Political Crossfire Forums

Rilzic · Joined: 22 May 2005 Posts: 385 Location: Alb, NM, USA

I have a question about the laws concerning defending yourself with a gun and a good story I think most of you will enjoy.

First my question.

Under what circumstances can you use lethal force (a gun) to defend yourself? does lethal force have to be used against you or assault or trust passing? Or where can I find the laws on this for my state (New Mexico)

The story:

A few months ago a man came into the local walmart where minutes before I rode my bike by on my way to school. This man had a knife and was there to kill his girlfriend that worked there as a cashier. A costumer saw him approaching this women and the initial struggle and preceded to shoot the guy a few times with his personal firearm saving the day and getting his spot on the news as a hero.

mattman42 · Joined: 26 Apr 2005 Posts: 661 Location: Maine

Generally speaking, you can use lethal force if you or someone else is in danger of A) serious bodily harm or B) death. Some are much less restrictive. Some states require that you first make every attempt to retreat, while others (namely Florida) allow you to stand your ground. As for New Mexico I really have no idea. But I would guess that it leans towards being less restrictive, but as I said, I don't know. Here is a link that may help you. I'm too tired and lazy to investigate further into it right now.

http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-hit-h.htm&2.0

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

Personally I would use deadly force once myself or someone else that is unarmed is threatened with any kind of weapon be it a gun, knife, or baseball bat. I am not willing to risk my life trying to struggle unarmed against someone with a knife, sorry. If someone is crazy enough to pull a knife or threaten me with a baseball bat then I will assume they plan to use it to do bodily harm or try to kill me with it. My life is worth more than theirs.

As for the legal end of it, it varies state by state. Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Indiana and serveral other states have just passed the "castle doctrine" law that states if you are somewhere you are legally allowed to be, such as your home, car, a street corner or even a store, you have no duty to treat and can use force, including deadly force to meet a threat to yourself or anyother person. Check your state laws as some areas still make you retreat before you can use any form of force to stop a crime againt yourself.

whatsthepoint · Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 1235

Deadly force was not needed. Why was the man shot several times if he only had a knife. One shot to the knee cap would have been sufficient.

mathurin · Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:21 pm Post subject:

a knife is deadly force

you try hitting someone in the kneecap, headshots are tough, if you miss then he is coming after you
though pelvis hits would bring him down, i have heard that fairly new police training is stressing head and pelvis shots for potentialy intoxicated threats, since the drugs make them immune to pain even a heart shot will not incapacitate them immediatly

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

whatsthepoint wrote: Deadly force was not needed. Why was the man shot several times if he only had a knife. One shot to the knee cap would have been sufficient.

Do you have any experience with a gun? Trying to hit a stationary target the size of a kneecap consistently is hard for trained professionals. Now imagine trying to do that to a moving target. Law enforcement officers are trained to shoot center mass for a reason, it is easy to hit and a less likely chance of missing or going through the target and hitting an inoccent person.

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

whatsthepoint wrote: Deadly force was not needed. Why was the man shot several times if he only had a knife. One shot to the knee cap would have been sufficient.

That's a much harder shot than is a shot to center of mass--i.e. the middle of the chest. IMHO, anybody attempting to commit a violent felony on another should be dealt with using deadly force. (and that is the law in Florida).

Nicholas · Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 321 Location: Rural backwater

In my perspective, if someone enters your home, you have every right to protect yourself and your family. Your home is your territory and an intruder should know that, entering someone's home is putting himself or herself at risk and deserves to be taught a lesson. You have to prepare yourself for the worst case scenario. What if the intruder has possessed a gun, instead of a knife and you take the option of a baseball bat? Your not going to get very far.

Hitting the knee cap is the equivalent of winning the lottery. It's infinitesimally small, even if you are bulls eye champion. Moving targets is a whole new boardgame and not to forget the objects in the way, typically found around a home. I don't believe in an eye for an eye in this circumstance, firearm force is my protection.

mathurin · Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:17 pm Post subject:

even in your home you or someone else must be in fear of serious injury before you can use deadly force
however if someone is in your home without your permission you can generally assume they intend you harm, unless they have surrendered or turn to flee you are generally ok with using deadly force (hint, use of deadly force does not always kill, it is just capable of doing it, so if you shoot them in the head or the leg the courts still call it deadly force)

obviously there are limits, if you turn on the lights and find an 80 year old wheelchair bound woman has broken into your home you arent allowed to shoot her, unless she is armed

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

mathurin wrote: even in your home you or someone else must be in fear of serious injury before you can use deadly force

It depends on the state, but in FL, it is legal to use deadly force on someone committing a violent felony.

" Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping. "

From licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

mathurin wrote: however if someone is in your home without your permission you can generally assume they intend you harm, unless they have surrendered or turn to flee you are generally ok with using deadly force (hint, use of deadly force does not always kill, it is just capable of doing it, so if you shoot them in the head or the leg the courts still call it deadly force)

obviously there are limits, if you turn on the lights and find an 80 year old wheelchair bound woman has broken into your home you arent allowed to shoot her, unless she is armed

"I swear officer, I thought that she had a gun in the seat of her wheelchair"

OneZero · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 3413

While it sounds nice to "just shoot him in the kneecap," in reality it is hard to hit that kneecap, and if you miss guess what? He's gonna get you. Much better to do a shot to the chest, remember, 84% of those shot with handguns survive.

whatsthepoint · Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 1235

TNBiologist wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: Deadly force was not needed. Why was the man shot several times if he only had a knife. One shot to the knee cap would have been sufficient.

Do you have any experience with a gun? Trying to hit a stationary target the size of a kneecap consistently is hard for trained professionals. Now imagine trying to do that to a moving target. Law enforcement officers are trained to shoot center mass for a reason, it is easy to hit and a less likely chance of missing or going through the target and hitting an inoccent person. I have a lot of experience with weapons. I know when you are that close to a person you can aim towards their leg just as easily as you can the torso.

OneZero · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 3413

whatsthepoint wrote: TNBiologist wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: Deadly force was not needed. Why was the man shot several times if he only had a knife. One shot to the knee cap would have been sufficient.

Do you have any experience with a gun? Trying to hit a stationary target the size of a kneecap consistently is hard for trained professionals. Now imagine trying to do that to a moving target. Law enforcement officers are trained to shoot center mass for a reason, it is easy to hit and a less likely chance of missing or going through the target and hitting an inoccent person. I have a lot of experience with weapons. I know when you are that close to a person you can aim towards their leg just as easily as you can the torso.

Which way do they fall?

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

whatsthepoint wrote: TNBiologist wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: Deadly force was not needed. Why was the man shot several times if he only had a knife. One shot to the knee cap would have been sufficient.

Do you have any experience with a gun? Trying to hit a stationary target the size of a kneecap consistently is hard for trained professionals. Now imagine trying to do that to a moving target. Law enforcement officers are trained to shoot center mass for a reason, it is easy to hit and a less likely chance of missing or going through the target and hitting an inoccent person. I have a lot of experience with weapons. I know when you are that close to a person you can aim towards their leg just as easily as you can the torso.

Not when under stress of being in combat. If so, don't you think the police would be teaching "knee-capping" instead of shooting "center of mass." Also, the limbs move more than the rest of the body, making them even harder to hit. Also, a major artery goes through the knee. A hit in the knee will more than likely sever it, causing the victim to bleed out fairly rapidly. If I'm trying to save somebody's life, I'll just shoot center of mass.

Nicholas · Joined: 14 Aug 2005 Posts: 321 Location: Rural backwater

whatsthepoint wrote: I have a lot of experience with weapons. I know when you are that close to a person you can aim towards their leg just as easily as you can the torso.

If you happened to be that close. What if the intruder is armed? You are going to have to react within a great degree of accuracy if you wish to destablised the intruder. If you are going to shoot the intruder, you should kill it, let alone try and aim at the knee cap. Then your law case will not be so temperamental. If the intruder lives and fights another day to appear at court, it can be quite problematic as he/she is likely to sue you with his/her lawyer.

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

whatsthepoint wrote: Deadly force was not needed. Why was the man shot several times if he only had a knife. One shot to the knee cap would have been sufficient.

Not only this but the situation should be assessed after each shot, this is how to respect human life.

:-D
:-D

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11171 Location: Podunk, Colorado

whatsthepoint wrote: TNBiologist wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: Deadly force was not needed. Why was the man shot several times if he only had a knife. One shot to the knee cap would have been sufficient.

Do you have any experience with a gun? Trying to hit a stationary target the size of a kneecap consistently is hard for trained professionals. Now imagine trying to do that to a moving target. Law enforcement officers are trained to shoot center mass for a reason, it is easy to hit and a less likely chance of missing or going through the target and hitting an inoccent person. I have a lot of experience with weapons. I know when you are that close to a person you can aim to wards their leg just as easily as you can the torso.
Uh, no you can't. Tie a piece of string to a pizza box, draw a circle the size of a knee cap, and have someone yank the box across the ground at the speed of which a knee would be moving.
Now, do the same with a target the size of a torso and someone yank it around at the same speed of which a torso would be moving around, which is much more predictable and slower than the knee cap target.

If your life is in danger, kill the guy that is endangering your life.

whatsthepoint · Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 1235

Wolverine wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: TNBiologist wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: Deadly force was not needed. Why was the man shot several times if he only had a knife. One shot to the knee cap would have been sufficient.

Do you have any experience with a gun? Trying to hit a stationary target the size of a kneecap consistently is hard for trained professionals. Now imagine trying to do that to a moving target. Law enforcement officers are trained to shoot center mass for a reason, it is easy to hit and a less likely chance of missing or going through the target and hitting an inoccent person. I have a lot of experience with weapons. I know when you are that close to a person you can aim to wards their leg just as easily as you can the torso.
Uh, no you can't. Tie a piece of string to a pizza box, draw a circle the size of a knee cap, and have someone yank the box across the ground at the speed of which a knee would be moving.
Now, do the same with a target the size of a torso and someone yank it around at the same speed of which a torso would be moving around, which is much more predictable and slower than the knee cap target.

If your life is in danger, kill the guy that is endangering your life. His life was not in danger. the person he shot was in a struggle with another person.

mathurin · Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 3:16 pm Post subject:

Lucky Luke wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: Deadly force was not needed. Why was the man shot several times if he only had a knife. One shot to the knee cap would have been sufficient.

Not only this but the situation should be assessed after each shot, this is how to respect human life.

:-D
:-D
the attacker has no respect for innocent human life, so we have no respect for his, as long as he remains a threat he may be shot anywhere
generally meaning that if he is brandishiing a deadly weapon with the intent to harm someone, he is a threat, and may be fired upon until he drops the weapon, or, depending on the weapon, falls to the ground
the best litmus test is standing, so long as the attacker is still standing they are fair game, proof that they are still standing is easy, checking the angle of the bullet paths will show the position compared to the shooter, while technically the shooter could stand above and fire straight down to fake this the bullets generally go through at this range and would strike the ground, proving unreasonable defnse

there have been instances of perps taking 10 rounds or more, yet no charges filed against the defender because the perp was still a threat
drugs do amazing things to the human bodies ability to take damage and function, in this instance it can be reasonably assumed that the perp was on some sort of substance

OneZero · Joined: 23 Sep 2005 Posts: 3413

Nicholas wrote: whatsthepoint wrote: I have a lot of experience with weapons. I know when you are that close to a person you can aim towards their leg just as easily as you can the torso.

If you happened to be that close. What if the intruder is armed? You are going to have to react within a great degree of accuracy if you wish to disablise the intruder. If you are going to shoot the intruder, you should kill it, let alone try and aim at the knee cap. Then your law case will not be so temperamental. If the intruder lives and fights another day to appear at court, it can be quite problematic as he/she is likely to sue you with his/her lawyer.

You brought up a good point. Let's say the guy is armed, let's say you shoot his kneecap. So what? Now he's on the floor. If he has a gun, he can still shoot you, if he has a knife he can still fling it.