# Is this a legal use of force with a gun...



## billc (Nov 24, 2013)

So I was at Walmart and stopped by the magazine section.  I picked up a copy of one of the combat handgun magazines they stock and saw a self-defense technique against a rear choke hold.  Like many of the empty hand techniques, the guy in the photo series pivoted his hips out and behind the guy choking him, but instead of striking him with his hands, or throwing him over backwards over his leg...it shows him taking out his snub nose pistol and shooting the guy in the left inner thigh.  Now, I have no problem with dealing harshly with criminal attackers...but would this be a legal escalation of force.  I would think it would be since a rear choke hold could kill you even if murder wasn't the intent,  either by crushing your wind pipe or depriving you of oxygen long enough to cause your death...what say you guys...?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 24, 2013)

A rear choke hold is a lethal threat-if someone is intent on killing you this way, they will. If someone isn't intent upon killing you, but inexperienced at applying it, they might. While the argument might be made that once free of the choke, one is free of the lethal threat, and lethal response isn't warranted, one could also argue that once free of the choke, the assailant might remain a lethal threat, and reattack with renewed vigor.

In the end, it comes down to some real intangibles, as far as self-defense law goes-as I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer. In any case, is the assailant expressing lethal intent, and is the defender in fear for their life?


----------



## Tgace (Nov 24, 2013)

Its always the totality of the incident that matters vs any single element....

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## rlobrecht (Nov 24, 2013)

It would be in Texas.


----------



## DennisBreene (Nov 24, 2013)

elder999 said:


> A rear choke hold is a lethal threat-if someone is intent on killing you this way, they will. If someone isn't intent upon killing you, but inexperienced at applying it, they might. While the argument might be made that once free of the choke, one is free of the lethal threat, and lethal response isn't warranted, one could also argue that once free of the choke, the assailant might remain a lethal threat, and reattack with renewed vigor.
> 
> In the end, it comes down to some real intangibles, as far as self-defense law goes-as I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer. In any case, is the assailant expressing lethal intent, and is the defender in fear for their life?



Assuming that you had not consented to the choke hold; aren't you safe to presume that someone placing you in a choke hold has lethal intent? And yes, I can think of several situations where you might be well aware that the gesture is playful.  It just doesn't strike me as all that difficult to tell when someone is choking you and you are in peril.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 24, 2013)

I keep a knife on my gunbelt at work just for the choke from behind.  If I can't free myself very quickly I'm reaching for the knife and either slicing the arm or stabbing it straight into your thigh.


----------



## billc (Nov 24, 2013)

From the article, the attack was set in an alley...so...which of you guys would pull the trigger on the guy?  Given that you are suddenly grabbed and choked from behind in an isolated location and not say at a family birthday party.  It would be a life changing decision.


----------



## K-man (Nov 24, 2013)

Gosh Bill. I'm on your side again. Any more of this and I'll have to consider medication. 

In Australia on the street a rear naked choke could see you charged with attempted murder. I would have thought that any legal response to achieve a release would be acceptable in court. Of course here you can't carry knives or guns for the purpose of self defence so if you did produce one of those to get away I'm sure you would be facing a few charges yourself.
:asian:


----------



## punisher73 (Nov 24, 2013)

A rear choke would be something that is considered "lethal force" by the person it is applied to.  Most states view "assault" (the threat of the violence) in terms of what the victim can reasonably believe was the intent.  This is one of the reasons why a few years back you had some kids sent to prison for a VERY long time for shooting a cyclist with a red paintball.  He heard it and felt the pain and looked down and saw red.  A reasonable person would think that they were shot.

As to the scenario.  In Michigan, while the choke is being applied you are in a deadly force situation.  You could shoot him and be justified (especially if through training and experience you know how little time you have on a properly applied choke).  But, assuming that the person is unarmed, once you break the choke you are now out of the deadly force situation as it stood before.  You are going to need a whole new set of circumstances to justify shooting the person at this point.  Not saying that you can't or wouldn't be justified, but you have to articulate "why" your life was in danger of great bodily harm or death enough that a reasonable person would also believe and arrive at the same conclusion with the known facts at the time.


----------



## Grenadier (Nov 25, 2013)

If you are faced with a situation of possibly receiving serious bodily harm or death, then it really doesn't matter what methods you choose to use for your self-defense, as long as they're lawful.  

Yes, you would be perfectly justified in using a firearm, because a rear naked choke easily has the potential to do serious damage to a vital area (the throat).


----------



## wimwag (Dec 31, 2013)

billc said:


> So I was at Walmart and stopped by the magazine section.  I picked up a copy of one of the combat handgun magazines they stock and saw a self-defense technique against a rear choke hold.  Like many of the empty hand techniques, the guy in the photo series pivoted his hips out and behind the guy choking him, but instead of striking him with his hands, or throwing him over backwards over his leg...it shows him taking out his snub nose pistol and shooting the guy in the left inner thigh.  Now, I have no problem with dealing harshly with criminal attackers...but would this be a legal escalation of force.  I would think it would be since a rear choke hold could kill you even if murder wasn't the intent,  either by crushing your wind pipe or depriving you of oxygen long enough to cause your death...what say you guys...?



Are you in fear for your life at this point?


----------



## chinto (Jan 20, 2014)

any time a choke or strangle hold is initiated against some one, then LETHAL FORCE has been initiated. even if it failed, at least in my state you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself.   ( of course if you do use Lethal Force, you will have a lot of costs for lawyers and things for civil and posibly criminal defense needs, depending on the DA and the circomstances)

I am NOT a Lawyer, but have been told such by a Lawyer as far as my state is concerned.)

Do yourself a huge favor, pay the $100 or so and go talk to a lawyer about your state laws and how to stay out of trouble as far as use of a weapon to defend yourself.


----------

