Multiple Unarmed Attackers/ Justifiable Homocide

[Guest Gen. Patton]

I have heard that in the event that one is attacked by multiple unarmed assailants that one is justified in drawing and firing on them. The legal justification, as it was explained to me by someone that was neither a lawyer or law enforcement officer, would be that when they are committing an uprovoked assault with malice and the intent to cause serious bodily injury or death it constitutes the commission of a felony and even though they do not have weapons in their hands their acts in tandem are seen in the eyes of the law as if one each is using the other as a weapon to overwhealm someone who has the right to defend themselves against serious bodly injury or death.

2 questions:

1. Is that truly the way that Tennessee law and jurisprudence views that situation?

2. In the event that there are only 2 attackers and one shoots both of them, would only one of them be legally justified with the other being an excessive use of force or could one argue that after shooting one assailant the other assailants continued assault could be seen as an attempt on ones life because if the sight of his co-conspiritor being killed right in front of him didn't deter his attack it could be reasonably assumed that his intent would be to kill the shooter?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

In fear for your life, I would say. If two guys were charging towards me, I wouldn't even think about if they

had weapons or not. My gun would come out, regardless. I think you would be okay with the law, but it

wouldn't be bad to have a witness around, if that's possible.

There are very few instances where one would have to shoot two or more people and I think it would be

wise to say I was in fear for my life, because I was, and ask to see my lawyer. Hopefully something like

that wouldn't ever happen.

That's the kind of thing where you should stay away from areas where that wouldn't happen. Situational

awareness can be a lifesaver.

[Hozzie]

I would say a lot depends on the size of the persons involved, but in general, I believe that if you fear for your life, then you are justified in using force to stop the threat. That would mean to me, if I shot one and the other was still coming and I thought they were capable of kiliing me, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot them as well.

If it is two teenage girls, probably not. If you fear for your life and only shoot to stop the threat, I think you are well within the law.

I'm not a lawyer and I didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn, but that is my take.

[Stegall Law Firm]

That's a pretty long winded version you're using there. Try this: You need to have a reasonable belief of an immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury, to yourself or another. Period. That's about as simple as you can boil it down (and Tennessee law on use of deadly force is pretty simple).

Whether you're justified to both is just going to depend on the facts. Like if they're both closing in on you, yeah, they're both good for it. But if one is further away (like maybe a getaway driver) and you go after him after taking care of the principal, when you really didn't need to, might be problematic.

[Links2k]

In fear for your life, I would say. If two guys were charging towards me, I wouldn't even think about if they

had weapons or not. My gun would come out, regardless. I think you would be okay with the law, but it

wouldn't be bad to have a witness around, if that's possible.

There are very few instances where one would have to shoot two or more people and I think it would be

wise to say I was in fear for my life, because I was, and ask to see my lawyer. Hopefully something like

that wouldn't ever happen.

That's the kind of thing where you should stay away from areas where that wouldn't happen. Situational

awareness can be a lifesaver.

I told a guy the same thing yesterday. Crap can happen anywhere, but you reduce your odds of becoming a victim if you stay away from shady people and places.

[S&WForty]

If assailant #2 knows the victim just fired a weapon at assailant #1, then assailant #2 should be turning to run, not continuing the attack. His intent can't be good. Fire!

[Guest Gen. Patton]

I'm glad I live in a sensible state when it comes to stuff like this. Times are changing though and I like to keep myself brushed up on stuff like this. You never know when you'll be in a situation and then end up getting a liberal D.A. with an agenda and a point to prove and YOUR life to prove it with. I'm a bit detailed when it comes to legal minuita like this because it's all the little nooks and crannies and intricacies of the law that they use to crucify you.

[Guest Gen. Patton]

If assailant #2 knows the victim just fired a weapon at assailant #1, then assailant #2 should be turning to run, not continuing the attack. His intent can't be good. Fire!

Yeah, that's what I said! He's not with Publishers Clearing House and I doubt he want's to fix your tie! LOL!

[TexasAggie]

I'm no lawyer, but I understand that you can use deadly force when three basic elements all exist including ability (other person has power to kill or cripple you), opportunity (other person has the circumstances to use his abilities against you), and jeopardy (other person's actions provide a reasonably perceived belief that he intends to kill or cripple you). Ability can be present when a weapon is not. If a weapon is not present, ability may be represented by something called disparity of force (usually multiple attackers). It basically means the fight would be so radically unfair and so unevenly matched that any reasonable bystander would agree that one, or more, of the particpants could kill or permanently damage the other person without a weapon.

It's my understanding that your Question 1 is a yes due to disparity of force. Disparity of force is figured out on a case by case basis.

Question 2 is more complicated and if the three elements mentioned above exist, you can use deadly force. However, in a disparity of force scenario with unarmed assailants, using deadly force against the LAST remaining unarmed assailant puts you on "thin ice" legally (especially if he's attempting to flee) and proving self defense could be difficult. However, there are exceptions and it depends on the circumstances like when a strong young person attacks a really old person; a healthy person attacks someone who is handicapped; a known martial artist attacks someone who is not a martial artist, when one participant is so badly injured that he's unable to physically defend himself, and (a really big one) when a man attacks a woman.

Edited October 22, 2012 by mcrichar

[daddyo]

In a disparity of force situation involving threats to one's personal safety and/or survival, deadly force is justified.

I carry my weapon because I fully intend to go home to my family each and every day.

[Guest Gen. Patton]

I'm no lawyer, but I understand that you can use deadly force when three basic elements all exist including ability (other person has power to kill or cripple you), opportunity (other person has the circumstances to use his abilities against you), and jeopardy (other person's actions provide a reasonably perceived belief that he intends to kill or cripple you). Ability can be present when a weapon is not. If a weapon is not present, ability may be represented by something called disparity of force (usually multiple attackers). It basically means the fight would be so radically unfair and so unevenly matched that any reasonable bystander would agree that one, or more, of the particpants could kill or permanently damage the other person without a weapon.

It's my understanding that your Question 1 is a yes due to disparity of force. Disparity of force is figured out on a case by case basis.

Question 2 is more complicated and if the three elements mentioned above exist, you can use deadly force. However, in a disparity of force scenario with unarmed assailants, using deadly force against the LAST remaining unarmed assailant puts you on "thin ice" legally (especially if he's attempting to flee) and proving self defense could be difficult. However, there are exceptions and it depends on the circumstances like when a strong young person attacks a really old person; a healthy person attacks someone who is handicapped; a known martial artist attacks someone who is not a martial artist, when one participant is so badly injured that he's unable to physically defend him, and (a really big one) when a man attacks a woman.

If he's attempting to flee assailant #2 would be shot in the back so that would be somewhat easy enough to prove if he was continuing the assault. We are assuming or have evidence that assailants #1 and #2 are committing an illegal assault so there would be no legal right of either of the assailants to disarm anyone.

[Guest Gen. Patton]

That would be funny as hell though; a guy is kicking another guy's ass for 20 or 30 minutes and then the guy that's winning takes out a trophy and an 8th degree blackbelt diploma and the other guy takes out a gun and shoots him and is like "I wish I had known he was a blackbelt 30 minutes ago! Whewww! I'm sure glad that's over with." LOL! OMG I would laugh forever!

Edited October 22, 2012 by Gen. Patton

[TexasAggie]

Patton,

Check out the video link below on Multiple Attackers - Scenario from the Best Defense. It's posted by Downrange.TV (I believe that its shown on the Outdoor Channel). Pay particular attention to Marty Hayes (Lead Attorney for the Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network) at the 5:00 mark. I believe that he'll likely address your questions (he specifically addresses disparity of force and unarmed assailants). As a FYI - the role play was filmed at US Shooting Academy in Tulsa, OK. I recently visited there (have a project in the area), and the facility / trainers are "top notch".

Linlk: http://www.downrange.tv/blog/multiple-attackers-scenario-from-the-best-defense/16454/

[Guest Gen. Patton]

Patton,

Check out the video link below on Multiple Attackers - Scenario from the Best Defense. It's posted by Downrange.TV (I believe that its shown on the Outdoor Channel). Pay particular attention to Marty Hayes (Lead Attorney for the Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network) at the 5:00 mark. I believe that he'll likely address your questions (he specifically addresses disparity of force and unarmed assailants). As a FYI - the role play was filmed at US Shooting Academy in Tulsa, OK. I recently visited there (have a project in the area), and the facility / trainers are "top notch".

Linlk: http://www.downrange...-defense/16454/

Thanx!

[Jesse]

Theres a video on youtube where 2 guys tried to rob a store. The owner shot and killed one of them. But the law charged his partner in crime who got away for his murder.

The store owners had no charges.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Jesse