Andrew F. Branca, Esq. is the foremost expert in U.S. self defense law across all 50 states, whose expertise has been used by the the Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Tribune, NPR, numerous other media organizations, as well as many private, state and federal agencies. Here is a recent post of his on a gun forum, it is a good reminder as to why having non-lethal options is a good idea. I just wanted to point out that my views of disparity of force in the context of lawful self-defense were forged when I attended Mas LFI-I course way back in the early 1990s (or so, Im getting old). Ive seen nothing in 20 years since and many thousands of studied self-defense cases to change my mind on those fundamental principles. So if youve already heard what Mas has to say on the issue, youre unlikely to hear something substantively different from me. I did want to add one observation to the thread, however. (The nature of the GATES forum prevents me from doing so in the original thread, hence this separate thread.) That observation is that over the last 20 years, and especially the last 5-10, while the fundamental principles of disparity of force have not changed, the vigor with which the criminal justice system is punishing otherwise law-abiding citizens who violate these principles has grown CONSIDERABLY less forgiving. Today in most jurisdictions there is VERY LITTLE slack cut for the use of disparity of force even by the good guys like us. This is in part a function of the explosion of CCW over that same time period--a LOT more normally law-abiding people are carrying handguns around with them, and thus a lot more defensive uses of handguns are occurring. It is vital to keep in mind that deadly defensive force cannot be used unless one is facing a deadly offensive threat (meaning, of course, death or grave bodily harm). FBI statistics tell us that we are 5 times more likely to face a simple assault or battery (one NOT justifying a deadly force response) than an aggravated assault or battery (one that would justify a deadly force response). This means, obviously, that most attacks are non-deadly force. If you respond with your pistol (deadly force) against a non-deadly force threat you are increasingly likely to be found to have deployed disparate force outside the bounds of lawful self-defense, AND TO BE PROSECUTED AND CONVICTED FOR IT. Keep in mind that even merely threatening someone with the use of a gun is in itself aggravated assault, good in many jurisdictions for as much as 15 years in prison. Whats it take to threaten someone with the use of a gun? Any behavior that would put a reasonable person in fear of the imminent use of a gun against them. Is simply putting your hand on your pistol while facing a potential threat enough to meet this standard, under such circumstances that they can perceive an imminent threat? In many states, YES. Certainly displaying a pistol in a defensive manner (meaning, a manner intended to intimidate) is more than sufficient. Even worse, in many states such conduct, absent lawful justification, can make YOU the deadly force aggressor against whom THEY can use deadly force in self-defense. Another lesson (among hundreds) that has stuck with me from LFI-I those 20 years ago is to not have a stupid-simple defensive toolbox. Not every problem is a nail, not every solution is a hammer. Give yourself options to move up the force continuum gradually as circumstances warrant, particularly including the ability to defend yourself effectively with non-deadly force. Speaking in my own words now, anybody who is carrying a pistol for personal protection who has not also prepared themselves for NON-DEADLY self-defense is a fool, and putting themselves in great legal peril. Theyve left themselves with no effective defensive option between ZERO FORCE and DEADLY FORCE, even though MOST attacks occur precisely within that gulf. I see a great many otherwise law-abiding citizens who, for example, display their pistol to a perceived threat before that threat has reached the level of reasonably perceived death or grave bodily harm, and who are getting prosecuted and convicted for having done so. These citizens were in GENUINE FEAR when they acted, and because the only defensive tool in their toolbox was the gun, thats what they went to. And, no, Im not speaking merely of deep-blue jurisdictions like Massachusetts. I speak all over the country and have had a great many prosecutors concur with this observation--they are convicting people for such conduct (technically, usually accepting pleas to avoid jail time). 20 years ago it was far more likely that prosecutorial discretion would result in these cases not being pursued. That is less and less the case today. These are increasingly seen today as good busts, good prosecutions, and good convictions. OK, thats it. Stay safe out there. :-) --Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Posted on: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 02:08:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015