When is it justified to use a gun in self defense?

[BlackTerrel]

This is in response to a discussion I am having in another thread regarding the Trayvon Martin case. We already have enough threads about that topic so let's keep that discussion out of this and keep it hypothetical.

I have always operated under the assumption that the person who introduces the weapon is at fault and you cannot kill someone and claim self defense against an unarmed man. Meaning if we are involved in a fist fight - even if I started the fight and even if I am winning - you cannot shoot and kill me and claim self defense - that this would be murder.

The person I am arguing against claims that if I start a fight it is now fair game for the other party to be the first to introduce a gun.

Who is right? Discussion should include both moral arguments and what the law states. I have my views on the former but to be honest am not entirely clear on the latter.

 

[dannno]

Fists are a potentially deadly weapon, so it depends on the situation and I guess it's up to the jury.

In the Trayvon case, apparently he attacked Zimmerman verbally, then physically assaulted him, got him on the ground and started beating his head.

A shot to the chest was not the best way to handle it, but it could potentially be justified.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Perhaps this helps:

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion principle, the zero aggression principle, the non-initiation of force), or NAP for short, is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property, including that person’s body, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficiary or neutral to the owner, are considered violent when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination, as based on the libertarian principle of self-ownership. Supporters of NAP use it to demonstrate the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

 

[Anti Federalist]

Deadly force is morally and legally justified to stop the imminent and unprovoked threat of death or severe physical injury.

 

[Origanalist]

A gun (or any other weapon) is NOT necessary to kill someone.

What I mean by that is if someone is attacking you, they don't necessarily need a weapon to end your life.

 

[Czolgosz]

Ever been choked out? Hold it long enough (right choke) and you may go brain dead.

 

[fisharmor]

I have always operated under the assumption that the person who introduces the weapon is at fault and you cannot kill someone and claim self defense against an unarmed man.

If this was an absolute axiom, then small women, the elderly, and paraplegics kind of get the short end of the stick, no?
May you forever be healthy and young enough to engage in fist fights. The rest of us might need a gun someday.

Meaning if we are involved in a fist fight - even if I started the fight and even if I am winning - you cannot shoot and kill me and claim self defense - that this would be murder.

The person I am arguing against claims that if I start a fight it is now fair game for the other party to be the first to introduce a gun.

I am not into the idea of casual fist fights. I don't want to fight anyone, outside the context of a friendly, controlled martial arts venue.
If someone wishes to fight me, I'm going to let him (or her) know that I'm not in middle school and this is unacceptable to me.
If he (or she) presses the issue, and a dirty trick like a punch to the larynx would work, I might try that.
I'm just as likely to brandish, though.

I don't want to kill anyone. But I also don't want to live in a world where everyone thinks we're all living in a bar on the set of a bad western.
Fist fighting is for children, or adults that want to get shot.

 

[TheTexan]

When you're in fear for your life.

 

[Dr.3D]

I'm an old man and if I feel some kid (or someone with the ability to kill me with their fists) has decided to beat me to death, I'll use my firearm as needed.

The use of deadly force is determined by the following triangle.
The threat must have the following three attributes.
1. Have the ability. (they must be able to kill you with either a weapon or their own strength)
2. The intent. (they have declared their intent to do so... beating you can be considered intent. Someone saying "I'm going to kill you." is enough.)
3. The opportunity. (they must be close enough to carry out their intent.)

 

[pcosmar]

When you're in fear for your life.

That is all the time for some folks. Whether there is an actual threat or not.

I voted, When the other side introduces a gun first
But any deadly weapon introduced would be justification. And I should qualify it further,, "in public".

In ones own home an intrusion of any kind is justification.

 

[AFPVet]

The use of deadly force varies a great deal from state to state; however, generally, if you are in fear for your life or the lives of others, you are justified in using lethal force.

 

[BlackTerrel]

That is all the time for some folks. Whether there is an actual threat or not.

I voted, When the other side introduces a gun first
But any deadly weapon introduced would be justification. And I should qualify it further,, "in public".

In ones own home an intrusion of any kind is justification.

This would be my view as well.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm an old man and if I feel some kid (or someone with the ability to kill me with their fists) has decided to beat me to death, I'll use my firearm as needed.

The use of deadly force is determined by the following triangle.
The threat must have the following three attributes.
1. Have the ability. (they must be able to kill you with either a weapon or their own strength)
2. The intent. (they have declared their intent to do so... beating you can be considered intent. Someone saying "I'm going to kill you." is enough.)
3. The opportunity. (they must be close enough to carry out their intent.)

That makes some sense.

That is all the time for some folks. Whether there is an actual threat or not.

Very relevant point. Fear alone is no excuse at all.

 

[AFPVet]

That makes some sense.



Very relevant point. Fear alone is no excuse at all.

The "fear for your life or the lives of others" clause usually follows the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy style rules. For example, you would not be in fear for your life or the lives of others if someone looks "funny"; however, if that "funny" guy said "I am going to kill &(*&*", took out a knife and charged at you or someone else, you would be in fear for his/her life and subsequently justified in the use of lethal force.

 

[Kluge]

Had to answer "other" because the premise doesn't take many, many factors into account. If I'm with my baby who I'm protecting and a big guy threatens me, he'd get shot whether or not he had a weapon. If a 10-year old boy threatens to kick my ass, I'm not pulling out a piece to put an end to it unless he's absolutely apeshit violent and there's no other option.

 

[Indy Vidual]

...
The person I am arguing against claims that if I start a fight it is now fair game for the other party to be the first to introduce a gun.

Who is right?...

start a fight = not entirely clear / depends on the situation (?)
IMO, An attack for the purpose of Robbery == You better hope your victim is not prepared to use his gun, since morally he could kill you in self-defense.

 

[otherone]

If a 10-year old boy threatens to kick my ass, I'm not pulling out a piece to put an end to it unless he's absolutely apeshit violent and there's no other option.

waitaminit...OFFICER Kluge?

 

[WilliamC]

When you're in fear for your life.

This is what you always say.

Repeat after me, "I feared for my life so I shot him." "I thought he was going to kill me so I shot him." "I was scared and I thought I was going to die so I shot him."

This is what you always say.

 

[WilliamC]

The "fear for your life or the lives of others" clause usually follows the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy style rules. For example, you would not be in fear for your life or the lives of others if someone looks "funny"; however, if that "funny" guy said "I am going to kill &(*&*", took out a knife and charged at you or someone else, you would be in fear for his/her life and subsequently justified in the use of lethal force.

Exactly.

+ rep

 

[tod evans]

In most areas it's okay to "brandish" (use) a gun to stop a person who is commiting an illegal act.

Actually shooting someone is a whole 'nuther story....Either you or the person you are protecting must be in imminent danger.

"Imminent danger" is loosely worded intentionally to permit various circumstances to be considered.