Man on your property

[Bear44]

I believe it was Jesus who said, "Let the person who is without sin be the first one to cast a stone."

We all make mistakes now & again.

I was being facetious about him ignoring my obvious meaning.

 

[protective measures]

I agree with all of this with the exceptions of your analysis of the Zimmerman case and the "in fear" statement.

Zimmerman did nothing that would justify an attack from Martin. Once Martin escalated the encounter, none of Zimmerman's previous behavior is relevant to the case. A man can walk two feet behind you screaming obscenities at you and that alone does not justify attacking them in the eyes of the law. Of course, all of this is assuming that Zimmerman's account of what happened is true.

Fear is not a sound component of a legal defense for the use of deadly force. If you recall, Ayoob addresses this in great detail in his classic "In the Gravest Extreme". Under no circumstances does fear alone justify use of deadly force. You must have good and reasonable reasons for that fear and it is those reasons that can justify deadly force. Not fearful emotion. This is why understanding of the three elements is so important. For those that may have missed them before; You must have reasonable cause to believe a person has the Ability, Opportunity and Internet (Jeopardy) to cause you or a third person serious harm. If any one of those three elements does not exist, or you do not have RCB they exist, deadly force is not legally justified.

A man with a knife yelling that he will kill you, but is 50 yards away, does not have opportunity.

A man that is standing next to you saying he will kill you, but is unarmed, half your size and falling down drunk, does not have the ability.

A man that has a loaded gun within easy reach and is ten feet away, but is simply walking past you on the street while in open carry, does not have the intent.

Stand your ground and castle laws do not effect the need for these elements. All they do is legally clarify under what situations you do not have a responsibility to retreat safely if you can.

I have found that examining these elements carefully and then "Gaming" them in discussion of a variety of scenarios is the fastest way for a person to learn how they apply and give them the ability to recognize when they exist instantly. Just as importantly, they learn to recognize when they DON'T exist.

A good example of RCB would be something like this:

There is an intruder in your home. You yell to the person that you have a gun and they keep coming. It is reasonable at that point for you to believe this person is exhibiting all three elements. If they kick in the door of the room that you and your family have retreated to, use of deadly force would be completely justified. Even if it turned out the three elements did not exist, you certainly had RCB that they did.

This is also why I break from many instructors as far as brandishing and, under rare circumstances, a warning shot may be called for. You would do these things to firmly establish RCB. I doubt seriously if anyone could seriously challenge the idea that you had RCB if the person kept approaching after a warning shot was fired or even if you obviously placed your hand on a weapon and told them they need to back the **** off. Make no mistake, I DO NOT tell people to do this if it will reduce their ability to defend themselves or if it could be interpreted by LE as anything other than a legitimate attempt to defend themselves without application of deadly force to the person. If the guy with a knife 50 yards away starts to approach, I would first make sure he knew I was armed. If that didn't stop him, the weapon comes out of the holster. If he is still coming, that is when I may fire a warning shot, but only if he is still far enough away for me to fire without compromising my safety and only if there was somewhere to put the round without endangering others.

I don't think we disagree as much as you may think.
Note that I said that in the Zimmerman case both sides have good arguments.

While I agree w/ most of your points of when lethal force is justified O.C.G.A. 16-3-21 states that deadly force is justified when one "reasonably believes it is necessary. That term is different for different people but for most it comes down to if one is in fear of your loss of life or grave bodily harm. For a person to truly be "in fear" for their life the elements you mention must be present & you will very probably have to explain those actions to an investigator and/ or the count.
And as I'm sure you'll also agree if you use lethal force you will have to explain to that investigator & possibly the court why you felt it was necessary & why you didn't use other options such as retreat.

Can't say that I agree w/ you on the warning shot though.
Firearms are not intended for use as less lethal weapon so therefore make very poor ones.
When that bullet leaves the barrel it becomes lethal & if it strikes an innocent party you will be held accountable.
I've never heard any of the top experts ever speak favorably of warning shots.

Years ago I used to think there might be an occasion where one might make sense but after researching the subject found that all of the top guys especially Ayoob are very clear on never firing warning shots.

 

[protective measures]

protective measures, I like the cut of your jib.

Thanks. I like to think we're all on the same side.

 

[beaker]

I know we can scenario this thing to death, and I'm sure this subject is probably covered in protective measures classes, but it sounds to me that the perp in the OP's first post was way to close for comfort. An average man can cover a distance of 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. That's about the same time an average trained officer can draw his pistol and get a shot off. What about you, what if you are not trained? How long does it take you to draw from a concealed holster, aim and fire effectively? What if, like in the OP, you are not armed, and the perp is within that 21 feet of you with a knife? I think the OP did the right thing, retreating to his house in this case, but if the perp had the intent of harming the OP by say stabbing him with a knife, and was that close in his yard(21 feet or less), it could have turned out much worse. Also, even if you did get a lethal shot off, unless you shoot him in the central nervous system, cause him to drop, the bad guy may have enough oxygen and adrenaline in his system to keep moving, in complete control of his motions, for another six to fourteen seconds, coming at you with his attack. The bad guy could then cover even more ground than 21 feet. Just something to think about...

[video=youtube_share;9igSoJHEdUo]http://youtu.be/9igSoJHEdUo[/video]


And this, good read.

http://www.usadojo.com/articles/21-feet.htm

 

[upsmule]

Shoot first, then ask his intentions. Nothing says "Howdy neighbor" better than a slug !

 

[protective measures]

I know we can scenario this thing to death, and I'm sure this subject is probably covered in protective measures classes, but it sounds to me that the perp in the OP's first post was way to close for comfort. An average man can cover a distance of 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. That's about the same time an average trained officer can draw his pistol and get a shot off. What about you, what if you are not trained? How long does it take you to draw from a concealed holster, aim and fire effectively? What if, like in the OP, you are not armed, and the perp is within that 21 feet of you with a knife? I think the OP did the right thing, retreating to his house in this case, but if the perp had the intent of harming the OP by say stabbing him with a knife, and was that close in his yard(21 feet or less), it could have turned out much worse. Also, even if you did get a lethal shot off, unless you shoot him in the central nervous system, cause him to drop, the bad guy may have enough oxygen and adrenaline in his system to keep moving, in complete control of his motions, for another six to fourteen seconds, coming at you with his attack. The bad guy could then cover even more ground than 21 feet. Just something to think about...

[video=youtube_share;9igSoJHEdUo]http://youtu.be/9igSoJHEdUo[/video]


And this, good read.

http://www.usadojo.com/articles/21-feet.htm

Agreed. My wife has finally gotten used to the fact that I don't usually allow people whom I dint know to get close to me. I sometimes will hold my hand up & tell them to stop & that I can hear them just fine from where they are.
That strategy is somewhat situationally dependent. Challenging your pastors grandmother & preparing to strike her in the trachea because she invaded your personal space will probably prevent you from being invited to the barbecue after church.
However in higher threat environments, it is a good idea to keep away from people you don't know.

"Distance favors the trained shooter & proximity negates skill".

 

[Creeper]

Invite him in, pretend to lock the door and offer him a foot massage, lol.

 

[rOmiLaYu]

I was being facetious about him ignoring my obvious meaning.

What precisely was your "obvious meaning?" You are blowing awfully hard in this thread that you shouldn't employ deadly force unless you "have" to. You made mention that you would vacate your own domicile to arson, rather than defend it with deadly force because you could "run out the back door" and not "have " to kill anyone. You then turn around, with the same implied male bravado you've been shouting down, and say that should, God forbid, you happen upon someone raping your mother that you'd kill them......which doesn't at all fit your own litmus test for "having" to kill someone.

You've made yourself the arbiter in this thread, I'm just asking for you to clarify your own poorly conflated articulation if when deadly force is "ok."

 

[rOmiLaYu]

1. So I'm legally within my rights to draw down on the neighbors
coming to get their ball out of the
yardd, or the Jehovah's
witnesses? How does tresspassing
constitute drawing of
weapon?

There a world of difference between soliciting and evangelism and criminal trespassing. No, you can't wave your pistol at anyone who bends a blade of your grass, but if a reasonable man felt that the trespass was criminal and dangerous, you're within you're right to display your ability to repel the trespass.

12. If I am in fear for my life outside
of my home, but unarmed,
and then retreat into my home, grab
ye old 12 gauge, come back
out and shoot someone, exactly
what is that considered then?

It could be considered a host of thins from self defense to man slaughter to second degree murder....but not "premeditated murder." To prove premeditation the DA would have to prove you had gotten the victim to be in your yard in the first place, which you clearly didn't.

13. You're sitting in an anti gun
courtroom with a prosecuting
attorney that tells the jury "this
man had the chance to retreat into his home, barricade himself and dial 911, but instead came back out with a loaded weapon and shot the man down.

What does that have to do with a judge....and how is a "courtroom" anti gun?

14. Glad you can have a clear conscience about killing someone regardless of. reason.

I didn't say that. Go back and read it again.

1Drawing down on someone for failure to respond is bull****.

For a civilian, possibly. For others, not so much.

1Until they're a direct threat that requires lethal force, there's no reason to display lethal force.

as has been said already several times, by the time you realize they are a "direct threat that requires lethal force," it may be too late.

1Why escalate a situation? But hey, I'm sure you have a very expensive attorney and a couple hundred grand for legal fees.

Deadly force and its threat de-escalate situations. Yelling, shouting, and posturing escalate situations. And no, I don't have an attorney on retainer nor do I have a couple hundred grand for legal fees...just my wits and experience.

 

[Bear44]

I don't think we disagree as much as you may think.
Note that I said that in the Zimmerman case both sides have good arguments.

While I agree w/ most of your points of when lethal force is justified O.C.G.A. 16-3-21 states that deadly force is justified when one "reasonably believes it is necessary. That term is different for different people but for most it comes down to if one is in fear of your loss of life or grave bodily harm. For a person to truly be "in fear" for their life the elements you mention must be present & you will very probably have to explain those actions to an investigator and/ or the count.
And as I'm sure you'll also agree if you use lethal force you will have to explain to that investigator & possibly the court why you felt it was necessary & why you didn't use other options such as retreat.
People may have different definitions of "reasonably believe", but the courts don't. That is where the problem is. I disagree that anytime someone thinks they have reasonable cause to fear for their life that all the elements would exist. Just the posts in this thread show that is not the case. The court is going to look for these elements and if they don't find them they are very likely to decide a person was not reasonable in their fear. People react differently to stress and reliance on an emotion to determine if deadly force is justified is a very bad plan IMHO.

Can't say that I agree w/ you on the warning shot though.
Firearms are not intended for use as less lethal weapon so therefore make very poor ones.
When that bullet leaves the barrel it becomes lethal & if it strikes an innocent party you will be held accountable.
I've never heard any of the top experts ever speak favorably of warning shots.
Yeah, I know I'm way off of conventional wisdom on the warning shot thing, but there are times that I believe it would be appropriate and could prevent some very nasty consequences for the bad guy, the shooter or both. Please note that I was very clear that you must be able to put the round someplace safe. I also recognize that a firearm is a lousy less lethal, but the truth is that for every person that does carry less lethal and is trained in it's us, there are probably hundreds of people that carry a firearm without also having a less lethal option.
Years ago I used to think there might be an occasion where one might make sense but after researching the subject found that all of the top guys especially Ayoob are very clear on never firing warning shots.

The reason that I push understanding the three elements so hard is because the wording of the law itself is vague. It says what the mind set has to be, but does not explain what justifies having the mind set in the eyes of the court.

BTW, other than the warning shot, we are very much on the same page. We just take a different approach to explaining the law.