Redditor asks if he’s Justified in using force

To answer the poster’s question, it’s justified when you are the righteous party. When you are defending yourself, your family, defenseless person, or person(s), under imminent threat of serious injury or death. If you can not live with the results of your actions, and know what you did what was right…it is most likely not justified.


As soon as multiple people got out of the car, his odds of death were exponentially higher. Self defense should not be thought of as a risk-reward scenario. It’s an “I have been forced to” scenario. From the way he talks, to me it seems he was willing to risk death to be a hero. One shouldn’t carry to be a hero, but because it is the right thing to do by you and yours. The fact that he has to ask strangers on the internet says he would have been unjustified if there would have been a shooting…not that it would have mattered to him personally, because he likely would have been dead.


After a few minutes of sitting, I think I would have simply backed up and gotten out of there. Being in a one way alley is not a good thing any time, especially with people blocking the exit. But that is just me…


I would never get out to face someone with the weapon not drawn,it only takes a finnit for things to go bad,a finnit is less than than a minuite


I’d say, spatial awareness fits really well in this scenario, which says, “where am I” in this situation? He’s in a situation or perhaps a place that he probably shouldn’t be at, being as he has the means and an avenue of escape. I’d cut a chogi real quick like.


Kind of the long version, Here in Utah it may very well have been justified since I have no duty to retreat and the guy attacked the window next to the passenger with a rock…

Effective 5/4/2022
76-2-402. Force in defense of person – Forcible felony defined.

(1) As used in this section:

(a) “Forcible felony” means aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Individual, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property.

(b) “Forcible felony” includes any other felony offense that involves the use of force or violence against an individual that poses a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury.

(c) “Forcible felony” does not include burglary of a vehicle, as defined in Section 76-6-204, unless the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.

(2) (a) An individual is justified in threatening or using force against another individual when and to the extent that the individual reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the individual or another individual against the imminent use of unlawful force.

(b) An individual is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the individual reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the individual or another individual as a result of imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(3) (a) An individual is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection (2) if the individual:

(i) initially provokes the use of force against another individual with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the other individual;

(ii) is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony , unless the use of force is a reasonable response to factors unrelated to the commission, attempted commission, or fleeing after the commission of that felony ; or

(iii) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the individual withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other individual the intent to withdraw from the encounter and, notwithstanding, the other individual continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

(b) For purposes of Subsection (3)(a)(iii) the following do not, alone, constitute “combat by agreement”:

(i) voluntarily entering into or remaining in an ongoing relationship; or

(ii) entering or remaining in a place where one has a legal right to be.

(4) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(a)(iii):

(a) an individual does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (2) in a place where that individual has lawfully entered or remained; and

(b) the failure of an individual to retreat under the provisions of Subsection (4)(a) is not a relevant factor in determining whether the individual who used or threatened force acted reasonably.


Somebody also on Reddit is trying to argue with me, let’s say in the same scenario this guy is in, you’re immobile, man jumps out of car, takes a rock and throws it and breaks your passenger side window who has your wife in it.

Would you consider the use of force deadly force?

And would the action of itself, justify deadly force?

1 Like

Regardless of what the law says because laws are different in different states my morals and ethics tell me the only time to use deadly force is to save innocent lives and then only to the point of stopping the threat. My training tells me the best way to stop that threat is shoot center mass. As far as what would cause me to think someone is going to loose their life I don’t think that can be predicted.


This scenario sounds like an anti-rights poster trying to foment trouble wherein he/she/it believes someone would defend the actions of a person that started a fight just because he stated he is a firearm owner. The purported belief is that firearm owners are hot-headed and looking for a fight and a reason to kill someone, which is what he stated - and that’s what they always state about us. I read that and my “spidey-sense” said this is a BS story.


Never thought about that. But at least the firearm community snapped back and called him a ■■■■■■■ idiot.


How and why are you immobile? That is already not the same scenario.

In this other hypothetical scenario, where the car is immobile for some reason, did the guy honk at them and then initiate and escalate an argument with them?

This isn’t a scenario where you are just sitting there minding your own business and suddenly your car is immobilized and some random crazy guy is throwing rocks at the window.


Based on this story tellers description it is quite possible he could have been identified as the initial aggressor in this situation. If his story occurred as he described, his statements show a temperament and desire to escalate the situation. At the very least he made a number of poor choices putting himself and his partner in danger.


Didn’t know, huh? A point for stupid.

2nd point for stupid. Never threaten, never brandish.

So were they at this time, having seen his firearm. Would he be surprised the 2nd time, finding himself outgunned by 4 hostiles? Thankfully we never found out. Note, how he never wonders if THEY would be justified in shooting HIM at this moment.

Pride comes before the fall. Err on the side of humility, not the side of your ego!


He did make a comment that he was willing to die that day, if he was alone.


That is a red flag. I can’t think of many worthwhile reasons to be willing to die this certainly not one of them. Maybe he meant he thought he was going to die and he was prepared.
Realistically I can’t imagine any reason to be willing to die.


Two possibilities. a) The statement is less truthful than prideful ; b) the entire story is fictional :slight_smile:


It certainly smells quite bad. I don’t believe it, the mindset claimed is too much like the stereotype that the anti-rights people claim that we are. The poster was on a fishing expedition.


This is key to the discussion.

At what point do you, as a responsible gun owner, avoid trouble?

I once was in a similar situation. In my younger days, before I became a gun owner, I would have made a big deal out of it. What prevented me was being conscious that I was carrying at the time. Was it worth it?

I agree with the thought that it could be an anti-2A post.


I for one appreciate the challenge the more I fight for my 2A right the more I appreciate it. The harder I work for something the more I appreciate it.


Might I suggest you just stop giving him the attention he craves. Reddit is a cesspool of trolls and keyboard warriors.

Plain and simple, You. Can. Not. Be. The. Aggressor. In. Any. Way. And. Claim. Self. Defense.

You have to have a clear and articulatable fear of Grievous Bodily Harm and/or Death. For yourself or someone else

This is purely hypothetical and not any legal advice. I am not an attorney. I did not spend last night at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

As an example I am in my home and 2 intruders break down my door. As they advance towards me I have a clear and articulatable fear of Greivous Bodily Harm and/or Death, so I engage in defending my home. 1st guy goes down, and 2nd guy turns and is fleeing.

This is 2 separate and individual incidents now.

First incident where the first guy goes down. I am defending myself thus I am not the aggressor, most likely outcome a legally justified case of self defense.

Secondary incident where subject is fleeing. I am scared and still engaging the fleeing subject. He goes down. Unless I have a very good reason to still feel myself and/or others are still in fear of Grievous Bodily Harm and/or Death. In this situation I may be considered the aggressor and would face much greater scrutiny, and possibly charges.

Also different states may apply there laws differently. But the scenario is pretty much exactly the way we are trained