Depends upon state law on what they say is justified for use of deadly force. The head shot I can view as excessive if there was another area available. I personally would not go for head shot except for certain circumstances. Yes, I am competent in my ability of performing such shot but that would be my last option as this situation would not warrant such. When I went through the course we as a class was told “shoot to stop the threat” in this case it appears to me the intention was to kill the perpetrator.
4 Likes
Unfortunately that is also how many prosecutors, judges, and juries will see it as well.
Apply the reasonable person test and then apply the specific intent test.
The lawful use of deadly force does not equal a free pass when your intent is obviously to kill rather than to simply stop the threat.
If you shoot someone in the head you’d best be able to articulate exactly why you chose to do so and hope there’s video to support your explanation that you had no other choice.
There are jurisdictions where no matter how clear cut your case is for the lawful use of deadly force you’re going to be arrested, indicted, and tried and then it’s up to 1, 6, or 12 people to find you guilty or innocent.
When it comes to a civil case for wrongful death that burden on you is going to be even higher.
I will always hold that unless you have no other choice avoid taking the head shot. It’s the low percentage shot and will only complicate your case increasing the odds you come out on the bad end of things.
1 Like
There are Two cases with the same name, and I should have been precise. Attached is the case to Bedney vs. US (1984) from the book Self Defense Laws of All 50 States, and the link to the case below.
https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1984/82-1585-3.html
1 Like
It’s great to see that you know your laws so well, @Ronald1. I didn’t realize you were asking us to look at the case that was stated in the jury instructions. @Wildrose does a great job of explaining the Reasonable Person Test which is what the jury instructions are instructing the jury to use.
My point was that when there is confusion, contacting an attorney can definitely be helpful to determine what the local self-defense “temperature” is.
The Community is open to everyone across the country (and other countries if they’re interested in self-defense as well), so speaking with an attorney can be very helpful to clarify regional laws when there is confusion.
2 Likes
This is true in just about every jurisdiction in the US so I don’t see where you find it unreasonable.
You regain your self defense rights if you have quit the fight, communicated it verbally or by your actions, surrendered etc.
If the other person then unlawfully uses force on you, you may use the level of force necessary and legal to stop them.
The reasonable person test again applies. If a reasonable person in that same set of circumstances would have a fear of grave bodily harm or death then the use of deadly force is lawful, within the limits of the law.
1 Like
Detail WildRose!
The case outcome relied on Jury Instructions and a defense attorneys error to include section C of that statute.
"Appellant contends that the court’s instructions to the jury on the relationship between self-defense and provocation were 1024 inadequate. Specifically, with regard to the charge of assault with intent to kill, appellant argues that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury that provocation by the victim could have negated the specific intent to kill. The error occurred, asserts appellant, when the judge repeated the standard instruction on provocation and self-defense in response to a note from the jury requesting restatement of the relationship between provocation and intent to kill. That instruction informed the jury that if it found that appellant provoked an attack, then appellant could not benefit from a claim of self-defense.[2] ***Defense counsel did not object to the instruction, and in fact, expressly agreed to it."**,
C. DEADLY FORCE WHERE DEFENDANT WITHDRAWS
If you find that [name of defendant] [was the aggressor] [or] [provoked the assault upon himself/herself], s/he cannot invoke the right of self-defense to justify his/her use of force. However, if one who [is the aggressor] [or] [provokes a conflict] later withdraws from it in good faith, and communicates that withdrawal by words or actions, s/he may use deadly force to save himself/herself from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
1 Like
19 days ago I stated…“With laws such as DC”, which I thought was clear to what would be my specific grocery store scenario. Sorry if I was not clear enough!
1 Like
That is exactly as we outlined. You regain your right of self defense when you withdraw or attempt to and are prevented from doing so.
The instructions failed to include that point of law so they were faulty.
Once your SD rights are restored, the same “Reasonable Person Standard” applies as applies in all other aspects of SD.
“Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances have a fear of grave bodily harm or death?”. If the answer is yes, the the use of deadly force is lawful.
If the answer is no, it is not.
1 Like
What standard of reasonableness would apply, an Objective Reasonable Standard or a Subjective Reasonable Standard? I as a juror could view an incident as Objectively unreasonable, while others view it Subjectively reasonable.
I agree with the decision, because an Objective Reasonable Standard was applied. Why? The evidence showed that Cole did not strike BEDNEY with a pipe, that would have warrant her to shoot at Cole. The evidence showed that Cole did not have at the scene of the incident a firearm in her possession or discharged one. The evidence showed that BEDNEY threatened Cole before attempting to kill her.
I digress! Thanks for the discussion!
1 Like
All reasonable person standards are subjective because “reasonableness” is it self subjective.
Quitting the fight does not require that either party actually leaves the scene as the examples posted demonstrate and they are taken directly from the case law and statutes.
1 Like
Probably something like that; whoever sets the objective narrative first tends to prevail IMO. The case was before Washingtonians regain their rights to own, and carry.
1 Like
Here is Indiana Law ! IC 35-41-3-2. I was going to upload it, but not allow.
1 Like
You should be able to upload a photo of it, @Larry, or share a link to the reference. I think this is the one you’re referring to (I didn’t read the whole thing:
http://iga.in.gov/static-documents/3/8/a/9/38a91514/TITLE35_AR41_ch3.pdf
1 Like
IC 35-41-3-2 Use of force to protect person or property. The file was pdf. This is for Indiana. It say: is justified in using deadly force. It dose not say where to shoot.
2 Likes
Shut up and Lawyer up. I investigated these shootings both at the patrol level and later as a Detective ln L.A.
Don’t talk yourself into a jail cell.
The physical evidence is what it is. The witness statements are what they are. Let your attorney prep you to put the best spin on the facts and be with you to kick you under the table if you begin to stray when being interviewed by THE INVESTIGATOR. Lord knows I saw guys talk their way into jail (verbal diarrhea) and unless I had asked a question designed to elicit incriminating information I did not have to stop them and Mirandize them. Spontaneous statements. Pure gold in court. I could give a seminar on how to schmooze people into waiving their Miranda rights. Don’t be that guy! Follow the advice on your USCCA card. I concur . Then shut up and lawyer up.
2 Likes
BD as we’ve long discussed here in other threads this mentality will do nothing but make your defense far more difficult even in a completely and fully justified shooting.
Posts like this online will haunt you in court as well as it shows you laying out ahead of time how you would plan to get away with killing someone rather than simply stopping the threat.
Definitely need to reconsider your thoughts here in case you ever do end up in such a situation and probably would be well advised to edit or delete that post.
1 Like
After discussions with many atty’s over the years this definitely seems to be the case.
Say no more than you have to but establish as quickly as possible you had no choice but to shoot to stop the deadly threat to yourself or others and that you acted in lawful self defense. You want the police and DA investigating from that angle from the get go.
Say as little as necessary to establish that and then tell them you’ll be happy to cooperate fully after speaking with your atty and be quiet until you have.
2 Likes
Remember too, the more you say the more you have to remember and the bigger chance something gets screwed up. The police can use their notes, you more than likely, cannot.
4 Likes
Good advice but in all actuality there is no situation where they could legally prevent you from using any notes you have taken.
This also leads us to another good point.
In the aftermath of an incident you’d do very well to try organizing your thoughts by making a basic outline of everything you can remember. Keep in mind, such notes could be subpoenaed and used as evidence against you but they can at the same time help you to later articulate your story in a very clear and concise manner relying not just on your memory, days, weeks, months, or even years later.
1 Like
Little to much reality on how the system really works? I saw nothing in the post on prior planning on getting away with a killing. My post was on surviving interrogation and not buying into a jackpot by saying the wrong thing. Shut up and lawyer up before the interrogation. Its what the cops do. Been there done that.
3 Likes