MP-Pistol Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
879 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
A guy, thug, whatever approaches you and with a hand in his pocket says, "give me your wallet or I'll kill you". You can see a bulge like a barrel poking inside the pocket.

You fire.

It turns out it is just his finger, are you in trouble? I’m in FL, the “stand your ground/castle doctrine” state.

Any opinions, or comments in general?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
"Officer, I believe I was in imminent danger of Death or great bodily harm." That's all till you get a lawyer. From NC, a new castle doctrine state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
I have seen a lot of commentary and I wish I could remember where it was, stating that you do not have to be right... just reasonable. I could be providing you with false hope so tread lightly but the story was about a young lady who shot through her door and killed what she believed was an intruder trying to break down her door. Turned out to be a drunk neighbor trying to get into the wrong house without his keys late at night. Might have read it on MSW under one of the law articles but I honestly am not sure. Otherwise damn straight I would say over and over again what SpinyNorman said until I could get a lawyer to give advice and help with the scenario.

Great topic on Pistol Forum discussing lethal force and display of a weapon as a deterrent. I'll dredge it up and send you a PM over the next couple days. Might be worth your time to read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,593 Posts
If anyone threatens me for whatever reason, telling me they'll kill me if I don't comply, and leads me to believe they're pointing a gun at me; I'm taking them out; RTRN.

The authorities can sort things out later based on the best available information they have (my testimony); but I'll be going home to my family.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
140 Posts
Bank robbers do this....the implied threat....hand in pocket....they get the money and run....then the dye pack explodes after they exit the bank.

In the original post, the threat of death for non-compliance is stated. In your mind you had the justification for the shooting...self-defense. But in this day of "media justice" it is hard to say what would happen when the story hits the press. Lawyer up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,555 Posts
Quote: "give me your wallet or I'll kill you"

That's all I need. He's getting shot until he's down. Then I'll "try to keep him alive" until the paramedics/police arrive.

Now were was that cell phone? Hey, I got a text message! What's going on on Facebook? Anything good in the news feeds? OH... WAIT... I was going to dial 911!

What's the number for 911 again?

JW
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
In today's society a person that defends himself/herself with a pistol is often considered guilty until proven innocent. That's why there are a lot of companies providing coverage for people that have to defend themselves. In some places, if you pull your weapon, whether you shoot or not, you will be arrested and then will have to hire a lawyer to prove you feared for your life. However, a person can't let the fear of prosecution keep them from protecting one's self. The choice is get injured or killed or injure or kill someone else and then face the expense of proving the shooting was justified or possibly going to prison. Whether or not one chooses to pay for insurance is a personal matter but it may not be a bad idea today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
If they're in my home, no questions asked they're going down. If I'm on the street during daytime and someone says they're going to kill me, I'm drawing and waiting for a lethal weapon to be presented before I shoot. In the darkness of night when I can't see their hands, im not taking a chance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
879 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Thanks all, hopefully I'll never have to make the decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
212 Posts
The standard is "reasonable fear". If they successfully trick you into believing they are an imminent lethal threat you are justified in defending yourself with lethal force.

Unfortunately, actually being justified and convincing others (police, prosecutor, jury, media, friends, family, etc.) that you were justified are not necessarily the same thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
879 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
There lies the problem......

The standard is "reasonable fear". If they successfully trick you into believing they are an imminent lethal threat you are justified in defending yourself with lethal force.

Unfortunately, actually being justified and convincing others (police, prosecutor, jury, media, friends, family, etc.) that you were justified are not necessarily the same thing.
I have 4 different companies on my desk, haven't acted yet. I think that's what I'm gonna do. Who are you using might I ask?

I agree but this is why I carry insurance. If I ever have to draw and shoot, I can at least have someone defend me that knows how to defend gun owners.

~$100 a year.

LOL

From a Canadian ....

Stop or I'll say stop again! Please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,555 Posts
It turns out it is just his finger, are you in trouble? I’m in FL, the “castle doctrine” state.

Any opinions, or comments in general?
"The Castle Doctrine" only applies inside your home (or car) in Florida.

Your right to shoot in the street is called the "Stand Your Ground" law. You can research the actual verbiage here:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27; s. 6, ch. 2014-195.


Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
879 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Thanks Jeff, I caught that after the fact, but didn't correct it. I'll do it now.

Chuck

"The Castle Doctrine" only applies inside your home (or car) in Florida.

Your right to shoot in the street is called the "Stand Your Ground" law. You can research the actual verbiage here:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.–(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.–s. 4, ch. 2005-27; s. 6, ch. 2014-195.


Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
You may have to convince a jury that he actually said those things and that you believed it when he said it and were truly in fear for your life.

If they don't believe you, you are in deep doo doo.

In the circumstances you describe, you shot an unarmed man andI hope you either have witnesses or your lawyer is F. Lee Bailey.

P.S. Don't shoot someone because you can, shoot them because you have no other choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Here in Ohio we have Castle doctrine which like Florida extends to your car or a relatives.. If it's a friends car, better step out and start walking.Unless a weapon is actually pulled and then they have what is called duty to retreat if it can be done safely. Here, when I took my CHL class they stressed the "Reasonable Person" term. Which means just because YOU say or even feel that your life was in danger doesnt cut it necessarily. It has to meet what a reasonable person would think/feel.

That being said, here and I guess everywhere that has any kind of self defense laws, 3things have to be present for it to be considered a good self defense shoot.

First they have to have intent. Someone saying I'm going to kill you doesn't necessarily meet intent. For example: If someone is across the street yelling I am going to kill you and all they have is a ball bat or a knife, unless they start advancing towards you it's going to be hard to prove intent as well as the next condition which is means.

Second is means to do grave bodily harm or cause death: As I said above if they are across the street with anything less than a firearm or bow and arrow etc. Then means won't apply. Now if they have a gun, then means is there, and I would say most reasonable folks would agree intent was present as well.

The third condition is opportunity: If someone says I'm going to kill you but then gets in a car and leaves,you can't start shooting at the car. And you cant shoot them the next day either lol

So here they teach those three conditions have to be present for self defense to be a defense... Folks really need to check out their local laws as well as other states laws if you are going to be traveling and carrying in those states. It's easy to get jammed up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
If they're in my home, no questions asked they're going down. If I'm on the street during daytime and someone says they're going to kill me, I'm drawing and waiting for a lethal weapon to be presented before I shoot. In the darkness of night when I can't see their hands, im not taking a chance.
In my opinion this (hesitation) is where people get themselves hurt. The moment you draw a weapon you are now the threat, and the lethal weapon my never present itself, but rather be fired through his pocket. Or worse your own weapon taken and used against you.

I personally would never draw as a deterrent. I carry with one in the chamber and no safety for a reason. If I am in such a bad spot that I feel I must draw then I will fire.

My son (who is LEO and former USMC) and I debate this often, as his training allows him to pull a weapon as a show of force and for detainment. Where as my training is purely defensive and has no other purpose than to eliminate the immediate threat.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top