Recent IN court of appeals decision in self-defense case

[SemperFiUSMC]

In the story the person was acting very aggressive, going to get very physical, cause great bodily harm, hence a "beat down", that was what I as talking about!

What if you draw and they back down? Shoot anyway? No! There is a major decision you have to make even fearing for your life!

It happened to me about 15 years ago. I didn't start it, I didn't cause it, but two guys thought it would be fun to give me a "beat-down" until they saw that it would be better to find someone easier to have fun with!!! I was prepared to fire, but I didn't. I thank God that I didn't have to fire(hope I never do).

I am to old to take a beating and much to young to die!

I hear your last sentence. I'm in the same club.

Finity could not have explained it better (+1 and repped). I'll restate it. If I am looking at someone and draw a weapon, I have already decided to kill them. If they live it is because I chose to allow them to.

I think what Semperfi is saying is that if you're to the point of drawing in a "I need it right NOW!" situation then you better be planning to shoot "right NOW!".

If your plan is to draw & THEN decide whether to shoot after you see what their reaction to your draw is then YOU WILL LOSE if they decide to keep coming.

Action always beats reaction.

It's way safer for you to decide to shoot when you draw UNLESS you have a reason to believe they HAVE broken off the attack than it is to to decide to wait to shoot after you draw unless you have a reason to believe they HAVEN'T broken off the attack.

I hope you can see the small but hugely important distinction.

That is distinctly different from drawing in preparation for something that MIGHT be unfolding in which a gun would be needed. In that case no one is saying to shoot as soon as you draw it since you will probably have time to assess the situation first.

 

[hbarnett1]

People have been killed by someone elses hands only for since the time of man began.....

 

[j706]

If they believed that this was a clear case of self-defense they would have throw out the charges. What they are saying is that a person can tell a jury that they shouldn't have to "take a beating" and let the jury decide based on all the facts. I hope everyone here has a spare $50K+ laying around to defend against a murder charge at a jury trial:

"Following a jury trial, Appellant-Defendant Larry Ault was convicted of Murder, a felony,1 and sentenced to fifty-five years in the Department of Correction. Upon appeal, Ault claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying him a jury instruction on self-defense, forcing him to testify in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. Concluding that there was sufficient evidence, without Ault‟s testimony, to support a jury instruction on self-defense, we reverse and remand for a new trial."



What if the jury in the new case still convicts him of murder? Will you still post this case as a response?

Correct on all counts. No civilized country will tolerate the shooting of a person by mere words only. This ole boy is going to prison make no mistake about it. And he should be IMO.

 

[finity]

Correct on all counts. No civilized country will tolerate the shooting of a person by mere words only. This ole boy is going to prison make no mistake about it. And he should be IMO.

So at what point does "just words" translate into a REAL threat of injury?

When do you think we should be allowed to act in self-defense, when you're already injured or dead? I don't know about you but I'm not waiting until I'm on the ground at their mercy before I defend myself.

Weren't you the one who said a while ago in a different thread that if you saw a gun on a traffic stop that you weren't told about that you would have your gun screwed into their ear?

That's civilized but someone taking action to protect themselves from a REAL viable threat of bodily harm isn't?