Sometimes stupid loses

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011040818114975249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2011-04-08 15:53:32 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:

Whisky-dave wrote:

Le Snip


What I'd really like to see is the number of people killed 'legally'
by guns in the US or anywhere you know where you can shoot someone
should they attack
you or your property.

The laws about that vary considerably from state to state.

Generally throughout the States, the Laws, or rules for use of deadly
force are consistent. There are some differences in the way they are
interpreted for civilians vs military & Law enforcement, but for the most
part they are the same, and only slight variations on the general
principle.

There are also distinct differences between use of deadly force as a
defense in the home (The castle doctrine), and everywhere else.

The use of deadly force for self defense does not usually extend to the
defense of property. There are legally defined steps every gun owner who
intends to own that gun for the purpose of self defense should go through
before firing that weapon. Massad Ayoob, a police captain from New
Hampshire, an expert in the field of combat shooting, who most combat hand
gun enthusiasts are aware of spells it out thus, using the acronym "AOJP":
Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, & Preclusion.

1: Ability
Your attacker must have the ability, the physical, practical ability, to
cause you harm. Common sense applies here, as does context. A gun gives
your attacker ability (lethal ability, in fact); a knife gives ability as
well. Indeed, most weapons qualify, all the way down to glass bottles,
baseball bats, and screwdrivers. While the latter are not designed as
weapons, if they are applied as such, they can certainly kill you just as
dead.
Other "ability" considerations include disparity in size or physical power
between you and your attacker, a very large man versus a very small man, a
strong man versus a cripple, a trained fighter versus a bookworm, a man
versus a woman, all can apply. And don't forget disparity in numbers -
four men attacking one can very easily kill or cripple, unless that one is
a Hollywood action hero.
Most of the above are valid lethal force scenarios, but non-lethal force
uses the same standard. Just about anyone can punch you and break your
nose, or break your arm, or bruise your stomach.
In short, common sense is a more or less effective guide on this point.
The important question is simply whether, as far as you know, the attacker
has the ability to harm you-kill or maim you, if you respond with lethal
force, or lesser degrees of danger for equivalently lesser uses of force.

2: Opportunity
While your attacker may very well have the ability to cause you harm, it
means nothing unless he also has the opportunity to do so, right here and
right now. After all, there are probably countless criminals in the world
who "could" kill you and might do so, given the chance; but they aren't
standing in front of you at this moment, so they don't have that
opportunity.
The biggest consideration here is range or proximity. Although a man with
a gun is considered dangerous at any reasonable distance, a man with a
knife standing 300 feet away is not, simply because he cannot stab you
from that far away. Yet there is another factor, as well. If he were
standing mere yards away, he still probably couldn't reach you with his
knife, but because it would only take him moments to approach you and
change that, he would still be considered dangerous. A common police
standard is to assume that a knife-wielding assailant is capable of
covering 21 feet and striking with the blade in 1.5 seconds. Mull on that
time span.
Some other considerations may apply when it comes to Opportunity. For
instance, is a knife-wielding assailant behind a locked door a threat?
Probably not. Therefore, if you were to shoot him through the door, that
would not be justifiable. On the other hand, if he started, successfully,
breaking the door down, then he would promptly become dangerous again.
Again, use common sense.

3: Jeopardy
The most subjective factor of the AOJP analysis is the jeopardy
requirement, sometimes called "imminent jeopardy." This criterion requires
that, in your specific situation, a "reasonable and prudent" person would
have believed himself to be in immediate danger.
In other words, jeopardy is what distinguishes between a potentially
dangerous situation and one that is actually dangerous. Hundreds of times
every day, you walk by people who could punch or stab or shoot you. The
reason you aren't "defending" yourself against them is because you have no
reason to think that they are actually about to attack you. (Why would
they?)
On the other hand, if someone screams a threat and points a gun at you,
any sane person would expect that behavior to indicate an intent to cause
you harm.
It's important to recognize that you cannot actually know this person's
intent; you are not a mind reader. All you can judge is his outward
appearance and demeanor, which, in that case, are consistent with harmful
intent. If it turns out that he was joking, or lying, or the gun was fake,
or he wouldn't actually have pulled the trigger, nothing changes, because
you could not have known those things.
The other important qualifier to remember is that the jeopardy must be
immediate. A general threat to your well-being in the distant future is
meaningless, but "I'm gonna kill you right now!" is meaningful.
Finally, it's essential to understand that the "immediate jeopardy"
condition can go away at the drop of a hat. On the one hand, if you are
attacked, beaten, and left lying in an alley, you are not justified in
shooting your attacker in the back as he walks away, because he will have
ceased to be a threat. On the other hand, if he turns around and comes
back for more, then the immediate jeopardy resumes. Jeopardy can cease
suddenly and unexpectedly if your attacker surrenders or clearly ceases to
be a threat (if you knock him unconscious, for instance, or he tries to
run), and continuing to use force in such situations can change your
action from legal self-defense to illegal battery in moments.

4: Preclusion
Preclusion is the idea that, whatever the situation, you are expected to
use force only as a last resort, that is, only when the circumstances
preclude all other options.
In other words, even when the ability, opportunity, and jeopardy criteria
are satisfied, and knowing that you must clearly do something to protect
yourself, the use of force, particularly lethal force, may only be that
"something" if you have no other safe options.
The word "safe" is key there, because at no time does the law ever require
you to choose an action that endangers yourself. If you can run away or
retreat, you should, but if doing so would put you in harm's way, you are
not required to do so.
Preclusion is the factor that is missing in most self-defense arguments,
and thus the reason most fail. You must remember that you bear the burden
of proof; until you prove otherwise, the law merely sees two equal
citizens in a dispute. You can say, "He tried to hit me," but then the
police and the courts will ask, "Why didn't you _____?" You must have no
options to offer to fill in that blank, there must have been no other
courses of action you could have taken to maintain your safety except the
use of force. Otherwise, you're just fighting because you want to, and
that's a crime.
Does the Preclusion standard mean that an ultimatum like "give me your
money, or I'll hurt you" requires you to, well, give him your money?
Unless you honestly believe that he may hurt you anyway, yes. The law
values "life and limb" above property. Or you can refuse, but you may not
respond with a fist. He's giving you a choice, which, by definition, means
that you still have options other than force.
The point is simply that you must exercise self-restraint to the greatest
extent possible. One vital aspect of this requirement concerns the
appropriateness or degree of the force you employ, or how well suited your
response is to the threat itself. If a man punches you, you probably
cannot justifiably shoot him, because that's a lethal response to a
non-lethal attack. If a three-year-old punches you, you probably cannot do
anything at all. If, on the other hand, a 300-pound boxer punches you, you
may be justified in responding with deadly force, because his fists can be
deadly as well.

Always remember:
1: The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2: Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3: Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the
third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment.

The best way to deal with this minefield is responsible training.

Indeed. So worthwhile a post I wouldn't trim it.

I am familiar with Massad Ayoob, have read many of his articles and think I
have a book by him here somewhere. He runs a four-day course related to all
this stuff, including two days of practical range work, at his Lethal Force
Institute in New Hampshire. That's not awfully far from me and I've thought
of taking it.

On 2011-04-09 14:49:45 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message

Since that was read

Always remember:
1: The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2: Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3: Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the
third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment.

The best way to deal with this minefield is responsible training.

Indeed. So worthwhile a post I wouldn't trim it.

I am familiar with Massad Ayoob, have read many of his articles and think I
have a book by him here somewhere. He runs a four-day course related to all
this stuff, including two days of practical range work, at his Lethal Force
Institute in New Hampshire. That's not awfully far from me and I've thought
of taking it.

Check the classes.
http://massadayoobgroup.com/

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2011040915032684492-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2011-04-09 14:49:45 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message

Since that was read

Always remember:
1: The threat must be current, immediate, and unavoidable.
2: Your level of force must be appropriate to the threat.
3: Your use of force must stop when the threat ceases.
If at any point you smudge the first, exceed the second, or forget the
third, you are running the risk of a criminal indictment.

The best way to deal with this minefield is responsible training.

Indeed. So worthwhile a post I wouldn't trim it.

I am familiar with Massad Ayoob, have read many of his articles and think I
have a book by him here somewhere. He runs a four-day course related to all
this stuff, including two days of practical range work, at his Lethal Force
Institute in New Hampshire. That's not awfully far from me and I've thought
of taking it.

Check the classes.
http://massadayoobgroup.com/

A friend of mine, ex-Ranger, and Vietnam veteran, took several of his
classes and found them very worthwhile.