# The Four Pillars of Justifiable Deadly Force



## lklawson (Jul 16, 2013)

I've posted this elsewhere on some other boards, but I think it goes well here too.  There has been a lot of discussion recently over what constitutes "Self  Defense" and what is, and is not, "Justifiable Deadly Force."  What has  become clear is that many people simply have no idea whatsoever of what  constitutes Justifiable Deadly Force.  What follows below, while not a  full discussion of the topic, is a summary of what it typically distills  into.  This is the discussion that I have will all of my students.  I  sometimes refer to it as The Four Pillars of Justifiable Deadly Force.

Ability:
This is the physical capability to kill or seriously injure. Sometimes  this means a weapon such as a knife, club, or gun.  It can also mean  "Disparity of Force."  Disparity of Force in this context is when there  is a large enough difference between the attacker and the attacked that  raw physical capability alone is enough to be recognized as Deadly  Force.  The typical examples are a group attack, though unarmed, against  a single individual, or the proverbial attack by a 300 pound enraged  linebacker against a 90 year old fragile boned grandmother. Martial  Artists, take note: there have been a few court cases which have ruled  that martial arts training constitutes Deadly Force because of the,  assumed, greater skill that the martial artist possesses.  Same for Military and LEO training.

Opportunity:
Opportunity is similar to Ability, in that it reflects a raw ability to  inflict grievous harm.  However, Opportunity is more often linked to  physical proximity.  If the attacker is not within range to perform the  attack then there is no threat.  An attacker with a knife 30 feet away  is no attacker at all.  On the other hand, an attacker with a firearm 30  feet away is most certainly within range to inflict bodily harm.  An  attacker must have the "Opportunity" to use his "Ability" for the attack  to be a credible threat of Serious Bodily Harm or Death.

Imminent Jeopardy:
This means that the threat is immediate and that a "Reasonable Man"  would believe, based on what information is available at the time, that  the aggressor's intent is to cause severe physical harm or death.  A  "Reasonable Man" is a legal fiction, a pretend person, if you will,  constructed to be an "everyman," a non-crazy, average Joe, with average  knowledge, skills, and understanding.  If a "Reasonable Man" could be  said to believe that a threat is immediate, then it is "reasonable" to  assume that you would too. Threats by the aggressor of some future  attack do not satisfy Imminent Jeopardy while threats or actions that  indicate an immediate, "right now," intention do.  

Preclusion:
This means that all other options preceding Deadly Force were either  exhausted or were not viable.  Some places have a Duty to Retreat law or  legal precedent.  Essentially these address the same issue. Legally and  morally the individual must reasonably eliminate all other methods to  stop an attack before resorting to Deadly Force.  It is particularly  important to note that this does not mean that the individual must first  "try, fail, discard, and then try another" to eliminate all other  options.  Many options are eliminated by immediacy of the threat.  As an  example, one simply does not have time to call the police and report a  burglar when an aggressor is in the process of pounding you into jelly.   Similarly, being prevented by the aggressor from leaving the area, such  as if you were trapped up against a wall or had children with you, may  preclude the Duty to Retreat.

Insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Jul 16, 2013)

Very informative summary, Kirk.  Thanks for posting it.  

Only thing I can think to add is that the laws will vary slightly from place to place, and so it's a good idea to understand your local laws.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 16, 2013)

Steve said:


> Only thing I can think to add is that the laws will vary slightly from place to place, and so it's a good idea to understand your local laws.


Agreed.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## chinto (Jul 16, 2013)

I would say that you need to contact an attorney as different states have different laws. in my state it is black letter law you may use deadly force in defense of another, again the reasonable man doctrine does apply !  but also to stop burglary of a dwelling, or arson is automatic justifiable homicide.  so as you can see depending on the state things change! in NYNY for instance it is not the case for burglary and arson as I understand it.  so please contact your attorney..  the rule of thumb is that if a Reasonable man would be in FEAR of HIS LIFE or IMMINENT  SERIOUS INJURY  You MAY USE DEADLY FORCE TO STOP THAT ATTACKER!  it does not mean if you have stopped him and he hits the ground you can go on to Finish him off...  please this is something that does change from state to state.  Like was said in some states you have to retreat even in your own home if you can!


----------



## Danny T (Jul 17, 2013)

Laws are different from state to state and country to country be aware.
Also be wary of the difference in some laws definition of 'immediate and imminent'
Imminent - is impending, forthcoming, it will happen in the future. The time line may be minutes to days or longer
Immediate - it is occurring now. No time to delay. Instant.

This may change how the law is applied based upon the definition.


----------

