When to use deadly force

[E4 No More]

No way to know that. I'd first try to run and keep my eyes looking back at him to see. If he pursued me and I felt I was in danger of being caught, I would likely reach to draw while running, stop, then turn to face the inevitable.

No way to know what...that he'll chase you or catch you? The latter may be uncertain for you, but not for a 49 year old such as myself. As for the former you need to look to experience. If you don't want to trust the judgement of a former police officer such as myself that's fine, but perhaps you should trust research. This link is a good example: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/general-off-topic/34906-what-fbi-learned-about-gangsta-thug-mentality.html

EDIT: Looking behind you while running in a sprint is a darn good way to trip or run into something making the issue of catching you more certain.

[Guest broncobuddha]

Thanks to OhShoot for publishing the link. I knew that the forced entry had been extended to the vehicle.

Bashing in your fender is not forced entry, and it was obvious that guy was doing more than that especially when going after the windows. However, all in all, it was obvious this guy was baiting and or trying to frighten the people in the vehicle. He would have loved it had the guy gotten out of his car. Not so much so if the guy put more lead into the thugs diet.

This guy definitely had the opportunity and enough intent to cause severe bodily harm.

All I'm saying is I wouldn't have been ready to draw just when he was bashing the fenders in as I would have been when he hit the windshield and started with the other windows.

[tt0511]

No way to know what...that he'll chase you or catch you? The latter may be uncertain for you, but not for a 49 year old such as myself. As for the former you need to look to experience. If you don't want to trust the judgement of a former police officer such as myself that's fine, but perhaps you should trust research. This link is a good example: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/general-off-topic/34906-what-fbi-learned-about-gangsta-thug-mentality.html

EDIT: Looking behind you while running in a sprint is a darn good way to trip or run into something making the issue of catching you more certain.

No way to know if he will chase. I'll look at the link later tonight.

[Guest benchpresspower]

My father was in a similar situation like this here in Hermitage. Supposedly he pulled in front of someone who was clearly far enough away that it wasn't a big deal. Long story short, this guy tailgates my dad to the next light, gets out of his car and walks up to my father's window with a nightstick in his hand. Dad points his .45 at the guy and the guy backs off. Given now, my dad couldn't go forward nor back up. Glad he didn't pull the trigger. I just wonder what the outcome would have been had the guy swung the night stick at him. Justifiable or not?

[Guest jackdm3]

Totally.

[Guest HexHead]

Glad he didn't pull the trigger. I just wonder what the outcome would have been had the guy swung the night stick at him. Justifiable or not?

Given that the guy was approaching your dad in a threatening manner with a nightstick in his hand, your dad would have had a reasonable fear of grave bodily injury, and would have been justified dropping him like a sack of potatoes.

As for the video, when the guy was smashing the hood with the crowbar, I would have tried to run him over. When he got to the vicinity of the windows, he'd get some lead to go with his grill.

[mikegideon]

No way to know what...that he'll chase you or catch you? The latter may be uncertain for you, but not for a 49 year old such as myself. As for the former you need to look to experience. If you don't want to trust the judgement of a former police officer such as myself that's fine, but perhaps you should trust research. This link is a good example: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/general-off-topic/34906-what-fbi-learned-about-gangsta-thug-mentality.html

EDIT: Looking behind you while running in a sprint is a darn good way to trip or run into something making the issue of catching you more certain.

Based on the FBI report, all the stories and videos I have viewed, and conversations with friends that have been robbed at gunpoint, my conclusions are:

A: Carry Mr. Browning's creation... damn the weight

B: Don't hesitate to unholster and bring it to Condition 0

[Guest Ggun]

IMHO him beating up my car is what I pay insurance for. As far as location etc working on scenario of this in Tennessee which is where I live. First swing that breaks glass near me or any passengers doors in my car (especially wife and kids in car) I am assuming he broke it to enter or hurt me or them. I will be using deadly force to attempt to stop him. But here comes real world question ever try to shoot across your passenger in your passenger seat and shoot a guy through the window and not hurt passenger in car or miss and shoot past them and hit another bystander? Typically my son is in the back seat either diagonal or directly behind me how to shoot attacker and not risk injury to him? Do you exit the car if there is time? Obviosly these aren't scenarios you can typically try shooting around or through during drills on a gun range?? Not saying I wouldn't try to stop him anyway I could. But at same time got think how you would actually pull off that shot? My worst fear is me hurting a friend or family member trying to protect them.

That's not a shot I want to take when I'm driving with a rear passenger side kid. I've got to draw from right with my right hand from 2:00 holster, and blast the kid's eardrums along with other probable injuries. I'd have to get out and try to target him on the exterior of the car.

The other thing about the video is that you kinda get the idea that if you are the only occupant and stay in the car (the assailant is on the passenger side) and keep moving you can get away without anyone hurt. And, that is the best course of action in this scenario, imo, the least hassle to deal with.

[Guest Ggun]

I agree with that. I'm a Christian as well, but that's really not what gives me pause about taking a life. An often quoted verse around here is the one about a man having no sword should sell his cloak to buy one. I see it like this. I do NOT want to take a life unless I am given no other choice. I don't relish in the thought of having to ever shoot anyone, but I also realize that some day, whether in my line of work or because of where I live, it may become a real possibility so I prepare myself as best you can for it.

I have actually met Mas Ayoob and had a conversation with him about his articles and books and what I gathered from that 10-15 minute conversation is pretty much what you asserted above. He wants you to be cautious and think. For that I commend him, it's just at times he can be a bit too much scare factor if you don't read into it or understand his point fully.

I'm sure Mas will be thrilled that you're advising us not to read his books!!

Most of us, though, haven't been able to speak with Mr. Ayoob. But, I've read an article or two of his and they seem dang straight forward to me. Is there some hidden meaning I need to read into?

Did you find his books and articles not applicable here in Tennessee now that we have this Castle Doctrine for Cars?

Edited February 11, 2010 by Ggun
spelling

[Guest ogreabroad]

I have a Q... I will be getting my HCP soon, and love the conversation, which brings up many points to think upon... Several of you have stated that when the BG was in front of or behind the car, you wold hit him with the car so as to not have to use your gun. I know I read something last year about making and crime committed (or maybe it was just felonies) while in the possesion of a handgun, a more serious crime. I think it was a bill they were talking about passing, and im not sure if it passed... does using your car as a weapon, instead of your gun help you, legally i mean? Obviously, wounding him with your car would be better than putting him 6 feet under morally, im just trying to get a grasp on the legal implications here.

Just to be clear, im not challenging anyone.. just trying to get info.

[Bubba0031]

Aside from any legal issue relative to lethel force I think the use of a car as opposed to a handgun is a better choice simply because it eliminates the possibilty of a stray round injuring a by stander.

[Guest Caveman]

Check out the video.

What Would You Do to This Dirtbag?

And people wonder why I am the way I am.

[daddyo]

Glad to see so many here considering the implications of using deadly force, and not just adopting the "I'd empty three mags into him and not even think about it" mentality.

Taking a life, no matter what the reason, is serious business, and final. There are no resets. Firing in self-defense is the very last resort after everything else has failed, but I carry in the event that shooting is the only thing between me and getting to see my family again.

[Guest HexHead]

The other thing about the video is that you kinda get the idea that if you are the only occupant and stay in the car (the assailant is on the passenger side) and keep moving you can get away without anyone hurt. And, that is the best course of action in this scenario, imo, the least hassle to deal with.

You have no obligation to try and retreat or flee. When he broke the passenger window of the car, you could make the argument that he was trying to gain entry into the car from the passenger side. That would be a threat that you'd be justified in stopping.

[dwcz]

You have no obligation to try and retreat or flee. When he broke the passenger window of the car, you could make the argument that he was trying to gain entry into the car from the passenger side. That would be a threat that you'd be justified in stopping.

You may feel it was justified. The police may agree with you and say you have no criminal liability. But would 12 "average" people agree with you if dirtbag or dirtbag's relatives sued you and it went to a civil liability trial? I've never been impressed with the common sense of the bulk of people I've encountered or that friends have encountered during jury duty... Although I haven't had jury duty since living in TN

I'm not disagreeing with you, just throwing that perspective out there.

What's the deal with people being able to or not being able to sue for injuries incurred while they were committing a crime in Tennessee? I thought I read something about that somewhere but can't remember.

[Guest HexHead]

You may feel it was justified. The police may agree with you and say you have no criminal liability. But would 12 "average" people agree with you if dirtbag or dirtbag's relatives sued you and it went to a civil liability trial? I've never been impressed with the common sense of the bulk of people I've encountered or that friends have encountered during jury duty... Although I haven't had jury duty since living in TN

I'm not disagreeing with you, just throwing that perspective out there.

What's the deal with people being able to or not being able to sue for injuries incurred while they were committing a crime in Tennessee? I thought I read something about that somewhere but can't remember.

Car is covered under the Castle Doctrine now, and according to state law if it's ruled a justifiable shoot, you are shielded from civil lawsuit.

[tt0511]

You may feel it was justified. The police may agree with you and say you have no criminal liability. But would 12 "average" people agree with you if dirtbag or dirtbag's relatives sued you and it went to a civil liability trial? I've never been impressed with the common sense of the bulk of people I've encountered or that friends have encountered during jury duty... Although I haven't had jury duty since living in TN

I'm not disagreeing with you, just throwing that perspective out there.

What's the deal with people being able to or not being able to sue for injuries incurred while they were committing a crime in Tennessee? I thought I read something about that somewhere but can't remember.

I'm not read up on what the list of offenses are that qualify as a "felony", but if you shoot someone in self defense, or defense of others while they are in the act of committing a felony, you cannot be sued in a civil lawsuit. You are immune. Do some reading in the T.S.A.

Look at:

39-11-622. Justification for use of force — Exceptions — Immunity from civil liability. —

(a) (1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless:

(A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106 who:

(i) Was acting in the performance of the officer's official duties; and

(ii) Identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law; or

(iii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or

( The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.

( The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon the person's use of force, if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201.

[Acts 2007, ch. 210, § 3.]

Edited February 12, 2010 by tt0511
added TSA section

[dwcz]

Car is covered under the Castle Doctrine now, and according to state law if it's ruled a justifiable shoot, you are shielded from civil lawsuit.

I'm not read up on what the list of offenses are that qualify as a "felony", but if you shoot someone in self defense, or defense of others while they are in the act of committing a felony, you cannot be sued in a civil lawsuit. You are immune. Do some reading in the T.S.A.

Look at...

Thanks! Good to know.

[BigPoppa]

I'm not read up on what the list of offenses are that qualify as a "felony", but if you shoot someone in self defense, or defense of others while they are in the act of committing a felony, you cannot be sued in a civil lawsuit. You are immune. Do some reading in the T.S.A.

T.C.A........and IANAL, but I'm not certain that "immune" and "cannot be sued" are the same thing.

[tt0511]

T.C.A........and IANAL, but I'm not certain that "immune" and "cannot be sued" are the same thing.

What is IANAL? ha ha. For a second, ...I thought you were saying you were anal about something, lol.

hmm....from what I've read, I'm fairly convinced that the entire intent of that section of TCA (sorry, been using TSA for "state annotated") is to protect someone defending themselves (or others) against attack from the criminal or criminal's family in civil court. "immune from civil liability". "Can't be held liable" seems straight forward to me but perhaps I have something to learn here.

[BigPoppa]

What is IANAL? ha ha. For a second, ...I thought you were saying you were anal about something, lol.

hmm....from what I've read, I'm fairly convinced that the entire intent of that section of TCA (sorry, been using TSA for "state annotated") is to protect someone defending themselves (or others) against attack from the criminal or criminal's family in civil court. "immune from civil liability". "Can't be held liable" seems straight forward to me but perhaps I have something to learn here.

I Am Not A Lawyer

As we discuss in our HCP classes, this is a potential gray area that, to my knowledge, has not been fully threshed out in the courts.

As in..... yes, you may eventually be cleared or released from any and all civil liability, but how much court, attorneys' fees, etc. will you have to endure before you get there ?

Our advice remains - "if you shoot somebody, expect to be sued - and if it never happens, then that's just a bonus."

[mikegideon]

I Am Not A Lawyer

As we discuss in our HCP classes, this is a potential gray area that, to my knowledge, has not been fully threshed out in the courts.

As in..... yes, you may eventually be cleared or released from any and all civil liability, but how much court, attorneys' fees, etc. will you have to endure before you get there ?

Our advice remains - "if you shoot somebody, expect to be sued - and if it never happens, then that's just a bonus."

It also says that the court will award all the costs to you (the shooter), so at least the stakes will be a lot higher for a person that sues. if they lose, they gotta pay for the whole shebang.

[BigPoppa]

It also says that the court will award all the costs to you (the shooter), so at least the stakes will be a lot higher for a person that sues. if they lose, they gotta pay for the whole shebang.

True, but as a practical matter, good luck ever collecting a thin dime from the typical :poop:bags we're dealing with here.

[Guest jackdm3]

Maybe our learned attorney friends here can tell us how it usually plays out?

[E4 No More]

Maybe our learned attorney friends here can tell us how it usually plays out?

Patrick Stegall has already commented to me that he would require payment in full from a client who wanted to sue the shooter after a good shoot.