Another Firearms Training Issue?

Tez3 said:
Do you have the same thing as us where the details aren't all reported in the media because the upcoming court case makes details and evidence sub judice? We usually don't get all the information until it comes out at the trial.
Click to expand...

It's not uncommon for investigators and prosecutors to withhold info from press.
 
Bill Mattocks said:
The key phrase is usually the 'reasonable and prudent person' test. Would a reasonable and prudent person (a hypothetical person, but still a legal definition) be in fear of his or her life or grave bodily injury from the attack?
Click to expand...

That's quite interesting. Surely the fact that he got out of the car puts you in grave danger (after all he isnt getting out to offer you a jelly baby) and there is no way to know until the assault has started how severe the attacker intends to make it.

He could plan on just breaking your nose then getting back in his car and driving away, or he could intend to beat you senseless and stomp on your head. How much leeway does US law give? Like I say, you can't really wait until the beating starts before you get a good gauge of how bad he intends it to be.

I don't think it's written in UK law, but I remember seeing something somewhere that said it was accepted that whoever exited their vehicle first in a road rage incident is responsible for whatever happens, the idea being if they had stayed in the vehicle nothing would have happened. Don't quote me on that though :-)
 
Bill Mattocks said:
That is what appears to be a jury instruction. It is not the law on use of deadly force in MA.

What you are describing is actually the instructions given by a judge to a jury when they consider what the 'reasonable person' requirement means in real life. It says clearly that a jury may consider such things as your 'disparity of force'. In no way does it state that a little guy can't put a big guy in legitimate fear of his life. It says a jury can consider if that was the case.

I'm a big guy. If a little guy knocks me down or I slip and fall and he climbs on me and starts wailing away at my noggin, he might manage to knock me out. There's no way to know with just the information I've given. "Disparity of force" according to you would mean because he is little and I am big, I would *never* be justified in defending myself with deadly force, no matter what he did to me. The law says 'reasonable person' because all such cases are different. Maybe the guy is a matchstick and is slapping me while calling me names. Maybe he's a MT fighter and he's tearing the life out of me. You tell me how weight decides the whole story here.
Click to expand...

yes this is the jury instructions. but law is not only Statutory it is also case law. since i am not a lawyer and dont have access to dozens of files we can assume that the jury instructions are the guidelines for case law. it would be fair to assume that case law would follow the guidelines.
i am not implying that a larger person would never be justified in self defense, that is not what i said nor what i implied. what i said was that a disparity of force is a factor. you will notice that the concept is cited under the "excessive force" description. we are discussing a case where it could be said that the defendant used excessive force to deal with the assailant. that is what you asked,
Bill Mattocks said:
Was he justified in doing so?
Click to expand...
i proposed that if there was a disparity of force ,,,the jury would take into consideration these factors in determining if in fact he was justified in his actions.

it should be remembered that statutory law is what will get you arrested,, it is case law that will determine your fate.
 
 
Bill Mattocks said:
Typically has nothing to do with anything. There is no 'disparity of force' codicil found in any self-defense statutes I am aware of. The key phrase is usually the 'reasonable and prudent person' test. Would a reasonable and prudent person (a hypothetical person, but still a legal definition) be in fear of his or her life or grave bodily injury from the attack? If no, then deadly force not authorized, if yes, then it is. The amount each one weighs has no legal place in self-defense law that I am aware of, but I am not a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Disparity of force is one of the factors that goes into the assessment of reasonableness. The greater the difference in physical ability due to size, health, injuries received in the attack, gender/age, etc., the more force would be reasonable for the person on the small/weak/hurt side of the equation. Extreme example for consideration -- a 91 year old Iwo Jima Marine veteran is going to be more justified in using greater force than a 19 year old Marine who just got back from Afghanistan. Sure both are "Marines" and combat vets, but I think the 19 year old is probably going to be a lot more physically capable, no? Take two 19 year old Marines, one who lost a leg on deployment, and the other who came back fine -- again, the guy with one leg is probably going to be able to articulate a greater level of force in the same attack.

Self defense is often still not a statutory issue; it's a justification for having committed what would otherwise be a criminal act. The person claiming self defense is saying that they did indeed batter or even kill their victim -- but the victim had it coming because if the defendant didn't do something about it, they would have been hurt/injured/badly injured/killed (depending on how much force was used).
 
Bill Mattocks said:
That is what appears to be a jury instruction. It is not the law on use of deadly force in MA.

What you are describing is actually the instructions given by a judge to a jury when they consider what the 'reasonable person' requirement means in real life. It says clearly that a jury may consider such things as your 'disparity of force'. In no way does it state that a little guy can't put a big guy in legitimate fear of his life. It says a jury can consider if that was the case.

I'm a big guy. If a little guy knocks me down or I slip and fall and he climbs on me and starts wailing away at my noggin, he might manage to knock me out. There's no way to know with just the information I've given. "Disparity of force" according to you would mean because he is little and I am big, I would *never* be justified in defending myself with deadly force, no matter what he did to me. The law says 'reasonable person' because all such cases are different. Maybe the guy is a matchstick and is slapping me while calling me names. Maybe he's a MT fighter and he's tearing the life out of me. You tell me how weight decides the whole story here.
Click to expand...
Again -- self defense is an affirmative defense to the crime of assault & battery at some level. A person is generally justified in using that force reasonably necessary to safely resolve the situation. It's not a stair step, ladder, or precise equation. It's about articulation. Many factors go into deciding if a "reasonable person in like circumstances" would have found that level of force reasonable and appropriate. Those factors can include relative size, health, physical condition, injuries, the level of force being presented, and more. The better the defendant can explain what made them feel that level of force was needed and appropriate, the more likely they are to prevail in their claim.
 
Paul_D said:
That's quite interesting. Surely the fact that he got out of the car puts you in grave danger (after all he isnt getting out to offer you a jelly baby) and there is no way to know until the assault has started how severe the attacker intends to make it.

He could plan on just breaking your nose then getting back in his car and driving away, or he could intend to beat you senseless and stomp on your head. How much leeway does US law give? Like I say, you can't really wait until the beating starts before you get a good gauge of how bad he intends it to be.

I don't think it's written in UK law, but I remember seeing something somewhere that said it was accepted that whoever exited their vehicle first in a road rage incident is responsible for whatever happens, the idea being if they had stayed in the vehicle nothing would have happened. Don't quote me on that though :)
Click to expand...
How well can you explain why you had to do what you did. That's what it boils down to.

Moving to a road rage incident like this, you have to be able to paint the picture that you feared some significant, life altering injury or death from the guy's attack, that he had the ability, means, and intent to do you harm, and that lesser force was precluded by the circumstances. Obviously, a guy coming out, fist clenched, yelling and screaming after driving aggressively to get to you... that certainly paints a picture that he intended to do you harm. It would take quite a bit to overcome that presumption, in a case like that -- but it may not justify lethal force. An average unarmed couch potato who does "kara-TEY" twice a week for an hour isn't likely to pose much of a physical threat to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, right? But The Rock jumps out, pissed off, and charges most of us? Yeah, we can probably support that we were pretty damn scared that he'd hurt us badly if he laid hands on us, right?
 
Last edited:
Buka said:
I find it troubling how much road rage is on the rise.
Click to expand...
Road rage is a symptom. We've got a scary high level of general rage, hostility, and division in the US that I personally have never seen before. Add to that more and more people who can't work out problems between themselves, and who feel entitled constantly, who can't freaking TALK to each other because they're so used to the internet and social media instead of actual interaction... Yeah, it's a fun mess, huh!
 
With regard to self-defense and use of deadly force laws in the various states of the US, most boil down to the same basic elements. They're pretty simple.

1) You have the right to defend yourself against unlawful assault by another person.
2) You may have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself (in some states, also your property, home, or others) if a reasonable and prudent person would believe that they were in imminent danger of losing their life or suffering grave bodily injury.

Now, as I've said, I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. But my *opinion* is that although the above is pretty simple, it's when we get down into the weeds that people seem to lose the thread.

There are no hard and fast rules about what a reasonable and prudent person would believe for a written-out list of various things which might happen to you. "Well, you see, if he's a big guy and he has tattoos and has been known to fight with others and his brother's name is Larry and it's the 3rd Tuesday in the month, then yes, you may draw your legal and licensed concealed sidearm and make his head look like a canoe."

What happens is the police investigate and take statements from witnesses, gather evidence, and it gets turned over to detectives and/or prosecuting attorneys. The DA may decide that the incident is a clear-cut case of self-defense and choose not to pursue it. Or the DA may convene a Grand Jury and put the question to them whether or not to indict. And in either case, if the DA prosecutes, then the question of 'reasonableness' becomes a question for the judge or a jury depending on the type of trial. The defense will attempt to prove that the shooting was 'reasonable' and the prosecution will attempt to prove it was not. The prosecution has to prove their case, the defense does not have to prove innocence; they only have to be able to cast 'reasonable doubt' (there's that word again, different context) on whether or not the shooter is guilty.

The jury can consider all kinds of things, up to and including, yes, disparity of force. But here is where people tend to get lost, IMHO. There is no 'disparity of force' statute that I am aware of, anywhere. It's a jury instruction. It's an argument that will be raised by the defense or the prosecution (whichever it tends to favor in any given circumstance). It is not a 'rule'. It is not a 'law'. It's something to be considered during a trial and potentially during jury deliberations.

This is why people like Massad Ayoob write about such things; because they can matter to a judge or jury. It's something that anyone who goes about armed should understand; when they are and when they are not allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves.

A jury can do all kinds of funny things. One day, a jury can decide that a 130 pound many who was shot was reasonably killed because the 260 pound man who shot him was in fact in reasonable fear of his life, despite the disparity in size. Another day, another jury, and they might come to the opposite conclusion.

This is what happens in courtrooms all across the US. The law tries to remove arbitrariness from the results of criminal legal proceedings, but there is no way to do that. Bad lawyers, bad defendants, bad juries, even bad judges can all make what seems like an open-and-shut case of self-defense into a serious crime - or vice-versa.

None of this bothers me overmuch. What I guess gets up my sleeve is when someone reads something and decides that's 'what the law is'. No, it is not what the law is. The law is simple. People fitting the law to actual events in a courtroom, that's hard. But there are no hard-and-fast rules for how that is going to end in any given case.
 
jks9199 said:
Road rage is a symptom. We've got a scary high level of general rage, hostility, and division in the US that I personally have never seen before. Add to that more and more people who can't work out problems between themselves, and who feel entitled constantly, who can't freaking TALK to each other because they're so used to the internet and social media instead of actual interaction... Yeah, it's a fun mess, huh!
Click to expand...

Never thought of it as a symptom, that makes a lot of sense. Kind of scary, too.
 
Bill Mattocks said:
With regard to self-defense and use of deadly force laws in the various states of the US, most boil down to the same basic elements. They're pretty simple.

1) You have the right to defend yourself against unlawful assault by another person.
2) You may have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself (in some states, also your property, home, or others) if a reasonable and prudent person would believe that they were in imminent danger of losing their life or suffering grave bodily injury.

Now, as I've said, I'm not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. But my *opinion* is that although the above is pretty simple, it's when we get down into the weeds that people seem to lose the thread.

There are no hard and fast rules about what a reasonable and prudent person would believe for a written-out list of various things which might happen to you. "Well, you see, if he's a big guy and he has tattoos and has been known to fight with others and his brother's name is Larry and it's the 3rd Tuesday in the month, then yes, you may draw your legal and licensed concealed sidearm and make his head look like a canoe."

What happens is the police investigate and take statements from witnesses, gather evidence, and it gets turned over to detectives and/or prosecuting attorneys. The DA may decide that the incident is a clear-cut case of self-defense and choose not to pursue it. Or the DA may convene a Grand Jury and put the question to them whether or not to indict. And in either case, if the DA prosecutes, then the question of 'reasonableness' becomes a question for the judge or a jury depending on the type of trial. The defense will attempt to prove that the shooting was 'reasonable' and the prosecution will attempt to prove it was not. The prosecution has to prove their case, the defense does not have to prove innocence; they only have to be able to cast 'reasonable doubt' (there's that word again, different context) on whether or not the shooter is guilty.

The jury can consider all kinds of things, up to and including, yes, disparity of force. But here is where people tend to get lost, IMHO. There is no 'disparity of force' statute that I am aware of, anywhere. It's a jury instruction. It's an argument that will be raised by the defense or the prosecution (whichever it tends to favor in any given circumstance). It is not a 'rule'. It is not a 'law'. It's something to be considered during a trial and potentially during jury deliberations.

This is why people like Massad Ayoob write about such things; because they can matter to a judge or jury. It's something that anyone who goes about armed should understand; when they are and when they are not allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves.

A jury can do all kinds of funny things. One day, a jury can decide that a 130 pound many who was shot was reasonably killed because the 260 pound man who shot him was in fact in reasonable fear of his life, despite the disparity in size. Another day, another jury, and they might come to the opposite conclusion.

This is what happens in courtrooms all across the US. The law tries to remove arbitrariness from the results of criminal legal proceedings, but there is no way to do that. Bad lawyers, bad defendants, bad juries, even bad judges can all make what seems like an open-and-shut case of self-defense into a serious crime - or vice-versa.

None of this bothers me overmuch. What I guess gets up my sleeve is when someone reads something and decides that's 'what the law is'. No, it is not what the law is. The law is simple. People fitting the law to actual events in a courtroom, that's hard. But there are no hard-and-fast rules for how that is going to end in any given case.
Click to expand...
I dont want to press the issue and turn it into an argument or go off topic, so at this point we will just have to agree to disagree.
 
jks9199 said:
How well can you explain why you had to do what you did. That's what it boils down to.

Moving to a road rage incident like this, you have to be able to paint the picture that you feared some significant, life altering injury or death from the guy's attack, that he had the ability, means, and intent to do you harm, and that lesser force was precluded by the circumstances. Obviously, a guy coming out, fist clenched, yelling and screaming after driving aggressively to get to you... that certainly paints a picture that he intended to do you harm. It would take quite a bit to overcome that presumption, in a case like that -- but it may not justify lethal force. An average unarmed couch potato who does "kara-TEY" twice a week for an hour isn't likely to pose much of a physical threat to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, right? But The Rock jumps out, pissed off, and charges most of us? Yeah, we can probably support that we were pretty damn scared that he'd hurt us badly if he laid hands on us, right?
Click to expand...
Sounds pretty much like the UK, but I am thinking more in terms of shooting them as that is pretty much a choice of lethal force or don't fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Grace under Pressure

Previous Thread

Self-Defense laws in your state?

Next Thread

Similar threads

Bill Mattocks
Shoot/Don't Shoot: Pickpocket Victim Fights Back
Replies
5
Views
4K
Andy Moynihan
Andy Moynihan
M
Getting Involved
Replies
15
Views
2K
Kacey
Kacey
Bill Mattocks
Road Rage, no winners (with video)
Replies
6
Views
1K
jks9199
J
Bill Mattocks
An incident of a gun not being a magic wand
3 4 5
Replies
85
Views
14K
lklawson
lklawson
Bill Mattocks
  • Locked
The Increase in Anger
Replies
16
Views
1K
Dirty Dog
Dirty Dog

Latest Discussions

Back
Top