INJURY, SERIOUS BODILY INJURY, AND DEATH
- Thread starter michael.ed
- Start date
This is a good article. If someone is attacking you to rob you or just because you are wearing a cap they don't like, if you do not defend yourself somehow, they may wind up kicking and hitting you with objects that may kill you. It is difficult to say what might happen in the heat of the moment and if you wait too long it may be too late. One hit in the face may render you unable to defend yourself. This seems to me to be a very fine line.
wmg1299
Professional
This article was written by someone who identifies as a "Litigation Consultant", and whose LinkedIn profile lists as having a BA in English from Rollins College. Mr. Vincent, who describes himself as an "At large Communications Director for legal and social justice issues", may in fact be very good at assisting in picking juries, but he should not be giving legal advice.
There issue of when it is legal to use deadly force varies greatly in different jurisdictions. Some states uses the objective standard of, "would a reasonable person have been afraid of suffering serious bodily injury or death in a given situation". Some states use the subjective standard of, "did the defendant reasonably believe he/she was in danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death at the time deadly force was used". Some states use a hybrid standard of, "would a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes have been afraid of suffering serious bodily injury or death at the time force was used". While these standards may seem somewhat similar, the defense strategy in each case case would differ greatly. You would also need to account for the duty to retreat imposed on citizens of certain states in order to make any determination of legality.
In an ideal world, there would be one standard for everyone that could be clearly explained in several paragraphs. Until that becomes a reality, you need to obtain state-specific advice from a qualified attorney. It is quite frankly irresponsible for publications and organizations to run simplistic articles like this. Rely on them at your own risk.
There issue of when it is legal to use deadly force varies greatly in different jurisdictions. Some states uses the objective standard of, "would a reasonable person have been afraid of suffering serious bodily injury or death in a given situation". Some states use the subjective standard of, "did the defendant reasonably believe he/she was in danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death at the time deadly force was used". Some states use a hybrid standard of, "would a reasonable person in the defendant's shoes have been afraid of suffering serious bodily injury or death at the time force was used". While these standards may seem somewhat similar, the defense strategy in each case case would differ greatly. You would also need to account for the duty to retreat imposed on citizens of certain states in order to make any determination of legality.
In an ideal world, there would be one standard for everyone that could be clearly explained in several paragraphs. Until that becomes a reality, you need to obtain state-specific advice from a qualified attorney. It is quite frankly irresponsible for publications and organizations to run simplistic articles like this. Rely on them at your own risk.
The paradox lies within the term, "great bodily injury." Does a victim have to wait until after he's sustained an injury that manifests in to great bodily injury or death when at the time the injury was inflicted he lacked medical knowledge to know the potential seriousness of the injury? The benefit of doubt has to go to the innocent victim.
Preexisting physical infirmity has to be considered. A blow to the head of a man with a preexisting brain injury could be fatal. Only the victim would know that a punch to his head has a high probability of causing his death. Hence, he would be justified in using deadly force to protect himself from a punch to his head that might cause only minor damage to a person without a preexisting brain injury.
Zimmerman's head was repeatedly slammed into asphalt. It appeared obvious that Martin had intended to inflict great bodily injury upon Zimmerman.
Then there's the guy who was sucker punched as was depicted in a recent Antifa marauding video. The man was unconscious on his feet. He fell to the ground. His head slammed upon asphalt below, which was likely to cause great bodily injury or death.
California Penal Code Section 692 clearly states that a victim does not have to allow an assailant to inflict injury upon him before he can respond appropriately.
How is a victim to know an assailant's intent? The best way is what an assailant says before he attempts his attack. If an assailant were to say, "I'm going to kill you," a reasonable man would use force necessary to prevent his murder or great bodily injury.
If direct, physical, and scientific evidence supports a victim's reaction to an unlawful attack, he should be presumed to have acted in self-defense. Again, the reasonable man standard applies.
Preexisting physical infirmity has to be considered. A blow to the head of a man with a preexisting brain injury could be fatal. Only the victim would know that a punch to his head has a high probability of causing his death. Hence, he would be justified in using deadly force to protect himself from a punch to his head that might cause only minor damage to a person without a preexisting brain injury.
Zimmerman's head was repeatedly slammed into asphalt. It appeared obvious that Martin had intended to inflict great bodily injury upon Zimmerman.
Then there's the guy who was sucker punched as was depicted in a recent Antifa marauding video. The man was unconscious on his feet. He fell to the ground. His head slammed upon asphalt below, which was likely to cause great bodily injury or death.
California Penal Code Section 692 clearly states that a victim does not have to allow an assailant to inflict injury upon him before he can respond appropriately.
How is a victim to know an assailant's intent? The best way is what an assailant says before he attempts his attack. If an assailant were to say, "I'm going to kill you," a reasonable man would use force necessary to prevent his murder or great bodily injury.
If direct, physical, and scientific evidence supports a victim's reaction to an unlawful attack, he should be presumed to have acted in self-defense. Again, the reasonable man standard applies.
Last edited:
Rule One of Gun Fighting: the only known way of surviving one is to not get in one.
I've never been anywhere near a BLM or Antific felony fest. I'll go out of my way to avoid going into unsafe venues and locales. I'll whine like a big dog to avoid going into LA. I live in a very safe city. I'll only go to venues that I know to be safe. If I see what I think is trouble walk into an otherwise safe venue, I'll leave. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
I've never been anywhere near a BLM or Antific felony fest. I'll go out of my way to avoid going into unsafe venues and locales. I'll whine like a big dog to avoid going into LA. I live in a very safe city. I'll only go to venues that I know to be safe. If I see what I think is trouble walk into an otherwise safe venue, I'll leave. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
wmg1299
Professional
It is long past the time for the courts to recognize your view. While I don't practice criminal law, I have always wondered why defense attorneys representing defendants who have used deadly force in self-defense scenarios have not argued from a Constitutional Due Process perspective. The 14th Amendment requires due process whenever one's interest in life, liberty, or property is threatened. The 5th Amendment clearly forbids private property being taken for public use without just compensation.
I would argue that by limiting my ability to defend my property during a robbery, the government has essentially made my property available for use by any member of the public who is willing to take it by force, without any form of compensation. This line of reasoning would suggest that the government cannot arbitrarily dictate how much physical harm I must suffer before defending myself, without providing due process (i.e. notice, opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decisionmaker).
How many of my bones must be broken before I can exercise my right to defense? How much rape does a woman have to suffer before defending herself? The answer, from a Constitutional perspective, should be none.
Again, I do not practice criminal law, and criminal court decisions at the county level are not routinely published for review. Other attorneys may indeed have unsuccessfully attempted this approach in the past, but I feel that the argument may very well be valid at this point in history, given U.S. Supreme Court decisions about individual rights over the past 20 or so years.
Bassbob
Emissary
Some of us don’t have the option of not ever going into an unsafe city. Some of us have to spend 70-80 hours a week in the worst parts of the murder capital of the country. It’s true enough that on my own time I don’t have a reason to come here often, but unfortunately I’m not in a position to never have to put myself in harm’s way.
It’s 6 AM(-ish) on a Saturday morning and I’m sitting in my personal truck in the parking lot of my work. As soon as this coffee is gone I’ll be heading to my work truck, sliding into a vest and heading to a spot where this is the view.
Good Morning Bass Bob,
I completely understand your post. I pray that your state and employer allow you to carry a self-defense handgun while you're earning a living. You're a salt-of-the-Earth, productive American. You should be encouraged to carry a handgun to protect yourself.
I completely understand your post. I pray that your state and employer allow you to carry a self-defense handgun while you're earning a living. You're a salt-of-the-Earth, productive American. You should be encouraged to carry a handgun to protect yourself.
Please keep in mind that media is considered hearsay evidence and as such is inherently unreliable to prove a gosh darn thing.
I've very recently found these incidents in which citizens lawfully used handguns to protect themselves:
The victim here shot and killed an armed robber. The victim was not arrested.
The victim here was shot by the suspect, returned fire from his handgun. Later, he was found dead. The last line causes curiosity. If the victim took a round and returned fire, how could it be anything other than self-defense? If it wasn't self-defense, the victim would have been a suspect and arrested. But that didn't happen.
I've very recently found these incidents in which citizens lawfully used handguns to protect themselves:
The victim here shot and killed an armed robber. The victim was not arrested.
The victim here was shot by the suspect, returned fire from his handgun. Later, he was found dead. The last line causes curiosity. If the victim took a round and returned fire, how could it be anything other than self-defense? If it wasn't self-defense, the victim would have been a suspect and arrested. But that didn't happen.