I am a defense attorney in Los Angeles, CA. I represent a lot of people in self-defense cases and currently have a case that I need your opinion on.
My client was originally charged with attempted murder. At a hearing, the judge agreed that my client had a right to self-defense but stated that the force used by my client was excessive and beyond what was needed. So the judge reduced the charge from an attempted murder to a voluntary manslaughter. We are in trial court and have filed a motion challenging the previous judge’s ruling. I believe the force used by my client was adequate and permitted (he was attacked by 4 people and shot one of them 6 times). I am curious as what you think what the definition of “reasonable force” is?
Thanks, and I look forward to reading your responses.
Welcome to the Community! I look forward to any knowledge or legal insight that you care to share with us that will further aid us in being responsible gunowners.
I kept it vague on purpose. However, here is a little bit info that might help:
My client was attacked in a parking lot of a convenience store. He avoided the attackers and made it to his car. The 4 attackers followed him, 2 on each side of the car. Opened both the passenger and driver door. My client came out with a handgun to scare the attackers away. One of the attackers on the passenger side threw a bottle at my client that hit him in the face. At the exact moment he got hit, my client started firing at one of the guys in front of him. The guy ran away and my client followed, emptying his gun (6 rounds).
Thank you, but my client kept running away from the “threat” on several occasions and the “threat” kept following him. What is to say the threat was not coming back?
Let me add this to the fact pattern. Once my client gets hit in the head with the bottle (that was full), his left eye socket shatters on impact. So there was “deadly force” used against him. Does that change your opinion?
I hope not to get into a self-defense situation.
I doubt I would be asking myself how many shots i fired.
Rather, the pressing question is, “did I stop the threat?”
It almost sounded like justified, initially. But that other tidbit made it dicey. At the point that he was defending himself, IMO, was justified, but when he started following, it was no longer justified. When he followed, he was no longer in fear of grievous bodily injury or death to himself or others. I would further opine that there could be a valid argument (perhaps depending on the state’s law) that when he followed, he became the aggressor that inflicted deadly force opposed to defending himself or others by its use.
Aside from that, in a self-defense situation (generically), I believe “reasonable force” is that force necessary to stop the threat. Round count is another place for lawyers to play. But in the situation, it’s whatever is necessary to “end” the threat. But I’m not a lawyer, JMHO.