Justified Yet Excessive ... How?

Legal & Second Amendment
1

Just read a large chunk of a rather disturbing case brief where a citizen defended a store owner during a robbery. One of the pieces of evidence listed the “use of deadly force” as “justified yet excessive” because the “defender” chose a headshot as his first and ONLY attempt. I’m unsure if I’m more angry or confused. How is this possible?

As far as I know, “deadly force” is THE highest level of force which could be used on a person. How is it possible for any action, of this nature, to be excessive if it is justified?

As for the headshot, sure, there are many who believe center mass is THE optimum target. However, there are several reasons why, in MY opinion, it would NOT be optimal. Even so, if the goal is to use deadly force, why does it matter where the point of impact is?

Anyone know of case law or data supporting this odd combination?

3 Likes
2

Hi Fred.
Sorry I cannot direct you to any case law regarding “first shot placement in a deadly force event”. Such a requirement would be asinine to the extreme. I just wanted to agree with you r view point on the issue.ow many times do reasonably well trained people hit hi, or off of the mark they are aiming for? ALL the time. That’s why we practice, practice and do some more practice. Add stress and fear to the issue and a high shot intentional or otherwise can be expected. I would have no hesitation going for that shot if I were close enough, I was convinced it was needed and confident enough to take it. I think you are right on the money.

4 Likes
3

Hi @Porter and @FredL, welcome to the group!
We’ve been talking a lot about the headshot, I’ll add the link in a minute. One of the things that became clear on that discussion is that despite the legitimacy of headshots in a self defense situation, prosecutors and jurors may see them as “intent to kill” instead of “intent to stop the threat”. I suspect that’s where the “excessive” comes in. It’s not a logical argument but it still has great influence on the emotions of people who either have to judge it, or are just Monday morning quarterbacking.

This is also where well established training guidelines (center body mass is primary target, groin/pelvis second, head third) help. And it’s where having legal support like USCCA provides it members is important. In a situation where you had to take a headshot as your one and only shot, the prosecutor may see an opportunity to put a notch in his/her belt and go after you, and you’ll need a top flight attorney and access to expert witnesses to put that back into perspective for jurors.

1 Like
4

Here’s the link to the other thread

5

I’m feeling a “I shot what was available to me at the time” defense. :thinking:

2 Likes
6

The most understandable perspective yet… and, based on the circumstances, I can see where they’re coming from. However, on the other hand, I can understand the logic of ensuring your first round is as effective as it can be. In other words, glad I have Elite. :wink:

2 Likes
7

The way I look at head shots is that they are extremely hard to make in a high stress situation and you have to hit the exact right spot to make someone go down. We train for the thoracic triangle because it can stop a lot of threats and it’s a much larger target.

However, if you know the attacker is wearing body armor or is high on meth, a head shot isn’t “overkill”. There are a lot of examples where someone high on drugs was able to continue to attack when they were shot in the body multiple times.

The pelvic region can also stop someone from advancing.

We know any shot we take - thoracic triangle, head, pelvis may cause death, however our goal isn’t to kill. Our goal is to defend our lives and the lives of our loved ones. We need to be able to explain why we took the shot we took and pass the reasonable person test - which isn’t always so reasonable.

2 Likes
8

Hi Y’all!

Here in Washington, DC the law states the following:

“You are entitled to claim self-defense:
(1) if you actually believe you are in imminent danger of bodily harm; and
(2) if you have reasonable grounds for that belief.”

What a person believes is subjective, and should be case closed for the good person who defends his/herself (period). The law continues with the following subjective ratification for the use of deadly force:

“You may use the amount of force which, at the time of the incident, you actually and reasonably believe is necessary to protect yourself (or a third person) from imminent bodily harm. This may extend to the use of deadly force if you actually and reasonably believe you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which you can save yourself only by using deadly force against your assailant.”

Even though the last sentence is shady, however, it’s objective for the good person to believe that a shot to the torso would not be enough “from which you can save yourself”. This objectivity should be presented in the form of bad people being shot several time in the torso, then to kill the good person who shot them. The law continues again with the following subjective ratification for the use of deadly force:

“Even if the other person is the aggressor and you are justified in using force in self-defense, you may not use any greater force than you actually and reasonably believe is necessary under the circumstances to prevent the harm you reasonably believe is intended or to save your life or avoid serious bodily harm.”

What a human being believes in a case of self preservation in a deadly force encounter should always be considered subjective. 12 jurors in no way shape or form could put themselves in the mindset of a good person defending his/her life against a bad person with a weapon.

“Under the case law of the District of Columbia, the District is neither a “right to stand and kill” nor a “duty to retreat to the wall before killing” jurisdiction. The District case law has established a “middle ground.” You should take reasonable steps, such as stepping back or walking away, to avoid the necessity of taking a human life, so long as those steps are consistent with your own safety. However, you do not have to retreat or consider retreating when you actually and reasonably believe that you are in danger of death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force is necessary to repel that danger.”

What’s my point? With laws such as DC, good people are more inclined not intervene in a third party encounter UNLESS it is family and or friends you’re out and about with. In the case of the store robbery incident, as frustrating it may be, if the bad guy doesn’t shoot the store owner, I won’t intervene. The store is insured for robberies and theft, the owner is alive and I won’t have to deal with the legal system; a win win if you ask me.

3 Likes
9

Exactly! If there’s an armed robber there for the money, give him the money. It’s self-defense, not stuff defense. And if the robber knows there’s someone armed in the store, it may escalate the situation instead of defusing the situation.

3 Likes
10

Fred can you perhaps provide a link to the story? I’d very much like to read up on it.

1 Like
11

You’re forgetting the “Reasonable Person Standard”. It’s not what you believe is necessary or justifiable, it’s what a reasonable person in the same situation would believe is reasonable and necessary.

2 Likes
13

DC Court Jury Instructions state:

“Instruction 9.500 SELF-DEFENSE—GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Every person has the right to use a reasonable amount of force in self-defense if (1) s/he actually believes s/he is in imminent danger of bodily harm and if (2) s/he has reasonable grounds for that belief. The question is not whether looking back on the incident you believe that the use of force was necessary. The question is whether [name of defendant], under the circumstances as they appeared to him/her at the time of the incident , actually believed s/he was in imminent danger of bodily harm, and could reasonably hold that belief.”

How would you WildRose believe someone “Actually” did or did not believe they were in danger? The instructions continue:

“Self-defense is a defense to the charges of [insert all charges to which self-defense applies]. [Name of defendant] is not required to prove that s/he acted in self-defense . Where evidence of self-defense is present, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [name of defendant] did not act in self-defense. If the government has failed to do so, you must find [name of defendant] not guilty. ”

Jury instructions are clear that Washingtonian would not have the innate ability to determine what is reasonable or not. That is clearly up to the government to do so. Civil court however, would be different I assume. The instruction elaborate with case law:

"Where evidence of self-defense is present, the jury should be instructed as to the defendant’s right of self-defense. See, e.g., Hernandez v. U.S., 853 A.2d 202 (D.C. 2004) (holding failure to give self-defense instruction where some evidence supported it, however weak, was reversible error); Guillard v. U.S., 596 A.2d 60 (D.C. 1991) (“Trial court should give self-defense instruction if there is any evidentiary basis in record to support it.”). A self-defense instruction should be given even though a defendant asserts a different or contradictory defense as long as self-defense is reasonably raised by the evidence. Guillard, 596 A.2d at 62 (“A defendant’s decision, however, to establish different or even contradictory defenses does not jeopardize the availability of a self-defense jury instruction as long as self-defense is reasonably raised by the evidence.”) (quotations omitted). See also Adams v. U.S., 558 A.2d 348, 349–50 (D.C. 1989) (“[M]ere inconsistency between defenses does not constitute a proper basis for the denial of a defense instruction.”). However, the jury should not be instructed on self-defense where there is no evidence to support the theory of this defense.

Where there are no cameras or witnesses, the reasonableness of self defense will always exist; in Washington, DC. Remember the instructions for dc jurors “ The question is not whether looking back on the incident you (the juror) believe that the use of force was necessary (SUBJECTIVE).” The question is whether [name of defendant], under the circumstances as they appeared to him/her at the time of the incident , actually believed s/he was in imminent danger of bodily harm, and could reasonably hold that belief.(OBJECTIVE)”

1 Like
14

Prosecutor: Why did you shoot him 6 times?

Defendant: Because 5 wasn’t enough and 7 would have been too many.

2 Likes
15

And to make that determination the “Reasonable Person Test” is applied.

The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.

That is also the test that will be applied by the prosecutors in determining whether you should be charged at all given the laws of the state pertinent to your incident.

Read your own citation, it’s not what the individual believed, it’s what the jury believes given the facts, circumstances, law when applied to your incident.

In other states the burden is even higher because the defense has to prove that you acted in lawful self defense rather than on the prosecution to prove you did not.

16

If Jimmy shot Johnny 12 times “the question isn’t weather looking back at the incident from your eyes or life experience as a juror” if Jimmy’s use of force was necessary. The question is whether Jimmy believed he feared for his life, and believed he was in danger.

What Jimmy and jurors 1-6 believe is reasonable is not up to jurors 6-12 to say that is was not. There are no moral arbiter test with regards to DC Self Defense cases and why the Washington, DC jury will receive 25 pages (depending on font size) of jury instructions which covers the following:

9.500 SELF-DEFENSE—GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
9.501 SELF-DEFENSE—AMOUNT OF FORCE PERMISSIBLE
9.502 SELF-DEFENSE—AMOUNT OF FORCE PERMISSIBLE WHERE APPEARANCES ARE FALSE
9.503 SELF-DEFENSE—NO DUTY TO RETREAT BEFORE USING DEADLY FORCE
9.504 SELF-DEFENSE—WHERE DEFENDANT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE AGGRESSOR
9.505 SELF-DEFENSE—PAST VIOLENCE BY COMPLAINANT OR DECEDENT
9.510 DEFENSE OF A THIRD PERSON
9.520 DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
4.114 ASSAULT ON A POLICE OFFICER

Sally nor Eli on the jury gets to apply their supposedly moral anti-gun reasoning to self defense cases in “Washington, DC”. The court explicitly instructs the jury how they must decide. I believe courts in every state should apply this standard! If you have access to Lexis Nexis you can read DC’s instructions, because we don’t have self defense laws.

If one has a great lawyer, and you follow the standards of what not to say without and attorney to law enforcement after a deadly force encounter, one would fair well.

1 Like
17

No, the question is if a reasonable person in the same circumstance would have acted in the same manner.

I provided you a very good article on the subject, read it.

Here is yet another specific to self defense.

If you still have questions contact an atty.

18

From your own cited DC citation.

You may use the amount of force which, at the time of the incident, you actually and
reasonably believe is necessary to protect yourself (or a third person) from imminent
bodily harm. This may extend to the use of deadly force if you actually and reasonably
believe you are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm from which you can
save yourself only by using deadly force against your assailant

Even if the other person is the aggressor and you are justified in using force in selfdefense, you may not use any greater force than you actually and reasonably believe is
necessary under the circumstances to prevent the harm you reasonably believe is
intended or to save your life or avoid serious bodily harm.

You should take reasonable steps, such as stepping back or walking away, to avoid the
necessity of taking a human life, so long as those steps are consistent with your own
safety. However, you do not have to retreat or consider retreating when you actually
and reasonably believe that you are in danger of death or serious bodily harm and that
deadly force is necessary to repel that danger.

If you are the initial aggressor or provoke a conflict, but you then withdraw from it in
good faith and communicate that withdrawal by words or actions, you may then use
reasonable force to save yourself from imminent bodily harm, including deadly force to
save yourself from death or serious bodily injury.
You cannot claim self-defense to justify an assault on a police officer – even if a stop or
arrest later turns out to be unlawful – unless the officer uses more force than appears to
be reasonably necessary. Then, you may use only the amount of force that is
reasonably necessary for your protection.
You may use reasonable non-deadly force to protect your home or business if you
reasonably believe that your property is in imminent danger of an unlawful trespass and
such force is necessary to avoid the danger. Similarly, if a person has unlawfully
trespassed on your property, you may use reasonable non-deadly force to eject them.
Generally, you may not use deadly force to protect your property. However, if you
reasonably believe that an intruder is entering your home or business with the intent to
commit a felony (such as murder, rape, robbery or burglary) or seriously harm any of its
occupants, you may use deadly force

The “reasonable person” standard is expressed in virtually every paragraph throughout this section, I stopped at the bottom of just the first page.

I don’t know where you are getting your information but I sincerely doubt it’s from a USCCA Instructor or Atty, they would understand the law and hopefully do a much better job of explaining it to you.

19

There are so many stories of people claiming self-defense when they were the aggressor or it was not self-defense.

The reasonable person test is a great way to determine if it’s self-defense in some instances. And in some states it is the burden of the state to prove it is not self-defense.

We may need to go through the legal process after a self-defense incident because if we don’t question any claim of self-defense criminals will use that claim because they would not be questioned.

Wildrose’s suggestion about contacting an attorney for details is a good idea when there’s confusion. An attorney will tell you that the laws can be interpreted numerous ways, but they can give you some ideas about how the courts have viewed things in the past in your area.

1 Like
20

Dawn,

I don’t need to contact an attorney for clarification, my point I thought was clear. The standards are clear within the jury instructions is obvious for a locale (Washington DC) that does not have stand your ground standards or any clear self defense statutes like those in other locales. Therefore, law abiding citizen(s) should lean to the don’t shoot that bad guy robbing the store; in DC was my original point. Again, DC.

In DC, If a bad guy who pursues a good guy threatening him his family; started a fight with him, but loosing the fight, started screaming “I don’t want to fight anymore”, while struggling to get off the ground; you able to get off the ground and get away; the good guy instantly pursues you grabs the back of your shirt because he wants to hold you for law enforcement and the bad guy shoots the good guy; the bad guy is justified (Bedney vs. US; DC)!

Anyone who believes the bad guy in this case was reasonable, is nuts and not being objective!

I digress!!!

1 Like
21

When I search the case you are citing I come up with a case about drug distribution, nothing to do with self defense.

Do you have better or more information on this case?

1 Like