Will recent news make you think twice?

[Old-School Mark]

A lesser use of force for what? If someone points a gun at you and you do have pepper spray on you, this says you must use that. Since a lesser use of force was available. This is wrong.
The amount of force must not be more than that of the lethal force used against you. Lethal weapon to lethal weapon is fair.

If a threat is 5 feet away holding a gun or knife at me, but I have an open field behind me, I can use deadly force. I cannot outrun a bullet and the 21 foot rule says I won't escape a knife attack either. But I had plenty room behind me and still need to retreat? No.
Retreat if it is feasible. These 2 scenarios retreat is not feasible.
These 4 things are so vague.

I’ve heard the term “equal force” used a lot in my lifetime, but I’ve never seen it written in any law or regulation. I have, however, seen “necessary force”. Basically, if someone comes at me with a knife or baseball bat, I do not need to put down my gun and try to find an equal sized knife or bat.

It’s my understanding of the law that lethal force can be justified not only if my life is at stake, but also to prevent great bodily harm, kidnap or rape. Now, the bleeding heart prosecutors in MD seem to think that hurting the feelings of an attacker should be a felony, so I have no idea how well my understanding of the law will hold up. But I like to look at the Matthew Pinkerton case, from Ann Arundel County where a judge dismissed the case against Pinkerton before the defense even began.

 

[Blaster229]

I’ve heard the term “equal force” used a lot in my lifetime, but I’ve never seen it written in any law or regulation. I have, however, seen “necessary force”. Basically, if someone comes at me with a knife or baseball bat, I do not need to put down my gun and try to find an equal sized knife or bat.

It’s my understanding of the law that lethal force can be justified not only if my life is at stake, but also to prevent great bodily harm, kidnap or rape. Now, the bleeding heart prosecutors in MD seem to think that hurting the feelings of an attacker should be a felony, so I have no idea how well my understanding of the law will hold up. But I like to look at the Matthew Pinkerton case, from Ann Arundel County where a judge dismissed the case against Pinkerton before the defense even began.

The Pinkerton case is wholely different than an outside the home case.

 

[rambling_one]

I only used the pepper gel once. It was a chili-tasting competition at a gun club. The chili was pathetic, so I amped it up with a brief squirt. Helped the chili, but the folks around me caught a whiff too. I guess some of the gel aerosolised; it had been in my pocket for over a year.

That was a memorable evening <g>.

 

[Bob A]

That was a memorable evening <g>.

You must introduce yourself; the only MDS members I've identified there are BeoBill and HillbillyGrandpa.

 

[Old-School Mark]

The Pinkerton case is wholely different than an outside the home case.

I agree, but the simple fact that a State’s Attorney filed multiple felony charges, including use of a firearm in a felony, for a man who shot a drunken intruder who kicked in a door to the victim’s home after being told to leave makes me sick. If that man got charged, what chance does someone who was attacked on the street have to avoid prosecution.

 

[Blaster229]

I agree, but the simple fact that a State’s Attorney filed multiple felony charges, including use of a firearm in a felony, for a man who shot a drunken intruder who kicked in a door to the victim’s home after being told to leave makes me sick. If that man got charged, what chance does someone who was attacked on the street have to avoid prosecution.

I agree. But a charge is not a conviction. This is why people need to study, train, be aware, be SMART, and have some carry insurance just for that reason.
It's just not good enough to be carrying a gun. Carry smarts and knowledge too. Every second you carry is another second that you could be 1 trigger pull from life in prison.
No one wants to think about Andy and what he did. If he thought for even a millisecond he was going to put himself into this predicament, he would have thought differently and not have taken even 1 step towards that car.

Shooting someone is easy. Learning to not shoot someone or shoot someone the right way is the hard part.

 

[rambling_one]

You must introduce yourself; the only MDS members I've identified there are BeoBill and HillbillyGrandpa.

I sit at first seat as you enter the hall, across from Chris and Lee. Bobby is usually to my left followed by BeoBill.

 

[Speed3]

No I get caught up in the political game.

I hope I never have to draw a firearm ever. Personally I believe that if I had to draw and fire that it would be pretty clear there was a need to defend ones life and I could convey that to a jury. All conjecture at this point because I've never been put in that situation and hope I never do.

 

[OMCHamlin]

I agree, but the simple fact that a State’s Attorney filed multiple felony charges, including use of a firearm in a felony, for a man who shot a drunken intruder who kicked in a door to the victim’s home after being told to leave makes me sick. If that man got charged, what chance does someone who was attacked on the street have to avoid prosecution.

That's when the time comes that a victim of an attempted crime, if he (she, it?) survives and prevails against an attacker using a weapon to defend him (her, it?) self, they'll not call the authorities, they'll just make sure the SOB thug is "finished" and haul ass. And who (with the exception of the Karenized, hand wringing closet libs of MDS), could blame them?

 

[Old-School Mark]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi_xfKr2I39AhUuFFkFHVstBtUQFnoECBEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.usconcealedcarry.com%2Fblog%2F6-things-you-didnt-know-would-happen-when-the-police-arrive%2F&usg=AOvVaw3J6HWNq_syX4TcoH_aZyc0

Basically, the law states that if someone tries to victimize you, then you must become a victim or be arrested. This is true for multiple situations, not just self defense. Sometimes our laws stink.

 

[Bob A]

I sit at first seat as you enter the hall, across from Chris and Lee. Bobby is usually to my left followed by BeoBill.

Gotcha, thanks!

 

[Darkemp]

Unfortunately in too many of these examples provided by the OP it's easy to be the Monday Morning QB of the opposition and find that there are faults with the actions taken in the heat of the moment by otherwise law abiding citizens. As others have stated the HGP exists for self defense. As someone who does carry you have to consider in these moments the actions and reactions in split seconds before you choose, are you escalating or diffusing the situation in a reasonable manner? Are there other actions that will result in the same level of safety with lower risk? Is your life or safety in immediate danger? In your home it's pretty simple and well documented that you have no duty to retreat or choose less lethal options of self defense. Outside of the home it is a much stricter set of standards as it should reasonably be.

 

[Darkemp]

There are 3 things to satisfy lethal force. Let's dumb it down the way a 5 year old can understand.

MEANS - Typically and usually a weapon. Size of threat to victim.

OPPORTUNITY - Proximity of the threat to you usually grants opportunity. knife/sharp object 21 feet(since everyone loves this rule)
Baseball bat/yard rake/etc..... and is running to you, swinging. Baseball bat 50 yards away, nope.
Shooting at you. Pointing a gun at you. Just standing there holding a gun by his side, nope.
Think effective range A guy with a knife on the other side of a fence, not so much.

INTENT - Advancing towards you with a weapon. Saying that he is going to kill you. Is actually shooting. Willing to cause death or SBI through actions. This is fluid. If the intent stops, deadly force must not be used.

Here's where your duty to retreat in Md HELPS you. If someone is standing there with a bat, not advancing, you have nothing. However, if you start retreating (as required by law) and he starts at you, then you just proved his INTENT and satisfied your retreat.

This is how you articulate your use of deadly force. YMMV

I am amazed these instructors have not mentioned these pillars. (Ability, opportunity, jeopardy), etc...

Simplified and spot on comment.

 

[Old-School Mark]

Unfortunately in too many of these examples provided by the OP it's easy to be the Monday Morning QB of the opposition and find that there are faults with the actions taken in the heat of the moment by otherwise law abiding citizens. As others have stated the HGP exists for self defense. As someone who does carry you have to consider in these moments the actions and reactions in split seconds before you choose, are you escalating or diffusing the situation in a reasonable manner? Are there other actions that will result in the same level of safety with lower risk? Is your life or safety in immediate danger? In your home it's pretty simple and well documented that you have no duty to retreat or choose less lethal options of self defense. Outside of the home it is a much stricter set of standards as it should reasonably be.

That is very well stated. It is an awful lot to have to think about when a weapon is hurling towards you at what seems like the speed of light.

 

[MDFF2008]

I read the two stories.

The first story is very grey, and one where I would def expect an arrest and I'd hope the person has CCW insurance. It's probably one I would not get involved in. Key questions I think will be, who swung first and who was winning the fight at the time of the shot? Going to be come down to who is the aggressor in the fight.

The second story seems like dude shot the guy just for being on his property, which you also can't do. I didn't read anything about the guy being attacked or in fear of his life, he's just annoyed with illegal border crossings, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to be annoyed with, but it doesn't give you license to kill them.

Just reenforces some things that have been discussed on MDS about the greyness of self-defense when you aren't faced with clear and present danger like an attacker coming at you, or an active shooter situation and the importance of knowing the laws.

 

[teratos]

Kyle didn't pursue evil doers. Evil doers pursued him and he defended himself against them. He chose to go into a volatile area, with all signs pointing to altruistic purpose. I still fail to understand why people are so rabidly hostile to that.

Just observing an altercation with an innocent being assaulted so you can be a good witness is not a virtue. If you can't tell who the good guy and bad guy are (assuming there is a good guy and they aren't both bad guys), perhaps intervention is inappropriate. In either case, just being a witness can be dangerous in itself.

It seems to me that we are becoming more cowardly by the day. I don't think this is a good trend. I have no doubt, though, that this is the path that those in power want us to move down. Who needs gun control if you can beat the will to use force in the defense of self (and others) out of the population.

Life is dangerous.

Why did they pursue him?
Because he was there.

How many lives did Kyle save?
1

How much property damage did he prevent?
$0

He was gasoline on a fire. While I cannot and will not say the shootings were not justified, if Kyle himself had not been there then there would have been no need for the use of deadly force on anyone’s part. Kyle had to shoot his way out of a situation created entirely by his actions.

It floors me that people argue the wisdom of a 17 year old with an AR-15 in a riot.

 

[Kair350]

Well Said!

 

[Crazytrain]

Why did they pursue him?
Because he was there.

How many lives did Kyle save?
1

How much property damage did he prevent?
$0

He was gasoline on a fire. While I cannot and will not say the shootings were not justified, if Kyle himself had not been there then there would have been no need for the use of deadly force on anyone’s part. Kyle had to shoot his way out of a situation created entirely by his actions.

It floors me that people argue the wisdom of a 17 year old with an AR-15 in a riot.

He saved an appropriate life. His own. Does he need to have saved others for it to be justifiable?
How much property damage did he prevent? Unknowable. Maybe none. Maybe more than none.
I would argue that he shot his way out of a situation that was created by the actions of those who assaulted him.
He chose to be in a dangerous situation. We all make decisions on a daily basis as to what risks we are willing to take. Most folks wouldn't, and didn't, make that choice. He did. His call.
I'd argue he was wise to have the tools to defend himself. And he used those tools appropriately, effectively and without any collateral damage. Better than many police shootouts.

He shouldn't have been wearing a short skirt that time of night. He was asking for it.

 

[RFBfromDE]

He was gasoline on a fire. While I cannot and will not say the shootings were not justified, if Kyle himself had not been there then there would have been no need for the use of deadly force on anyone’s part. Kyle had to shoot his way out of a situation created entirely by his actions.

He shouldn't have been wearing a short skirt that time of night. He was asking for it.

First fall to Crazytrain.

 

[teratos]

He saved an appropriate life. His own. Does he need to have saved others for it to be justifiable?
How much property damage did he prevent? Unknowable. Maybe none. Maybe more than none.
I would argue that he shot his way out of a situation that was created by the actions of those who assaulted him.
He chose to be in a dangerous situation. We all make decisions on a daily basis as to what risks we are willing to take. Most folks wouldn't, and didn't, make that choice. He did. His call.
I'd argue he was wise to have the tools to defend himself. And he used those tools appropriately, effectively and without any collateral damage. Better than many police shootouts.

He shouldn't have been wearing a short skirt that time of night. He was asking for it.

Nothing at all was accomplished. Now he’s a young man with PTSD and the wrong kind of fame. If he blows his own brains out in the next 10 years, I won’t be a bit shocked. For what? So tacticool “freedom fighters” can jerk off to his mad skills. I’m not trying to insult your view. I get it. I just see it differently.