG opportunity to continue to pollute the gene pool.

MNMGoneShooting wrote:Still it begs the question. Faced with this, I'm not sure what I would do? If the assailant is in close proximity it could be valid for lethal force... But without a display of a weapon?? And then it's possibly a dead person with no weapon and your statement....

A weapon is not required to lawfully use deadly force. Ability, Opportunity, and Intent.

The verbal threat and demand for the wallet established intent. Opportunity is established by the threats proximity in a public parking lot. Ability can be established by a variety of factors, a weapon being one of them (e.g. baseball bat, knife, gun, crowbar, etc.) However, physical size differences and even numeric numbers (e.g. a group or gang) can also establish ability.

If AOI are met and you fear for your life, others lives (e.g. the baby) or grave bodily harm, deadly force is justified. The retreat requirements are only valid in VA if you were part of the instigating/escalating scenario; doesn't apply at all in this case.

Tweaker wrote:

thekinetic wrote:If you have to ask then it wasn't. But she could of chose a non lethal area to shoot so as to neutralize but not kill the assailent such as the leg or shoulder.

Please Lawdy Jebus, tell us you were kidding, man!

+1

What thekinetic describes is generally assault with a deadly weapon. If AOI are met and you fear for your life (etc.), you shoot to stop the threat while minimizing risk to bystanders. That means center of mass, preferably a double tap. Still a threat, keep shooting center of mass or put one in the head.

The desire to "wing them" or anything else simply illustrates that you did not fear for your life. If someone is trying to kill you RIGHT NOW, you're not thinking about a knee cap or other silly Hollywood non-sense. The use of a firearm is considered deadly force, if you're justified use it to the best of your abilities, otherwise it never clears that holster.

jdonovan wrote:

Monkey wrote:Interesting...is a weapon required on the part of the assailant in order to use deadly force?

no, but is makes for a VERY weak position to defend legally. Especially when the threat was verbal, and no action had yet occurred.

No, it doesn't make for a weak case. A weapon just makes it easier to justify via the police paperwork. The legal requirement is AOI and fear for life/limb. A verbal threat is sufficient given the context to establish intent. Nothing in AOI requires that you wait until the threat takes action.

Edit: For example, a women who's being heckled/blocked in a dark alley by a group of young men who say they are going to rape her doesn't have to wait until they penetrate her to use deadly force. Graphic yes, but the point is the requirement is AOI and valid fear, not the specific action threatened. Learn to think that way. It's not only lawful, but it's ethical as well.

You said it so much better than I, GW. All sciency and sheeot. Glad you're on our side. Imma go make/drink more beer.

Tweaker wrote:

j1mmyd wrote:Now, I'm not usually so "shoot first; ask questions later", but this one has no gray area at all in my mind. Any male approaches me late at night in a parking lot and threatens to *kill someone*? He dies then and there unless he gets prone before I shoot and stays that way until police arrive.

That's different than someone breaking into my car or house - things covered by insurance. If a guy *only* wants to take my TV and I could somehow be sure of that, I'd rather let USAA buy me a new one than have the Stanley Steamer Violent Crime Cleanup Squad try to get blood and meth-rotted brains out of the speaker grilles, houseplants & carpet.

Not that these scumbags shouldn't die for trying to convert my hard-earned treasure to their own, but its a matter of my convenience and preference. Making a threat against a life is a completely different matter.

^ ^ ^ This. Inside of 21 feet? If you turn to disengage before I...draw...aim...fire, you get to live. That is HEAP BIG opportunity to continue to pollute the gene pool.

I don't see myself as put here to regulate the gene pool.

If you reverse your assertion that I said that I am, your statement would then become wholly accurate.

You are reflexively answering for a common statement, but one that I did not make.

As I said... You threaten me, or mine, and I judge your intent to be true, not farce? (shrugs) I've dealt with this situation living in the city. It's not fun, it's not pretty, and the police are not nice to you.

I'd think somebody approaching you and threatening to kill your child would warrant the use of force. It only takes a split second for somebody to pull out a knife/club/gun and act on their threat. In a situation like that I'd rather sort everything out in court with my child safe than wish I'd have acted when the threat presented itself. Hopefully none of us are ever put in a position like that.

Monkey wrote:Interesting...is a weapon required on the part of the assailant in order to use deadly force?

You threaten my child, I will use deadly force.

Weapon not displayed by the thug? A big man doesn't need more than his hands to quickly kill an infant or a small woman. A trained man, big or not, can do the same to a bigger man.

Fear of the consequences? If you honestly believe that your life or the life of another is in imminent danger, and won't act, you've made the decision that you prefer to accept death to dealing with our legal system. The legal system can be very messy--but I'd still rather "be judged by 12 than carried by 6". I say that understanding that each individual situation needs to be assessed on its own merits--but the decision time is incredibly short and the basic principles need to be reflexively in mind.

A person of good will could disagree with the above--but then that person ought not be carrying in the first place. They'll end up supplying their assailant with a loaded firearm.