Your qualifying handgun?

[Guest dotsun]

I didn't say that the fact that he was losing the fight justified the shoot, I said the fact that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury justified the shoot. That satisfies the letter of the law no matter how you arrive at that point.

[DaveTN]

I didn't say that the fact that he was losing the fight justified the shoot, I said the fact that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury justified the shoot. That satisfies the letter of the law no matter how you arrive at that point.

No it doesn’t. As I said we don’t have the facts. I assume that this guy must have attacked him without provocation. If you are a willing participant in a fight, you have put yourself in that situation knowing full well the risks.

[Guest dotsun]

So you are saying that if you get in a fist fight with a guy and he pulls a knife you have to continue to use your fists because you willingly submitted to the fight?

[DaveTN]

So you are saying that if you get in a fist fight with a guy and he pulls a knife you have to continue to use your fists because you willingly submitted to the fight?

No, because at that point he has done exactly what I am saying you can’t do. If you willingly enter into a fight it is assumed that you know the risks. You don’t get to bring a gun to a fist fight.

It’s the whole “reasonable person” thing. Would a reasonable person believe that you were in danger of death or great bodily harm in a fight that you willingly entered into? Nope.

If Mike Tyson with no provocation from you threatened to kick your azz and made moves as though he was going to hit you; his hands are considered deadly weapons and you would be justified in using deadly force.

However… if you said “Hey there’s Mike Tyson watch this.” And then provoked him into a fight; when you started to experience the near death experience that would surly follow, you don’t get to pull a gun and shoot him. Even if he has bit your ear off.

[Guest dotsun]

No, because at that point he has done exactly what I am saying you can’t do. If you willingly enter into a fight it is assumed that you know the risks. You don’t get to bring a gun to a fist fight.

I'm still not completely understanding your position, let's parse it down further. If you and I are in a fist fight and I pull a knife, does that give you the right to draw and fire?

[DaveTN]

I'm still not completely understanding your position, let's parse it down further. If you and I are in a fist fight and I pull a knife, does that give you the right to draw and fire?

You bet.

[Guest dotsun]

We agree about that 100 percent, then. And why is it legal for you to do so?

[DaveTN]

We agree about that 100 percent, then. And why is it legal for you to do so?

I signed up for a fist fight. I knew full well the possible outcome and made the decision to fight you anyway. I don’t get to shoot you if I’m losing.

When you pull that knife we are not in a fist fight anymore. You are threatening the use of a deadly weapon. Would I just pull out my gun and shoot you? No, because that would probably land me in front of a jury. I would retreat and pull my gun; if you continued I would shoot.

[Guest dotsun]

When you pull that knife we are not in a fist fight anymore. You are threatening the use of a deadly weapon.

I submit that legally, the specific reason that you are justified according to TCA is because you are in danger of immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death. Do we agree on that according to TN Code?

[DaveTN]

I submit that legally, the specific reason that you are justified according to TCA is because you are in danger of immediate threat of serious bodily injury or death. Do we agree on that according to TN Code?

Sure.

But see, you want to apply the deadly force laws with absolutely no qualifiers. It’s not cut and dried. Options, intent, state of mind, what a “reasonable person†would believe, you will be put under a microscope. Did you come into this deadly force situation with “clean hands� No.

[Guest dotsun]

I see your point, but I still believe that you would be fully justified in shooting me if I pulled a knife after we were involved in a fist fight. I think the DA would be a complete tard for attempting to get a conviction. If you can show that a reasonable person thought they were in danger of serious bodily injury or death, the law is satisfied. I think any reasonable person would believe that they were about to die in either our simulated fight, or the real one at the Rush.

[DaveTN]

I see your point, but I still believe that you would be fully justified in shooting me if I pulled a knife after we were involved in a fist fight. I think the DA would be a complete tard for attempting to get a conviction.

We have agreed on that.

If you can show that a reasonable person thought they were in danger of serious bodily injury or death, the law is satisfied.

Not if you are a willing participant.

I think any reasonable person would believe that they were about to die in either our simulated fight, or the real one at the Rush.

I don’t know. I don’t know what happened at the Rush. I have to assume that the shooter was attacked without provocation; otherwise the DA should have put him in front of a jury.

When I read the (very short) news articles it caught my attention when I saw “continuation of a bar fight.†Obviously the DA had all the information that we do not have. So I’m curious; I would like to know what happened.

If you want to believe that you can get into an argument with someone that leads to a fight; and you can enter into that fight with the idea that if you see things aren’t going the way you planned you can always just pull out your gun and kill the guy; go for it. But you might want to bounce that one off your local DA and see what he thinks about it.

[Guest dotsun]

We have agreed on that.

Dotsun Sayeth:

So we agree that if I escalate the fight and use deadly force, you're justified in using deadly force.

DaveTN Sayeth:

If you want to believe that you can get into an argument with someone that leads to a fight; and you can enter into that fight with the idea that if you see things aren’t going the way you planned you can always just pull out your gun and kill the guy; go for it. But you might want to bounce that one off your local DA and see what he thinks about it.

I never said anything close to that, please explain what leads you to believe that that's my position.

[DaveTN]

I never said anything close to that, please explain what leads you to believe that that's my position.

I said the fact that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury justified the shoot. That satisfies the letter of the law no matter how you arrive at that point.

And I contend that it does matter how you got to that point.

So we agree that if I escalate the fight and use deadly force, you're justified in using deadly force.

Not if the deadly force is your hands in a fight I signed on for.

[Guest dotsun]

I didn't say that the fact that he was losing the fight justified the shoot, I said the fact that he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury justified the shoot. That satisfies the letter of the law no matter how you arrive at that point.

Please don't take my statements out of context. The rest of that paragraph is extremely important to my arguement. Let me clarify my position:

A. We got into a fist fight over God only knows what.

B. I pulled a knife.

C. You (rightfully) feel threatened by my knife.

D. You shoot if you have no other options.

I believe that is a justified shoot. You believe that the cause of A. matters, I don't. Is that a fair summary?

[DaveTN]

I believe that is a justified shoot. You believe that the cause of A. matters, I don't. Is that a fair summary?

No, I could care less what started the fight. I only care if you are a willing participant vs. being attacked.

Lose the knife scenario; we agree completely on it.

My understanding of what you are saying is that if you enter into a fight willingly and some point you get scared or feel that the other guy may cause you great bodily harm; you are justified in using deadly force. I disagree and think if you bring a gun into a fist fight you need to be in prison.

[Guest canynracer]

that is correct...if you agree to fist on fist...it stays just that...now, if Mike is beating me to the point that I feel that I could lose conciousness and he isnt going to stop...or I try to run, or I begin to plead that he stops and he chases me to continue the onslought,...I would shoot him, cause at that point, it has gone beyond your "normal" azzwhoopin.

but I cannot START the fight with Mike, then pull my gun because he punches me.

and if Mike walks up to me unprovoked, and breaks my nose, then stops punching... I am STILL not justified.

if at ANY point during ANY of the above scenarios, Mike pulls a weapon...I can, and will shoot him, because that is NOT what I agreed to.

[Im Neero]

Legality aside. If i'm in a fight with someone and they have a knife, and I believe that they are going to use it, then my mind is made up. There is a reason I don't go around getting in fights though, it simplifies such situations.

[Guest canynracer]

Legality aside. If i'm in a fight with someone and they have a knife, and I believe that they are going to use it, then my mind is made up. There is a reason I don't go around getting in fights though, it simplifies such situations.

exactly!!!!

[Mike.357]

if Mike is beating... fight with Mike...Mike walks up to me unprovoked..Mike pulls a weapon...

Hey, leave me out of the fight. I am all about some love

but I think if somehow I end up in a fist fight and I am about to die from it I will shoot the bastard and take my chances with John Law and jail. And who is to say I agreed to the fist fight. Not my fault the other guy started something and did not bring a gun.

[Guest canynracer]

Hey, leave me out of the fight. I am all about some love

cant...you are a BAAAADDD mutha!@@!

I should get you the wallet!!!

[Marswolf]

Hey, leave me out of the fight. I am all about some love :D

What if you walk up and pull an empty holster?

[Guest dotsun]

No, I could care less what started the fight. I only care if you are a willing participant vs. being attacked.

Lose the knife scenario; we agree completely on it.

My understanding of what you are saying is that if you enter into a fight willingly and some point you get scared or feel that the other guy may cause you great bodily harm; you are justified in using deadly force. I disagree and think if you bring a gun into a fist fight you need to be in prison.

I'm still rather confused about your exact position, you say you could care less what started the fight, and in the next sentence you say that it does matter if you were attacked vs consenting to the fight. I submit that the legal justification for using deadly force is the same in either case.

If we lose the knife scenario, then what are we agreeing on?

Once again, I never made the assertion that if you got scared you were justified in using deadly force. I will agree that if the situation turns into a deadly force situation where the other party uses either A. A weapon or B. A properly applied choke, you are justified in shooting.

[DaveTN]

I'm still rather confused about your exact position, you say you could care less what started the fight, and in the next sentence you say that it does matter if you were attacked vs consenting to the fight.

I’m saying that I don’t care if it started over a woman, the person doesn’t like your looks, you are all drunk and no one even remembers what it started over… etc.

I am saying that it does matter whether you are a willing participant or are attacked without provocation.

I submit that the legal justification for using deadly force is the same in either case.

And I submit that it absolutely is not.

First off… if you voluntarily get into a fight while you are armed with a handgun you are an idiot. You keep your mouth shut, you walk a way, you run, you do whatever it takes.

Second… people can suffer death or great bodily harm in a fight; that is what happens. If you voluntarily enter into a fight you are accepting that that may happen. If someone chokes you out… boo friggin hoo for you; you don’t get to kill them because you are not an innocent victim. That is the point we are in disagreement about. The law is more that just the written law; it is case law and interpretation by Judges and Juries.

The law doesn’t care if you think you are in danger of a death or great bodily harm, it matters what a “reasonable person” would believe (that is a jury). People get choked out in fights all the time; you don’t die, you pass out.

However…. I am not an attorney, I don’t play one on TV and I didn’t sleep at a Holiday inn last night.

If we lose the knife scenario, then what are we agreeing on?

We are agreeing that if either party pulls a weapon that is a deadly weapon by its very nature such as a gun or knife; then the other person or a bystander has a green light to take them out.

Once again, I never made the assertion that if you got scared you were justified in using deadly force. I will agree that if the situation turns into a deadly force situation where the other party uses either A. A weapon or B. A properly applied choke, you are justified in shooting.

And as I said above; I content that the choke hold won’t fly with a jury; they will send you to prison where you belong.

[Guest dotsun]

The law doesn’t care if you think you are in danger of a death or great bodily harm, it matters what a “reasonable person†would believe (that is a jury). People get choked out in fights all the time; you don’t die, you pass out.

And as I said above; I content that the choke hold won’t fly with a jury; they will send you to prison where you belong.

The problem is once you pass out, you no longer have control over your life. Depending on how long the person holds the choke after you pass out you can either die or suffer brain damage from lack of oxygen.

And yes, we also will have to disagree on when lethal force is justified based on whether you were a willing participant or not.