View Full Version : What is self defense????
Between my co-workers and another thread on this forum there has been a lot discussion about self-defense lately.
I ended up wondering what was other peoples definition of self defense I know there be the cliche remarks but I have noticed a pattern developing mainly among new gun owners. They seem to think CCW and self defense is a license to kill.
That was blunt but I was wondering if a new breed of un-educated gun owners could be future murders.
So I am wondering what is self defense to you? legal definition aside.
Scott
Jay Cunningham
12-19-08, 20:07
I have noticed a pattern developing mainly among new gun owners. They seem to think CCW and self defense is a license to kill.
That was blunt but I was wondering if a new breed of un-educated gun owners could be future murders.
I don't think it's blunt at all - in fact I think it's a very valid point you bring up.
SeriousStudent
12-19-08, 20:12
The people that scare me are the ones that think "can" is the same as "should".
I prefer to think of it as "have to", or "the least horrible of several horrible choices". :(
shadowalker
12-19-08, 20:15
To me it is using the amount of force necessary to prevent injury. Lethal self defense is justified to me when facing grave bodily injury or death to myself, my family, and possibly someone else.
The Ability, Opportunity, Intent and Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion define when that occurs pretty well for me.
I do not believe a person should have a legal responsibility to retreat when faced with a lethal threat.
The amount of force used is decided by the BG; he can choose to stop before a firearm is brought to bear, after being shot but still physically capable or after his ability to be a threat is removed.
Force must stop being used after the threat is over, no pursuing someone who is no longer a threat, no finishing them off.
Jay Cunningham
12-19-08, 20:18
As a rather broad, sweeping generalization... I have found that the more formal firearms training one has had, the less likely they are to be inclined to "go out and shoot someone."
People without a clue tend to think that carrying a firearm makes them not have to back down from any kind of fight.
Whenever a clear "bad shoot" is reported in detail on the news, typically it is the untrained who rail against "the man" and scream about the injustice of not being able to shoot a guy because he was walking on your lawn.
M4tographer
12-19-08, 20:19
To me it is using the amount of force necessary to prevent grave bodily injury or death to myself, my family, and possibly someone else.
The Ability, Opportunity, Intent and Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion define when that occurs pretty well for me.
The amount of force used is decided by the BG, he can choose to stop before a firearm is brought to bear, after being shot once but still physically capable or after his ability to be a threat is removed.
Force must stop being used after the threat is over, no pursuing someone who is no longer a threat, no finishing them off.
+1
THIS
RogerinTPA
12-19-08, 20:41
In most cases, you have to be in fear of your life, or great/grievous bodily harm or injury, and you shot to ONLY stop the attack(If the BG dies in the process, so what.). Basically this is THE statement you give to the cops responding to the scene. Point out the evidence, promise to cooperate after consulting a lawyer within 24 hours and shut your f-king mouth before it lands you in jail.
toddackerman
12-19-08, 21:02
3 things must be present. Ability, opportunity, and jeopardy. And at least in Colorado, you have a justifiable shoot for attempted murder, kidnapping and rape.
The thing that we must remeber that IF you are of equal ability to the BG you can't count on getting away with a justifiable shoot. I.e., if a 5 ft guy comes out of an ally and you're 6' 5", and he has no weapon and advances, you don't have justification to shoot. you'll have to defend yourself by hand.
Now if he has a crow bar, 2X4, knife or a gun, you are justified. Because he has shown ability. If he is advancing he has the opportunty to gravely harm you, and if he get's too close he now is putting you in jeopardy.
Again, my reply is based on the training I've had in Colorado only.
I don't know that it's primarily new gun owners by any means -- there are a lot of old timers out there that think that when a firearm is present, they are become Shiva, Destroyer of Worlds. Often they're worse -- they equate length of experience with quality of experience, and won't be told any different.
The_Katar hits a good point about people with more training being less inclined to go out and shoot somebody. Part of that may be that people who are less inclined to go shoot somebody, are more inclined to seek out training. Either way, while these folks might have no desire to harm anyone, they usually have the mindset to be able to do what is necessary and are confident in their skills. Uninfomed/uneducated people mistake that defense mindset for bravado sometimes and try to replicate it in their own behavior.
So I am wondering what is self defense to you? legal definition aside.
Scott
You can set the legal definition aside if you want... but it is the only one that matters regarding whether or not your actions will be deemed justifiable. And the legal definition of self defense varies widely state to state, so it very much depends where you are. Some states even require you to retreat from your own home when under attack.
Very good point! But I was exploring the mindset and perceptions of what others think it is. Because of the "License to kill" mentality. Especially new gun owners.
Scott
Most state laws will shoot down any notion of "license to kill" pretty darned quick... In a lot of places you are lucky if you can use force to defend your life and not end up in prison afterward.
Of even perhaps more sobering concern is how much the process of legally defending yourself will cost, even if you were FULLY justified in physically defending yourself. Expect between a Grand Jury no-bill and a single civil suit by the injured party / family members -- which is the least you could possibly hope for in most cases -- to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars establishing your innocence and non-liability. That means WINNING will destroy you financially. Don't even think about losing.
In many cases surviving a violent attack will ruin your life even if you manage to come through it uninjured. That is the society leftists have built for us. The violent attacker is the one they care about most.
They seem to think CCW and self defense is a license to kill.
That was blunt but I was wondering if a new breed of un-educated gun owners could be future murders.Scott
Not to be blunt, but I think you should change the crowd you run with.
]
So I am wondering what is self defense to you? legal definition aside.
Self-defense is a legal concept, so you can't define it without defining it in legal terms. According to Black's Law Dictionary, self defense is the "use of force to protect oneself, one's family, or one's property from a real or threatened attack."
The specifics of when a legitimate claim of self-defense can be made vary substantially from state to state.
Self defense to me is protecting myself and those around me from harm. Though you do have to determine the level of force you are going to use, based on the threat. If you can walk away, do so. If yo have to go to that last level, then do so as accurately as you can. I think it is better to make decisions with yourself as to how you will react in a type of situation before you are faced with one.
I was afraid for the safety of my life and others. That pretty much covers it in Tx. But as I and others on here have said, a CCW permit, or just owning a gun elevates you to a higher standard. You will find ways not to shoot, instead of reasons to do so. Owning and carrying a gun is a GIANT step into maturity. Despite your age. Responsible, ethical people will get it. "Murderers" will not.
dOg
I carry for the same reason that I have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in the home. I take reasonable precautions against a fire in the home, don't leave candles burning, run matches under the tap before putting them in the trash . . . and I hope my smoke detector never goes off besides for testing & I hope I never have to use the extinguisher . . . but I feel it'd be a form of neglect to not have the equipment I need to keep my family safe. My weapons and tools are the same thing as the fire safety equipment, tools to keep my family safe. I can't keep my family safe if I can't keep me safe. Keeping me safe is about not neglecting my family.
I posted the following in a different thread on this forum -
Like I said, I have had a DGU in which I didn't pull the trigger. The man standing in my front room in the wee hours of the a.m. elected to believe his crack dealer no longer had a room upstairs where my family was sleeping. . . . only when I indicated that failing to leave and/or forcing his way further in, would involve copious steam cleaning and maybe some spackle but he would not be making it out except the way he came in. No other language was getting it. I said "no" "nobody here by that name" "leave" "leave now!" "he doesn't live here" . . . at various volumes in various orders but those five statements repeated & he gave every indication of intending to push further into the house. I figured I knew he was armed with something, as he had to have had something to pry the window. Sure enough, very large screwdriver in the back pocket when he turned to leave. I drew because he wasn't getting with my verbal commands, I was sure he was armed, I didn't know if he had backup, I knew I had a wife and baby upstairs. So, there is that whole story.
That said, I don't believe scare is in the continuum of force. The point of drawwing is rather to prepare to fire. If that scares them and you don't have to fire, great, awesome, ideal! But that isn't the reason to draw. Drawwing to scare is a great way to catch a lawsuit, or get sacked by a liberal D.A. and get your ability to handle firearms stripped. Drawwing to scare is a great example of what might seem reasonable to you or me, but sound like Felony Making Terroristic Threats to a gov't attorney that doesn't like that you can own the toys you own.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=260179#post260179
So anyway, as many have said - self defense is a term tied to the legal system & as such, only the broadest definitions can avoid being sucked into the myriad state specific self defense laws. Self defense can encompase everything from slowwing down and letting a jerk cut you off on the interstate to avoid something that could escalate into road rage to having to use an instrument to bring about the cessation of hostility by an armed aggressor . . . . it is a mindset. I don't want to use my tow strap, jumper cables, or spare tire either, but they are with me everytime I drive the car. I certainly don't go looking for opportunities to use my jack, the gun is no different.
I don't know a single person inside the Carry Community, that has this other midset. It sounds alien to me. Everyone I know looks at self defense pretty much the same.
Todd,
Good post. I will add to that every person has a different threshold as to what one considers a threat. I believe tha training, past experience and mindset will also affect this as well. In as much that I person who has had significant training, experience or a conditioned mindset will more than likely not overreact or panic in a lethal encounter.
Self-defense is a legal concept, so you can't define it without defining it in legal terms. According to Black's Law Dictionary, self defense is the "use of force to protect oneself, one's family, or one's property from a real or threatened attack."
The specifics of when a legitimate claim of self-defense can be made vary substantially from state to state.
Self-defense is a legal concept, so you can't define it without defining it in legal terms. According to Black's Law Dictionary, self defense is the "use of force to protect oneself, one's family, or one's property from a real or threatened attack."
The specifics of when a legitimate claim of self-defense can be made vary substantially from state to state. True, but I take a more holistic view of the term (if I am using holistic correctly). I see self defense defined as "any action taken to protect oneself, one's family, or one's property from a real or threatened physical, social, or mental attack and the action is commensurate with the threat posed".
For example my neighbor is telling me he is going to throw something at my cat if he catches it walking on his car. Well if I were to shoot him for making that statement then my response would be wholly out of proportion to the threat. Conversely if someone broke into my house while my family was there, for me to simply tell them that they are a bad person and that they should leave is an inadequate response. Both responses would be negatively viewed by society. I also included social or mental attacks because those types are very real. So if someone were gossiping or spreading rumors about my or someone in my family, then that, in many cases warrants a response by myself. Likewise there are mental attacks. As an example I think of that case where the mom of one girl posed as a boy on myspace to screw with another girl. We're I to become aware of that sort of attack I would have to take appropriate measures to protect my child.
This waxing and waning has been brought to you by 650mg of darvocet at 5am.
LegalAlien
12-20-08, 10:28
This waxing and waning has been brought to you by 650mg of darvocet at 5am.
You gotta keep that shoulder rested FL neigbor!!!
Keep us posted on your recovery. I am also sitting with a right shoulder that is acting up and am curious as to how much range of motion you recover.
self defense is the appropriate use of force in response to a threat. deadly force is only appropriate if there is a threat to life of serious physical injury. the problem for the person being attacked is being able to analyze the extent of the threat and distinguish the appropriate response.
another problem is that many simple encounters can escalate beyond situations which are not truly life threatening but happen too quickly to control. they turn into life threatening situations simply because of insufficient response at the beginning of the attack.
the presence of a gun in a non life threatening attack is almost sure to cause it to escalate but as has been my position for as long as I have CCW, I believe if you carry, you MUST also carry some form of non-lethal protection too. I carry OC spray.
not every problem is a nail, simply because you are carrying a hammer...
I will add to that every person has a different threshold as to what one considers a threat. I believe tha training, past experience and mindset will also affect this as well. In as much that I person who has had significant training, experience or a conditioned mindset will more than likely not overreact or panic in a lethal encounter.
Agreed 100%. And while many people think that practicing their shooting is enough, it's not. Shooting on the range does not necessarily improve one's mindset. I had a student in a class many years ago who did great for 1.5-days of live fire and lecture. When it came time for him to take his "graduation test" (a SimFX scenario involving a home robbery) he completely flipped out and shot:
The armed BG
The unarmed BG
The cameraman (who was wearing a blaze orange "out of role" vest)
The instructor/handler (who was also wearing a vest)
The police officer responding to the scene
That manic reaction was the result of the student getting tagged with one round of Sims on his arm. He went into total panic mode and just shot every living thing in sight.
I actually had to sit him down afterwards and suggest to him, strongly, that he reconsider keeping a gun for self-defense until he got a little more training and was able to deal with that stress in a safer manner. He realized that in real life, he could just as easily shot his wife and kids.
parishioner
12-20-08, 11:29
Ok, so what would be an appropriate response if lets say you were in the checkout line at walmart and you have a ccw and you here gunshotfire about 10-15 registers over. Although the shots were not directed at you, is the correct form of action to leave the store or go investigate the shooting? For the record I do not have a ccw permit, in fact im only 20 so I cant even buy a handgun. Im just curious as to what would be correct.
jman -- You'll get as many answers to that question as there are people you ask.
The safest response is to boogie. Danger stage right, exit stage left. You've got no idea if those were really gun shots. If they were gun shots, you don't know who was shooting at whom, why, from where. By the time you get over there, it's total chaos.
What if you had a wife and children with you? You'd want to get them to safety as your first priority.
There are many other options, and different circumstances will lead to different decisions. But while running towards the sound of gunfire may sound heroic, be sure you actually understand all of the consequences you're taking on before interjecting yourself into a completely unknown situation.
parishioner
12-20-08, 11:52
jman --
The safest response is to boogie. Danger stage right, exit stage left.
See, thats what I was leaning towards most because the primary concern I would think would be the safety of yourself and your family. I agree that if you did go investigate more than likely SOMETHING would happen that you didnt expect and things could get out of hand quickly. It seems like it would be more trouble than its worth rather than just exiting safely. Thanks Todd.
jman,
Your scenario is way too broad to elicit any good responses. Had you said "you observe xxxx person walking down the aisle of the checkout area indiscriminately shooting people" that would be easier. I myself would tell my significant others to move as far away from the gun shots as possible or exit the store and at that point I would possibly engage the person if it was feasible.
Remember that a citizen essentially has no obligation to intervene in such a situation. Though in many states the law allows you to use deadly force to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself, family members and 3rd parties.
Ok, so what would be an appropriate response if lets say you were in the checkout line at walmart and you have a ccw and you here gunshotfire about 10-15 registers over. Although the shots were not directed at you, is the correct form of action to leave the store or go investigate the shooting? For the record I do not have a ccw permit, in fact im only 20 so I cant even buy a handgun. Im just curious as to what would be correct.
If you go to investigate gun shots and don't expect something to happen to you then your situational awareness is completely FUBAR and you probably shouldn't be carrying a gun. Remember that you have complete control. You can either E&E or you can get into the fight.
See, thats what I was leaning towards most because the primary concern I would think would be the safety of yourself and your family. I agree that if you did go investigate more than likely SOMETHING would happen that you didnt expect and things could get out of hand quickly. It seems like it would be more trouble than its worth rather than just exiting safely. Thanks Todd.
parishioner
12-20-08, 12:20
jman,
Your scenario is way too broad to elicit any good responses. Had you said "you observe xxxx person walking down the aisle of the checkout area indiscriminately shooting people" that would be easier.
I agree that would be an easier scenario and would require less thinking to make a decision. I intended the scenario to be a difficult one where you didnt see the shooter only hearing shots fired and I just wanted to know what would be the right thing to do.
parishioner
12-20-08, 12:32
If you go to investigate gun shots and don't expect something to happen to you then your situational awareness is completely FUBAR and you probably shouldn't carrying a gun. Remember that you have complete control. You can either E&E or you can get into the fight.
You are absoultley right. You are in complete control of your actions. I guess I shouldnt have said that refering to something happening. I know of course somehting would happen if you went looking for the bad guy, I guess what it all boils down to is that it would be best to just exit the building safely given the scenario I presented. Thanks Iraqgunz.
I know if I was in Wal-mart and that happened I would leave I am not a LEO and I didn't get the ccw to protect the public.
You gotta keep that shoulder rested FL neigbor!!!
Keep us posted on your recovery. I am also sitting with a right shoulder that is acting up and am curious as to how much range of motion you recover.
Its feeling better. I was taking 2x 325mg Percocet (sorry I was wrong when I said darvocet) every 4 hours. Now Im down to 1 every 6 hours. I'm gonna step down to 162 mg every 6 and then hopefully be done with the pain meds by Christmas. The most pain Im having now is in my tricep, but that is a byproduct of the surgery and recover. We took the dressing off today. I go in to have the stitches removed on Tuesday and have em replaced with steri strips. Range of motion is getting better every day, but there is still a ways to go. I should be back up to speed work wise by 1 Jan. The doc asked me to wait 3 months before I start shooting again. Even then I'm gonna ease into it. I do have to say that I am ecstatic with having the surgery. I no longer have a hump where my left A/C joint is.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.