When would you use deadly force

DNK · April 22, 2006, 12:14 AM

I was watching some news clips from Las Vegas recently and ran across a story where a mob of about 15 teenagers beat the crap out of a maintenance worker at one of the strip hotels. They cold cocked him, then several of them started puching him, he ran away but they knocked him down and then started kicking him and punching him while he was on the ground. At one point one of them starts beating him with a leather belt. He walked away from it (I'm not sure how) but suffered a broken jaw and collar bone, plus other injuries. This is the short version and it doesn't do the video justice. If you haven't seen the footage, you can go to www.klas-tv.com and click on any of their video clips. When it comes up you can scroll through the clips on the left until you find the one of the strip beating. Sorry, but the individual clips don't have their own links.

This is obviously an event that really happened and not some wacky scenario involving terrorists, a mall, rogue Spetznaz or zombies (although I'm sure head shots would be effective for all of them). So here are the real life scenario questions...

Scenario 1 - You are on the scene carrying your concealed firearm. What would you do? At what point in this attack would you be legally justified in A)drawing your weapon and then B) using deadly force to defend this guy (were you so inclined), assuming the appearance of your weapon did not cause the thugs to cease and desist? Are these two separate and distinct acts for you or is this draw and fire, no pause, as soon as deadly force is used? Is deadly force used by these thugs or just grievous bodily harm and is that enough?

Scenario 2 - You are the guy being attacked. What would you do? Assuming you didn't lose SA and either weren't knocked silly after the first couple of punches or managed to avoid the blows, when are you a justified in drawing and then firing your weapon?

I know there is some variation in the laws of each state. I'm more interested in how forum members would react in these two situations and the rational behind your decisions. I have read several opinions in this forum that state that, as a civilian, don't even draw it unless you plan to shoot someone. I'm just wondering if a situation like this is one where you would escalate from brandishing with a warning first or just plug the first punk who kicks this guy while he's down.

Destructo6 · April 22, 2006, 04:51 AM

If you are carrying a gun, every fight is a gunfight. If you lose, they may gain control of your weapon and kill you with it, so you can never lose.

Certainly numbers of opponents and disability would factor into what a reasonable person would consider a shoot situation.

Baba Louie · April 22, 2006, 05:31 AM

As this happened in Las Vegas, NV, I thought some Nevada Law might be good to know for the record...

NRS 200.120 ?Justifiable homicide? defined. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

[1911 C&P ? 129; RL ? 6394; NCL ? 10076]?(NRS A 1983, 518)

NRS 200.130 Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required. A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, shall not be sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge.

[1911 C&P ? 130; RL ? 6395; NCL ? 10077]

NRS 200.140 Justifiable homicide by public officer. Homicide is justifiable when committed by a public officer, or person acting under his command and in his aid, in the following cases:

1. In obedience to the judgment of a competent court.

2. When necessary to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.

3. When necessary:

(a) In retaking an escaped or rescued prisoner who has been committed, arrested for, or convicted of a felony;

(b) In attempting, by lawful ways or means, to apprehend or arrest a person; or

(c) In lawfully suppressing a riot or preserving the peace.

[1911 C&P ? 131; RL ? 6396; NCL ? 10078]?(NRS A 1975, 323; 1993, 931)

NRS 200.150 Justifiable or excusable homicide. All other instances which stand upon the same footing of reason and justice as those enumerated shall be considered justifiable or excusable homicide.

[1911 C&P ? 132; RL ? 6397; NCL ? 10079]

NRS 200.160 Additional cases of justifiable homicide. Homicide is also justifiable when committed:

1. In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished;or

2. In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode in which he is.

[1911 C&P ? 133; A 1931, 160; 1931 NCL ? 10080]?(NRS A 1993, 932)

NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that:

1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and

2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given.

[1911 C&P ? 137; RL ? 6402; NCL ? 10084]

So while you might be OK in the eyes of the law here in NV you have the burden of proof to show how your actions were justifiable to the DA and/or Grand Jury in either scenario. There is still Civil court to deal with later of course.

Another "swarming" occured as well here, at a WalMart in the parking lot. A woman tried to intervene and was beaten down along with having her purse stolen. Reports I read said 15 - 10 kids were involved in that one.

So it may be that only someone with a hi-capacity handgun could actually do any good, (5 - 8 rds ain't gonna be enough?) the bad guys must be in the act of striking w/ intent (can't shoot em if they're just hanging around watching friends in action or moving in and out) to kill... and you're probably going to become a target as well.

But yeah... I'm stupid enough to get myself involved now that my kids are grown up. Were I with a young family member or elderly parent, etc, I'm afraid I'd have to make certain that they were safe before I'd intervene.

Must practice the El Presidente over and over... with moving targets...

BillCA · April 22, 2006, 05:37 AM

+1 - Destructo6 said it pretty well.

Being attacked by a mob of 15 people who begin punching you and breaking bones certainly qualifies, in my opinion, as justification to use lethal force. We have all heard the term "mob mentality" before and know that groups of people are capable of bloodier violence than as individuals.

As to your scenario where a CCW holder comes upon the scene of the maintenance worker getting the bejesus kicked out of him; My first inclination is to use a cell phone to call for the cops while staying away from the mob. Mobs can too easily turn on a new target, fan out and surround you.

On the other hand, if the beating looks severe or the victim appears to be completely defenseless (i.e. can hardly cover himself anymore) a loud command-voice telling them to get out of there would be first, followed by the appearance of the sidearm, if necessary, with only about 2 seconds before the first shot at whomever is the most aggressive. If they flee, fine. If they continue the attack or come at me they have made their choice.

DunedinDragon · April 22, 2006, 06:39 AM

In my state of Florida, the answer would be simple. Fire away in either scenario.

This was a forcible felony and under the "stand your ground" law of Florida you are justified in shooting to defend yourself or another person. But then I guess that might be one of the reasons such things have not been happening here.

Would I give them a verbal warning? Probably not. Why draw attention to myself? The report from the gunshot should be more than adequate to let them know they need to stop what they are doing.

steelheart · April 22, 2006, 10:47 AM

I would say fire in either scenario. As far as your gun not having enough ammunition, I would expect that if you drop 2 or 3 of the thugs in a pool of their own blood, the others would lose interest in continuing the attack pretty quickly.

gunslinger555 · April 22, 2006, 10:49 AM

well i WAS going to get a 5 shot snub 357 mag for ccw now i am revising my decision. either situation i would draw and start ending lives, and reload many times. i carry a knife at all times and i have used it to save my butt(youd be suprized at how fast ppl. drop once the get a 3 inch. blade in thair ribs), i would use my trusted knife also.

Handy · April 22, 2006, 11:03 AM

Yeah, isn't it interesting how this situation so clearly flies in the face of the 3 shot scenerio.

Short answer - warning, then shoot if necessary. I would hate to get charged because some DA decides that a belt doesn't constitute deadly force, and would back off of shooting first.

The point is to stop. I'm not in the "teach 'em a lesson camp" as I see a civilian firearm as a life saving device and no more. That said, there is a moral obligation to act if you are in that position. If you have no gun then its time to find others to help or a cop.

okievarmint · April 22, 2006, 11:07 AM

Faced with a situation such as this, I wouldn't be thinking of the law/laws-I would be concentrating on my front sight.

JR47 · April 22, 2006, 01:02 PM

Tis would be a "disparity of force" incident. The simple fact that so many people were simultaneously attacking would leave you in reasonable fear for your life. If you were the person intervening, faced with the results of the initial attack in front of you, movement towards you by the group, or any part of it would cause a reasonable person to fear for their life.

There are a lot of "what if" types of questions to be asked, but the simplest answer is that you could well be severely injured, handicapped for life, or killed by a mob of this sort. Using lethal force to prevent this would be hard to prosecute successfully. As far as civil suits go, a lack of criminal prosecution goes a long ways towards defusing that. We are a nation that always blames others for our own idiocy. For that, you have to take your chances. Should you be sued, and win, there's always a counter-suit, asking for damages for wrongful prosecution by the loser.

DunedinDragon · April 22, 2006, 03:23 PM

This is exactly the reason why every state needs to adopt a "stand your ground" law so there are no misunderstandings about when you can use deadly force to defend yourself or others. Slowly but surely states are beginning to take this up and it removes all of doubt from a scenario like this. You don't have to worry about interpretation. If it's a forcible felony (such as robbery in this case) you have the right to defend yourself, and you have a guarantee of not being charged criminally and being protected from civil suits as well.

aspen1964 · April 22, 2006, 03:39 PM

an attack is an attack..shoot when they try to pounce on you...

Scott Conklin · April 22, 2006, 05:04 PM

Use your phone, then issue a command. You shoot only when they come after you, or you truly believe they will kill their victim, because it is guaranteed some family member of someone you plant WILL find an attorney who will find a way to sue you no matter what the law says. They may not have much of a prayer of winning but stupid mistakes won't help your position. As such CYA is an absolute necessity.

aspen1964 · April 22, 2006, 06:30 PM

use your phone..for what?...to let them know where they will be able to locate your body?

Scott Conklin · April 22, 2006, 07:33 PM

No, so you can tell the arriving officers you used it and nobody came, even though you really, really tried, before the situation escalated to the dead-body-in-the-street level.

Cover

Your

Ass

HectikMind7 · April 23, 2006, 12:44 AM

I live in Colorado. My Sig 229 would be out and spitting copper so fast, their heads would spin. Colorado also protects you from civil lawsuits in cases' like this. I love this state.

**44 AMP** · April 23, 2006, 01:04 AM

Tell them to STOP. Fire warning shot, to get their attention. If warning shot hits rioter, oh well. Tell them you have 5 bullets left (have 10 or more left), and which ones (of them) wants to be the 5 to die?

After rioters run away, before police arrive, retrieve fired casing (if ejected) and depart area in an orderly manner. If compassionate, return to area, "discover" victim, and render appropriate first aid.

The above is intended as humor. It is NOT to be taken as a serious attempt to inspire a course of action. As usual, if you or any of your IM force is caught or killed, the secretary will disavow you actions. This post will self destruct in 5 seconds. Good Luck Jim.

April 22, 2006, 12:14 AM	#1
DNK Member Join Date: March 23, 2006 Posts: 85	When would you use deadly force I was watching some news clips from Las Vegas recently and ran across a story where a mob of about 15 teenagers beat the crap out of a maintenance worker at one of the strip hotels. They cold cocked him, then several of them started puching him, he ran away but they knocked him down and then started kicking him and punching him while he was on the ground. At one point one of them starts beating him with a leather belt. He walked away from it (I'm not sure how) but suffered a broken jaw and collar bone, plus other injuries. This is the short version and it doesn't do the video justice. If you haven't seen the footage, you can go to www.klas-tv.com and click on any of their video clips. When it comes up you can scroll through the clips on the left until you find the one of the strip beating. Sorry, but the individual clips don't have their own links. This is obviously an event that really happened and not some wacky scenario involving terrorists, a mall, rogue Spetznaz or zombies (although I'm sure head shots would be effective for all of them). So here are the real life scenario questions... Scenario 1 - You are on the scene carrying your concealed firearm. What would you do? At what point in this attack would you be legally justified in A)drawing your weapon and then B) using deadly force to defend this guy (were you so inclined), assuming the appearance of your weapon did not cause the thugs to cease and desist? Are these two separate and distinct acts for you or is this draw and fire, no pause, as soon as deadly force is used? Is deadly force used by these thugs or just grievous bodily harm and is that enough? Scenario 2 - You are the guy being attacked. What would you do? Assuming you didn't lose SA and either weren't knocked silly after the first couple of punches or managed to avoid the blows, when are you a justified in drawing and then firing your weapon? I know there is some variation in the laws of each state. I'm more interested in how forum members would react in these two situations and the rational behind your decisions. I have read several opinions in this forum that state that, as a civilian, don't even draw it unless you plan to shoot someone. I'm just wondering if a situation like this is one where you would escalate from brandishing with a warning first or just plug the first punk who kicks this guy while he's down.

April 22, 2006, 04:51 AM	#2
Destructo6 Senior Member Join Date: March 18, 1999 Location: Nogales, AZ USA Posts: 4,000	If you are carrying a gun, every fight is a gunfight. If you lose, they may gain control of your weapon and kill you with it, so you can never lose. Certainly numbers of opponents and disability would factor into what a reasonable person would consider a shoot situation. __________________ God gave you a soul. Your parents, a body. Your country, a rifle. Keep all of them clean.

April 22, 2006, 05:31 AM	#3
Baba Louie Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2001 Posts: 1,552	As this happened in Las Vegas, NV, I thought some Nevada Law might be good to know for the record... NRS 200.120 ?Justifiable homicide? defined. Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends, or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein. [1911 C&P ? 129; RL ? 6394; NCL ? 10076]?(NRS A 1983, 518) NRS 200.130 Bare fear insufficient to justify killing; reasonable fear required. A bare fear of any of the offenses mentioned in NRS 200.120, to prevent which the homicide is alleged to have been committed, shall not be sufficient to justify the killing. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and that the party killing really acted under the influence of those fears and not in a spirit of revenge. [1911 C&P ? 130; RL ? 6395; NCL ? 10077] NRS 200.140 Justifiable homicide by public officer. Homicide is justifiable when committed by a public officer, or person acting under his command and in his aid, in the following cases: 1. In obedience to the judgment of a competent court. 2. When necessary to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty. 3. When necessary: (a) In retaking an escaped or rescued prisoner who has been committed, arrested for, or convicted of a felony; (b) In attempting, by lawful ways or means, to apprehend or arrest a person; or (c) In lawfully suppressing a riot or preserving the peace. [1911 C&P ? 131; RL ? 6396; NCL ? 10078]?(NRS A 1975, 323; 1993, 931) NRS 200.150 Justifiable or excusable homicide. All other instances which stand upon the same footing of reason and justice as those enumerated shall be considered justifiable or excusable homicide. [1911 C&P ? 132; RL ? 6397; NCL ? 10079] NRS 200.160 Additional cases of justifiable homicide. Homicide is also justifiable when committed: 1. In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished;or 2. In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode in which he is. [1911 C&P ? 133; A 1931, 160; 1931 NCL ? 10080]?(NRS A 1993, 932) NRS 200.200 Killing in self-defense. If a person kills another in self-defense, it must appear that: 1. The danger was so urgent and pressing that, in order to save his own life, or to prevent his receiving great bodily harm, the killing of the other was absolutely necessary; and 2. The person killed was the assailant, or that the slayer had really, and in good faith, endeavored to decline any further struggle before the mortal blow was given. [1911 C&P ? 137; RL ? 6402; NCL ? 10084] So while you might be OK in the eyes of the law here in NV you have the burden of proof to show how your actions were justifiable to the DA and/or Grand Jury in either scenario. There is still Civil court to deal with later of course. Another "swarming" occured as well here, at a WalMart in the parking lot. A woman tried to intervene and was beaten down along with having her purse stolen. Reports I read said 15 - 10 kids were involved in that one. So it may be that only someone with a hi-capacity handgun could actually do any good, (5 - 8 rds ain't gonna be enough?) the bad guys must be in the act of striking w/ intent (can't shoot em if they're just hanging around watching friends in action or moving in and out) to kill... and you're probably going to become a target as well. But yeah... I'm stupid enough to get myself involved now that my kids are grown up. Were I with a young family member or elderly parent, etc, I'm afraid I'd have to make certain that they were safe before I'd intervene. Must practice the El Presidente over and over... with moving targets... __________________ A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address

April 22, 2006, 05:37 AM	#4
BillCA Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2004 Location: Silicon Valley, Ca Posts: 7,117	+1 - Destructo6 said it pretty well. Being attacked by a mob of 15 people who begin punching you and breaking bones certainly qualifies, in my opinion, as justification to use lethal force. We have all heard the term "mob mentality" before and know that groups of people are capable of bloodier violence than as individuals. As to your scenario where a CCW holder comes upon the scene of the maintenance worker getting the bejesus kicked out of him; My first inclination is to use a cell phone to call for the cops while staying away from the mob. Mobs can too easily turn on a new target, fan out and surround you. On the other hand, if the beating looks severe or the victim appears to be completely defenseless (i.e. can hardly cover himself anymore) a loud command-voice telling them to get out of there would be first, followed by the appearance of the sidearm, if necessary, with only about 2 seconds before the first shot at whomever is the most aggressive. If they flee, fine. If they continue the attack or come at me they have made their choice. __________________ BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)

April 22, 2006, 10:49 AM	#7
gunslinger555 Senior Member Join Date: March 5, 2006 Location: Lima, ohio Posts: 580	well i WAS going to get a 5 shot snub 357 mag for ccw now i am revising my decision. either situation i would draw and start ending lives, and reload many times. i carry a knife at all times and i have used it to save my butt(youd be suprized at how fast ppl. drop once the get a 3 inch. blade in thair ribs), i would use my trusted knife also. __________________ (")_(") OMG!!! I think I shot bunny in the face!

April 22, 2006, 06:39 AM	#5
DunedinDragon Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 2006 Posts: 198	In my state of Florida, the answer would be simple. Fire away in either scenario. This was a forcible felony and under the "stand your ground" law of Florida you are justified in shooting to defend yourself or another person. But then I guess that might be one of the reasons such things have not been happening here. Would I give them a verbal warning? Probably not. Why draw attention to myself? The report from the gunshot should be more than adequate to let them know they need to stop what they are doing.

April 22, 2006, 10:47 AM	#6
steelheart Junior member Join Date: March 8, 2006 Location: A wolf living in Sheeple land Posts: 739	I would say fire in either scenario. As far as your gun not having enough ammunition, I would expect that if you drop 2 or 3 of the thugs in a pool of their own blood, the others would lose interest in continuing the attack pretty quickly.

April 22, 2006, 11:03 AM	#8
Handy Junior member Join Date: August 31, 2001 Posts: 8,785	Yeah, isn't it interesting how this situation so clearly flies in the face of the 3 shot scenerio. Short answer - warning, then shoot if necessary. I would hate to get charged because some DA decides that a belt doesn't constitute deadly force, and would back off of shooting first. The point is to stop. I'm not in the "teach 'em a lesson camp" as I see a civilian firearm as a life saving device and no more. That said, there is a moral obligation to act if you are in that position. If you have no gun then its time to find others to help or a cop.

April 22, 2006, 11:07 AM	#9
okievarmint Member Join Date: March 9, 2006 Location: Spaulding, Oklahoma Posts: 48	Faced with a situation such as this, I wouldn't be thinking of the law/laws-I would be concentrating on my front sight. __________________ Okievarmint- Disrupting the Raccoon way of life since 1955

April 22, 2006, 01:02 PM	#10
JR47 Junior member Join Date: August 9, 2005 Location: North Georgia Posts: 2,228	Tis would be a "disparity of force" incident. The simple fact that so many people were simultaneously attacking would leave you in reasonable fear for your life. If you were the person intervening, faced with the results of the initial attack in front of you, movement towards you by the group, or any part of it would cause a reasonable person to fear for their life. There are a lot of "what if" types of questions to be asked, but the simplest answer is that you could well be severely injured, handicapped for life, or killed by a mob of this sort. Using lethal force to prevent this would be hard to prosecute successfully. As far as civil suits go, a lack of criminal prosecution goes a long ways towards defusing that. We are a nation that always blames others for our own idiocy. For that, you have to take your chances. Should you be sued, and win, there's always a counter-suit, asking for damages for wrongful prosecution by the loser.

April 22, 2006, 03:23 PM	#11
DunedinDragon Senior Member Join Date: March 12, 2006 Posts: 198	This is exactly the reason why every state needs to adopt a "stand your ground" law so there are no misunderstandings about when you can use deadly force to defend yourself or others. Slowly but surely states are beginning to take this up and it removes all of doubt from a scenario like this. You don't have to worry about interpretation. If it's a forcible felony (such as robbery in this case) you have the right to defend yourself, and you have a guarantee of not being charged criminally and being protected from civil suits as well.

April 22, 2006, 03:39 PM	#12
aspen1964 Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2005 Posts: 1,030	an attack is an attack..shoot when they try to pounce on you...

April 22, 2006, 05:04 PM	#13
Scott Conklin Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2000 Location: B.F.E. Posts: 1,721	Use your phone, then issue a command. You shoot only when they come after you, or you truly believe they will kill their victim, because it is guaranteed some family member of someone you plant WILL find an attorney who will find a way to sue you no matter what the law says. They may not have much of a prayer of winning but stupid mistakes won't help your position. As such CYA is an absolute necessity. __________________ "Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves bananas, they'll never climb another tree." - Heinlein www.libertydwells.com

April 22, 2006, 06:30 PM	#14
aspen1964 Senior Member Join Date: August 20, 2005 Posts: 1,030	use your phone..for what?...to let them know where they will be able to locate your body?

April 22, 2006, 07:33 PM	#15
Scott Conklin Senior Member Join Date: November 18, 2000 Location: B.F.E. Posts: 1,721	No, so you can tell the arriving officers you used it and nobody came, even though you really, really tried, before the situation escalated to the dead-body-in-the-street level. Cover Your Ass __________________ "Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves bananas, they'll never climb another tree." - Heinlein www.libertydwells.com

April 23, 2006, 12:44 AM	#16
HectikMind7 Member Join Date: March 19, 2006 Posts: 34	I live in Colorado. My Sig 229 would be out and spitting copper so fast, their heads would spin. Colorado also protects you from civil lawsuits in cases' like this. I love this state. __________________ Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!!!

April 23, 2006, 01:04 AM	#17
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,817	In A Loud Clear Voice Tell them to STOP. Fire warning shot, to get their attention. If warning shot hits rioter, oh well. Tell them you have 5 bullets left (have 10 or more left), and which ones (of them) wants to be the 5 to die? After rioters run away, before police arrive, retrieve fired casing (if ejected) and depart area in an orderly manner. If compassionate, return to area, "discover" victim, and render appropriate first aid. The above is intended as humor. It is NOT to be taken as a serious attempt to inspire a course of action. As usual, if you or any of your IM force is caught or killed, the secretary will disavow you actions. This post will self destruct in 5 seconds. Good Luck Jim.