:: Bersa Talk ::

    Each case turns on the law and the specific facts. 

    Here's the AG 'summary' for use of force/deadly force in California for similar situations:

"3. THE USE OF FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF LIFE AND PROPERTY

California Firearms Laws 2007

The question of whether use of a firearm is justified for self-defense cannot be reduced to a simple list of factors. This section is based on the instructions generally given to the jury in a criminal case where self-defense is claimed and illustrates the general rules regarding use of firearms in self defense.

Use of a Firearm or Other Deadly Force in Defense of Life and Body

The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes.

Self-Defense Against Assault

It is lawful for a person being assaulted to defend himself or herself from attack if he or she has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that he or she will suffer bodily injury.  In doing so, he or she may use such force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent great bodily injury or death. An assault with fists does not justify use of a deadly weapon in self-defense unless the person being assaulted believes, and a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would also believe, that the assault is likely to inflict great bodily injury.

(It is lawful for a person who has grounds for believing, and does in fact believe, that great bodily injury is about to be inflicted upon another to protect the victim from attack. In so doing, the person may use such force as reasonably necessary to prevent the injury. Deadly force is only considered reasonable to prevent great bodily injury or death.

NOTE: The use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or criminal penalties."

So, does the force appear reasonable?  Does it appear 'excessive'?  Use of fists is certainly a problem area.  If the guy's coming at you with a club, you'd certainly be in a better position from a self defense perspective.  The standard appears not only to be a subjective one, but objective one as well.

Many DA's will charge and want to plead out or have a jury decide.  So if you're in California, there's a good chance you're going in for a criminal prosecution if you kill someone arising out of similar facts to this Florida matter where there's just an assault and no forcible felony.

The shooter is fortunate this happened in Florida and not California.

"Just because someone wants to punch you does not mean you are threatened with deadly force.  If you gesture to punch someone/tackle someone does that merit getting shot and killed in the process?  If it does, there's gonna be a lot of killing going on.

Most states require that you be threatened in such a manner as to be in immediate fear of death or grave bodily injury."

 

Iam 62 and Iam not about to with my health go hand to hand with a  18, 28 , 30 or even 40 yr old..   I have a right to protect my self from serious injury  A punch to face broken nose broken jaw is a serious injury I could fall from that and break my neck   . Any beating is grave bodyily injury  I will use my weapon.  The old days of a fist fight are over Today its a beat them to a pulp world. . I ain't going to hospital or  worst.  I will defend my self  as in todays socity I am in fear of serious injury or death  for a total stranger.  

Mag light I carried one years ago on duty. Yep it broke a few ribs and a couple of collar bones .  Never hit in head it will kill just as good as a bullet.  Do you have the training or skill required to use or will you just swing wildly  . I considser a large mag light a weapon and here again I will defend my self just as I would against a tire iron, ball bat, knife , chain , belt. throwing stares, chucks  brass knucks or other weapons.

Their are no fair fights  If you fighting fair you not trying hard enough .  2nd place is to painfull

 I will not be a victim I will protect myself by what evermeans and go home at the end of the day. 

Food for thought. 

I don't carry a gun to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in this world.
I don't carry a gun because I am evil. I carry a gun because I've lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose they were intended for a good long time to come.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because a real man knows how to take care and protect their property, themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing armed thugs I am inadequate.
I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
I don't carry a gun to shoot to kill someone. I carry a gun and would shoot as necessary to stay alive. If the assailant dies as a result of a desire to harm me, it's no loss to society.
Anonymous

---

Bersa Thunder,
PPK/S,
1990 Colt Mustang,
380 Kel Tec
380's Rule

"Just say "Lay A Way"

"WWJBD" What Would James Bond Do?

"Hokey religions and plastic glocks are no match for a good 1911 at your side, kid."

In my opinion,if someone approaches me and starts hitting me with their fists,they intend to do bodily harm.Now i have a good deal of training in self defense and know that anyone can land a punch that can take you down and possibly knock you out,and that no amount of training makes you invincible.Now you could approach the situation and stand your ground and go toe to toe and trade punches with someone and hope you win,but what happens if you do not and things go bad.Will it be too late at that point to save yourself,and when do you realize that you are in trouble and made a mistake.One that could be your last.Is anyone willing to take that chance.I know from sparring in a controlled atmosphere that one minute can seem like five and be physically exhausting,and fighting someone who is enraged could go on for several minutes,can you?Just something to think about.

---

JC40

Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat,for it is momentary.



Mini Firestorm .40
Sig Sauer P220
CZ Rami .40
S&W Airweight 38 spl
Taurus PT111 9mm
Pheonix arms .22

Actual CA criminal jury instruction:

 

The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/

attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/

she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (selfdefense/

[or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful

(self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or]

someone else/ [or] <insert name or description

of third party>) was in imminent danger of being killed or

suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of

being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other

forcible and atrocious crime>)];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use

of deadly force was necessary to defend against that

danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably

necessary to defend against that danger.

Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how

likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have

believed there was imminent danger of great bodily injury to

(himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant’s belief must have

been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only because of that

belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that amount of force

that a reasonable person would believe is necessary in the same

situation. If the defendant used more force than was reasonable,

the [attempted] killing was not justified.

When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable,

consider all the circumstances as they were known to and

appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person

in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed.

If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not

need to have actually existed.

227 (Pub. 1284)New January 2006

CALCRIM No. 505 HOMICIDE

228 (Pub. 1284)

0010 [ST: 219] [ED: 10000] [REL: 4] Composed: Fri Apr 25 14:25:50 EDT 2008

XPP 7.3C.1 Patch #3

 

Those of you who are 'fearful' of what 'might be done' to you are on your way to the 'electric' chair.    I'd be mighty careful with deadly use of force when someone merely wants to fight you with fists.  JMHO 

"

[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical

injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate

harm.]"

One simple thing to remember is Never say you "killed them or shot them" Always speak in terms of "I defended myself". Because everything you say can and will be used against you. Words of wisdom from my coach during "deadly decisions" class at the cop shop range.

---

Whining is for little girls, babies, mommy’s boys and girly men.
SNIVELING? Now that’s an art form!

BT .45 UC
BT .380CC
BT .380 dlx
P3AT
PPK
Beretta 92FS
FS 1911 DLX
Colt M1991A1
Taurus .38 UL
CZ fnh Modell 27 WWII Luftwaffe issued to Hauptman Jaeduvel
+ old family guns

First,

Using California law to prove any point about defensive use of firearms is like having weight watchers cater a culinary feast.  (Many Californians may be baffled by this analogy.  Apologies to those Californians who are not.)

 

Second,

The above Californian jury instruction contains these two phases: “imminent danger” and “future harm”.  Don’t they mean the same thing?  But one is used to justify the other to condemn.    The only difference between the two statements seems to be the amount of time concerned.  I can only assume that “imminent danger” means in the next few seconds and “future harm” means in a couple of hours or days or whatever.  All of the previous posts about a fist fight or beating turning deadly are concerned about the next few seconds not later today and therefore the jury instruction, as posted, would be in their favor, not a fast track to the electric chair.

 

Let me finish by copying this sentiment from an earlier post:

 

If the assailant dies as a result of a desire to harm me, it's no loss to society.

 

Anybody who can take negative issue with these sentiments needs to have their agenda closely scrutinized.

---

Sincerely,
Reverend Rich

Real-life thugs depend on non-resistance for success. When effective resistence is offered, most retreat promptly. Promptly can be defined as the time between drawing a handgun and pulling the trigger.

I could do without the personal insults about my home State.  Or I can start talking about the barbaric laws in certain States in the deep south that have 'panhandles' and are becoming the road-rage homicidal free-for-alls so many have feared.

I'm only reciting the laws in California.  Perhaps someone might benefit when they decide to use  deadly force here - in an informed manner.  If there's a question about it, perhaps the 100K in defense fees for a homicide trial and the prospect of total financial ruin resulting from a wrongful death case might dissuade one from shooting and killing someone because an UNARMED man tried to punch them, or engage them in a fight.  Crazy...

My only real point is that under the law here I think it might be difficult to prove that you're imminent danger of being killed or sustaining grave bodily injury if the guy doesn't have some kind of a weapon in his hands.  You in deep doo.  Deep doo is getting charged in the first place.

OTOH, the Reginald Denny incident here during the riots years ago would be a more clear situation where deadly force to prevent the continuing attack might pass muster.  If it looks like they're killing the poor guy, and continuously stomping the guy, you call the cops, and if they don't arrive quickly then I guess one would/should pull his weapon on those perpetrators and stop/kill them, if necessary.  

At least that would have had some moral/legal justification under a sane State law.  Not like that ridiculous Joe Horn murdering rampage down there.

In some more freedom loving states we are protected for those silly law suits.  If we are found to have a good shooting. It is over  No law suits from family or friends   See we  pass laws that protect us  from these leaches . In Ky years ago we passed laws that no city can register guns (Lexington and Louisville did at time)  Then we passed law that Assualt Rifles can't be ban by local  cities, counties  , ect.  We also have right to defend ourselfs with out retreating   My carry permit is a concealed deadly weapon permit. Not just pistol I can carry all kinds of weapons and as many as I want.  If you can legally own a Pistol You carry carry loaded in you Glove Box of car  No permit needed  Can you do that in Ca. I don't think so .  You got to get a permit to even own right. We buy sell trade in our homes parking lots or and other place  Freedom !!

Walk in my house at 3AM and get carried out armed or not.  Sheriff will say good job .

Look at Texas  day light 2 breaking and entering dropped in street.  No bill (in other words good shooting)  Dallas copper theif  Owner drops in tracks  Good shooting. Fl. has had several road rage  all ruled good. 

Most states in US allow more  freedom to protect your self   Even More now than 10 or 15 years ago. . Colo. pased their make my day law years ago Been working find as has or  Ky laws. I aure people in Tx and Fl and other free thinking states like their laws much better than yours. 

Heck you can't even have a real AR -15   In Ky we can own machine guns and mini guns I live less than a hour from one of the biggest full auto shoots in America.  No 10 round limit on mags either.  We don't have silly State safety checks to keep us from owning some guns.   Want a CCW If you can legally buy a gun You will get a lic. 8 hour course  . No  case finger print BS either.   You state suckes on gun rights and other citizens rights.  

 If the truth offends you sorry  Most people in middle America Belive Ca is the  worst state in the union  with Il and NY running close 2nd and 3rd. . Leave  Oz and come to real world. Then you will see the light also.  To put it more blunt  Ca  Sucks.  

What state has more killings  Ca.  your sister state of Il.   or Fl, Ky,

One last Question You sound like a O Bama supporter

---

Bersa Thunder,
PPK/S,
1990 Colt Mustang,
380 Kel Tec
380's Rule

"Just say "Lay A Way"

"WWJBD" What Would James Bond Do?

"Hokey religions and plastic glocks are no match for a good 1911 at your side, kid."

  There are many gun restrictions in California in which I don't agree.  But I don't see where that's the subject of the thread, WADR.

   I thought this thread was about road-rage and killing someone for taking a poke at you...what the legal ramifications might be...

     

And we told you what they would be in most states and you call us  and our laws 

 

barbaric laws in certain States in the deep south that have 'panhandles' and are becoming the road-rage homicidal free-for-alls so many have feared.

 You may fear .We consider self defence our right..   But then again like  O Bam Bam says we just hide behind our Guns and Bibles  Were not a progressive state like Ca.  We just a bunch of homicidal killers looking for our next victim.  

---

Bersa Thunder,
PPK/S,
1990 Colt Mustang,
380 Kel Tec
380's Rule

"Just say "Lay A Way"

"WWJBD" What Would James Bond Do?

"Hokey religions and plastic glocks are no match for a good 1911 at your side, kid."

Listen to that FULL Joe Horn tape, and you tell me who's crazy.  The dispatcher or Mr. Horn, the homicidal racist murdering maniac.  And the people behind his insane actions down there and everywhere else are just as crazy as Mr. Horn, who apparently now regrets his actions-saying he should've put his dumb *** down and stayed in the house.  I pray for the souls of those he killed, and hope Mr. Horn might redeem himself one day by putting that shotgun in his mouth, as an example for our children, as a fitting ending, or at least, pay the families of the departed every cent he has, and then go on a speaking tour and disavow his vigilante and morally repugnant actions...

Joe Horn, the wonderful 'Travis Bickle' hero of our times...I want to p*k*.

rumblefish:

I could do without the personal insults about my home State.  Or I can start talking about the barbaric laws in certain States in the deep south that have 'panhandles' and are becoming the road-rage homicidal free-for-alls so many have feared.

I'm only reciting the laws in California.  Perhaps someone might benefit when they decide to use  deadly force here - in an informed manner.  If there's a question about it, perhaps the 100K in defense fees for a homicide trial and the prospect of total financial ruin resulting from a wrongful death case might dissuade one from shooting and killing someone because an UNARMED man tried to punch them, or engage them in a fight.  Crazy...

My only real point is that under the law here I think it might be difficult to prove that you're imminent danger of being killed or sustaining grave bodily injury if the guy doesn't have some kind of a weapon in his hands.  You in deep doo.  Deep doo is getting charged in the first place.

OTOH, the Reginald Denny incident here during the riots years ago would be a more clear situation where deadly force to prevent the continuing attack might pass muster.  If it looks like they're killing the poor guy, and continuously stomping the guy, you call the cops, and if they don't arrive quickly then I guess one would/should pull his weapon on those perpetrators and stop/kill them, if necessary.  

At least that would have had some moral/legal justification under a sane State law.  Not like that ridiculous Joe Horn murdering rampage down there.

Rumblefish, from the day you registered you have been an argumentative troll condemning anyone who doesn't see things your way. I'm glad you have your opinions. More power to you. I'm tired of your complaining about people not seeing the "Rumblefish way".
I spend an all to large amount of my time in California, and quite frankly it would be a nice place if the attitudes of most of the people were different. I will take the laws and attitudes from the barbaric panhandle states any day. Are you one of the motorists that stopped to watch the guy stomp the toddler to death over in Turlock? It sounds like you would have fit right in with that crowd. Don't even talk about the south being barbaric after all the sick and twisted incidents in California. I can't carry my gun in California, and ironically it's where I most want to.

---

By now your name and particulars have been fed into every laptop, desktop, mainframe and supermarket scanner that collectively make up the global information conspiracy, otherwise known as "The Beast." - Dale

rumblefish:

Listen to that FULL Joe Horn tape, and you tell me who's crazy.  The dispatcher or Mr. Horn, the homicidal racist murdering maniac.  And the people behind his insane actions down there and everywhere else are just as crazy as Mr. Horn, who apparently now regrets his actions-saying he should've put his dumb *** down and stayed in the house.  I pray for the souls of those he killed, and hope Mr. Horn might redeem himself one day by putting that shotgun in his mouth, as an example for our children, as a fitting ending, or at least, pay the families of the departed every cent he has, and then go on a speaking tour and disavow his vigilante and morally repugnant actions...

Joe Horn, the wonderful 'Travis Bickle' hero of our times...I want to p*k*.

You are a sick individual. I am done. I wash my hands of your stink.

---

By now your name and particulars have been fed into every laptop, desktop, mainframe and supermarket scanner that collectively make up the global information conspiracy, otherwise known as "The Beast." - Dale