Must a person take a butt whoopin before you pull a firearm?

[Guest XD_TN]

It all depends on the situation. I've been struck once in a dark parking lot before I carried. He was clearly on something. Before he struck he circled me and I addressed him. We had been around his family all day giving them fish we caught. When I went to load the car he was peaking into vehicles and seemed annoyed I interrupted. I had a knife and 2 ft steel pole to defend myself with and was mentally prepared to use both as he circled me. At one point he walked towards me stopping a few feet a way trying to be aggressive.

Luckily my 2 friends arrived from bottom of the hill where we were fishing before he acted. He sucker punched me, I acted and went to my wrestling background and was going to sweep him onto some rocks. Friends stepped in broke it up and we couldn't tell if he had a weapon.

Had I been carrying, when I was alone I would have presented my weapon once he decided to come at me. If he continued coming I would rely on judgement at that time.

If I were carrying and my fishing partners were there, I would not have drawn. Different feel of threat.

If its daytime and can see everything and its some young, small looking punk, I look for any solution out of it other than my weapon. I'm not a big guy, just 5ft 7 170lbs but with middle through college wrestling background I couldn't justify shooting in that case.

[East_TN_Patriot]

If a guy was beating you and noticed you had a gun on you, would they not take it from you? How many would say i dont want his gun i just want to beat him? If you are carrying it could be just as bad not to use it as it could be used on you.

 

Not necessarily.  Most people recognize that they would immediately become a felon armed with a firearm, which will get them an automatic prison term.  Like I said, I was engaged in multiple physical altercations during my police career and not a single bad guy ever tried to get my firearm.  Think about it; you personally get in a fight with someone and you see they have a firearm on them.  Would you go for their gun or would you cut and run in case they decided to shoot you?  At the end of the day, most fights are between people who know each other, and random thugs generally don't want to get shot.  They see their victim has a firearm and they will run or shoot at you if they happen to be armed.  

By no means am I trying to say that one shouldn't use their firearm to defend themselves if they genuinely feel that their life is in danger, but it seems that some people try to look for reasons to make it easier to justify using deadly force than the law allows.  If someone is 65-plus being attacked by an 18 year old kid, then clearly they are going to be able to use deadly force before me, a 37 year old in decent shape who has had some law enforcement training.  If an unarmed attacker is violently beating you and you think that you are about to lose that fight and they aren't going to stop (as it sounds like the case may be in the George Zimmerman case), then you are likely to be justified in using deadly force.  If you try to retreat and they come after you, that goes in your favor.  If you have a small child with you and you must protect them as well, then that goes in your favor.  It's all about the totality of the circumstances and being able to articulate specific facts to justify your belief that deadly force was absolutely necessary to protect yourself from imminent death or grievous bodily injury.  

Edited May 23, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[Jonsaiga]

That isn’t true according to the 911 tape and Zimmerman’s statement. He was running and Zimmerman was chasing him because he thought he would get away. “Chasing”, “following”… word games.
 

It is not word games, words mean things. "Chasing" conjures up images of tryting to run down Martin in an attempt to apprehend or come in physical contact with him. "Following" him conjures up images of him observing Martin from a distance to see where he is going and what he is doing. Listen to the tape and you hear he runs once Martin runs off. As soon as the 911 operator tells him they don't need him to do that... the wind noise slows to a stop and his breathing a speech normalize. The call continues on for a while and he is not actively "chasing" or "following" Martin. He is discussing where he is going to meet the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reAC8xMbiLc

 

That isn’t true either, Investigator Chris Serino wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter the night he was interviewed. The DA would not charge him. Certainly the people in the community got upset when the DA wouldn’t charge him; I would have been too. To claim this was spun by the media is ridiculous. It was a DA that did not do his job the way the people in the community thought it should be done. This was anything but a clear cut case of self-defense; this was murder.

 

from the provide wiki link: Media portrayal of Martin and Zimmerman

The Associated Press noted that initially the most widely used media photo of Martin was several years old and showed him as a "baby-faced boy," rather than as a 17 year old young man. To represent Zimmerman, the media chose a shot of a beefy 21 year-old Zimmerman taken seven years prior to the shooting, whereas recent photos show him as slim-faced and more mature. The two outdated photos chosen by the media may have helped shape the initial public perception of the shooting. The AP quoted academic Kenny Irby on the expected effect, "When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," and another academic, Betsi Grabe, as saying that journalists will present stories as a struggle between good and evil "[i]f the ingredients are there."^[25]

Reporting on Zimmerman's call to police

Economist and commentator Thomas Sowell criticized the national media for implying that Zimmerman had continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." He said that they mostly left out Zimmerman's answer, "O.K." because "too many people in the media see their role as filtering and slanting the news."^[350]

After the audio of the call was released, reports by CNN^[351] and other news outlets alleged that Zimmerman had said "fucking coons" two minutes and twenty-one seconds (2:21) into the call. Two weeks later on April 4, 2012, CNN claimed that enhanced audio revealed that Zimmerman had said "fucking cold."^[352] The following day, April 5, 2012, CNN's Martin Savidge reported that forensic audio expert Tom Owen claimed it was "fucking punks."^[353] It is said to be "fucking punks" in the affidavit of probable cause, dated April 11, 2012.^[29] Other reviewers of the call have offered alternate interpretations of what was said, including "unintelligible." According to the Associated Press, the alleged racial slur "fed growing outrage over the police department's initial decision not to arrest Zimmerman."^{[111][354][355][356]}

Misleading audio editing by NBC

Between March 19 and March 27, 2012, the NBC Nightly News, NBC's Today show, and NBC's network-owned Miami affiliate WTVJ NBC6^[357] ran segments which misleadingly merged parts of Zimmerman's call. On one version of the recording played by NBC, Zimmerman was heard saying, "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something... He's got his hand in his waistband, and he's a black male."^[358] In another what was played was, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." In the original 9-1-1 recording, Zimmerman said: "This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." The 9-1-1 operator then asked: "OK, and this guy, is he black, white or Hispanic?", and Zimmerman answered, "He looks black."^[318] The phrase, "He's got his hand in his waistband, and he's a black male" came several exchanges after that point in the conversation.^[359][360]

Erik Wemple of the Washington Post wrote that NBC's alterations "would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality... Zimmerman simply answered a question... Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry... To portray that exchange in a way that wrongs Zimmerman is high editorial malpractice..."^[318]

NBC issued an apology for "an error made in the production process that we deeply regret,"^[361] but never apologized on the air.^[362] The network said that the Today show and Miami edits took place in two separate incidents involving different people. A Miami-based NBC News producer lost her job, WTVJ reporter Jeff Burnside was fired,^[363] and two other employees were disciplined.^[364][365]Lilia Luciano, who was the reporter on broadcasts containing both edited versions of the audio,^[358][366] was also fired, and her aired reports on the Trayvon Martin story, along with the misleading audio, were removed from the Today website.^[367][368]

On December 6, 2012, Zimmerman filed a defamation lawsuit against NBC alleging that they intentionally edited the phone call so that Zimmerman would sound racist. The lawsuit said, "NBC saw the death of Trayvon Martin not as a tragedy but as an opportunity to increase ratings, and so set about to create the myth that George Zimmerman was a racist and predatory villain."^[369][370] A NBC spokeswoman said the network strongly disagreed with the accusations that Zimmerman made in the complaint, stating; "There was no intent to portray Mr. Zimmerman unfairly and we intend to vigorously defend our position in court."^[371]

 

 

But, we only know what was in the press. He deserves a fair trial. My point is that if you start an altercation and then end it with a gun because you are losing; you will probably go to trial. You are getting your azz kicked in a bar fight that you are a willing participant in; do you get to pull your gun and kill they guy and then claim “Oh, I work in the ER and I’ve seen people seriously injured in fights.” The jury knows that people get hurt in fights, and just like me most of them will say, “Well then you shouldn’t have been in a fight; you should have walked away.”

 In your scenario the answer is no. With that said, I don't go to bars, nor am I ever a willing participant in any altercation. I'm always going to try to de-escalate or leave the situation if it at all possible(safe to do so). Zimmerman was walking away to go meet with police when he was confronted and assaulted by Martin according to his account. From the available info it seems as though he is telling the truth.

[Jesse]

Yes i could see them not taking a cops gun, but if they are fighting lets say thier ex wifes new lover and are out of sight in public. Theres a good chance they would go for the gun. I feel i wouldnt be safe in a fight with a gun on my side.

But some may.

[RobertNashville]

 In your scenario the answer is no. With that said, I don't go to bars, nor am I ever a willing participant in any altercation. I'm always going to try to de-escalate or leave the situation if it at all possible(safe to do so). Zimmerman was walking away to go meet with police when he was confronted and assaulted by Martin according to his account. From the available info it seems as though he is telling the truth.

You are wasting your time here, Jonsaiga.

 

I'm not singling out any specific person here because maney of us argued at length about this case...the point is that the "opinions" about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence were formed a long time ago, sometimes on poor and/or highly filtered facts (from "news" sources with an obvious agenda) and sometime not but the point is, they are all just opinions and you are unlikely to change anyone's mind here; especially at this stage of the game.

 

Personally, I could easily see the situation where Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong, had completely disengaged and was then jumped, without cause, by the thug-want-a-be who with something to prove causing Zimemrman to need to defend his life. I base that in part on the initial decison by the DA as well as the facts (once news sources like PMSNBC got shamed into releasing the WHOLE 911 tape).  At the same time, I could see Zimmerman completley in the wrong here and truly guilty of murder (or at least manslaughter).

All we do know for certain is that it takes two to fight...and one of the two is dead. I for one am glad that I'm not part of the group that has to figure it all out.

Edited May 23, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Randall53]

As I have said many times; we armchair quarterback here, it is what we do. (And it’s what the courts and the lawyers do) I am not going to be on the Zimmerman jury. I have an opinion yes; so do you. Are we getting the whole story? Who knows; that’s what a trial is for.

Obviously if you were Zimmerman you wouldn’t want me on your jury. But because I can look at the evidence as presented to us and make a decision I have an “attitude”? That’s ridiculous we all have opinions.

The people of state of Florida will decide if what happened was justified. I was simply commenting on the case because it was used as an example for the question in this thread.

 

You're correct. Opinion is the word I should have used, and yes we do all have one. Speaking of opinions, none of us have been  presented with any true unadulterated evidence. All we have been presented with is the conflicting, politically motivated and racially motivated opinions of a news media that has gone stark raving mad, a condition that continues to get worse as time passes.

[Luke E.]

Who is saying you can't defend yourself?  Certainly not me, but I do say that the level of force you use to defend yourself must be lawful.

I took a couple of butt kickings (one resulting in broken nose) and was engaged in multiple physical altercations during my police career and I never shot anyone and I have no long-lasting effects other than a slightly crooked nose.  I defended myself with my hands, feet, OC spray, a baton, and a flashlight.  I worked with cops who had a Taser or even pistol-whipped a suspect during an altercation.  I was in one lengthy fight where I grabbed a guy's hair and bashed his head on the sidewalk.  I even had an encounter with a guy brandishing a sword and due to the unique circumstances I did not need to shoot him; OC spray and hands-on tactics were sufficient in disarming and arresting the guy.  You fight until you think the fight is more than you can handle, then you try to disengage if possible.  If you can't retreat and you believe the beating will continue, then you might be justified in using deadly force.  

 

I'm far from being a tough-guy, but I do understand the law and the ramifications for unjustified use of deadly force.  I'd like to think you are visualizing a very serious physical attack here, but based on your comments it sounds like you think you have a defense if you shoot someone for even a minor altercation.  The fact of the matter is that the law is the law and just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you aren't obligated to face sanctions if you violate it.  Again, it's your choice, but if deadly force isn't justified, don't be surprised if you end up a guest of the state for the remainder of your natural life.  
 

 I personally will keep walking but if faced with it will likely try to fight it out if i think there is a chance.... Now that being said i have a fair bit of training and experience in fighting and am still reasonably young and fit. On the other hand i would worry about going to a ground game fight  while armed because it is going to be a toss up who comes out holding the pistol.. This is something i think of often and i believe i have my battle lines drawn in the sand that i can live with.

 Now on to others who may not be as young and fit, I believe your situation is MUCH different. You as a LEO have at your disposal, training, OC spray, baton, tasor, flashlight and sometimes backup.... Are you not seeing how much quicker a middle age man with none of those things you self admittedly had at your disposal would arrive at "fear of death or great bodily injury" ? I completely agree that you know the difference between a light scuffle and someone that intends to harm you as much as they can but i'm not a large intimidating man but i do possess training that would be impossible for anyone to know of so whos to say that BG doesn't possess the same.  

[Randall53]

I personally will keep walking but if faced with it will likely try to fight it out if i think there is a chance.... Now that being said i have a fair bit of training and experience in fighting and am still reasonably young and fit. On the other hand i would worry about going to a ground game fight while armed because it is going to be a toss up who comes out holding the pistol.. This is something i think of often and i believe i have my battle lines drawn in the sand that i can live with.
Now on to others who may not be as young and fit, I believe your situation is MUCH different. You as a LEO have at your disposal, training, OC spray, baton, tasor, flashlight and sometimes backup.... Are you not seeing how much quicker a middle age man with none of those things you self admittedly had at your disposal would arrive at "fear of death or great bodily injury" ? I completely agree that you know the difference between a light scuffle and someone that intends to harm you as much as they can but i'm not a large intimidating man but i do possess training that would be impossible for anyone to know of so whos to say that BG doesn't possess the same.

20 years ago I would be in the same frame of mind. Now, I'm 60 years old, severe arthritis in left wrist from breaking it 20 years ago, worn out knee that should have been replaced 3 years ago and has seen several surgeries, a pinned ankle and an anchor in my shoulder. I also have 3 degenerated discs......My fighting days are over. I will not be a punching or kicking bag for no man. I try to be cordial to everyone because its the right thing to do, and not out of fear. I will walk away if I can because I cannot run. Pursue at your own risk. Edited May 23, 2013 by Randall53

[East_TN_Patriot]

 

 Now on to others who may not be as young and fit, I believe your situation is MUCH different. You as a LEO have at your disposal, training, OC spray, baton, tasor, flashlight and sometimes backup.... 

OK, people are not realizing what I am saying here.  I am NOT a LEO anymore. I've been out of law enforcement since 2007 and now I am a criminal justice professor.  My point is that the rules for civilian use of force follow very similar legal guidelines as LEOs, but the rules are actually MORE STRICT for civilians, so they need to be even more knowledgeable about use-of-force law because they don't have a built-in legal authority to use force like the police do.  In fact, it's not a rare argument that people who choose to exercise their right to carry a firearm with a carry permit have an obligation to be even more knowledgeable than the average person when it comes to use-of-force law. 

 

 

Are you not seeing how much quicker a middle age man with none of those things you self admittedly had at your disposal would arrive at "fear of death or great bodily injury" ? I completely agree that you know the difference between a light scuffle and someone that intends to harm you as much as they can but i'm not a large intimidating man but i do possess training that would be impossible for anyone to know of so whos to say that BG doesn't possess the same.  

 

 

Yes, and that is what I have been saying all along.   I even made that specific point of illustration a few posts ago.  It all comes down to the "totality of the circumstances" issue, but people keep arguing saying it doesn't apply to civilians and it most certainly does.  What I am trying to get folks to understand is that you can't simply say, "Well, I'm old" or "I didn't know whether that person would kill me or not and I'm not taking any chances" and expect that to protect you in court in a shooting that isn't legally justified.  If people don't like the facts of the law as I and many others understand it, or if they choose to ignore it, that's their prerogative, but I'm an educator and that's all I am trying to do here.  

 

Again, the laws regarding use of force are NOT unique to law enforcement, but apply to civilians and LEOs alike.  The police get MORE flexibility than civilians, yet people seem to be arguing that being a private citizen relieves them of legal responsibility and restrictions placed upon them by the law.  I don't want to get into a physical confrontation any more than the next guy, but the fact of the matter is that the law simply does not provide legal justification in using deadly force against someone unless there is a clear and obvious threat of IMMINENT death or grievous bodily injury.  If I am misinterpreting the other points being made here, then I apologize.  

[Dane]

It baffles me that anyone would let an attacker break that 21 ft mark before making the decision to defend themselves. Seriously folks if someone is headed toward you in an aggressive manner draw your firearm and prepare for the worst. Best case they will reexamine their decision making process at the sight of a gun, worst case a criminal gets buried. Either one is a win!


Bottom line is that there is no way I'm letting a known attacker close enough to lay hands on me or my family before I start my defense process regardless of what weapon they are using.


A little different if the attacker is already close. Then chances are my gun moves to the end of my list of defensive weapons.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

And here is the question you need to ask yourself: what do you do if they don't stop approaching you, but never give any indication that they intend to cause you serious physical injury or death?

If they do not stop then that in itself is indication that they intend to do serious physical injury. I am pretty confident that they are not ignoring my verbal commands to stop and my drawn firearm to give me a hug.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[chances R]

If they do not stop then that in itself is indication that they intend to do serious physical injury. I am pretty confident that they are not ignoring my verbal commands to stop and my drawn firearm to give me a hug.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

As well as crazy :screwy:

[maddog909]

The problem is.....you just don't know. Someone might start a fight, you don't know if he's going to let up after he nails you. A friend and I were pulled out of a car by a gang from below the border years ago. At least a dozen of them formed a circle and began punching me till I went down. Then they took turns kicking me in the head till I stopped moving. My friend was pulled out in the middle of the street and was beaten with chains. They obviously didn't kill either one of us but I did receive a fractured skull..... My friend received broken ribs and more. We weren't cruising for a bruising, just stopped at a stoplight. We were apparently lucky because this same gang literally kicked the brains out a customer on the front step of a pizza parlor a week later. You just don't know what an attackers intent is. Back then I never considered being armed but since then I don't go out without protection. If I get attacked the weapon will come out and the perp can decide if it's worth it. As much as some folks like to live in denial there are some pretty rotten nasty people out there who have absolutely no conscience.

[TMF]

The problem is.....you just don't know. Someone might start a fight, you don't know if he's going to let up after he nails you. A friend and I were pulled out of a car by a gang from below the border years ago. At least a dozen of them formed a circle and began punching me till I went down. Then they took turns kicking me in the head till I stopped moving. My friend was pulled out in the middle of the street and was beaten with chains. They obviously didn't kill either one of us but I did receive a fractured skull..... My friend received broken ribs and more. We weren't cruising for a bruising, just stopped at a stoplight. We were apparently lucky because this same gang literally kicked the brains out a customer on the front step of a pizza parlor a week later. You just don't know what an attackers intent is. Back then I never considered being armed but since then I don't go out without protection. If I get attacked the weapon will come out and the perp can decide if it's worth it. As much as some folks like to live in denial there are some pretty rotten nasty people out there who have absolutely no conscience.

I think this scenario is very, very different than instigating a fight then pulling your gun. If someone tries to pull me from my car and I can't get away I'm gonna open up on them.

[Guest Hound]

Based on that logic, it's not a far step to say that anyone acting remotely aggressive and/or belligerent can be shot because they *might* pose a lethal risk because you don't know what could happen.  Having spent a decade in law enforcement and almost another decade teaching about use-of-force, I promise you that the law is not on your side.  Even the police have pretty strict use-of-force guidelines and they have even more latitude in their application of force, at least until they get to deadly force then they have to meet the same legal standards as the rest of us.
 
Ludicrous in your book or not, if you shoot and kill someone over a bloody nose, you are extremely likely to end up in prison and/or owing your entire financial life to the decedent's family.  If you are OK with that, then so be it. 

 

That is assuming that every time a weapon is drawn they will immediatly shoot and also assuming that they pull it out (enter joke here) during every argument they have ever had.  I agree that if you have a weapon you should avoid arguments.  I also agree that if someone is beginning to act aggresively to the point where you are in fear of them coming after you that it should be known that you are armed.  Not necessarily for intimidation purposes but if there is a skuffle things can escalate quickly and the simple presence of that firearm makes things more dangerous. Be it the need of the owner deciding to use it, the attacker seeing it and deciding to try to take/use it, it should accidentaily go off by grappling and grabbing the wrong place, or it falling to out in general.)  And of course that warning should only come IF things will not/cannot be deescalated.

[tnhawk]

Look....I'm 63 years old and given the chance I'm not going to allow some young buck to kick my ass. If I feel as if I'm in danger......well enough said.

I'm too old to fight, too tired to run.  That only gives me one remaining option.  Hopefully the past decades have provided some ability to avoid those situations

Edited June 17, 2013 by tnhawk

[ted]

I'm too old to fight, too tired to run. That only gives remaining one option.

this about sums it up dos and donts what you may and may not do http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lPEEeOFSnxE Edited June 17, 2013 by ted

[Pcdokk]

I pray every day that I never have to use my legally carried firearm to take another's life. I will do everything I can to avoid a potentially fatal encounter however if all of my efforts to disengage and walk away fail and I know my life or my loved ones life is in imminent danger, then I will take the steps allowed by the law to protect myself. Discharging my weapon is a last ditch life saving effort I hope I never have to experience although I will do so if there is no other alternative.

[BlackHawk93]

An old military friend of mine came to see me for a few days last week. This guy is your typical, laid back, easy going guy as long as he doesn't run into stupidity. I remember in the service always hearing of his heroics on the flight back from whatever mission he had been on. I never got tired of listening to the stories of how his actions had rallied everyone's spirits and given them the courage to push on when things started looking bleak. He was a true hero many times over for his "take no s*@t" mentality when things seemed too difficult for them to overcome as a team. We became very good friends over the years and have remained close ever since.

We were going to see another old military buddy one day and there was this guy in front of us who was going about 20 mph in a 40, pulling a trailer loaded with lumber. We were on a road with broken yellow lines and plenty of room to see no one was coming so, after about 3 minutes of following this guy and realizing we had plenty of room to pass, he pulled out and started to pass him. Well, it was one of these guys who thinks it's fun to play games and speed up, keeping you behind him just so he could be the man with all the "power" in this little battle. He kept this up for a couple of miles until there was enough room where we had more than enough time to get around him without having to back off because of someone coming.

Now had I been driving what happened next would have never transpired, but once we were in front of him my friend, whom I'll refer to as "Joey", slows down and stops, telling me he was going to give the guy the opportunity he so wanted to "kick our a*#", which he so vehemently yelled out over and over as we finally made it around him. No sooner had Joey stopped that the guy behind us was already out of his truck and power walking his way up to the car. I knew at this point what was probably going to happen, and since there were 2 other guys in the truck with this jerk, I considered stepping out, but I had no worries that Joey had this covered. As soon as my friend steps out of the car, accelerator boy was almost at the trunk of our vehicle, all raging and acting like he was Rocky or something. As soon as Joey gets to him there were just 2 punches and accelerator boy was laying in the road, bleeding profusely from an obvious broken nose and busted lip. Probably some loose teeth also. His friends were smart enough to stay in the truck, and Joey gets back in and we pull off, leaving accelerator boy to pick himself up and get back in his truck.

While it was satisfying to see someone like this finally get what he deserved, I realized that since I was carrying, had this happened to me I  would have had to have the restraint to hold back that inner urge to give this jerk what he had coming. I also realized that, if I had been approached by this guy at, say the store down the road where we stopped and got something to drink, that I would have also had to have the humility to back down from him, or at least try and de-escalate the situation, for fear of having to get into an altercation with 3 knuckleheads. While I had no worries I could have handled the situation, had one of these wacko's pulled a knife or something like that, pulling my gun would not have been the smartest thing to do because any good prosecutor would have argued that I did NOT do all I could have to walk away from the situation.

And that's where the discipline comes in. Just because you have the right to carry doesn't mean you should exercise it for any and all situations. Sure, if one of them had pulled a knife on me I'm sure I would have been justified in pulling my weapon. But not for something in which I had started, or at least participated in instead of just walking away. And that's what I feel a lot of people don't realize. Just because we carry and have that right to use deadly force doesn't mean it is always justified. When someone calls you a name or acts like a jerk it doesn't mean it's smart to stand your ground. Sometimes humility is what's called for. And that's why I'm glad my friend has decided he doesn't need to have a permit. He has the wisdom to realize he was pushed too far too many times in the service to be the type to walk away from some knucklehead who doesn't realize what he's up against.

And for that I not only respect him, but have learned from him. Once again.
 

[RobertNashville]

That's a great (and very educational) story and I appreciate you sharing it.

 

I have to admit to being a little concerned for your friend...participating in any sort of altercation like that today is extremely risky; any one of those three guys in that pickup truck could have been carrying, legally or otherwise. Both you and your friend could have easily found yourself outnumbered and outgunned as well. I'm not trying to nit pick at your friend here because I've one or two friends like that and their friendship is worth their weight in gold. It just bothers me to hear of someone doing that because if could have ended very, very badly.

 

The days of good 'ol boys having a little fist fight and then shaking hands and going home are, I think, behind us...at least where total strangers are concerned.

[DaveTN]

While it was satisfying to see someone like this finally get what he deserved, I realized that since I was carrying, had this happened to me I  would have had to have the restraint to hold back that inner urge to give this jerk what he had coming.

Your friend initiated a confrontation and then committed an assault. If the guys friends had got out of the truck and you had pulled a gun; you probably would have been arrested even if no one was shot. I’m surprised they didn’t call the cops and have him arrested.

 

I don’t put myself in those kinds of situations when I’m armed and would be pizzed if a “friend” put me in one. It’s a good thing you have the right state of mind; many don’t.

[Dave Nowlin]

The answer to your question is simple: injuries heal and death is permanent.  Our legal system generally believes that every human being has a fundamental right to exist and we don't take people's lives except in the most serious of circumstances.  Seriously, how many people do you know who have gotten a serious butt kicking who didn't survive and were no worse for wear?   Add in the reality that most physical altercations are predicated upon an exchange of verbal jabs and if we allowed the use of deadly force in the face of a simple physical assault, people would have a ready-made defense should they want to kill someone.  All they would have to do is start a verbal altercation, wait for the person to attack, and then kill them claiming self-defense.  

Of course, the totality of the circumstances is important.  Take RichardR above for instance.  A person with numerous ailments that limits their ability to effectively defend themselves is quite different than a young and fit individual.  A small person going up against a larger and more physically fit person is another situation.  What you must do is be able to justify that you reasonably believed there was an imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury as outlined in the TCA, and that deadly force was your last option.  Even the castle doctrine is based on the idea that an intruder poses an immediate risk of death or serious injury to you and your family, not that you are protecting your residence or property.

Also, you have to live with yourself and your decision, so do you really want to live with the idea that you killed some loudmouth to keep from getting a bloody nose?  I certainly don't, especially on top of the risk of being criminally and civilly liable for my actions if they weren't absolutely and clearly justified.  Those who say "better to be judged by 12" have never been the subject of civil and criminal action for an unjustified shooting.  I'd bet a dollar to a donut that Zimmerman wishes he'd kept his butt in his truck, even if the shooting is ultimately ruled as justified.  

This is just plain silly.  Have you ever had someone hit you in the nose and break it?  I have.  It happened while I was I service.  I never saw the punch coming.  My eyes watered so badly after he hit me I was defenseless.  This same idiot later hit an officer and broke his jaw.  He spent time in the brig and got a bad conduct discharge.  My point is a punch in the nose when we were little kids and not as strong simply produced a bloody nose.  A single punch in the nose from an adult or even older teen, can easily result in a broken nose.  Then there is the punch that was thrown by a teen that resulted in the death of the soccer umpire.  Any physical attack by a physically fit individual could turn deadly.  You argument reminds me of the situation where a woman is threatened by an ex-husband or boyfriend and goes to the police.  She is told they can't intervene regardless of what kind of verbal threats were made until he does something.  A short time later the police are called to a murder scene where he has shot her or beaten her to death.  My point is simple.  You can't wait until your last fleeting breath as you are being beaten to death to defend yourself.

[RobertNashville]

This is just plain silly.  Have you ever had someone hit you in the nose and break it?  I have.  It happened while I was I service.  I never saw the punch coming.  My eyes watered so badly after he hit me I was defenseless.  This same idiot later hit an officer and broke his jaw.  He spent time in the brig and got a bad conduct discharge.  My point is a punch in the nose when we were little kids and not as strong simply produced a bloody nose.  A single punch in the nose from an adult or even older teen, can easily result in a broken nose.  Then there is the punch that was thrown by a teen that resulted in the death of the soccer umpire.  Any physical attack by a physically fit individual could turn deadly.  You argument reminds me of the situation where a woman is threatened by an ex-husband or boyfriend and goes to the police.  She is told they can't intervene regardless of what kind of verbal threats were made until he does something.  A short time later the police are called to a murder scene where he has shot her or beaten her to death.  My point is simple.  You can't wait until your last fleeting breath as you are being beaten to death to defend yourself.

I'm not sure what it is about ETP's remarks that you find so silly; I find it very rational. Moreover, most of what he stated you'll hear in virtually every training course on the legal use of deadly force taught in any and every classroom in the country, including Tennessee.

 

The law is actually pretty simple, you must be in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury before you can be justified in the use of deadly force. What is complicated is deciding for each situation, what constitutes "reasonableness".

 

The law does not even require anyone to wait until they've actually been physically attacked if the perpetrator has demonstrated both the means and the intent to kill you and his proximity is close enough to allow him to do so. That said, whether it's the madman holding a knife, standing 10 feet away yelling "I'm going to kill you"  or someone who has just punched you in the nose; you had damn sure better be able to articulate to the police and potentially a jury why you used deadly force - they'll have days, weeks or even months to go over all the details of a decision you had to make in half a second.

[DaveTN]

This is just plain silly.  Have you ever had someone hit you in the nose and break it?  I have.  It happened while I was I service.  I never saw the punch coming.  My eyes watered so badly after he hit me I was defenseless.  This same idiot later hit an officer and broke his jaw.  He spent time in the brig and got a bad conduct discharge.  My point is a punch in the nose when we were little kids and not as strong simply produced a bloody nose.  A single punch in the nose from an adult or even older teen, can easily result in a broken nose.  Then there is the punch that was thrown by a teen that resulted in the death of the soccer umpire.  Any physical attack by a physically fit individual could turn deadly.  You argument reminds me of the situation where a woman is threatened by an ex-husband or boyfriend and goes to the police.  She is told they can't intervene regardless of what kind of verbal threats were made until he does something.  A short time later the police are called to a murder scene where he has shot her or beaten her to death.  My point is simple.  You can't wait until your last fleeting breath as you are being beaten to death to defend yourself.

What were you doing when you got punched in the nose?

[Clod Stomper]

If person One has just punched person Two in the nose, then person One (usually) has no cause to shoot person Two for punching person One in the nose in return.

However, if person One was following person Two because he or she was acting suspiciously and person Two punches person One in the nose for following person Two, then, IMO, person One has cause to shoot person Two in self-defense.

To personalize this. No one has a right to punch me in the nose for for any reason other than me physically accosting them.

Will

[RobertNashville]

If person One has just punched person Two in the nose, then person One (usually) has no cause to shoot person Two for punching person One in the nose in return.

However, if person One was following person Two because he or she was acting suspiciously and person Two punches person One in the nose for following person Two, then, IMO, person One has cause to shoot person Two in self-defense.

To personalize this. No one has a right to punch me in the nose for for any reason other than me physically accosting them.

Will

You may have "cause" to shoot person two but you don't have the legally justified right to do so unless there is a hell of a lot more going on than a simple punch in the nose.