When is Deadly Force justified during a riot?

[Bear44]

I think what's hard to understand, at least for me, is how anyone believes a discussion of this sort is going to change how anyone actually REACTS in such a circumstance.
Regardless of the law, I fear for me life, I shoot. I don't fear, I don't shoot. Anything else is nonsensical.

I think I can say with confidence that just about every self defense school, LE agency and military organization disagrees with you. Training absolutely DOES change how and when a person will react. For me, thinking about what type of situation will cause me to use deadly force is just as much a type of training as my time spent on the range.

With all respect, you are wrong about this one. Grab a copy of Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme" and read the chapter on fear as justification. It's a real eye opener.

 

[GeauxLSU]

I think I can say with confidence that just about every self defense school, LE agency and military organization disagrees with you. Training absolutely DOES change how and when a person will react. For me, thinking about what type of situation will cause me to use deadly force is just as much a type of training as my time spent on the range.

With all respect, you are wrong about this one. Grab a copy of Massad Ayoob's "In the Gravest Extreme" and read the chapter on fear as justification. It's a real eye opener.

I agree that 'training' can alter actions in situations. This isn't that. I'm still waiting to hear how you or anyone would react differently because you know what's legal vs. not.
1) Would you should someone because it's legal but your life is not in danger?
2) Would you NOT shoot someone because it's illegal but you feel your life is in danger?

 

[Bulldawg165]

I think what's hard to understand, at least for me, is how anyone believes a discussion of this sort is going to change how anyone actually REACTS in such a circumstance.
Regardless of the law, I fear for me life, I shoot. I don't fear, I don't shoot. Anything else is nonsensical.

The law (in Georgia at least) actually does a pretty good job of outlining when it's reasonable (and moral too IMO, not just legal) for you to use deadly force in self defense. Knowing the law can help you better analyze a situation and recognize real danger before it gets too far, instead of just waiting until your gut tells you that you're about to die. It may be too late by then.

 

[GeauxLSU]

The law (in Georgia at least) actually does a pretty good job of outlining when it's reasonable (and moral too IMO, not just legal) for you to use deadly force in self defense. Knowing the law can help you better analyze a situation and recognize real danger before it gets too far, instead of just waiting until your gut tells you that you're about to die. It may be too late by then.

Huh? How? It doesn't matter to me. I'm shooting when I feel threatened. Not before, not after. The law doesn't tell me when I feel threatened and isn't there to 'protect' me.
Could you answer the two questions above?

 

[Bulldawg165]

I agree that 'training' can alter actions in situations. This isn't that. I'm still waiting to hear how you or anyone would react differently because you know what's legal vs. not.
1) Would you should someone because it's legal but your life is not in danger?
2) Would you NOT shoot someone because it's illegal but you feel your life is in danger?

1) No, not worth the risk and emotional havoc it would wreck upon my family.
2) I would still shoot. Can you name one such situation where a law abiding citizen might find himself in this predicament though and his fear is justified?

Huh? How? It doesn't matter to me. I'm shooting when I feel threatened. Not before, not after. The law doesn't tell me when I feel threatened and isn't there to 'protect' me.
Could you answer the two questions above?

The Georgia law gets things rigit's for the most part in regards to self defense. When it's reasonable to shoot someone legally is usually when they've put you in reasonable fear for your life.

 

[GeauxLSU]

1) No, not worth the risk and emotional havoc it would wreck upon my family.
2) I would still shoot. Can you name one such situation where a law abiding citizen might find himself in this predicament though and his fear is justified?
3) The Georgia law gets things rigit's for the most part in regards to self defense. When it's reasonable to shoot someone legally is usually when they've put you in reasonable fear for your life.

1) I wouldn't do it either, but just becaues it's morally wrong (to me).
2) I don't know the law well enough to have a clue.
3) Supports what I've said all along. The mental gymnastics before hand for a SHTF LIFE AND DEATH mob situation aren't worth it. No one is going to shoot or not shoot based on the law. At least I hope not, for their sake.

 

[Bear44]

I agree that 'training' can alter actions in situations. This isn't that. I'm still waiting to hear how you or anyone would react differently because you know what's legal vs. not.
1) Would you should someone because it's legal but your life is not in danger?
2) Would you NOT shoot someone because it's illegal but you feel your life is in danger?

What will change is the evaluation of whether or not the fear you are feeling is reasonable. Let's talk about the stuck in traffic situation I presented before. There are a lot of people that would fear for their life (probably including me) just because there are rioters all around the car they are in, even though they are not directing their aggression toward the vehicle. That would be a NO SHOOT situation. If a person understands that the fear they are feeling is not justification, they may choose not to fire...yet. If they believe that fear is all the justification they need, they may not logically evaluate what the situation really is and start shooting.

To answer your questions directly.
1) No. I have no wish to kill someone if it can be safely avoided.
2) Yes. Feeling my life is in danger is not good enough. However, the law is structured in a way that does not prevent the justifiable use of deadly force when there is reasonable cause for fear. The only time that I would not be able to pull the trigger legally is when there is no reasonable cause for me to believe there is an imminent threat to my life. But again, it's the "reasonable cause" that is the key to the decision to fire. Reason (thought), not just emotion (fear), must be part of the decision making process.

I believe that the laws surrounding legal use of deadly force are quite good. By using them as the standard in your decision making process they are likely to prevent you from killing someone needlessly while at the same time not preventing you from reasonable self defense.

I still think that you are not looking beyond your own ability to make a good decision. I get the impression that you are a logical person and rather cool headed, which means you probably WILL make a good decision because you will not become fearful when it is not reasonable to become so. There are A LOT of people that are not built that way. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of "Rambo" types that would shoot because they think fear is justification and they are looking for the opportunity. Both the unreasoning fearful and the Rambos need to understand the true nature of the laws surrounding the use of deadly force or they could very well make a deadly mistake.

 

[Bulldawg165]

3) Supports what I've said all along. The mental gymnastics before hand for a SHTF LIFE AND DEATH mob situation aren't worth it. No one is going to shoot or not shoot based on the law. At least I hope not, for their sake.

I mostly agree. But like I said, the law (in GA) does a pretty good job of aligning with when it's reasonable and moral to use deadly force as well. Thinking about these situations and scenarios helps me better realize when a threat exists and when I SHOULD take action, in addition to knowing when I'm "allowed" to take action. I think it also could help you have a more clear head in all the commotion as well.

For example: Someone asked about if you're in your car and a mob surrounds it/you. You can't use deadly force yet. What if they bang on your car with their fists? Not yet. What if one of them starts bashing at your window with a crow bar? Well, now it gets tricky. Is your car completely surrounded to the point that you can't drive away? If not, you should've already drove away. If so, then yes. What if your car WAS surrounded and blocked in but no that he's bashing your window in it isn't (let's say that the light turned green so the car in front of you has pulled away). Now what? Well if he's bashing in your driver side window then you should probably shoot him because he'll likely bust your head open if you sit up straight to drive away. If it's another window he's bashing in then you're safer just driving away at this point.

Is there anywhere in this scenario where the law does not match what is the most reasonable and safe thing for a person to do?

 

[Bulldawg165]

I believe that the laws surrounding legal use of deadly force are quite good. By using them as the standard in your decision making process they are likely to prevent you from killing someone needlessly while at the same time not preventing you from reasonable self defense.

This.

 

[GeauxLSU]

I mostly agree. But like I said, the law (in GA) does a pretty good job of aligning with when it's reasonable and moral to use deadly force as well. Thinking about these situations and scenarios helps me better realize when a threat exists and when I SHOULD take action, in addition to knowing when I'm "allowed" to take action. I think it also could help you have a more clear head in all the commotion as well.

For example: 1) Someone asked about if you're in your car and a mob surrounds it/you. You can't use deadly force yet.
2) What if they bang on your car with their fists? Not yet.
3) What if one of them starts bashing at your window with a crow bar? Well, now it gets tricky. Is your car completely surrounded to the point that you can't drive away? If not, you should've already drove away. If so, then yes.
4) What if your car WAS surrounded and blocked in but no that he's bashing your window in it isn't (let's say that the light turned green so the car in front of you has pulled away). Now what?
5) Well if he's bashing in your driver side window then you should probably shoot him because he'll likely bust your head open if you sit up straight to drive away. If it's another window he's bashing in then you're safer just driving away at this point.

Is there anywhere in this scenario where the law does not match what is the most reasonable and safe thing for a person to do?

Yeah, several.
1) I'm driving away, if that includes driving OVER someone who has surrounded my car, too bad.
2) Same as #1
3) I'm unloading
4) I'm unloading
5) Yep