When is it justifiable to shoot an unarmed person?

[scarystuffyo]

Is it ever justifiable to pull out a gun and shoot an unarmed person?

If it is what would a reason be?



,

[TerrapinFlyer]

1. Never.

If you have a gun, and the other person doesn't -- only shoot if they try to attack you. Even if they run away.. you can catch them tomorrow.

[oneshooter]

61. You contradict yourself.

Question "Is it ever justifiable to pull out a gun and shoot an unarmed person?"

Your first answer "Never"

Your second answer " only shoot if they try to attack you."

Which answer is it?

[TerrapinFlyer]

70. How many times have you seen an umarmed person attack a guy with a gun?

Never.

[oneshooter]

78. If the firearm is concealed then yes it has happened.

Last year in, I believe, Dallas Tx. A CHL holder was attacked and severely beaten by a unarmed man.

That does not change that you posted two answers that are opposed to each other.

[TerrapinFlyer]

79. If it will make you feel better, go shoot your gun.

I don't debate with gun nuts.

[oneshooter]

86. So give up and run away. n/t

[Oktober]

99. Several...

Next...

[elleng]

2. Under very limited circumstances,

when one justifiably fears for one's life, like if the unarmed person is very strong and rushing toward one in a threatening way.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. A couple of obvious situations where it's potentially justifiable.

1) To stop someone beating someone else severely - "unarmed" absolutely does not mean "not dangerous".
2) To stop serious criminals escaping.

[Comrade Grumpy]

8. I think (and hope) you're wrong about #2.

I don't think it's legal to kill someone merely for trying to escape. Only if he constitutes an immediate threat.

[aikoaiko]

12. Serious Answer: Its legal in Texas under certain conditions.

States vary on justification criteria.

[Vattel]

48. no, SCOTUS has ruled there must be an immediate threat. States cannot depart from that standard.

[GGJohn]

51. I don't believe that's correct.

Do you have a link to the SCOTUS decision?
AFAIK, each state sets it's own threshold for the use of deadly force.

[Vattel]

56. It is the standard for the government (police, FBI, DEA, etc).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1

to be more precise there must be probable cause that the suspect poses an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury

[GGJohn]

58. That's for Federal Cops, but each state is free to set it's own self defense policies for civilians.

The SCOTUS has never ruled what's legal vs. illegal for civilian self defense for the individual states.

[Vattel]

62. you are half right.

As I suggested, the standard set by Tennessee v Garner applies only to law enforcement officers. But you are mistaken to think it applies only to federal law enforcement officers. It is a fourth amendment standard and so applies to state and local law enforcement no less than federal law enforcement.

[GGJohn]

52. In TX, it is legal to shoot a fleeing burglary suspect after dark,

why after dark? Beats the hell out of me.

[aikoaiko]

53. That's interesting. When was that.

This case is fairly recent.

http://nation.time.com/2013/06/13/when-you-can-kill-in-texas/

On Christmas Eve in 2009, Ezekiel Gilbert paid an escort he found on Craigslist $150 for what he thought would be sex. Instead, according to the San Antonio Express-News, 23-year-old Lenora Frago left his apartment after about 20 minutes without consummating the act. Gilbert, now 30, followed her to a car with a gun and shot her in the neck through the passenger-side window. Frago became paralyzed, and died about seven months later. Gilbert admitted to shooting her but contended that he did not intend to kill.

Gilbert was tried for murder. Last Wednesday, a Texas jury ruled that his actions were legal. That’s because Texas penal code contains an unusual provision that grants citizens the right to use deadly force to prevent someone “who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property.”

[Vattel]

57. my bad, the standard I stated applies to police officers, not private citizens

[GGJohn]

13. An armed, fleeing felon?

I know police can shoot, not sure about a civilian whose life isn't in immediate danger, I know I wouldn't, that's for the cops to deal with.

[tabasco]

35. A dangerous felon

not a pot grower.

[GGJohn]

41. I agree, a real dangerous felon, not someone providing a service.

[oneshooter]

66. It would depend on if the pot grower was armed. n/t

[tabasco]

138. Wrong. n/t

[joeglow3]

14. Depends. I think it is justified if a child rapist is running away.

I would rather the POS be dead than risk them escaping and torturing more children.

[whatthehey]

120. There are many many escapees who kill again

There are many who escape from prison, let alone from attempted capture beforehand.

Preventing harm is important.

[orpupilofnature57]

4. A policeman thinking you have a weapon, to both questions .

[scarystuffyo]

5. Many times they have been wrong on that

[orpupilofnature57]

29. Many Many times, but hardly ever prosecuted, or punished..

Believe me , I see it as a real danger having people with that kind of power .

[el_bryanto]

6. That's an interesting response - but that has led to a lot of people getting shot who were largely

innocent. Do you think that's just the price of doing business? Doesn't seem like it's working out very well these days.

I personally would agree with the two directly above - only when they are really threatening someone even without a weapon or if they are a dangerous criminal fleeing.

[orpupilofnature57]

27. NO! NO! I'M SAYING THE BAR FOR A POLICEMAN IS TOO LOW

As far as policeman held responsible for shooting unarmed people, the number is minute .

[unblock]

20. "thinking" is not enough, even officially

at the very least, it has to be a reasonable person test, i.e., that a "reasonable person" would think the other person had a weapon and that they were about to commit a major violent felony.

personally, i think that might be about right for people who come to the scene unarmed by them find themselves armed.

however, anyone who arrives at the scene armed has a responsibility to get it right.

owning a gun, bringing it to a scene, and using means you don't get to say "oops" at someone else's expense.

[orpupilofnature57]

33. My point is Policemen seem to be exempt in most cases, and sometimes obviously skewed citizens too .

[unblock]

100. and my point is that as experts and keepers of the peace, their standard should be higher

[orpupilofnature57]

101. Agreed

[flamin lib]

7. When ya has a gun and yer skeerd. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. And for good measure ...

when the person askeerdin you is Black.

[ProfessorGAC]

134. Well Leave It To You To Go All Occam's Razor On Us

I'm surprised it took so long for someone to state something as obvious as that. Glad you showed up and said what needed to be said.

"Of course, since everyone is afraid of black men, it must be ok to shoot them."

We've discussed two major, high profile events like that in the last year or so. How much trouble did the shooters really end up in? And one of them WAS NOT A COP. Just some yahoo with a gun.

[1StrongBlackMan]

135. It, clearly, must not be all that obvious ...

read DU.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

119. Over 90% of violent sexual assaults are perpetrated by an unarmed attacker.

[aikoaiko]

9. yes, if someone threatens death or serious injury and has the means.

Each state has criteria (sometimes with subtle differences) for making judgments.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

42. Isn't this discussion in the wrong place?

[linuxman]

10. Simple.

To stop an imminent and serious physical threat to yourself or another.

[abelenkpe]

11. Thou shall not kill

[Mosby]

15. The sixth commandment in the original hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder"

Just one of many mistranslations in the Christian bible.

[NutmegYankee]

24. The mistranslation comes from the King James 1611 version.

The 1611 version is among the worst translations ever of the Bible.

[KingCharlemagne]

31. It may be a bad 'translation,' as these things go, but it is some mighty

beautiful English prose and poetry. (Little shout-out to fans of Jacobean England

[NutmegYankee]

39. It is beautiful.

But the bad translation combines with a form of English that many modern readers don't really understand, so they take away the wrong interpretation.

[whatthehey]

122. no it's not

the word "ratsach" literally meaning "tear apart" appears in the OT itself in cases of killings by animals, in war, and even justifiable killing of an assailant.

[Mosby]

124. The word for "kill" in hebrew is "harag"

לֹא תִרְצָח translates as "Do not murder".

Kill in hebrew is הָרַג

[whatthehey]

128. actually there are many, as in most languages. Here are the uses of ratsach in the OT

Num 35:27 it is used for both the killing and the execution with impunity
Num 35:30 again a legal execution
Pro 22:13 it is used to describe being killed by a lion
Hos 6 it is used to describe priests indirectly guilty of others' death

And multiple refernces which are translated in the KJV sometimes as "kill" sometimes as "murder" but far more often than both as "slay" (including alternatives in the same verse). zyour own suggestion is likewise variably translated, again with "slay" predominating, in the KJV but also including all the same variations.

Ther is nothing in biblical usage of either that would imply a purely legalistic meaning.

There is no language I know of which has only one word for kill, and certainly no long lasting ancient language, when intentional death was a daily fact of life. Similarly I know of no OT translation that is scrupulous in assigning only one English word to any of them. It's just not that simple.

Incidentally yes I know modern Hebrew is very different. But using that is like using modern English semanticsto analyze Beowulf.

[Kalidurga]

16. Luckily my 6'2" uncle with a black belt is a very gentle person

But, if he went batshitcrazy and was beating people up then I would say he might need to be shot.

[Mosby]

17. Expanded self-defense laws

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/04/us/table.selfdefense.laws/

Unfortunately it doesn't explain any of these very well, for example in Arizona if you walk up on someone getting raped and tell the assailant to stop but they don't you can shoot and kill them.

[scarystuffyo]

19. In CT it says you can use deadly force just to prevent arson

...fascinating ...


I bet the police can't even do that but a citizen can.

[NutmegYankee]

26. That CT allowance only applies in defense of ones own premises.

Your "castle" won't do you much good as a safe refuge if a trespasser sets it ablaze. Basically, the law considers someone who has trespassed into your house and is setting it on fire to be a direct threat to your life.

[scarystuffyo]

90. That's weird how CT thought they had to put that in but no other state thought they had too

[Hoyt]

18. I think one should have to prove they made every reasonable attempt to avoid shooting an unarmed

person.

For example, Zimmerman should have had to prove he was beaten within an inch of his life, even though his wounds were minor, and that he could not roll over and get away, despite having trained in martial arts 3 times a week before the the incident. . . . . . .

Truthfully, when one walks around with a gun or two strapped to their body, they are not as interested in avoiding incidents.

[GGJohn]

37. You sure do like stretching don't you.

Every one I know, including me, who are legally armed, do everything in our power to avoid those incidents, no one I know wants to use their firearm on someone else.

[upaloopa]

47. If you carry a gun it is in your mind to shoot someone

If you really didn't want to shoot someone you would not carry a gun. I think gunners have these nice guy talking points all rehearsed and ready to go.
You have to have thought about what you would do in the event your are faced with the scenario the gives you reason to carry a gun. In your mind you kill in the vision you use to think the incident through.

[GGJohn]

50. No, you're wrong.

It's in my mind to not have to shoot someone by avoiding any situation that would cause me to draw my weapon.

You have to have thought about what you would do in the event your are faced with the scenario the gives you reason to carry a gun. In your mind you kill in the vision you use to think the incident through.

In my mind, I don't want to kill anyone, I don't want to ever draw my weapon in a self defense situation, and any vision I would have would entail shooting to stop the threat, not to kill.

Take it or leave it, but that's the way I think.

[Hoyt]

68. There are other ways to stop a threat in the unlikely event one occurs.

You choose gunz.

[sarisataka]

83. Comments?

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/10/rep_flynn_pulled_his_weapon_an_1.html#incart_related_stories

[Hoyt]

89. Sounds like a gun was available, but not needed. Glad no innocent bystander was shot by the

cowboy.

[sarisataka]

98. An elected Democratic

Representative shooting at an armed robber who is trying to kill another Democratic Representative = cowboy.

Interesting

[Hoyt]

103. Sounds like Flynn should have just given up his wallet rather than putting

them both in danger. The wild shots into the neighborhood don't sound smart either. But gun toters aren't known for caring for others.

[hack89]

109. So you would trust an armed robber with your life? nt

[GGJohn]

115. Yes I do choose a firearm.

The magic word here is CHOOSE, as in, it's my choice, not yours, you choose to not carry and belittle people like me for our choice.
Like it or not, your concern is not my concern.

[Hoyt]

117. You and others shouldn't have that choice since you and others don't

seems to care about society. Your choice affects us all, unlike some other "choice issues."

[GGJohn]

118. Since we do have that choice, and the choice isn't going away anytime soon,

I will keep making the choice to carry my firearm as my self defense tool.
And I do care about society, despite all your claims that those of us who make our choice, and my choice doesn't affect you or anyone else in any way.
The only ones affected by my firearm would be someone attempting to harm me or my family.
As I said earlier, your concern isn't my concern.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

125. Go harangue people who drink alcohol. It has a much broader effect on society.

If that is what you actually care about.

[Hoyt]

132. Go carry a defibrillator, you are more likely to need that than a gun.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

133. There's an AED not 30' from my desk and I have a CPR certification.

Alcohol is responsible for domestic violence, disease, DUIs, child abuse, workplace accidents, etc. It's cost to the US taxpayers and healthcare system is in the billions. As far as thing people are -- as you seem to indicate -- "likely to need" alcohol is the sort of thing that if a person "needs" it they should be the first for an intervention.

Do you really care about saving as many people as possible or are you just putting up a false front to grind your personal axe?

[Lurks Often]

64. Your ideas of what goes on in a gun owner's head are so absurd as to be delusional

No gun owner I know wants to risk spending the rest of their life in jail or spend the ten's of thousands, if not more, on attorney's fees because "it is in your mind to shoot someone".

[Hoyt]

69. That's the same thing Michael Dunn, Curtis Reeves, G Zimmerman said.

[Lurks Often]

112. And Dunn will die in jail

barring any surprises, so will Reeves.

The prosecution had it's chance at Zimmerman and whether you think they blew it or had a weak case or that Zimmerman didn't commit a crime that night, he was tried and found not guilty.

[Hoyt]

113. Unfortunately Jordan Davis was killed by a gun toter playing Judge, Jury, Jesus, and

Executioner. Without a gun, Zman would never have stalked the unarmed teen.

[GGJohn]

116. So you're comparing them to us?

[Lurks Often]

121. Your broad brush attack is duly noted

as is your ignorance of the law.

[sarisataka]

76. Care to comment?

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/10/rep_flynn_pulled_his_weapon_an_1.html#incart_related_stories

[Hoyt]

67. Then, you wouldn't strap it on to drive to the store.

[GGJohn]

72. Where and when I carry is none of your concern.

[Hoyt]

73. You brought it up.

[GGJohn]

97. Still doesn't concern you.

[Hoyt]

104. Sure it does. Gun toters are a concern to everyone.

[GGJohn]

107. Wrong, you THINK it concerns you, but,

it STILL doesn't concern you.

[Hoyt]

110. Sorry, people who train to shoot center mass and walk around in public with

gunz, are a concern.

[GGJohn]

111. Sorry, but the only ones who should be concerned are those that would possibly harm me or mine.

And it STILL isn't your concern.

[Union Scribe]

129. You just defined "police officer." nt

[Ykcutnek]

21. If someone breaks into your house, assume they're there to harm you...

And do what you need to do.

I don't have a gun and advocate for strong gun control, but I will severely beat anyone who violates that barrier between me and the outside world.

[Nye Bevan]

22. Someone escaping from prison?

I think they would fire at a fleeing prisoner from the watchtower regardless of whether he was armed.

[world wide wally]

23. Only in America

[seveneyes]

25. Atempted rape, murder or severe bodily harm

People are killed by hands and feet every day.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

28. He is presently strangling you...

That seems like a reasonable excuse.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[hunter]

30. Never. Same goes for armed persons too.

Thanks for your concern.

[Warpy]

32. Maybe if the unarmed person is part of a gang

that has already started to beat you and you fear for your life. Or the unarmed man has his hands around your throat, threatening your life. The presence or absence of a gun in either case doesn't figure into the self defense equation.

[KingCharlemagne]

34. Hitler? (Sorry to go Godwin out of the gate :) - nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

36. If someone physically stronger than me is on top of me, beating me, I will do anything to stop them

And have no qualms about it either. I'll take my chances with the law later.

[GGJohn]

38. How's that saying go?

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, or in FL's case, better to be judged by 6 than carried by ???????????????

[Travis_0004]

43. Self defense

If somebody breaks into my house, Im not going to get in a fist fight just because they are unarmed.

[Blue_In_AK]

44. I would say maybe in the case of a battered woman

if her much larger husband had his hands around her throat and a gun was within reach? But then he isn't really unarmed, I guess, because he could probably reach it as easily as she could.

I don't know - tough question.

[dumbcat]

45. Justifiable to who?

You'll get different answers depending on who you are trying to convince.

[AngryAmish]

46. When they are in a position to kill you or cause serious bodily injury

[Vattel]

49. Whenever an aggressor poses a threat of grievous bodily harm,

and the only way to eliminate the threat is to shoot them, then shooting them is acceptable. Trying to bash someone's head on a concrete sidewalk would be an example.

[underpants]

54. Zombies and people writing a check

[randome]

96. LOL! Also people who say 'Good morning' but don't mean it!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Mike Nelson]

55. If you or others are in immediate, life-threatening danger.

I would say it is justifiable. I don't think it's justifiable to "shoot to kill" - or to satisfy the shooter's desire for justice or revenge.

[jwirr]

59. Never.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

130. 90% of violent sexual assaults are committed by an unarmed attacker.

[Lil Missy]

60. When the unarmed person is going to hurt me!

I don't own a gun but if I did, I'd shoot him/her. Doesn't mean I'd aim to kill - but I'd hurt 'em!

[Rex]

63. Better question, is it justified to ever shoot an unarmed person in the back?

When there hands are raised in the air?

[HoustonDave]

131. Michael Brown

if this is supposed to be a reference to Michael Brown, even the family's own autopsy examiner said all of the wounds were shots fired from his front, not back.

[Mz Pip]

65. If I was being attacked

by someone who broke into my house. An attacker could easily kill me without being armed.

[NaturalHigh]

71. When that person is a threat to your safety or your family's safety.

If someone broke into my house while my family was home, no questions would be asked. Sorry, just the way it is. A criminal's life is not as important to me as my family.

[Yo_Mama]

74. In defense of your life or body or someone else's

It could be justified if you only THOUGHT the other person had a weapon, for example. It could be justifiable if you are a short slight person being attacked in a menacing way by someone who is far physically stronger.

In general, if a person seems to be approaching for an attack after they have been warned off, it may be.

The answer is that it depends on the circumstances. The law never requires anyone to take a chance of being significantly hurt if they are attacked and can defend themselves, even if that defense involves lethal force.

I generally don't think the law requires you to stand still and be robbed, if that means putting yourself in the other person's control. The law allows you to shoot someone, for instance, who approaches you and demands that you get into a car with them and then tries to seize you and make you do it, even if it turns out the person wasn't armed. The law would allow any individual to intervene in such a case to prevent that using deadly force.

And then there are special provisions for law enforcement and military operating in certain circumstances.

If this is about the Michael Brown shooting, I have no idea whether that was justified or not. So far all we've seen are leaks, not the whole story. I do have confidence that no miscarriage of justice and actual law will occur through manipulation of evidence or the record, due to the multiple layers of involvement.

The unarmed/armed thing is not a fundamental of the law. Going way back to English common law centuries ago, the issue was whether a reasonable person would perceive a serious threat. Generally decided by jury.

I believe currently in most states the law allows a police officer to use lethal force to stop the escape of someone who is involved in an offense of a certain degree of seriousness under the rubric of potential danger to the public - and the SC has ruled on this issue, which preempts overly permissive state laws. So, for example, if someone holds up a store and shoots someone, yes. If someone throws a brick through a window and flees, no. See Tennessee v Garner:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=471&invol=1

The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such force may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 7-22. [471 U.S. 1, 2]

(a) Apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement. To determine whether such a seizure is reasonable, the extent of the intrusion on the suspect's rights under that Amendment must be balanced against the governmental interests in effective law enforcement. This balancing process demonstrates that, notwithstanding probable cause to seize a suspect, an officer may not always do so by killing him. The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable.

At this moment, based on the leaks, I have a suspicion that the MB shooting wasn't justified, but those are just leaks, not the full story. So I wouldn't want to guess.

If there is strong forensic evidence that Brown attacked the police officer first, the presumption switches in favor of the officer, but then the question is whether the force was reasonable when it was used. There's never any question during self-defense, but if a suspect isn't fleeing and doesn't seem to be attacking, you can't just shoot the poor perp down. In other words, if the situation is in your control or coming into your control you are not just supposed to open up.

We all know that police will go over the line at times when scared. But the law basically allows them to be scared for their safety where an average person would be scared. The law doesn't allow them to shoot someone down because they're ANGRY.

[sarisataka]

75. Yes

If they present an imminent, reasonable threat of great bodily harm or death.

That such a situation justifies shooting, or other lethal force, it does not mean other options are excluded. Every situation is unique.

[ileus]

77. When they are attacking your person or family member.

[gwheezie]

80. I'm not a pacifist but admire them

so if I had a gun available I would shoot someone who was attacking me or someone else and there was no option to flee or otherwise defend myself. However I think anyone who is armed has made the decision they could shoot someone or they wouldn't have a gun. To say otherwise is bs. I think it's harder than it looks. When I was held hostage I did have access to a gun however I had calculated the sick sob bastard was a bigger and better psychopath than I was. So I didn't try to shoot him. I talked nonstop for over 24 hours and when I saw my chance I escaped. I had a few seconds and took my chance. He managed to get off a few rounds but I was running by then.

[Adsos Letter]

81. Amway IBO's

There are limits

[MicaelS]

82. Feet and fists can be considered deadly weapons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111617/Fernando-Rodrigues-jailed-Judge-rules-martial-arts-fighters-hands-feet-deadly-weapons.html

Unless you want to argue that someone beating the hell out of another person with their hands and feet is "an unarmed person".

[Zorra]

84. If a group of men wearing white hoods and carrying confederate flags and ropes was chasing me

down a dirt road around midnight...

I just might possibly feel justified in shooting them.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

85. When they are unknown to you and inside your home

You don't have any way of knowing if they are a burglar, a rapist, or a psychopath. And you don't have time to care.

Having said that, 99% of Americans would be better off with a state-of-the-art home security system with panic buttons than with owning a firearm for home defense.

[ecstatic]

87. For me, I tend to lose sympathy when it comes to actual home invasions.

Growing up, my family's home was burglarized frequently, usually during the day. But one night, some assholes tried to break-in while I was home with my mom. I was around 4 years old and I still remember my mom screaming for me to call 911 while she struggled to hold the door leading up to the roof shut. I was so scared that I hid instead of calling 911 but luckily they ran away. So not only am I traumatized by the attempted break in, but I'm also traumatized by my reaction of hiding when my mom really needed my help. But yeah... I don't blame people who shoot in those circumstances.

Context is key, of course. Also, it's not OK to shoot at someone who's outside the home (either attempting to break in or running away).

[Recursion]

88. If someone has broken into my house I will not wait to find out if he is armed (nt)

[scarystuffyo]

91. Would you try to say stop or I'll shoot or I have a gun?

[hack89]

93. What if their reply was a bullet aimed at you?

You have to assume that they are armed absent overwhelming evidence they are unarmed.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

108. IF someone breaks into my home

and I'm pretty sure I can exit safely, I would...if I were alone.

If my kids are upstairs, I would shoot if I had a gun available. My kids come before anyone who breaks into my house.

[Iggo]

92. Looking for excuses to kill unarmed people.

Yikes.

[madville]

94. Disparity of force

Very few real-life scenarios present "even" match ups.

- If an armed 80 year old person is being physically threatened by a 30 year old unarmed person.

- A 100 lb woman in fear from a 250 lb man.

- An armed person being beaten/physically threatened by a group of unarmed people.

- Elderly women get raped by younger men robbing their homes several times a year here (that's just the ones that get reported). I would whole heartedly support them shooting their unarmed rapist.

[flvegan]

95. It must be Monday on DU.

Break into my house, and I'll find out if you're unarmed after. I tend not to ask and believe someone in that situation.

During the commission of a violent felony where I don't know one way or another and can't physically stop it, that's another.

[B Calm]

102. We have a forum for gun threads.

[hack89]

105. Anti-gun post get more leeway. Nt

Last edited Tue Oct 21, 2014, 09:00 AM - Edit history (1)

[tblue37]

106. According to FOX scumbag Ben Klein, Wilson *had* to use his gun, because Michael Brown was

not really unarmed, since he was so big that his "huge" body was itself the equivalent of a deadly weapon.

Right wing apologists come up with such bizarre justifications for the cops who kill unarmed black adolescents and men!

[NCTraveler]

114. I don't carry now and I won't carry tomorrow.

For me personally, that decision will never have to be made. If I am ever a juror in such a situation, I will do my best to judge on the law.

[GOLGO 13]

123. whoever threatens myself of my family is gambling

and the odds are greatly against them.

[bigwillq]

126. If my life is at stake

I will shoot.

I don't own a gun but, if I did, I would shoot in the circumstance I listed.

[ZombieHorde]

127. Self defense from extreme harm or kidnapping/incarceration/etc.

This may be not legally justified, but it is justified according to my current, subjective world view.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

136. Is it justifiable? Yes; When is it justifiable... A quote

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." - Augustine of Hippo

There is a long list of the wrong things to do; brandishing, warning shots, threats, etc are all wrong and often illegal. For a civilian, lethal force is justified only in the face of an immediate serious or lethal danger.

Or in the words of Dr. Arthur Kellerman: "If you've got to resist, you're chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah."

[benEzra]

137. If you are in actual, imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, or forcible felony.

Those are the same conditions under which it's justifiable to shoot someone holding a knife, baseball bat, or gun. However, the court will generally expect the defendant to provide an affirmative defense that the danger did rise to that level, and the concept of disparity of force will often be involved (i.e. a 220-pound twentysomething weightlifter attacked by a 150-pound middle-aged dude barehanded will probably not be able to defend lethal self-defense unless he was somehow partially incapacitated, but the claim might be allowed going the other way if the attack were obviously intended to cause death, serious injury, or forcible felony.

FWIW, more people are murdered annually using bare hands and shoes than are murdered using all rifles and all shotguns combined, so it happens.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/20tabledatadecpdf