lawofselfdefense wrote:gunderwood wrote:VA has no such requirement to justify the response as "balanced" or any other BS. Again, VA is NOT MA or other states/countries that have practically banned SD like Great Briton. If you are justified in using deadly force you are justified. That means demonstrating AOI and fear of death or grave bodily harm.
As for unarmed, etc. you're assuming based on ex post facto knowledge. The standard is AOI and there is a lot of precedent for armed and unarmed.
Sorry, gunderwood, but you merely expose your ignorance.
In every state--all 50 of them--reasonableness is a fundamental element of the law of self-defense. If your conduct is not reasonable in all the other elements--innocence, imminence, avoidance, proportionality--then whatever your use of force was, it was not self-defense.
Now you're reading far to much into what was actually said. Deadly force is deadly force regardless if I use a baton, firearm, sword, etc. The proportionality is in establishing deadly force (vice other types of force), not what kind of deadly force or how much deadly force (as long as AOI are still upheld). For example, someone attacks me with a sword, I don't have to defend my self with a sword or some "lesser" weapon. That's BS. I can legally defend myself with a firearm and continue to do so until their attack stops. No round or many rounds. The proportionality is in only using deadly force against other deadly force. That's implied by the requirement, literally in VA law for fear of death or grave bodily harm. Not fear of getting water ballooned.
I never said that the reasonableness wasn't considered. In fact, that's that's the whole point of AOI. The ability of the attacker must be established to a reasonable person. The Opportunity of the attacker must also be established to a reasonable person. The Intent of the attack must be established to a reasonable person. That's always been the case and it's implied by even stating the summary of AOI. That also is the bases for the fear of death or grave bodily harm. Acting otherwise is disingenuous.
lawofselfdefense wrote:There are, indeed, exceptional circumstances in which an entry wound in the back of your "attacker" might still have occurred in self-defense. But these ARE exceptional circumstances.
I even said as much. However, that part of the discussion was solely about whether or not a shot(s) that entered into the back were "on the face of it" proof that you committed murder or assault with a deadly weapon. It's not. It certainly will make the authorities look closer into the incident.
lawofselfdefense wrote:You seem to claim that VA case law supports the position that it simply doesn't matter whether the entry wound is in front or back.
I did not, you claimed the opposite which is why the burden lies on you. I claimed that as the theoretical victim under instantaneous attack, that I'm focused on AOI and my fear of death or grave bodily injury. If my attacker, who is less than 3ft away at about the time the first round would go off, happens to turn away while I start shooting, the reality is it takes time to recognize that fact and stop an action I'm already engaged in. The law generally gives victims great latitude in presuming what their level of knowledge at the time was or was not.
lawofselfdefense wrote:Or aren't you the guy who said:
gunderwood wrote:The fact that a round enters the threats back is not prima facie evidence for anything.
I did and it is not evidence on the face of it that the theoretical I committed murder or assault with a deadly weapon. On the face of it, it is evidence that warrants more investigation because the events, while not impossible, are unlikely as I stated many posts ago.
lawofselfdefense wrote:Sorry, but the fact that someone is shot in the back--a direction from which it is normally very difficult for them to initiate an imminent deadly-force attack against an armed and prepared defender--certainly DOES establish a prima facie case on the issue of reasonable perception of threat.
That was established when they first attacked me. The question is when does that reasonably go away. A shot in the back at 3ft away after being attacked is very different than a shot in the back halfway down the ally. The victim in this case, would not immediately know exactly what the attacker was doing next. The law generally gives the benefit of the doubt to the victim in such circumstances. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating shooting anyone in the back on purpose, but rather that given these specific circumstances is appears likely and reasonable that a justified use of deadly force would in fact end up with rounds entering the attackers back due to the intermediate uncertainty to the victim of the attackers next actions.
lawofselfdefense wrote:Can that prima facie evidence be overcome? Certainly. But let's not pretend it makes no difference if your "attacker" is shot in front or behind.
When does any evidence pose no difference in a case or investigation? That's absurd. What it doesn't do is on the face of it make the victim into the criminal as you're suggesting. Open your big mouth or get a political lynching and it just might.
lawofselfdefense wrote:But I can assure you that neither the prosecutor nor jury will make that presumption. You shoot your "attacker" in the back and you'd better have a damned good reason. Such an entry wound certainly doesn't fit society's normal understanding of self-defense--and "normal understanding" is the jury who will be judging your conduct.
Haven't you been reading at all? The theoretical me was walking down the street and passed a group of black youths who suddenly attacked me for unknown reasons (at the time, we now know it was a game called knockout). At that instant I feared for my life because the attackers were numerous, young/athletic, initiated the attack without prior provocation. I believe this was reasonable because they clearly demonstrated their Intent, their proximity continually (for at least a few seconds) provided ongoing Opportunity, and as far as I was aware their numbers/size/possible weapons created definite Ability. Because I was paying attention, and no small amount of divine providence, I was able to block some of the initial attack, and drew my gun. I shot at the threat until it was clear to me that they were no longer a threat. The boys likely would have fled. I stayed and called the police, complied with their orders and only stated that I was attacked with deadly force, without provocation, and I shot to stop the threat. Then I shut up and got a lawyer. After which, under my lawyers advice I may or may not provide additional statements, etc.
Remember, I didn't do this to be macho or prove a point. I only did this because I feared for my life and my gun never left the holster until AOI/fear were present. It's entirely reasonable to have such fear when attacked by a large group of people for no reason.
