Oops. Just saw the OP’s follow-up. After the first shot, the attacker turned and ran, and your client chased after him, shooting 5 more times! At that point, his self-defense claim went out the window. Guilty as charged, your Honor.
5 Likes
I’m not in any way an attorney, my opinion carries no legal weight, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Once the threat is retreating, the threat is eliminated. The threat doesn’t have to be dead to be eliminated. Once retreating, that gives the defensive person the ability to escape in his vehicle. Once under pursuit, imo, you go from defense mode to aggressor. The number of rounds fired in itself doesn’t really mean as much compared to the defense/aggressor issue. If it takes six rounds to neutralize the threat or set them on retreat, it takes six rounds. If you shoot six but it only takes one round to neutralize the threat or set them on retreat, it takes one round. The last five are not defensive rounds imo.
6 Likes
He reminds me of the other guy last week posing as a firearm owner that got angry and wanted to know if we would support his illegal acts. I do not trust this OP. His vague post then similar scenario to the poster last week makes me strongly doubt the story.
8 Likes
As I said before, I am trying to ascertain what “reasonable force” means to others. I assure you this is a real case.
Thank you everyone for your input. It was all very insightful.
FYI: In California “reasonable force” used in self-defense is subjective. Meaning, it has to be reasonable for the specific act in question.
Having the jury hear that he shot the guy 6 times while running toward him isn’t going to be reasonable.
Was the defendant part of Antifa?
If so, not guilty.
3 Likes
Regardless of the definition of reasonable force, I don’t think “can pursue suspect while discharging firearm” is in there. I could be wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.
5 Likes
yeah firing in car self defense, chasing them and firing at individuals unarmed that’s attempted man slaughter at least
5 Likes
@Arash rhetorical question… suppose this person wasn’t a client and you saw the story in the paper. What would you think? Honestly, I don’t see chasing someone who just attempted to rob me a wise decision. Regardless of if I have a firearm or not. Part of carrying a firearm is being able to make wise decisions in the moment. After they retreated I would have used my phone to call the police, and tried to keep the scene as close as possible to how it is. Let the evidence tell the story, and be ok with the fact that they got away. I would still be alive and hopefully proven righteous in court if it came to that.
5 Likes
Seems it always comes down to one of the basic principles of what we learned in our CC class. A person in retreat isn’t a present threat, if they turn back around they might be.
9 Likes
Not to split anymore hairs, would the judge feel the same way had your client fired two shots at each of the attackers, instead of stopping the threat directly in front him with six rounds?
Sounds like a disparity of force. My responsibility as a legally armed American is to get out alive, with all “my” vital organs intact!
Whatever it takes to stop the threat, is reasonable force!
We also seem to be taking this to an “individual” level!
The victim / your client was attacked by a mob, who act as one in a violent situation.
Reasonable force is that which keeps me alive and safe from grave bodily harm, which had already been inflicted upon your client.
We really have to stop feeling bad about the thug! Unless your client was the aggressor, he should get the keys to the city!
I was taught, when my life is in danger, be harsh, be tough, be ruthless.
The 4 thugs that attacked your 1 client, experienced grave bodily danger four fold, IMHO, 25 rounds would have been excessive, 24 would have been reasonable force, that’s 6 rounds each. Your client was attacked by a hydra that sounded intent on doing considerably more harm!
If one of the attackers was on the run and had already been shot, why did your client pursue! The other three attackers might have been closing on his six! So, again if your client had turned on the pursing three attackers would the judge feel that, that as unreasonable?
Here we’re taught, not to be the aggressor, don’t pursue, and stop the threat. Seems the threat could have been stopped with one .50 caliber round, unfortunately sounds like your client had lesser power at his disposal!
P.S. as a juror, it sounds to me like your client was fleeing the three others in pursuit of him while firing at one of the attackers!
6 Likes
My sympathies for your client who tried to run away from trouble but whose adrenaline rush possibly impacted his self-defense response and changed his life forever.
May you find a “reasonable” jury.
6 Likes
I doubt very seriously that you are an attorney. If you are this is extremely poor judgement, unprofessional and probably unethical.
If this is legit. If I was you I would take this post down before someone does the minimal amount of fact checking it would take and reports you to the California Bar Association.
6 Likes
Is this considered an “ex partè” communication?
Not unless someone here is the Judge.
Ex parte” is a Latin phrase meaning “on one side only; by or for one party.” An ex parte communication occurs when a party to a case, or someone involved with a party, talks or writes to or otherwise communicates directly with the judge about the issues in the case without the other parties’ knowledge.
It is, however; most likely a violation of Privilege. Anyone on here with enough search experience could find out who the client is.
We have numerous lawyers on this forum. Ever seen or heard of one asking a public forum legal questions? Been here since it started, regardless of what my forum avatar says and I’ve never seen it.
Prolly best to just ask @MikeBKY or @Tom_Grieve
3 Likes
https://emoji.discourse-cdn.com/twitter/point_up.png?v=12 What happened to," DO NOT DISCUSS THIS CASE 
TO NO ONE OUTSIDE OF THE COURTROOM."
1 Like
@Levi2 In your scenario the people robbing you are using deadly force? Because throwing the bottle (a weapon) and causing injury is ADW (Assault With a Deadly Weapon). So if one assaults another with a deadly weapon, can’t the person being assaulted use deadly force in defense?
1 Like
With a person who is being attacked by multiple people and being hit in the head with a full bottle and shattering his eye socket, I have to believe his life was in immediate danger. He was not trying to be aggressive in his defense but trying to defend his self.
Sometimes when you are outnumbered you have to become more aggressive than the others to be able to defend yourself from all the attackers. The attackers can still attack you when they see a weakness, or an advantage and a person should not let his guard down or back down until all of the attackers have fled.
A self-defense against a group of people cannot be set the same as a one-on-one situation. The multiple attackers are acting as one to achieve one goal. One may be distracting you while another is attacking. This puts the defender in a hard fight that he was not looking to start or even be in but, certainly willing to stop it all and be able to walk away alive.
3 Likes