Pre-determined Mindset of how to handle a situation?

[Guest WyattEarp]

I was having a conversation the other day with a friend on another forum (who does not have an HCP and does not believe in carrying) that if you have a pre-determined mindset that you will/would kill anyone who accosts you with a firearm or other weapon or otherwise tries to kill you, or put you in imminent fear of bodily harm, that it's pre-meditated murder.

I would like a perspective from a legal standpoint on this.

If you've made up your mind that if a bad guys attacks you, intrudes into your home, tries to car jack you, or otherwise hurt you, and you've decided BEFORE any attack happens that you would kill him (and not just neutralize or injure him), is that in fact pre-meditated murder? Or is it still considered self-defense since the intruder/attacker is the instigator and is armed?

Or is this merely just a contingency plan of how you would react in a given situation?

He seems to think it's pre-meditated murder (which I disagree with). He also made the comment that if you made such a statement on an internet forum, a lawyer could research your internet habits and find that statement and then use it against to you prove that you did in fact "pre-determine" that you would take an attacker's life and that you had already decided in your mind how you would handle the situation before any attack ever happened, and that that is what would make it pre-meditated murder.

this is his exact comment (verbatim)

I'll leave out all the variables in your scenarios (i.e. pulling your gun gets you shot first, either/both shot while struggling over weapon, shots fired that miss and leave the vehicle/home and strike collateral targets, home invader winds up being unarmed though threatening, etc) and just comment on your now-published willingness to execute someone who has threatened you. This is a huge decision that has to be made in a nanosecond of time. Shooting to incapacitate at least allows one the defense of trying to end the encounter without causing the death of the assailant, which is more in line with the spirit of the law, don't you think?

One thing to think about: if you are brought to trial for killing an attacker, a competent attorney will have researched and read your posts, seeking to demonstrate your premeditated and expressed willingness to kill someone.

I think his statement is pretty far fetched, but I'm curious to see everyone's thoughts, LEO's, Attorney's and NON-LEO's.

[Caster]

Hmph, First off, find you a new friend. Second, it is premeditated, but it ain't murder.

Every soldier that has shot some towel head over in the sandbox; Every time an enemy combatant has been ventilated it has been premeditated. Training that starts in basic, up to the instant it happens.

Same goes here and now with me, you and everyone else. When another man chooses to take, or threaten to take, MY LIFE he therefore forfeits his right to live as well. From there the chips can fall where they fall. The one who survives can argue over details. When someone makes this choice against me, it is an act of war. They are then and there enemy combatant and they are treated as such. I'll run like a coward from any fight if I see an opening. The world can laugh at me and I won't care, but if cornered or no other IMMEDIATE option.... whoever bleeds out first looses.

...and tell you friend he can kiss MY butt and to stop spewing that filthy hippy rhetoric.

[bajabuc]

No one knows how he/she will react when the rounds start whistling past an ear. You can have a plan...or not have a plan...but when it comes down to it, you either freeze or shoot back. There's many a cop/FBI/Deputy Marshal/ Homeland Security man who wonders what...EXACTLY...what he/she might do when the **** hits the fan. Training is great...mindset is great...but don't say you'll do thus and so because it ain't happened yet.

[hipower]

Well said, brother bajabuc. And I fevrently hope none of us have to face that situation and find out.

To own firearms for hunting, sporting, or defensive purposes doesn't mean a person is fully prepared to do "anything necessary" in whaterver scenerio might happen to them. It really just means they have a firearm; and may or may not have proficiency with that weapon to use it.

As with any skilled endeavor, it means that hopefully the knowledge acquired thru use and repetion will be available to them in a high stress/life threatening situation and the mental acuity to react in the best possible manner.

Circumstances and mental condition will dictate our responeses.

[Guest friesepferd]

my opinion-

if you say that you would kill anyone who attacks you - very very unlikely that will cause you to end up in jail if you need to defend yourself.

if you say that you would shoot anyone who attacks you, you would do everything necessary to stop someone... would not just try to disable... would aim center of mass... etc etc etc ... no way that would come back around.

What it simply comes down to- you should not shoot to KILL, you should should to STOP.

Simply the most effective way to stop someone is very likely to kill them.

[Guest WyattEarp]

No one knows how he/she will react when the rounds start whistling past an ear. You can have a plan...or not have a plan...but when it comes down to it, you either freeze or shoot back. There's many a cop/FBI/Deputy Marshal/ Homeland Security man who wonders what...EXACTLY...what he/she might do when the **** hits the fan. Training is great...mindset is great...but don't say you'll do thus and so because it ain't happened yet.

that doesn't answer the question I asked though, but thanks for your opinion.

Well said, brother bajabuc. And I fevrently hope none of us have to face that situation and find out.

To own firearms for hunting, sporting, or defensive purposes doesn't mean a person is fully prepared to do "anything necessary" in whaterver scenerio might happen to them. It really just means they have a firearm; and may or may not have proficiency with that weapon to use it.

As with any skilled endeavor, it means that hopefully the knowledge acquired thru use and repetion will be available to them in a high stress/life threatening situation and the mental acuity to react in the best possible manner.

Circumstances and mental condition will dictate our responeses.

i hope to never find out either (and hope no one else here does either), but your reply didn't answer the question at hand.

my opinion-

if you say that you would kill anyone who attacks you - very very unlikely that will cause you to end up in jail if you need to defend yourself.

if you say that you would shoot anyone who attacks you, you would do everything necessary to stop someone... would not just try to disable... would aim center of mass... etc etc etc ... no way that would come back around.

What it simply comes down to- you should not shoot to KILL, you should should to STOP.

Simply the most effective way to stop someone is very likely to kill them.

thanks for the insight and clarification.

[BrasilNuts]

Your friend says:

"Shooting to incapacitate at least allows one the defense of trying to end the encounter without causing the death of the assailant, which is more in line with the spirit of the law, don't you think?"

The spirit of the law?

In Tennessee the law says that if I fear for my life I am justified to use deadly force.

I guess by his reckoning just carrying a gun could be considered premeditated. I mean after all a gun is not a tool designed to incapacitate it is designed to kill.

If someone comes at me they are getting shot center mass (hopefully) if they live or die is between them and God.

[hipower]

Probably the only awnser that will satisfy you will come from one of two sources; a criiminal lawyer who will likely interpret by local standards and details of your situation. And that likely won't awnser your direct question.

Or a test case that will involve research that actually brings up this scenerio in which internet statements are brought to bear. And this is my speculation only. am not a lawyer and did't stay at some Holiday Inn. But if you, or anyone, makes enough statements of what he would do in this circumstance and it is in the public domain; I'd think it concievable that those statements could be used in court against him.

But...are these statements non-specific or directed at one particular person or group? In today's climate, where verbal statements can get you called in on the multitude of "hate speech" crimes; I'd say it's possible. JMO

[Guest WyattEarp]

Probably the only awnser that will satisfy you will come from one of two sources; a criiminal lawyer who will likely interpret by local standards and details of your situation. And that likely won't awnser your direct question.

Or a test case that will involve research that actually brings up this scenerio in which internet statements are brought to bear. And this is my speculation only. am not a lawyer and did't stay at some Holiday Inn. But if you, or anyone, makes enough statements of what he would do in this circumstance and it is in the public domain; I'd think it concievable that those statements could be used in court against him.

But...are these statements non-specific or directed at one particular person or group? In today's climate, where verbal statements can get you called in on the multitude of "hate speech" crimes; I'd say it's possible. JMO

that was an excellent reply. and the statements would be non-specific. not aimed at any particular person, just a "potential attacker". I would think in my non-legal opinion for it to be pre-meditated murder, that you would have to 1.) know the person 2.) plan it out in detail and carry out. I think my "friend" is a little off the beaten path with the "pre-meditated murder" statement, since it's being stated what you would do in the event you were accosted by an armed attacker/intruder.

just makes for an interesting discussion.

[Guest UberDuper]

Take a look at the Harold Fish case. I don't remember there being anything specific to statements made about preparedness to defend with deadly force.. But iirc the prosecutor did make a show of his preparedness and his choice of weapon. Of course I might be mixing myth with fact here. It's been a while since I did any reading on that case.

[Seaslug]

that was an excellent reply. and the statements would be non-specific. not aimed at any particular person, just a "potential attacker". I would think in my non-legal opinion for it to be pre-meditated murder, that you would have to 1.) know the person 2.) plan it out in detail and carry out. I think my "friend" is a little off the beaten path with the "pre-meditated murder" statement, since it's being stated what you would do in the event you were accosted by an armed attacker/intruder.

just makes for an interesting discussion.

If you're not familiar with the case already, Google the Oklahoma pharmacist who was recently convicted of first-degree murder for killing an incapacitated would-be robber. While the dead boy did not have a gun (his friend who got away did), I believe there are some definite similarities to the hypothetical situation you are describing, and the verdict was handed down even WITHOUT any previous internet bravado, etc.

As has been said numerous times, if your intent is to KILL rather than to STOP, then you're asking for trouble in the eyes of the law. If an attacker dies as a result of your efforts to STOP him, then so be it. If your intentions are more nefarious, however, then you should keep them between you and your maker. And as evidenced by the case cited above, don't get caught on camera going back to get another gun to finish him off for God's sake...

[Guest WyattEarp]

If you're not familiar with the case already, Google the Oklahoma pharmacist who was recently convicted of first-degree murder for killing an incapacitated would-be robber. While the dead boy did not have a gun (his friend who got away did), I believe there are some definite similarities to the hypothetical situation you are describing, and the verdict was handed down even WITHOUT any previous internet bravado, etc.

As has been said numerous times, if your intent is to KILL rather than to STOP, then you're asking for trouble in the eyes of the law. If an attacker dies as a result of your efforts to STOP him, then so be it. If your intentions are more nefarious, however, then you should keep them between you and your maker. And as evidenced by the case cited above, don't get caught on camera going back to get another gun to finish him off for God's sake...

i've seen the coverage on that case, and legally the pharmacist was wrong (morally, he did the good law abiding citizens in this country a huge favor) but that's not what I'm talking about in my initial post. he shot the guy, then came back and pumped 5 or 6 more rounds into him after he was already incapacitated. I would never do what the pharmacist did.

i suppose like bajabuc said, we can speculate about all the scenarios we want in our head, but we really don't know how it will play out until we're in that situation.

[ttocswob]

Wyatt, I second Caster's comment: "it is premeditated, but it ain't murder." No more than an armed citizen is an armed robber.

I am against any type or degree of murder, but all for premeditated self-defense.

[kwe45919]

As has been said numerous times, if your intent is to KILL rather than to STOP, then you're asking for trouble in the eyes of the law. If an attacker dies as a result of your efforts to STOP him, then so be it. If your intentions are more nefarious, however, then you should keep them between you and your maker. And as evidenced by the case cited above, don't get caught on camera going back to get another gun to finish him off for God's sake...

And someone was reading my mind......

If it would ever be considered "pre-meditated" then all officers and military personel who have shot and killed someone would have to stand trial. Then you'll have to rewrite history because Washington's trip across the Patomic was "pre-meditaed"......killing of indians and the whole Trail of Tears was pre-meditated....the list could go on and on and on as to what could be viewed as pre-meditated.

In this simple case, it is our right to bear arms and to defend ourselves and our nation with them. Sometimes that may mean taking a life but keeping the "mind set" of tatics and abilities could keep us from having to resort to that...

[Guest Broomhead]

I would speculate, that premeditated murder would require a victim that is known to the one premeditating, prior to the event. In other words, you would have to plan on a specific person, not just some random person intent on doing you harm. I am not a lawyer, I have not studied law, this is all speculation.

[hipower]

I would speculate, that premeditated murder would require a victim that is known to the one premeditating, prior to the event. In other words, you would have to plan on a specific person, not just some random person intent on doing you harm. I am not a lawyer, I have not studied law, this is all speculation.

I wonder. Since we're speculating here...Does premeditated require that the victim be known to the attacker? What if he just decides to go out and kill for the thrill/high/rush/whatever? He's just decided to kill someone and choose in some random manner. But the act of murder is still premeditated, isn't it? At least if it could be shown and proven that he/she had the intent to kill. Would that be so?

[Fallguy]

FWIW

39-13-202(d) As used in subdivision (a)(1), “premeditation” is an act done after the exercise of reflection and judgment. “Premeditation” means that the intent to kill must have been formed prior to the act itself. It is not necessary that the purpose to kill pre-exist in the mind of the accused for any definite period of time. The mental state of the accused at the time the accused allegedly decided to kill must be carefully considered in order to determine whether the accused was sufficiently free from excitement and passion as to be capable of premeditation. (www.michie.com/tennessee)

However one may also want to see 39-11-611 (www.michie.com/tennessee)

But IMO (and I am nobody) general statements that you intend to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary comes no where near premeditated murder. You may want to see 39-13-201 also. It says to be charged with any level of Criminal Homicide it has to be the "unlawful" killing of another. If it is self-defense, it is not unlawful...again IMO.

[Guest friesepferd]

yea, again we come back to one point. the destiction between saying you are going to defend yourself with deadly force, and saying that you will kill anyone that robs me / pulls a gun on me / threatens me / etc.

the former - absolutely no problem. the later- could be brought up in a court case

[enfield]

You need new friends.

[Guest XD9GUY]

I remember reading about a guy in "Merry Old England" that was charged with premeditated murder when he defended himself in his own home with a gun. The intruder was killed. The court reasoned that since the same guy had already robbed the homeowner previously and even beat him up, it was premeditated because they said he was “Laying-in-wait” for the intruder. Of course everyone knows that England has been dis-armed. Only criminals and police are allowed to have guns there.

However, here in the “Good old USA” we have a right to defend our “Castle” by whatever means. That’s not to say, however, that you reload and go back and finish the intruder off after wounding him.

BTW your "friend" is a Moron.

[Guest XD9GUY]

I remember reading about a guy in "Merry Old England" that was charged with premeditated murder when he defended himself in his own home with a gun. The intruder was killed. The court reasoned that since the same guy had already robbed the homeowner previously and even beat him up, it was premeditated because they said he was “Laying-in-wait†for the intruder. Of course everyone knows that England has been dis-armed. Only criminals and police are allowed to have guns there.

However, here in the “Good old USA†we have a right to defend our “Castle†by whatever means. That’s not to say, however, that you reload and go back and finish the intruder off after wounding him.

BTW your "friend" is a Moron.

[tnhawk]

If you didn't plan and initiate the circumstances, which placed in in fear of your life, it doesn't seem that the situation could be pre-meditated by you.

[wjh2657]

It is not premeditated if you never tell anybody about it!

There are a lot of books and a lot of articles ou there about mindset. People make a lot of money teaching it at self defense schools.

My experience with it has been strictly in combat. I saw Marines with months of training in killing and in working up a mindset freeze the first time they encountered the need to fire. All the training went out the window. I don't need Ayoob or Hawks or any of the Super Gurus to tell me at this point that Marine training just wasn't as good as their schools. Marine training has done pretty well for this country in war for over two centuries now. But the truth is that it will still be a personal call at the time and place. Your training can teach you how to shoot but the psychological and moral force required for shooting at another human being will be different for everybody. I am pretty sure I will fire, but I have killed before and gotten over that "stumbling block" of morality that might cause me to pause. I don't recommend anybody else go through the experience of killing "to gain an edge" (some of you already have) but it the only actual experience that will make you truly confident that you can "bust the cap." Those that have done it know that killing is not just a "motor function". No training can really prepare you for it , it will just be a judgement call and once made, changes you forever.

Edited June 29, 2011 by wjh2657