At what point can I use deadly force?

[1EDsson]

Obviously these are extreme cases, but they demonstrate how these factors are considered in determining if deadly force was justified. In the real world these factors don't have to be nearly as extreme or obvious and the investigators are ALWAYS using perfect 20/20 hindsight to decide whether or not you committed a crime.
Bear44

Well said. Lots of good info on this one. Thanks to all.

Even the couple of comics, Jlionel!

 

[Ken Ford]

Ok,let's change slightly. Suppose the guy violently enters your home by kicking in your door. I'm sure you have justification to use lethal force at that point.

Law specifically includes a defense for when someone enters your home in a violent or tumultuous manner. You don't have to wait to see what their intentions are. I do not believe anyone would be in trouble for investigating a problem in your house. You do not have to retreat or avoid intruder I'm your own home.

 

[rlt3241963]

Might I suggest you purchase or borrow a copy of "In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection by Massad F. Ayoob"
First thing I purchased and read from cover to cover before I got my CWP

 

[Patronus]

I think that if there is still a lingering doubt as to whether or not to use deadly force you aren't there yet. I've been in some tight spots and even drawn down on 2 different ocassions but there was still that doubt as to whether or not to pull the trigger. If I had been wrong I would not be here to type this. Either wrong by not needing to but pulling it, or wrong by not pulling it when I needed to.

 

[protective measures]

Might I suggest you purchase or borrow a copy of "In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection by Massad F. Ayoob"
First thing I purchased and read from cover to cover before I got my CWP

Even though its a little dated, still an excellent read & possibly should be required reading.

I bought it right after it was published & still reread it occasionally.
Good stuff.

 

[Bear44]

Ok,let's change slightly. Suppose the guy violently enters your home by kicking in your door. I'm sure you have justification to use lethal force at that point.

How does that demonstrate ANY of the three elements needed for justifiable homicide? It doesn't even demonstrate intent. If he's drunk and thinks it's his house he may have gotten pissed off when his key didn't work. What it DOES do is increase the likelihood of the authorities agreeing that you had reasonable cause to believe he had intent, even if it turns out he had none. But, you still better not just shoot him without any other reason.

You need to realize where the law is coming from on this. Even the "Reasonable cause to believe" section of the law did not exist until about 30 years ago. Before that you had to be able to clearly produce evidence that all three elements of justifiable homicide actually existed regardless of how reasonable it would have been for you to think they did before you used deadly force.

If someone is pointing something at you that is in their pocket and says "Come with me or I'll kill you" you can legally shoot them today even if it turns out they did not really have a gun. Before RCB was added to the law, you were screwed if you killed them and then it was discovered they didn't actually have a gun. When trying to determine when deadly force would be justified always think of those three elements. Ability, opportunity, intent. Does it exist? Do you have RCB it exists? If not, DON'T pull the trigger.

 

[Bear44]

If you were on a jury where that was the case (w/o getting into extensive other "what if " scenarios) wouldn't you think it would likely be reasonable to use lethal force or the threat of lethal force in that situation?

That is the point behind learning Use of Deadly Force & "Reasonable man doctrine" (a.k.a. ability, opportunity, jeopardy) for your state.
It's much more effective & affordable to learn them beforehand as opposed to after the fact.

Again, my goal would be for it never to get to the unsure opinion of a jury. I would want the investigating authority to come to the clear conclusion that no charges were appropriate. Without some mitigating factor other than a kicked in front door that results is FAR from assured.

 

[Bear44]

Might I suggest you purchase or borrow a copy of "In the Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection by Massad F. Ayoob"
First thing I purchased and read from cover to cover before I got my CWP

Excellent advise! This is understanding legal use of deadly force 101. The section on fear as justification will be a real eye opener for many new readers. Basically, fear alone as legal justification does not exist, so the "fear for my life" doctrine is completely invalid.

 

[dawgfan]

Law specifically includes a defense for when someone enters your home in a violent or tumultuous manner. You don't have to wait to see what their intentions are. I do not believe anyone would be in trouble for investigating a problem in your house. You do not have to retreat or avoid intruder I'm your own home.

I thought there was some wording about entering violently.

 

[offbeat404]

I thought there was some wording about entering violently.

forcible entry?