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

[Acala]

I'll present it from the other point of view: if you start beating someone up with your fist and you get shot, it is YOUR fault. You have no legitimate expectation that the other person will just submit to the beating you instigated or that he will follow some set of rules of engagement that allow you to have the upper hand in the violent transaction you initiated. Tough shit for you. If you don't want to get shot, don't instigate violence.

Your single highest responsibility as a human being is to learn to master your emotional responses so you do not find yourself mindlessly driven to invade the rights of other people. The widespread failure to do this is really at the core of the wretched state of the human race. You don't get the protection of the law for adding to this problem.

 

[WilliamC]

I'll present it from the other point of view: if you start beating someone up with your fist and you get shot, it is YOUR fault. You have no legitimate expectation that the other person will just submit to the beating you instigated or that he will follow some set of rules of engagement that allow you to have the upper hand in the violent transaction you initiated. Tough shit for you. If you don't want to get shot, don't instigate violence.

Your single highest responsibility as a human being is to learn to master your emotional responses so you do not find yourself mindlessly driven to invade the rights of other people. The widespread failure to do this is really at the core of the wretched state of the human race. You don't get the protection of the law for adding to this problem.

Beautiful.

+ rep

 

[jmdrake]

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.

Link please. All of the evidence I've seen indicate that Zimmerman started the verbal assault and possibly the physical assault.

 

[Acala]

Link please. All of the evidence I've seen indicate that Zimmerman started the verbal assault and possibly the physical assault.

Verbal assault isn't an invasion of rights. You have no right to be free from other people saying unpleasant things to you. And it doesn't do you any harm (other than what you inflict on yourself mentally).

 

[jmdrake]

I voted "other". If someone is coming at you with a deadly weapon other than a gun (such as a knife or a bat) using a gun is justified. And any time someone starts a physical altercation? What's the definition of physical altercation? Let's look at the "MoveOn.org" lady that "assaulted" Rand Paul with a sign. Justified use of deadly force? How about the Ron Paul supporters that threw snowballs as Sean Hannity. That's definitely a physical altercation. And it could be deadly. One of those snowballs could have had a hidden rock inside. Had Hannity's security used their guns would that have been justified?

Anyway, every situation is different. That's why "hard fast rules" often cause more problems than they solve.

 

[jmdrake]

Verbal assault isn't an invasion of rights. You have no right to be free from other people saying unpleasant things to you. And it doesn't do you any harm (other than what you inflict on yourself mentally).

I didn't say that they were. I was rebutting the unsubstantiated claim by Dannno that Trayvon started the verbal attack as well as the physical attack. The evidence I've seen strongly suggests that Zimmerman got physical first as well.

Edit: And self defense law doesn't require you to stand their and "absorb the first blow" either. If Zimmerman "merely" raised a fist at Trayvon, that is the legal definition of assault even though there was no actual harm done. But in defending yourself you are supposed to use a reasonable amount of force in response.

 

[Acala]

I didn't say that they were. I was rebutting the unsubstantiated claim by Dannno that Trayvon started the verbal attack as well as the physical attack. The evidence I've seen strongly suggests that Zimmerman got physical first as well.

Edit: And self defense law doesn't require you to stand their and "absorb the first blow" either. If Zimmerman "merely" raised a fist at Trayvon, that is the legal definition of assault even though there was no actual harm done. But in defending yourself you are supposed to use a reasonable amount of force in response.

I didn't think the question was what IS the law. That differs from one state to another. The question is what SHOULD be the law?

But you are correct that it is possible to create fact scenarios that are difficult to resolve - like snowballs or soap bubbles. But the vast majority of real scenarios are not difficult. Beating someone with your fists is a violent attack that justifies deadly force to stop.

 

[puppetmaster]

When you're in fear for your life.

that is logical and usually supported in court.

 

[Sam I am]

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

this

 

[TheGrinch]

that is logical and usually supported in court.

Yep.I'm pretty sure this is the case with a home-intruder, and so would probably apply in most other cases (for instance, no violence, just the threat of violence or threat to your safety is sufficient for assault charges).

For example, if an intruder breaks into your home and you're face-to-face with him and he's armed or even appears aggressive, it is very easy to justify that you feared for your life, and particularly being on your own property will be justified in court, but the former still applies... However, if he's running away, having been caught by you, or even if you just said "hell no, I wasn't scared. I just wasn't going to let that thief get away with stealing my stuff", it would be unjustifiable, as you were not fearing for yours or your family's safety....

Thus, aside from maybe some other legal exceptions, I'm pretty sure this is the requirement for use of self-defense, to ONLY be used if you have no other option and an have a reasonable fear/threat for yours or other's imminent safety.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I'll present it from the other point of view: if you start beating someone up with your fist and you get shot, it is YOUR fault. You have no legitimate expectation that the other person will just submit to the beating you instigated or that he will follow some set of rules of engagement that allow you to have the upper hand in the violent transaction you initiated.

That sums it up.

 

[Sola_Fide]

When you are an agent of government.

 

[Qdog]

Ill take it one step further. Im willing to use lethal force to protect not only my life and liberty, but also my property. If someone breaks into my house, they better pray Im not home, because I will shoot to kill. If they want to break into my car at nighttime, to steal my GPS... I will shoot to kill, and in Texas I will be legally justified in so doing. Maybe we get into some gray area if some 13 year old kids wanted to spraypaint my house. I would probably give them a warning the first time, and if they dont leave shoot them, and definitely shoot them if they come back a 2nd time.

Its nice to live in a country with the right to bear arms, but really any lethal force will do if you dont have a firearm handy. If you are willing to shoot someone, then the implication is that you are willing to take their life. If I didn't have a firearm, I would use an axe, or a baseball bat or chainsaw to defend my property.

 

[TheGrinch]

Ill take it one step further. Im willing to use lethal force to protect not only my life and liberty, but also my property. If someone breaks into my house, they better pray Im not home, because I will shoot to kill. If they want to break into my car at nighttime, to steal my GPS... I will shoot to kill, and in Texas I will be legally justified in so doing. Maybe we get into some gray area if some 13 year old kids wanted to spraypaint my house. I would probably give them a warning the first time, and if they dont leave shoot them, and definitely shoot them if they come back a 2nd time.

Its nice to live in a country with the right to bear arms, but really any lethal force will do if you dont have a firearm handy. If you are willing to shoot someone, then the implication is that you are willing to take their life. If I didn't have a firearm, I would use an axe, or a baseball bat or chainsaw to defend my property.

With all due respect, I think Texas's laws take it way too far... There are plenty of other recources for property invasion, particularly petty vandalism, most obviously identifying them and calling the police, and not confronting them unless you have to... You really think some insubordinate trouble-making 13 year olds deserve to lose their life just because they're young and acting stupid and irresponsibly?

Bottom line, if you don't feel that that your life others are immediately threatened, and if you have other options that don't result in someone losing their life (I think it's an extremely inhumane view to not realize that a robber might simply be desperate, not a threat to your life, and thus, jailtime yes, but lose your life over it, no, not if you're not posing a direct threat to that person or his family).

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Its nice to live in a country with the right to bear arms, but really any lethal force will do if you dont have a firearm handy. If you are willing to shoot someone, then the implication is that you are willing to take their life. If I didn't have a firearm, I would use an axe, or a baseball bat or chainsaw to defend my property.

You certainly need to be cautious about talking to or confronting someone, even if they are trespassing. You never know how these things might turn out. Here's a different case where the homeowner didn't have a weapon, and neither did the trespasser. It was also a case where the Police refused to respond to a trespassing call.

Police issued a statement Monday night that said the initial call was for trespassing and that because on-duty officers were being reconfigured for the protest; only emergency calls were to be handled.

Police said they did immediately responded to a 911 call about an assault in the same area that came later that evening, but it was too late.

Peter Cukor, 67, had been beaten to death with a flower pot. The suspect, 23-year-old Daniel Dewitt, was taken into custody and will be arraigned on Wednesday.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...-in-berkeley-police-busy-with-occupy-protest/

 

[cartemj06]

It is justifiable to use a gun for self-defense when you are threatened with force that you believe is a threat to life or limb of yourself or to prevent the rape, kidnapping or murder of yourself or another person.

The key is that a reasonable person would have to believe that there was a threat to your life or limb, or that a rape, murder or kidnapping was taking place and that it imperative to use deadly force or that it was your only option to prevent the situation from continuing.


Now if this is in relation to any recent news stories, you need to know ALL the details of what was happening at the time, not speculation about the events or the recent history of those involved.

 

[phill4paul]

It is justifiable to use a gun for self-defense when you are threatened with force that you believe is a threat to life or limb of yourself or to prevent the rape, kidnapping or murder of yourself or another person.

agreed but with addendum...

and left with no alternative to extricate yourself from the threat.

 

[BamaAla]

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.

Y'all danced around it a little bit and you might not like this answer, but reasonable fear for your life or serious bodily injury would be my answer. Courts apply standards like reasonable, proximate, or probable all the time and I actually like the idea of adjudication on these grounds if deemed necessary.

 

[BlackTerrel]

I'll present it from the other point of view: if you start beating someone up with your fist and you get shot, it is YOUR fault. You have no legitimate expectation that the other person will just submit to the beating you instigated or that he will follow some set of rules of engagement that allow you to have the upper hand in the violent transaction you initiated. Tough shit for you. If you don't want to get shot, don't instigate violence.

Your single highest responsibility as a human being is to learn to master your emotional responses so you do not find yourself mindlessly driven to invade the rights of other people. The widespread failure to do this is really at the core of the wretched state of the human race. You don't get the protection of the law for adding to this problem.

I think you're opening yourself up for more problems.

I've played in basketball games where an accidental bump leads to elbows flying and eventually fists. It's never escalated beyond that and usually by the end we all have a beer. Anyone who introduced a gun in that situation is a murderer in my mind.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Yep.I'm pretty sure this is the case with a home-intruder, and so would probably apply in most other cases (for instance, no violence, just the threat of violence or threat to your safety is sufficient for assault charges).

I agree that a home intruder is a separate scenario. If someone came into my home without my permission I would shoot first and ask questions later 100% of the time.