Fearing For Your Life Does Not Justify Deadly Force

[Selfpreservation]

A lot of people in both private sector and law enforcement have a misconception that being in fear for their life is all they need to justify using deadly force. Fear is an emotion and does not legally justify using deadly force.



For example, I could have a deadly fear of women who wear blue. A fear that in my mind is as real as her shooting me. Without any other contributing factors giving her the ability, opportunity & intent to cause serious bodily injury or harm myself or a third party, I cannot use deadly force.

On the other hand, I may have zero fear but if she possesses the ability, opportunity & intent to cause serious bodily injury or death, then I can use deadly force.

I am posting this here because it is a topic that comes up in the private and law enforcement classes I teach and one that is often misunderstood. I hope this helps.

Stay safe!

Jeff

 

[dieselmudder]

Oh man, there's that diabolical word, intent.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

 

[T.Lex]

The word you're looking for is "reasonable." Generally, it must be a "reasonable" fear.

Women who wear blue would not "reasonably" cause fear. (Unless she's a redhead.)

Those other things you mention are generally factors to determine if the fear was reasonable.

 

[HoughMade]

A lot of people in both private sector and law enforcement have a misconception that being in fear for their life is all they need to justify using deadly force. Fear is an emotion and does not legally justify using deadly force.

Actually, it may.

For example, I could have a deadly fear of women who wear blue. A fear that in my mind is as real as her shooting me.

Without any other contributing factors giving her the ability, opportunity & intent to cause serious bodily injury or harm myself or a third party, I cannot use deadly force.

On the other hand, I may have zero fear but if she possesses the ability, opportunity & intent to cause serious bodily injury or death, then I can use deadly force.

Um....you're almost there. Not quite.

 

[Selfpreservation]

Oh man, there's that diabolical word, intent.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

Haha..a pesky annoyance but important nonetheless.

 

[Selfpreservation]

Actually, it may.


[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]

Um....you're almost there. Not quite.[/QUOTE

Feel free to elaborate.

 

[HoughMade]

Actually, it may.

Um....you're almost there. Not quite.

Feel free to elaborate.

Sure.

As to "fear" a reasonable fear (as T.Lex pointed out) of imminent death or serious bodily injury still involves emotion, but the emotion has to be a reasonable one based upon all circumstances and not simply a subjective fear.

As to intent. Actual intent is not an element. Are you saying that if a person robs you pointing an unloaded gun at you then you cannot use deadly force? Obviously, if the person intentionally used an unloaded gun, he had no actual INTENT to cause injury or harm. What if the gun is loaded, but he has decided to not shoot you? No intent to cause injury or harm. If intent of the person with then gun is an element and he has no intent, then under your analysis, you cannot use deadly force.

...but under the law, you can. Why? Intent is not an element.

The question is not what that person intend but whether they took actions that put you in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. If they take such actions, what their intent was is irrelevant to a self-defense analysis.

 

[cosermann]

Reasonable fear vs. abject/unreasonable fear.

Makes a difference

 

[Selfpreservation]

My reponses in bold.

Sure.

As to "fear" a reasonable fear (as T.Lex pointed out) of imminent death or serious bodily injury still involves emotion, but the emotion has to be a reasonable one based upon all circumstances and not simply a subjective fear.

As to intent. Actual intent is not an element. Are you saying that if a person robs you pointing an unloaded gun at you then you cannot use deadly force? Obviously, if the person intentionally used an unloaded gun, he had no actual INTENT to cause injury or harm. What if the gun is loaded, but he has decided to not shoot you? No intent to cause injury or harm. If intent of the person with then gun is an element and he has no intent, then under your analysis, you cannot use deadly force.

...but under the law, you can. Why? Intent is not an element.

The question is not what that person intend but whether they took actions that put you in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury. If they take such actions, what their intent was is irrelevant to a self-defense analysis.

Fear is irrelevant. Reasonablness comes into play with the victim's perception of ability, opportunity and intent and their response. I can reasonably assume they possess all three with no fear whatsoever.

As long as the intent is implied or stated, whether they actually meant it is irrelevant (in Indiana). If the bad guy implies or states he/she will shoot you, it's the same legally whether he/she meant it or not. It's what allows an individual to use deadly force when a bad guy uses an airsoft or unloaded gun to rob someone. As long as a reasonable person would believe based on the totality of the circumstances that the bad guy has the intent to shoot them, then they can use deadly force. Fear has nothing to do with it. Intent (implied or real) does.

 

[chezuki]

I “fear” we are being baited into a semantics argument....

 

[T.Lex]

Ok. This is now moving away from educational into the realm of entertaining.

Hough - your move.

 

[Selfpreservation]

I “fear” we are being baited into a semantics argument....

Could be, but I generally try to ignore baiting. However, I will have discussions, especially with use of force law as it is often not taught in self-defense classes.

"Fear" being one of the most incorrectly used, taught and marketed words by instructors, attorneys and concealed carry insurance providers nation wide.

 

[HoughMade]

I will grant that the word "belief" or "believes" is a better word than "fear" as that would reflect the statute, but the intent of the "attacker" is irrelevant. I person could even be playing a joke or be taking actions that he has no idea could cause the other to believe that he is a threat, and self-defense could still be justified. Let's keep it simple.

I would note that courts somewhat regularly use the word "fear", even though it is not in the statute. The idea is that the person believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and you could call it fear or belief...the cases call it either.

I am interested in reading a case that states that the intent, actual, implied or otherwise, is an element of a self-defense claim.

 

[printcraft]

Well the popular opinion in washington dc holds that if you didn't intend to break the law it's all good in the hood.

 

[Coach]

There has to be a legimate threat, or the person must have reasonably concluded that there was a threat of death, injury or great bodily harm.

 

[Selfpreservation]

I will grant that the word "belief" or "believes" is a better word than "fear" as that would reflect the statute, but the intent of the "attacker" is irrelevant. I person could even be playing a joke or be taking actions that he has no idea could cause the other to believe that he is a threat, and self-defense could still be justified. Let's keep it simple.

Only the "victim" has to believe the intent is there and real. They have to be able to articulate it, regardless of their fear.

I would note that courts somewhat regularly use the word "fear", even though it is not in the statute. The idea is that the person believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury and you could call it fear or belief...the cases call it either.

Yes they have. However, it isn't the fear that clears or sends a victim to prison for using deadly force, it's the ability, opportunity and intent displayed by the bad guy, whether his/her intent was real or not and the reasonablness of the victims response.

I am interested in reading a case that states that the intent, actual, implied or otherwise, is an element of a self-defense claim.

Someone mentioned semantics. When discussing this topic, that can play a part. My intent is to educate those new to self-defense and use of force. I have had numerous students who, when they came to me, had been taught to just say they feared for their life and not talk to the police. That's bad advice.

If I have had multiple students come to me without understanding how "fear" plays into this, there are going to be others that may come to this forum.

Good discussion!

 

[Selfpreservation]

Well the popular opinion in washington dc holds that if you didn't intend to break the law it's all good in the hood.

Haha.

 

[T.Lex]

There has to be a legimate threat, or the person must have reasonably concluded that there was a threat of death, injury or great bodily harm.

Out of respect for you, I will simply point out that the legitimacy of the threat is not part of the legal analysis in Indiana. That is, whether the person threatening could carry through on the threat doesn't really matter.

The last portion of your statement is absolutely true. The person claiming self defense must have reasonably believed in imminent death or serious bodily injury.

 

[Selfpreservation]

There has to be a legimate threat, or the person must have reasonably concluded that there was a threat of death, injury or great bodily harm.

This guy gets it!

 

[cosermann]

When people ask me for thoughts, I tell them to start by reading The Law of Self-Defense (Branca) [1], and Deadly Force (Ayoob) [2] for general principles, and then seek out state-specific answers via a local class or attorney.

[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Law-Self-Def...defense+ayoob&qid=1551810771&s=gateway&sr=8-1
[2] - https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Force...defense+ayoob&qid=1551810771&s=gateway&sr=8-2