Legal of HD.

[ZombieTactics]

You can simplify this down to a few points:

1) Is the bad guy DOING (or trying to do) something right now that is likely to kill or cause great bodily harm to you or someone else? If not ... call the cops. (Bashing out your headlights doesn't count, bashing in your car window - while you are IN THE CAR - probably does)

2) Assuming that condition #1 is met, can you or the other person run away, drive away or get away somehow so that there is no longer an immediate threat of death or great bodily injury? If so, do so and call the cops to report the incident. (If he's bashing in your car headlights or window ... why aren't you just driving away with a quickness?)

3) If you can't get away ... it's time to bring the thunder. (Don't draw the gun unless you intend fully to use it)

4) You only do whatever is necessary to stop the threat, and no more. If he backs off as you draw your gun ... you don't get to shoot him "just in case". If you shoot him once and he falls down ... stop shooting unless he gets up and/or makes another attempt on you. If he falls down again you don't get to shoot him one more time "so he doesn't get up again", etc.

My personal advice would be not to draw or shoot unless you are willing to go to prison over it. The facts aren't always clear to cops, witnesses, judges and juries, and you could do time for what you personally know was a good shoot.

[fiddletown]

Ok when I saw bad guy I mean wither a guy getting or already in side my house not looking to run off....

How do you know he's a bad guy? If he's in your house, do you know how he got there? If he's not in your house, how do you know he's trying to get in, and what exactly is he doing? How would you know whether or not someone is "looking to run off"? And it's not necessarily what you think. It's what the hypothetical reasonable and prudent person would think.

...Or several attackers surrounding me and my car with intent to seriously harm....

You're inside a multi-ton, mobile weapon. How is anyone going to cause you harm? (Maybe you are at risk, but if you're going to take that position, you better have a good explanation for why you concluded that. And if you don't just start your car and take off, you better have a really good explanation for that.)

...I'm asking all this now because now I do have a side arm for this specific reason and want to be clear on when I should even think about running to it....

Yes, you do need to really understand this stuff, because if you use a gun when it's not justified, you'll be going to jail. Our legal system does not have any sense of humor about the unjustified use of lethal force.

But on the other hand, there are no simple answers. Whether in a particular situation your use of lethal force would be justified will depend and exactly what is happening and how it is happening. And perhaps the best rule of thumb would be that you do not use lethal force unless there is no other way to save your life or the life on an innocent (and only as long as you didn't start the fracus).

...We will always feel the need to best protect our selves. I just want to learn when the best time to think of a gun should be and not think gun for everything. But in this post above are my main reasonings for pulling out my firearm.

So maybe we should put it this way: the only time to think of your gun is when absolutely nothing else will save your life. If there's anything else you could do, it's not yet time for your gun. So if someone is breaking or stealing your property, call the cops. If you're inside your car and someone attacks you there, start the car and get out of Dodge -- and call the cops on your cell phone. If you're outside, get inside -- and call the cops.

So to really simplify matters, let's just say that the only reason to "pull your gun" is when you've run out of all other possible ways to save your life.

Sure, that's a gross simplification. But I've outlined the law and provided a link to a more exhaustive discussion of the law relating to the use of force, and all of that doesn't seem to be sinking in.

And I still think you need to take some classes -- both to assure that you can use your gun properly and to better understand the legal issues.

[Glock22Fan]

This thread is pretty scary. Well over 2,000 posts and the OP needs to ask these questions? Is he posting without reading? Or just staying mostly in the Off Topic Lounge?

[CK_32]

Zombie thanks for the response you made it very clear.

Glock fan I've never had a weapon to use for HD. sorry I didn't see the rule that states before asking all else or getting into the gun hobby you must know all laws and situations on HD. thanks for clearing that up.

Funny reply coming from a 4k poster.

[Caladain]

Zombie thanks for the response you made it very clear.

Glock fan I've never had a weapon to use for HD. sorry I didn't see the rule that states before asking all else or getting into the gun hobby you must know all laws and situations on HD. thanks for clearing that up.

Funny reply coming from a 4k poster.

Don't forget to think about over penetration...that bullet has a good chance of going straight through, potentially with enough energy to go through a wall. Or, you know, you miss...and then it definitely goes through the wall..

[CK_32]

Don't forget to think about over penetration...that bullet has a good chance of going straight through, potentially with enough energy to go through a wall. Or, you know, you miss...and then it definitely goes through the wall..

Oh I know abut that trust me. I just had a huge thread about over penetration in the hand gun forum.

[Maestro Pistolero]

Yes, but the blanket statement that brandishing is always illegal is plainly false.

Point taken, but brandishing in this context has a legal definition that would not be met by a legitimate, justifiable, defensive display of a weapon. So if it meets the legal definition of brandishing, it's always illegal.

[goodlookin1]

You can simplify this down to a few points:

1) Is the bad guy DOING (or trying to do) something right now that is likely to kill or cause great bodily harm to you or someone else? If not ... call the cops. (Bashing out your headlights doesn't count, bashing in your car window - while you are IN THE CAR - probably does)

2) Assuming that condition #1 is met, can you or the other person run away, drive away or get away somehow so that there is no longer an immediate threat of death or great bodily injury? If so, do so and call the cops to report the incident. (If he's bashing in your car headlights or window ... why aren't you just driving away with a quickness?)

3) If you can't get away ... it's time to bring the thunder. (Don't draw the gun unless you intend fully to use it)

4) You only do whatever is necessary to stop the threat, and no more. If he backs off as you draw your gun ... you don't get to shoot him "just in case". If you shoot him once and he falls down ... stop shooting unless he gets up and/or makes another attempt on you. If he falls down again you don't get to shoot him one more time "so he doesn't get up again", etc.

My personal advice would be not to draw or shoot unless you are willing to go to prison over it. The facts aren't always clear to cops, witnesses, judges and juries, and you could do time for what you personally know was a good shoot.

My personal opinion is that you might be taking this a little too far. I get the feeling that you mean they have to be "in the act" to be justified....with that, I dont necessarily agree. You dont have to wait for someone to start assaulting you before you defend yourself....if someone was running at you with a bat, would you not pull it out until he swung? Certainly not, because that one swing can put you out of the game for good.

Now if you meant that someone was making threats but had not begun to act on it, then I would agree.....Not until they started acting on their threats would I engage. And by "acting on their threats", I mean when they start running at you, pursuing you, swinging at you, making a move towards you in a threatening manner, etc. Essentially, when they have engaged YOU with their actions, then it's time for you to act. Otherwise, keep a level head, be ALERT and AWARE of the situation, watch your six, etc. But dont show 'em your hardware until you are sure they have decided to act on their threats. That is ***reasonably*** when you can expect your peers to believe you acted "reasonably" in using/brandishing your "deadly weapon".

[fiddletown]

My personal opinion is that you might be taking this a little too far. I get the feeling that you mean they have to be "in the act" to be justified....with that, I dont necessarily agree. You dont have to wait for someone to start assaulting you before you defend yourself........

Well, I think that ZT was trying to make it as simple as reasonably possible because it wasn't clear that the OP was getting it. And ZT did a good job of doing that.

I set out a more general statement of the standard in post 7:

...in general, one is justified in using lethal force only when a reasonable and prudent person, in like circumstances and knowing what he knows, would conclude that lethal force was necessary to prevent otherwise immediate, unavoidable death or grave bodily injury to an innocent. And to demonstrate that there was indeed an immediate risk of death or grave bodily injury, one must generally show that the assailant reasonably appeared to --

1. have the Ability, i. e., the power to deliver force sufficient to cause death or grave bodily harm;
2. have the Opportunity, i. e., the assailant was capable of immediately deploying such force;
3. put an innocent in Jeopardy, i. e., the assailant was acting in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person would conclude that he has the intent to kill or cripple. and
4. circumstances Preclude other safe [to the defender] means of avoiding harm

....

So that doesn't necessarily require that the assailant be "in the act", but it does mean that if you use lethal force, you will need to be able to convincingly articulate exactly why a reasonable and prudent person would have concluded that under the exact circumstances the standard was satisfied and lethal force was justified.

Doing so would be pretty straight forward if you had your back to a wall and the assailant was charging you from 20 feet while swinging an axe at your head. But you won't be able to make your case if you were in your car with room to maneuver. And somewhere between those extremes, it goes from "clearly justified" to "probably not justified."

...That is ***reasonably*** when you can expect your peers to believe you acted "reasonably" in using/brandishing your "deadly weapon"....

Your peers will have nothing to do with it.

You'll first need to convince the DA and/or a grand jury. And if that fails, and you're really unlucky, your trial jury will need to believe that you acted reasonably in your use of lethal force.

But there is nothing in the law of the United States that entitles anyone to a jury of his peers. One is entitled to an impartial jury (Constitution, Sixth Amendment); but you have no grounds upon which to insist that members of your jury be from the of the same societal group, age, status, background or education, etc., as you.

[diginit]

In Ca, You have to run away. If you are cornered or there are no means of escape, or someones' life is immediately endangered, Then you can use lethal force.
If someone is stealing your car, You can't shoot them without going to jail on multiple charges. If you put them under citizens arrest while stating your name,"I, Joe Blow, am putting you under citizens arrest for Grand Theft Auto" preferrably with a creditable witness, You will have much more leeway in court. Even if you shoot out a tire, It will be an illegal discharge of a firearm, Reckless endangerment, or even assault with a deadly weapon. In other words, We're FK'ED! Just give the thief your keys, wallet, daughter, or whatever they want...Then call 911 and wait a half an hour for a cop to fill out a report that will be filed and forgotten...

[dantodd]

In Ca, You have to run away. If you are cornered or there are no means of escape, or someones' life is immediately endangered, Then you can use lethal force...

this is simply not true. You have no obligation to retreat in CA.

[fiddletown]

...You have no obligation to retreat in CA.

That is correct. On the other hand, if you can avoid a fight and having to use lethal force in self defense, you'll be better off.

If you, for example, shoot someone, even in what you believe to have been justifiable self defense, the incident will be investigated as a crime. You will at least be detained, and you will be interviewed by the police. You will be wise to have the assistance of legal counsel at this point.

So, while represented by legal counsel, you will be interviewed and probably give a statement. And you will want your attorney to make a strong pitch that your use of force was justified.

Now, if everything works out, the DA will agree and you'll ride off into the sunset -- and you'll have a bill from your lawyer. Assuming everything winds up easily at this point, your legal bill will probably be in the neighborhood of $3,000 to $6,000, more or less.

If the DA is inclined, for whatever reason, to want to play hardball and takes the case to the grand jury, you'll wind up paying your lawyer more money -- maybe a total of around $10,000 to $12,000. And of course that's assuming the grand jury doesn't indict.

Now if you're really having a run of bad luck, the grand jury might indict, or the DA will just file charges. Now you'll be going to trial; and your lawyer will be doing a whole lot more work. And now, assuming you win (because you were after all justified) your legal bill, depending on how complicated the case is, could run anywhere from $25,000 to $150,000, or even more.

Then of course, there's always the possibility of a civil suit. California law doesn't provide for civil immunity in the cases of the justified use of force, the way the laws of some State do.

So if you can safely avoid the confrontation, you'll be better off.