Another deadly force thread

[loadnplenty]

My point being though by posting that was getting back to earlier statements since we are theoretically never off duty. As an L.E.O. When confronted by some of the above mentioned situations even as a victim, we are still a L.E.O. And have a duty to make an arrest so the situation changes for us. In our case the we the victim become the officer and fall under this code section

 

[Ghost941]

Indeed we do have a duty to protect....on and off duty. To this day I cant stand those who say "I'll make a better witness than a victim". And you are very correct, but I believe we as LEO's never take a victim mentallity. Just saying.

 

[loadnplenty]

but I believe we as LEO's never take a victim mentallity. Just saying.

I agree 100%

 

[mel22]

[FONT=Droid Serif, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]I have three thoughts on the subject.[/FONT]

[FONT=Droid Serif, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]1. GA code 16-11-131(e) states "As used in this Code section, the term 'forcible felony' means any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person and further includes, without limitation, murder; felony murder; burglary; robbery; armed robbery; kidnapping; hijacking of an aircraft or motor vehicle; aggravated stalking; rape; aggravated child molestation; aggravated sexual battery; arson in the first degree; the manufacturing, transporting, distribution, or possession of explosives with intent to kill, injure, or intimidate individuals or destroy a public building; terroristic threats; or acts of treason or insurrection." So there must be a felony taking place, physical threat or violence and one of the listed crimes (which are felonies) to be a "forcible felony". In other words, getting your ass kicked dose not constitute deadly force.[/FONT]

[FONT=Droid Serif, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]2. According to the U.S. Military, deadly force is defined as "the force a person knows, or should know, could case serious bodily harm or death". What is "serious bodily harm"? broken bones, internal bleeding, etc. So a grown man getting punched in the face by another grown man wouldn't be considered deadly force in most cases (unless it was Mike Tyson), but a guy kicking you in the head or chest while your on the ground could. If a guy is attacking you or someone else, or about to do so, and you think he means to, and can, put you in the hospital or worse, I'd say you would be justified in using the threat of deadly force to stop it under GA law. But it should go without saying that you should never pull your weapon unless you're ready to use it and you should try to show that you want no part of the trouble their bringing by yelling "STOP, GET BACK", or "I DON'T WANT TO HURT YOU", etc.

3. Like others said, if you can articulate opportunity, capability, and jeopardy (or intent, like I was taught in the military) you should be justified under GA law, but every incident is different and there are never any cut and dry rules to apply to every situation.[/FONT]

 

[Hcorps]

I as a 100% disabled veteran (had 2 heart attacks while on active duty due to hyponutremia: depletion of salts,minerals and potassium) and only have 1/2 of my heart muscle functioning. In any situation where an individual wants to harm me physically it could be life threatening. Im going with a quick warning then start blazing.

 

[Clarke123]

Background:

Having been in a situation where I was within an inch of loosing my life or suffering serious bodily damage, I can understand the serious concerns being expressed. Not going into details, but as a victim of "road rage" I had the opportunity to sit in my blocked-in vehicle with my .38 siitting in my lap while a maniac rearranged the body work on my vehicle with a tire-iron while inviting me to shoot him ... I didn't because I knew the s***t that I would face when I did, and (fortunately) he did't attempt to actually enter the vehicle. The responding LEO stated that I had more than enough justification to use deadly force, and that it would only take a few years and many thousands of dollars to prove it in court ... plus unimaginable stress and personal recriminations over taking the life of another, even when justified in doing so.

Today's Environment:

The "public" has a strange concept of "fair play": If someone attacks you with a knife and you have a gun ... it isn't a "fair fight", If someone attacks, does physical damage to you and in defending yourself they are seriously injured (or killed) .... then it probably wasn't a "fair fight" .... if you use a knife / gun / truncheon and they didn't have one too, then it definitely wasn't a "fair fight". Look at the way we go to war these days ... and the burden of proof that has been fosted upon our soilders. If we had fought WW I & II that way, today we would all be speaking German and loyal members of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party. Heck, just look at the way we enforce traffic laws: over 50, 000 die in the USA in traffic accidents each and every year (as many as the whole Viet Nam War claimed in total). Yet we will not allow radar-camara enforced speed ticketing ... because "it isn't fair".

So, what's there to do?:

1) Be very much aware of the s***t that you will face if you use your weapon to defend yourself.
2) Make certain that your HomeOwners Insurance will cover your defense, if you are unlucky enough to do so.
Many HO policies will have an optional "Umbrella" rider available to increase you liability coverage to $1 Million
These policies are normally only about an extra $100 per year and are a bargain.
3) Work to have the public understand that television isn't real life; people involved in fist-fights can easily be injured for life or easily die
from such!

 

[Laxguy59]

just yell "he's coming right for me" before you shoot, you'll be fine.

 

[jsquared]

[Broken External Image]:

 

[Bulldawg165]

Don't wanna hijack this thread, but given how many people have said you can't shoot someone when they attack you one on one and unarmed, how do you justify defending the use of deadly force on Zimmerman's part? This situation is the best case scenario for Zimmerman as to what really happened, but yet everyone on here is so willing to jump behind him.

 

[jsquared]

Don't wanna hijack this thread, but given how many people have said you can't shoot someone when they attack you one on one and unarmed, how do you justify defending the use of deadly force on Zimmerman's part? This situation is the best case scenario for Zimmerman as to what really happened, but yet everyone on here is so willing to jump behind him.

I think Zims messed up big time, but thats just me.