armed-an-rdy
Banned
bodily harm
y yes defend yourself,however being throw to the ground does not justify deadly force
CCW'er Defends Himself at Walmart (N Las Vegas)
- Thread starter Lowjiber
- Start date
- Status
CalicoJack10
New member
OK, I agree that I should have been more clear about what I was intending to say. I should have put the qualifier "Far Too Many" in there when I posted that. It is just a matter of opinion on my part, but I believe that 7.25% is far too large of a number for Pro Gunners to vote No. I apologize for not clarifying and making a better statement.
But aside from that I hope that my thoughts were well received, and made sense.
Treo
Bullet Proof
How do you figure? If you've already thrown me to the ground what is to stop you stomping my head in? What is to stop you kicking a rib through my lung?
I'm too old to get into a fist fight w/ a younger opponent, I am not willing to take the risk of a crushed eye socket or deviated septum or brain damage.
Google one punch homocide then get back to me
being thrown to the ground can cause severe injuries and even death. a friend of mine was accosted thrown to the ground which resulted in 3 surgeries to repair the damage to her leg. the doctor said her injuries could have been life-threatening if help had not come as soon as it did. if put in that situation i will use my gun to stop the threat because i would believe my life to be threatened.
armed-an-rdy
Banned
do u own a gun
throwing some one to the ground is not deadly force the police throw bad guys to the ground all the time. i have a ccw and study the penal code, you sound as if you wished you had a gun.:sarcastic:
throwing some one to the ground is not deadly force the police throw bad guys to the ground all the time. i have a ccw and study the penal code, you sound as if you wished you had a gun.:sarcastic:
Treo
Bullet Proof
The police have rules of engagement criminals do not. Knock me to the ground in a fight and I am going to draw
ClearSightTactical
New member
You study the penal code, eh? I'll leave that alone. Each state has their own statutes and procedures. Its not wise to make such generalizations. If a teenager throws a 70 year old man who uses a walking device (cane, etc) to the ground and continues the attack is this not potentially deadly for the man?
I can think of multiple situations where I believe a person would be justified in using deadly force after being thrown to the ground. Especially if the attack continues, and especially if disparity of force exists.
Here is the result of being thrown to the ground (albeit by multiple people estimated around 15 by witnesses). I have no doubt I would've been killed if not for my duty partner and police officers getting there on time (imagine that). Broken sinus bone which luckily healed on its own. Torn muscles all over body, had my ankle stomped, I was wearing a vest and had boot prints all over me including my torso, I had bruised and sore ribs which may well would have been broken if not for the vest. I speak with some experience on the subject that once you go to the ground anything can happen. To answer you next question NO I did not shoot. While being kicked in the head I could not see, at last count my partner was next to me I did not want to fire and end up hitting my partner, also felt that if I drew my weapon could have been taken from me and used against my partner and other innocents.Then I was knocked out by what witnesses believe was 45-60 seconds after hitting the ground (ya, I was trying to get up...didn't work well) when one person connected solidly with their heal on the right side of my face, knocking my head into the ground.
Link Removed
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Practice, Practice, Practice.
regarding armed-an-rdy comment that it sounded like i wished i had a gun, i dont wish, i own and carry one. i have spent days in class and on the range when i went to the peace officers acadamy. i practice frequently and always try to do better. i have had to use my gun a few times but i always have preferred to walk away when possible, but sometimes it is not feasible. after being thrown to the ground it is simply not feasible to back away and i will be damned if i do not use my gun to defend myself. the assailent could still have a concealed gun or knife. steeled-toe boots and fists can cause much damage or death. i realize that there may be consequences depending on the state you live in but the key word here is LIVE. and i intend to keep doing so.
armed-an-rdy
Banned
jail
and then ill call the police and have you arrested for thratening me with a gun. i forgot the legal term
and then ill call the police and have you arrested for thratening me with a gun. i forgot the legal term
armed-an-rdy
Banned
waaaaah
i do study the penal code in my state. why is it that a strong person throws down a much weaker person. why cant it be just 2 able people.why is it always david vs the giant (i forgot the name).sorry you were hurt . but it seems you were in a fight. not just being throw to the ground.....lets be safe out there
i do study the penal code in my state. why is it that a strong person throws down a much weaker person. why cant it be just 2 able people.why is it always david vs the giant (i forgot the name).sorry you were hurt . but it seems you were in a fight. not just being throw to the ground.....lets be safe out there
armed-an-rdy
Banned
good point
however, you still are not legally able to draw your weapon when you are simply throw to the ground, read your penal code and get back to me
however, you still are not legally able to draw your weapon when you are simply throw to the ground, read your penal code and get back to me
CalicoJack10
New member
natural inatics
Well, my penal code says this:
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
And that sounds to me like if someone throws me to the ground I have a reason to fear for my life. I am 6'3", and 245, so if I hit the ground at the will of someone attacking me, they are obviously not going to let me have the chance to get back up and fight back, or even run away. So you can bet your a** I am going to draw and given a reason I will dump a round or 2 into the part of their body that will make them stop attacking the fastest.
I agree with TREO, there is far too much chance that when someone knocks you down, they are going to make it a point not to let you back up. So the only reasonable way to view this is that the attacker intends to cause great bodily harm or death.
Well, my penal code says this:
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
And that sounds to me like if someone throws me to the ground I have a reason to fear for my life. I am 6'3", and 245, so if I hit the ground at the will of someone attacking me, they are obviously not going to let me have the chance to get back up and fight back, or even run away. So you can bet your a** I am going to draw and given a reason I will dump a round or 2 into the part of their body that will make them stop attacking the fastest.
I agree with TREO, there is far too much chance that when someone knocks you down, they are going to make it a point not to let you back up. So the only reasonable way to view this is that the attacker intends to cause great bodily harm or death.
ClearSightTactical
New member
Your mind is already made up, even though you are entirely incorrect. A person is allowed to defend themselves with any means up to and including deadly force if they believe they are in immanent jeopardy of great bodily injury or death. Great bodily injury is interpreted by many subject matter experts to include permanent disfigurement.
Now I'm not saying a person is automatically justified when they hit the ground, I'm just disagreeing with your absolutist 100% of the time its not justified.
At least in SC, presumption of imminent threat of great bodily injury or death is the prerequisite. No comments about how that presumption is determined--that is in the mind of the CC person. Of course, the CC better be darn sure that his instincts are terrifying enough to convince authorities that the presumption was there. Somehow, before being thrown to the ground, you had better have had a chance to avoid the confrontation, to yell and scream that you are not interested in a confrontation (that helps get witnesses within earshot), and an understanding that the other party either has a potentially deadly weapon on himself or is obviously in a position to impose himself on you in a deadly fashion---all of this adds up to a legitimate presumption on your part. Easy to say in words, not so sure about the real thing. Situational awareness is still numero uno in my book--you do things that very much minimize any potential confrontation of any kind, all the time.
Treo
Bullet Proof
I would think the legal term would be justifiable self defense. And I promise that if you didn't make some positive life changes between the time I cleared leather and the time I lined up my sights you wouldn't be calling anybody
armed-an-rdy
Banned
like i said
i like the part that says (the actor may not intentionally which is intended or likely to cause death
i like the part that says (the actor may not intentionally which is intended or likely to cause death
armed-an-rdy
Banned
armed-an-rdy
Banned
yourfunny
let me finish that for you shall i. and when the police come and you tell them i thown you to the ground thats why you shot me. wellboth go to jail and ill get out before ,if i survive the shot.
let me finish that for you shall i. and when the police come and you tell them i thown you to the ground thats why you shot me. wellboth go to jail and ill get out before ,if i survive the shot.
armed-an-rdy said i should check the penel code. i did. i also checked with a judge,a prosecutor.,several leo i know,a crimminal defence lawyer, and they were in total agreement that being thrown to the ground by an assailent is grounds for drawing your gun and using it to defend yourself against 'great bodily harm or death'. after reading the applicable statutes and listening to these individuals expertise i am forced to conclude that armed-an-rdy's information is wrong for the state in which i live. perhaps he lives in a state that has different laws. i also would bet that most states would say it was justifiable. i choose to agree with the judge,the prosecutor,the lawyer,the leo's,the applicable statutes,as well as common sense that i would be justified using deadly force. to armed-an-rdy lets move on. most of the people who have commented agree with me. this could be debated forever so lets just agree to disagree. your mind is made up so lets drop it. good luck
- Status
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 0
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.