Fearing For Your Life Does Not Justify Deadly Force

[JettaKnight]

You are not going to get away with "I feared for my life" and leave it at that. It bothers me that people think that is all LEO's have to say to make a shoot justified.

We all know the correct phrase is, "It's coming right for us!"

[video=youtube;2AyBdfFLxx8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AyBdfFLxx8[/video]


How have I missed this epic thread all day?!

 

[rhino]

You clearly haven't followed this post. Look, this forum is free. Anyone can post. So take it or leave it. Some people actually come here to learn, to talk to others with similar interest. That's clearly not why you come here. Unlike some here that clearly just want to argue, I didn't just google this today. I actually have some experience at it. But hey, you do you. Good luck!

[STRIKE]Just to make sure I am following, do you believe there is any chance at all that you do not understand this topic, especially the language issues, as well as you think you understand?[/STRIKE]


Sorry ... subsequent postings answered my question. That information along with the time delay has rendered by inquiry . . . moot.

See? I said "moot." I could be a lawyer if I really wanted to be a lawyer!

 

[Expat]

[STRIKE]Just to make sure I am following, do you believe there is any chance at all that you do not understand this topic, especially the language issues, as well as you think you understand?[/STRIKE]


Sorry ... subsequent postings answered my question. That information along with the time delay has rendered by inquiry . . . moot.

See? I said "moot." I could be a lawyer if I really wanted to be a lawyer!

Are you using moot in the legal sense or as in really quiet?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I've had to deal with him via this forum and twitter over posting a photo of myself in a breech cloth......The cease and desist order regarded the whiteness of my thighs causing possible retina damage to one "Rhino" here on INGO.....

We settled out of court for $1 and I voluntarily agreed to keep said photo off of social media.....

I was so glad we never went to court...He was vicious....

Now I have reasonable fear of indiucky's white thighs.

The photo you sent (non-breech cloth) is in a place of honor here at the library at Stately Freeman Manor.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

[STRIKE]Just to make sure I am following, do you believe there is any chance at all that you do not understand this topic, especially the language issues, as well as you think you understand?[/STRIKE]


Sorry ... subsequent postings answered my question. That information along with the time delay has rendered by inquiry . . . moot.

See? I said "moot." I could be a lawyer if I really wanted to be a lawyer!

Sadly, I would be in charge of your character and fitness interview.

 

[KittySlayer]

See? I said "moot." I could be a lawyer if I really wanted to be a lawyer!

Moot Court
a mock court at which law students argue imaginary cases for practice

So would you be an imaginary lawyer or a practicing lawyer?

If you practice law enough do they ever let you do it for real or is it always just practice?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I'm sure Kirk will recognize the case that he was interviewed for that led to this photo.

Dude, you know I JUST came out of a stabbing trial and now you want to get me all worked up over that political crap at Purdue.

Not taking the bait . . . this time.

 

[ditcherman]

[STRIKE]Just to make sure I am following, do you believe there is any chance at all that you do not understand this topic, especially the language issues, as well as you think you understand?[/STRIKE]


Sorry ... subsequent postings answered my question. That information along with the time delay has rendered by inquiry . . . moot.

See? I said "moot." I could be a lawyer if I really wanted to be a lawyer!

Seems to me he kind of doubled down on the "is this an advertisement?" question earlier.

 

[ditcherman]

Are you suggesting saying absolutely nothing, not even a basic statement like, "This guy attacked me with a knife that slid under the car when he went down, and those 3 people over there probably saw the whole thing. I'd like to cooperate further, but I'm pretty shaken up right now. I like to sit, calm down a bit, let my wife know I'm ok, and call my attorney." Or something similar?

Just to keep beating a dead self preservation post in good INGO fashion, there was an article in the latest issue of Concealed Carry Magazine stating that you actually needed 2 nights sleep cycles to be at your clearest level to properly recall the events of a dramatic incident. It mentioned something about police unions push for this as a rule for when officers can be questioned after an incident, but as general public we will not have that luxury.
Reading CCM has basically made me just like a lawyer, I just haven't ponied up their yearly fee to get my diploma yet.

 

[indiucky]

The photo you sent (non-breech cloth) is in a place of honor here at the library at Stately Freeman Manor.

Thank you sir....

 

[JettaKnight]

Just to keep beating a dead self preservation post in good INGO fashion, there was an article in the latest issue of Concealed Carry Magazine stating that you actually needed 2 nights sleep cycles to be at your clearest level to properly recall the events of a dramatic incident. It mentioned something about police unions push for this as a rule for when officers can be questioned after an incident, but as general public we will not have that luxury.
Reading CCM has basically made me just like a lawyer, I just haven't ponied up their yearly fee to get my diploma yet.

2 nights? That seems like plenty of time for memories to distort... not saying it's not right, just that it doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I need to find that article.

 

[Denny347]

2 nights? That seems like plenty of time for memories to distort... not saying it's not right, just that it doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I need to find that article.

https://www.forcescience.org/?s=memory

 

[JettaKnight]

https://www.forcescience.org/?s=memory

There goes my afternoon...

 

[ditcherman]

2 nights? That seems like plenty of time for memories to distort... not saying it's not right, just that it doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I need to find that article.

It surprised me as well, but I just glossed over it as I didn’t realized my ‘practice’ attorney skills would take me this direction. I suppose all directions are possible here. Maybe at once.

 

[Selfpreservation]

[STRIKE]Just to make sure I am following, do you believe there is any chance at all that you do not understand this topic, especially the language issues, as well as you think you understand?[/STRIKE]


Sorry ... subsequent postings answered my question. That information along with the time delay has rendered by inquiry . . . moot.


See? I said "moot." I could be a lawyer if I really wanted to be a lawyer!

Interesting article related to this thread about ability, opportunity and jeopardy..aka intent. What was that you mentioned about staying in your lane?\

https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/preclusion-the-legal-concept-you-must-understand

 

[Dead Duck]

I appreciate your effort but like my last cellmate said....
When in doubt, keep shooting.

 

[JettaKnight]

Interesting article related to this thread about ability, opportunity and jeopardy..aka intent. What was that you mentioned about staying in your lane?\

https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/preclusion-the-legal-concept-you-must-understand

Greg's article is interesting in that seems to say that a reasonable fear is a component (at least) in a legal defense, which seems to go against your fear of the word "fear", I fear.

Just because you tell someone that you are in fear for your life doesn’t mean that your fear is legally reasonable.

 

[T.Lex]

Interesting article related to this thread about ability, opportunity and jeopardy..aka intent. What was that you mentioned about staying in your lane?\

https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/preclusion-the-legal-concept-you-must-understand

State laws on self defense are so varied that there's little value (IMHO) of speaking in generalities like that article does. There are some concepts that just don't apply in Indiana.

While his 3 prongs are different from yours (by 1 prong), the whole thing (in Indiana) feels like an unnecessary framework. Perhaps worse, there are real life scenarios for which it provides a poor analytical methodology.

 

[Amishman44]

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

One being 'in-fear-for-their-life' can be interpreted in many ways, but the point being in a viable self-defense situation, there must also be 'mode' (example, a weapon present) and 'opportunity' or 'intent' which can include things such as proximity, 'visual-intent' (such as weapon raised or held in a an aggressive or threatening manner), etc.

On the flip-side, it may not be 'fear' that is the issue, but rather the visible-intent of the aggressor that justifies the response.

Proximity (for situations that are 'other' than a firearm) is also a consideration.

We've taught our daughter that an individual yelling at her from across a parking lot is, most-likely, not an imminent threat as she has the ability to egress the area, get into her car, etc...i.e., she still has several options that will work to de-escalate a situation.

However, if she's confronted by an (obvious) aggressor, who's quickly approaching her where she doesn't have opportunity to de-escalate or egress the area, that's a completely different scenario as her options have very quickly changed.

It's always been amazing to me to watch how the courts, along with those involved with the courts, can often change the scenario, after-the-fact, and somehow (after months of analysis) come up with an alternative response that is somehow 'better' than the one made in the split-second decision-making window that the defendant had available to them (and after the defendant had probably developed a bit of 'tunnel-vision' in focusing on the imminent situation at hand) and then try to hold the defendant accountable to the 'new' response rather than give understanding to the situation as it happened!

 

[Amishman44]

2 nights? That seems like plenty of time for memories to distort... not saying it's not right, just that it doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I need to find that article.

You'd be amazing the amount of details that come flooding back after the 24-36-48 hour time period...
it does actually take that much time for the body (specifically the brain, nerves, muscles, one's overall mental-perspective, etc.) to calm down, relax, and be restored back to a 'normal' state after such a highly-intensive situation.
Until one experiences it, it's difficult to actually comprehend or truly understand...