Must a person take a butt whoopin before you pull a firearm?

[wjh2657]

In civil cases there no" guarantees" , it doesn't really matter what happened in the shootout. The guy with the best lawyer takes all the money home. The rules of evidence are totally different in civil versus criminal law. Being ruled  a "righteous shoot" in Tennessee does nothing for your civil case, it is like you are talking about a whole different occurrence from the shooting you were actually involved in. I have served on civil juries where "disclaimers" and "exemptions by law" were brought up and summarily dismissed and emotion ruled. It is a big soap opera and the best actors win the awards.

 

A verdict of "righteous shoot" does keep you from going to jail but it does nothing to help save the house and the kids' college fund.

Edited May 22, 2013 by wjh2657

[Oh Shoot]

....A verdict of "righteous shoot" does keep you from going to jail but it does nothing to help save the house and the kids' college fund.

 

So, these are just words with no meaning?

 

"39-11-622.  Justification for use of force -- Exceptions -- Immunity from civil liability.

  (a)  (1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611 -- 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless:

      (A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106 who:

         (i) Was acting in the performance of the officer's official duties; and

         (ii) Identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law; or

         (iii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or

      ( B ) The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.

( b )The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon the person's use of force, if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 -- 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201."

 

 

- OS

Edited May 22, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[RobertNashville]

In civil cases there no" guarantees" , it doesn't really matter what happened in the shootout. The guy with the best lawyer takes all the money home. The rules of evidence are totally different in civil versus criminal law. Being ruled  a "righteous shoot" in Tennessee does nothing for your civil case, it is like you are talking about a whole different occurrence from the shooting you were actually involved in. I have served on civil juries where "disclaimers" and "exemptions by law" were brought up and summarily dismissed and emotion ruled. It is a big soap opera and the best actors win the awards.

 

A verdict of "righteous shoot" does keep you from going to jail but it does nothing to help save the house and the kids' college fund.

I'm afraid (well actually I'm very glad) that you are quite wrong on this issue. Since I'm sure you won't believe me then perhaps one of our fine attorneys will come in and explain why.

 

It will not protect you from, for example, a stray shot that hits some innocent bystander but the thug's family get jack squat.

Edited May 22, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveS]

In civil cases there no" guarantees" , it doesn't really matter what happened in the shootout. The guy with the best lawyer takes all the money home. The rules of evidence are totally different in civil versus criminal law. Being ruled  a "righteous shoot" in Tennessee does nothing for your civil case, it is like you are talking about a whole different occurrence from the shooting you were actually involved in. I have served on civil juries where "disclaimers" and "exemptions by law" were brought up and summarily dismissed and emotion ruled. It is a big soap opera and the best actors win the awards.

 

A verdict of "righteous shoot" does keep you from going to jail but it does nothing to help save the house and the kids' college fund.

I'm under the impression here in TN that you are protected from civil suit if your shoot was ruled legal. Did I misunderstand?

 

Dave S

[RobertNashville]

I'm under the impression here in TN that you are protected from civil suit if your shoot was ruled legal. Did I misunderstand?

 

Dave S

No, you didn't misunderstand.

 

Now, I don't think our or any law can or will protect you from having a suite filed against you, hence, be prepared to spend some money, but if the shooting has been ruled to have been justified (not just not prosecuted) then no civil suit by the thug's family can win under current TN law.

 

This is one instance where Tennessee has one of the best legal protections of any state for those who use deadly force to defend themselves.

Edited May 22, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

If you elicited the confrontation or escalated it you will likely be prosecuted and certainly deserve to go to jail. You don't start an altercation knowing you'll likely end it with deadly force. If you start a fight you'd better be prepared for an ass beating.

On the other hand, if someone aggresses you in an unprovoked attack and you are in true fear for your life I wouldn't hesitate to draw to deter and fire if they continue their advance. One punch can deliver death or other great bodily harm. If someone initiates an unprovoked attack on me I am going to assume their intent is to kill me. If someone attacks me because I called them an ahole I'll assume their intent is to simply challenge my assessment.

Ive seen posts in the past which indicate some folks seem to think they can start a fight with someone then end it with deadly force if they're getting their butt handed to them. At that point you may certainly be in fear for your life, but you will spend time in jail when you use deadly force, and should. Edited May 22, 2013 by TMF

[DaveTN]

It’s going to go like this, the Officers at the scene and the detectives are going to first judge you. They are going to talk to the DA, or he may come to the scene. A DA is going to look at your participation and decide whether or not to charge you.  If he charges you; a Judge or Jury will then decide your fate.

 

Yes, the Zimmerman case is a good example. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business when Zimmerman lost his mind and started chasing him. Zimmerman had absolutely no reason to chase Martin. He was even told that by the cops on the phone. It is reasonable that Martin was in fear of death or great bodily harm and was justified in doing whatever he felt necessary to protect himself; especially if he saw Zimmerman’s gun. Zimmerman was in a fight he started and ended it by shooting Martin to death. We will have to see if a jury puts their stamp of approval on that.

 

Zimmerman did something the average intelligent citizen would not do. No matter which way the verdict goes; he is hosed. He will probably pay for his mistake with his freedom or his life.

 

BTW… I’m not on the Zimmerman jury so my opinion does not matter. I believe he should get a fair trial. My opinions are based only on what we were allowed to hear. There may be something in trial testimony that sets him free. But unless they have a way to make those jurors believe his act of jumping out and chasing that kid was justified; I don’t see them letting him off.

 

 

 

[Garufa]

Here we go again.  :rolleyes:

[East_TN_Patriot]

Let us all know how that butt kicking you take turns out some day because you refused to defend yourself. Look...I'm not a tough guy and never look for a fight and avoid confrontation more than most. But I'm not going to stand there and take a beating from some asshole if I have the means to stop it. You may as well leave your weapon at home if you never plan to defend yourself or your family. Good lucky reading a BG's mind and telling a judge I though he was just going to punch me once and walk away but in reality he dealt out bodily harm or even death to your loved ones.

 

Who is saying you can't defend yourself?  Certainly not me, but I do say that the level of force you use to defend yourself must be lawful.

I took a couple of butt kickings (one resulting in broken nose) and was engaged in multiple physical altercations during my police career and I never shot anyone and I have no long-lasting effects other than a slightly crooked nose.  I defended myself with my hands, feet, OC spray, a baton, and a flashlight.  I worked with cops who had a Taser or even pistol-whipped a suspect during an altercation.  I was in one lengthy fight where I grabbed a guy's hair and bashed his head on the sidewalk.  I even had an encounter with a guy brandishing a sword and due to the unique circumstances I did not need to shoot him; OC spray and hands-on tactics were sufficient in disarming and arresting the guy.  You fight until you think the fight is more than you can handle, then you try to disengage if possible.  If you can't retreat and you believe the beating will continue, then you might be justified in using deadly force.  

 

I'm far from being a tough-guy, but I do understand the law and the ramifications for unjustified use of deadly force.  I'd like to think you are visualizing a very serious physical attack here, but based on your comments it sounds like you think you have a defense if you shoot someone for even a minor altercation.  The fact of the matter is that the law is the law and just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you aren't obligated to face sanctions if you violate it.  Again, it's your choice, but if deadly force isn't justified, don't be surprised if you end up a guest of the state for the remainder of your natural life.  
 

Edited May 23, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Dane]

Might I suggest some reading from one of the top expert witnesses in the country?


http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/search.php?searchid=13000419

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[DaveS]

No, you didn't misunderstand.

 

Now, I don't think our or any law can or will protect you from having a suite filed against you, hence, be prepared to spend some money, but if the shooting has been ruled to have been justified (not just not prosecuted) then no civil suit by the thug's family can win under current TN law.

 

This is one instance where Tennessee has one of the best legal protections of any state for those who use deadly force to defend themselves.

That's how I thought I understood it!

 

Dave S

[East_TN_Patriot]

Might I suggest some reading from one of the top expert witnesses in the country?


http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/search.php?searchid=13000419

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It won't allow access unless you are a member.  What does it say?

[Dane]

Might I suggest some reading from one of the top expert witnesses in the country?



http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/search.php?searchid=13000419


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It won't allow access unless you are a member. What does it say?

A considerable amount and I recommend becoming a member. Mas Ayoob is a regular on that board and answers tons of questions about self defense shooting. His take on this subject is

Disparity of force means that even if the antagonist(s) are unarmed, the likelihood of their assault causing death or great bodily harm is so great that it warrants recourse to a per se weapon.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Guest tommy62]

My 80 year old great uncle shot and killed a man who pulled him out of his car and started beating him about a decade ago. He was cleared and then sued by the scumbag's family. The suit was dropped, but it still cost him nearly $10k in legal fees.

Edited May 23, 2013 by tommy62

[East_TN_Patriot]

Disparity of force means that even if the antagonist(s) are unarmed, the likelihood of their assault causing death or great bodily harm is so great that it warrants recourse to a per se weapon.

 

 

This is essentially what I was getting at before when I talked about the totality of the circumstances and the issue of a person with disabilities or a clear difference in strength.  It all goes back to being able to explain my use of deadly force, my decisions being justified based on the curcumstances of the situation as I understood them to be, and whether my interpretation of the situation was reasonable and in agreement with the law.  How much force is being used against you, what are the individual factors related to each combatant, what are the environmental factors, etc.?  A blanket declaration that using deadly force against someone just because you don't know how much harm they intend to inflict or *might* inadvertently inflict is liable to get a person indicted and/or sued.

 

Here is a chart that is similar to the one used by law enforcement that kind of gets to the point a bit:




Here is a diagram I use when I teach about use-of-force that drives my point home:

Edited May 23, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[RobertNashville]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I'd go a bit further, Massad will be giving a two-class at Rangemasters at the end of June...it's one of the training classes I'm taking this year.

 

http://massadayoobgroup.com/?page_id=121

[RobertNashville]

My 80 year old great uncle shot and killed a man who pulled him out of his car and started beating him about a decade ago. He was cleared and then sued by the scumbag's family. The suit was dropped, but it still cost him nearly $10k in legal fees.

Which is why I carry insurance specifically to cover the need to defend myself...today, you either need insurance or have $25-50K available as a starting point if you are involved in a SD shooting.

[Guest Emtdaddy1980]

Which is why I carry insurance specifically to cover the need to defend myself...today, you either need insurance or have $25-50K available as a starting point if you are involved in a SD shooting.

Where do you get that kind of insurance?

[dats82]

This is essentially what I was getting at before when I talked about the totality of the circumstances and the issue of a person with disabilities or a clear difference in strength.  It all goes back to being able to explain my use of deadly force, my decisions being justified based on the curcumstances of the situation as I understood them to be, and whether my interpretation of the situation was reasonable and in agreement with the law.  How much force is being used against you, what are the individual factors related to each combatant, what are the environmental factors, etc.?  A blanket declaration that using deadly force against someone just because you don't know how much harm they intend to inflict or *might* inadvertently inflict is liable to get a person indicted and/or sued.

 

 You are comparing a LEO use of deadly force with a civilians use of deadly force, and you cannot make a direct comparison of such.  First off, a LEO responds to scenes of conflict and generally does not have the option to leave.  Also, LEOs walk around with a duty belt full of other tools at your disposal.  Perhaps if we all walked around with tasers, oc spray, and batons, I would be more inclined to agree with your argument. 

 

However, I am a civilian who is not trained in hand to hand combat and do not have less than lethal options readily at my disposal, and frankly, if I am in a situation in which less than lethals were really a viable option, it would also be likely that I would be able to leave that situation.  Certainly that is the best and first option, and I cannot imagine a situation in which I would bypass such an option to stay engaged in an altercation that would follow the progression of your chart.  

[Wyldk2]

The best thing would be to avoid confrontation if at all possible. (it isn't always avoidable though).

 

May have to get pepper spray or some other less lethal option instead of having to rely on lethal force to resolve a situation. Once you go lethal, there's no turning back the clock.

 

lethal force should be a last resort, Period.

[Jonsaiga]

When it comes to his legal advice i drink the Mas Ayoob Kool-aid by the gallons. The big take away when comes to justified use of lethal force is:

 

Ability- does the person in question have the ability to cause you serious bodily harm or death? I've seen several intubated patients admitted to ICU with skull fractures and brain bleeds as a result of being punch, kicked, stomped or had their head repeatedly slammed against a hard surface.

 

Opportunity- does the person have the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm or death? I person in close proximity to you who is telling you he is going to hurt you does, the same guy across the street, on the other side of a car or fence does not.

 

Jeopardy- would the average person who knew what you knew at the time of the attack also conclude that you were in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death based on the "ability" and "opportunity" criteria? you need to be able to articulate to the LEO, Judge and Jury how and why this person met the first two criteria. How they could have caused the injury or death.... and why you knew this to be true prior to the incident( have documented proof of news stories, case reports, training records, forum discussions, etc proving you had this knowledge prior to the incident and that you are not generating this info after the fact). 

 

Massad Ayoob interview on use of force :

http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com/episode-1094-massad-ayoob-on-lethal-force-aftermath

 

Massad Ayoob video "Shoot to live":

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD5275508ABDAA09A

 

Massad Ayoob video from a class on Judicious use of force:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8F7B172EBA3C4B07

[Jonsaiga]

 

Yes, the Zimmerman case is a good example. Martin was walking down the street minding his own business when Zimmerman lost his mind and started chasing him. Zimmerman had absolutely no reason to chase Martin. He was even told that by the cops on the phone. It is reasonable that Martin was in fear of death or great bodily harm and was justified in doing whatever he felt necessary to protect himself; especially if he saw Zimmerman’s gun. Zimmerman was in a fight he started and ended it by shooting Martin to death. We will have to see if a jury puts their stamp of approval on that.

 

Zimmerman did something the average intelligent citizen would not do. No matter which way the verdict goes; he is hosed. He will probably pay for his mistake with his freedom or his life.

 

Not true..... Zimmerman was captain of neighborhood watch. He seen what he deemed to be "a suspicious person"  so he followed(observing from a distance... not chasing him) this person while on the phone with 911, first from his vehicle then on foot after losing sight of him behind some houses. As soon as 911 dispatch said "we don't need you to do that".... he said "ok", and stopped looking for him and started back to his vehicle. By Zimmerman's account... when he hung up the phone as he approached his vechicle, Martin appeared confronting him from behind and asked him if he had a problem.... Zimmerman said no, to which martin replied "you do now!" and punched him in the face knocking him to the ground. Once on the ground martin alledgedly began beating zimmerman's head into the ground repeatedly. This constitues the ability to inflict serious bodily harm and/or death and I have person seen such injuries working in the ER. Zimmerman also claims during this physical altercation martin went for zimmerman's gun which zimmerman then shot him. This would have been a clear cut open and shut case of justified self defense had the local media not played a creatively edited version of the 911 call and misleading the general public into believing this was racially motivated. The LEO's did not want to charge him, the original DA(who was immediately replaced) did not want to charge him either. This entire thing was spun by the media for the sake of creating more news.

[DaveTN]

so he followed(observing from a distance... not chasing him)

That isn’t true according to the 911 tape and Zimmerman’s statement. He was running and Zimmerman was chasing him because he thought he would get away. “Chasing”, “following”… word games.
 

The LEO's did not want to charge him, the original DA(who was immediately replaced) did not want to charge him either. This entire thing was spun by the media for the sake of creating more news.

That isn’t true either, Investigator Chris Serino wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter the night he was interviewed. The DA would not charge him. Certainly the people in the community got upset when the DA wouldn’t charge him; I would have been too. To claim this was spun by the media is ridiculous. It was a DA that did not do his job the way the people in the community thought it should be done. This was anything but a clear cut case of self-defense; this was murder.

But, we only know what was in the press. He deserves a fair trial. My point is that if you start an altercation and then end it with a gun because you are losing; you will probably go to trial. You are getting your azz kicked in a bar fight that you are a willing participant in; do you get to pull your gun and kill they guy and then claim “Oh, I work in the ER and I’ve seen people seriously injured in fights.” The jury knows that people get hurt in fights, and just like me most of them will say, “Well then you shouldn’t have been in a fight; you should have walked away.”

[Randall53]

 

It was a DA that did not do his job the way the people in the community thought it should be done.

 

A DA that does his job the way the community wants him too, rather than according to the law should be fired, not one that tries to abide by the law.  It seems to me you have already convicted a man and judged him according to what the media has said since none of us knows what the outcome will be, nor do we know all the facts in the case since we were not there and in his shoes. I know I'd hate to face a jury of 12 with the attitude you are showing. 

Edited May 23, 2013 by Randall53

[DaveTN]

A DA that does his job the way the community wants him too, rather than according to the law should be fired, not one that tries to abide by the law.  It seems to me you have already convicted a man and judged him according to what the media has said since none of us knows what the outcome will be, nor do we know all the facts in the case since we were not there and in his shoes. I know I'd hate to face a jury of 12 with the attitude you are showing.

As I have said many times; we armchair quarterback here, it is what we do. (And it’s what the courts and the lawyers do) I am not going to be on the Zimmerman jury. I have an opinion yes; so do you. Are we getting the whole story? Who knows; that’s what a trial is for.

Obviously if you were Zimmerman you wouldn’t want me on your jury. But because I can look at the evidence as presented to us and make a decision I have an “attitude”? That’s ridiculous we all have opinions.

The people of state of Florida will decide if what happened was justified. I was simply commenting on the case because it was used as an example for the question in this thread.