Jump to content


Photo

Justifiable Use of Force - IL Statute


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
172 replies to this topic

#121 WDB

  • Members
  • 1 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 13 February 2014 - 05:28 AM

US Supreme Court Case Tennessee vs Garner, 1985. Short version is that you can not shoot a felon who is posing no danger to you for a property crime. Why Illinois has not adjusted it's use of force definition based upon this ruling is still baffling. As someone said previously, Federal will trump State.

#122 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,726 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 13 February 2014 - 07:24 AM

US Supreme Court Case Tennessee vs Garner, 1985. Short version is that you can not shoot a felon who is posing no danger to you for a property crime. Why Illinois has not adjusted it's use of force definition based upon this ruling is still baffling. As someone said previously, Federal will trump State.


The IL statute is not in conflict, just know the limits of its protection.

Didn't Garner dealt with police shooting unarmed fleeing suspects?

I wonder if that would apply within the home where your rights are most acute?

"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#123 AJR

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,293 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 13

Posted 13 February 2014 - 07:53 AM

Many people have died from a simple concussion. Any blow to the head, even a punch, is capable of causing crippling injury or death.
Less focus on forcible felony, since that is clearly defined in many places.

A forcible felony is defined in the Criminal Code of 1961:
"treason, first degree murder, second degree murder, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual
assault, criminal sexual assault, robbery, burglary, residential burglary, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated kidnapping,
kidnapping, aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement[,] and any other felony
which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

Willful and Wanton Conduct
"Willful and wanton conduct means “acting consciously in disregard of or acting with a reckless indifference to
the consequences, when the Defendant is aware of her conduct and is also aware, from her knowledge of
existing circumstances and conditions, that her conduct would probably result in injury.” [Duncan v. Duncan (In
re Duncan), 448 F.3d 725, 729 (4th Cir. Va. 2006)]
“A course of action which shows actual or deliberate intention to harm or which, if not intentional, shows an
utter indifference to or conscious disregard of a person's own safety and the safety of others."[Siemer v.
Nangle (In re Nangle), 274 F.3d 481, 483 (8th Cir. Mo. 2001)]"

“Adapt what is useful, reject what is useless, and add what is specifically your own.” -- Bruce Lee

 

.

American Firearms Training of Illinois

ISRA Member

NRA Life Member

NRA Range Safety Officer

NRA Instructor: BP, CRSO, RTBAV, PPITH, PPOTH
T.C.T.I. Semi-Auto Firearms Instructor
Utah Conceal Carry Firearms Instructor

Illinois State Police Approved Conceal Carry Firearms Instructor

 

 

 


#124 Handgunner230

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 51 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 13 February 2014 - 08:02 AM

I hope everyone reads the piece in the ISRA newspaper that came out a week or so ago. It has an excellent article about the law regarding use of force in defense of dwelling and property, and how federal cases will trump IL statutes, especially with Eric Holder in charge.

and

US Supreme Court Case Tennessee vs Garner, 1985. Short version is that you can not shoot a felon who is posing no danger to you for a property crime. Why Illinois has not adjusted it's use of force definition based upon this ruling is still baffling. As someone said previously, Federal will trump State.


I've been meaning to mention that Edward Ronkowski article as well. He suggests that Tennessee vs. Garner may place limitations on Illinois' laws allowing deadly force to prevent certain forcible felonies such as Residential Burglary and Arson.

What confuses me is that Garner is about police procedure during an arrest. A police officer used deadly force to stop a fleeing burglary suspect. The court ruled that this was an unjust seizure - a violation of the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights.

IANAL and I'd like to hear comments from another attorney on Ronkowski's thesis. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea for a private citizen to use deadly force to prevent a property crime. However, I'm also not convinced that Garner makes it unconstitutional. The court case was entirely about the actions of a police officer acting in his official capacity. There was no mention of defense by private citizens in the ruling at all. Is it even possible for a private citizen to violate someone's Fourth Amendment rights?

#125 slappy00

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 65 posts
  • Joined: 09-April 14

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:34 PM

 

I hope everyone reads the piece in the ISRA newspaper that came out a week or so ago. It has an excellent article about the law regarding use of force in defense of dwelling and property, and how federal cases will trump IL statutes, especially with Eric Holder in charge.

and

US Supreme Court Case Tennessee vs Garner, 1985. Short version is that you can not shoot a felon who is posing no danger to you for a property crime. Why Illinois has not adjusted it's use of force definition based upon this ruling is still baffling. As someone said previously, Federal will trump State.


I've been meaning to mention that Edward Ronkowski article as well. He suggests that Tennessee vs. Garner may place limitations on Illinois' laws allowing deadly force to prevent certain forcible felonies such as Residential Burglary and Arson.

What confuses me is that Garner is about police procedure during an arrest. A police officer used deadly force to stop a fleeing burglary suspect. The court ruled that this was an unjust seizure - a violation of the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights.

IANAL and I'd like to hear comments from another attorney on Ronkowski's thesis. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea for a private citizen to use deadly force to prevent a property crime. However, I'm also not convinced that Garner makes it unconstitutional. The court case was entirely about the actions of a police officer acting in his official capacity. There was no mention of defense by private citizens in the ruling at all. Is it even possible for a private citizen to violate someone's Fourth Amendment rights?

 

 

 

I'll say this much: As long as someone broke into your home, and you shot them in self defense, no DA on the planet will prosecute you. That trial will not get past Grand Jury, let alone get anywhere in trial. 

 

People are reading too far into this imo, at home you are good. 



#126 Tvandermyde

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,756 posts
  • Joined: 29-March 09

Posted 06 May 2014 - 03:25 PM

Garner deals with an agent of the state. Not a civilian. And they are held to a higher standard in the performance of their jobs.

As an example, the 4th amend provides protections from search and seizure. States are free to put more protections on that. Just as illinois can have a different use of force continuam for civilans and self defense and not run afoul of Garner
While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

#127 Pipedoc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 13

Posted 07 May 2014 - 09:04 AM

Police are given more latitude than citizens in the use of force. Citizens are held to the higher standard.


2A Firearms Education
www.2AFE.com
815-714-9757

NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah Certified Concealed Carry Instructor


#128 SSG K

  • Members
  • 20 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 14

Posted 20 May 2014 - 08:02 PM

A police officer has more latitude to use force, but is held to a higher standard when apprehending a perpetrator.

 

Garner is about a fleeing thief, not a B and E into your own home to steal your possessions.  It has been around a long time and as far as I am aware, not been used to strike down a self-defense case, but I will research it.

 

That said, I am not suggesting you may or should shoot someone who is running out of your house with your TV, and posing NO threat.  Self-defense is the operative concept here, correct?


Edited by SSG K, 20 May 2014 - 08:06 PM.


#129 N.Cook311

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 22-May 14

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:00 AM

So if your behind the counter at work and someone pulls a gun or knife out as they are walking towards you wanting the money in the drawer, you have no where to go is that "letal force" authorized? "you feel your life is in danger"....



#130 Trevis

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,920 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 07

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:02 AM

So if your behind the counter at work and someone pulls a gun or knife out as they are walking towards you wanting the money in the drawer, you have no where to go is that "letal force" authorized? "you feel your life is in danger"....


Armed robbery is a forcible felony as I understand it. That would also not be a disparity of force in my opinion. I'm not a lawyer, but I think you would likely be justified.

"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom...and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged..." - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

 

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

― Lysander SpoonerNo Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

1AApp.jpg


#131 N.Cook311

  • Members
  • 5 posts
  • Joined: 22-May 14

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:13 AM

Trevis, 

 

   what would you do if "bad guy" pulled a gun on your staff? you have a way out of the building, do you open the door to the lobby and ingage or walk out and call 911?



#132 Trevis

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,920 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 07

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:23 AM

Trevis, 
 
   what would you do if "bad guy" pulled a gun on your staff? you have a way out of the building, do you open the door to the lobby and ingage or walk out and call 911?


I have absolutely no way to answer this question. Every situation is completely different, and you have to make split second decisions. You can plan, but life often doesn't go according to plan.

"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom...and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged..." - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

 

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

― Lysander SpoonerNo Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

1AApp.jpg


#133 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,625 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:26 AM

That is a personal decision. However, the use of force would be justified in defense of your life or another's since a threat of force against you or others was present (the gun wielding attacker.)

#134 Drylok

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined: 15-February 08

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:34 AM

You have the right to defend yourself or others who the court calls are within your mantle of protection, that's straight from massads justified use of force video in the CLIC program
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks"
-Thomas Jefferson-

Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I feel. One is the colors that fly high and proud the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattle snake with a simple statement made, don't tread on me, is what it says and I'll take that to my grave
-Aaron Lewis-

#135 Jerze2387

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 14

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:48 AM

So, just theoretical situation, lets say theres 2 guys, 1 has a cane/bat/something that can be used to bash you, and is coming at you in a threatening manner.  what do you do? what should you? And are you allowed to use force in this scenerio?



#136 WtJen

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,296 posts
  • Joined: 14-June 13

Posted 23 May 2014 - 11:16 AM

So, just theoretical situation, lets say theres 2 guys, 1 has a cane/bat/something that can be used to bash you, and is coming at you in a threatening manner.  what do you do? what should you? And are you allowed to use force in this scenerio?


There is no simple yes or no to your question. You have to evaluate if you can reasonably believe that you are about to suffer death or grievous bodily harm or not. You may have mere seconds to arrive at your conclusion. Someone other than yourself is going to look at the situation after the fact and determine whether you used justifiable use of force or not.

Edited by WtJen, 23 May 2014 - 11:18 AM.

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.--Ayn Rand

#137 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,730 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 23 May 2014 - 11:28 AM

So, just theoretical situation, lets say theres 2 guys, 1 has a cane/bat/something that can be used to bash you, and is coming at you in a threatening manner.  what do you do? what should you? And are you allowed to use force in this scenerio?


There is no simple yes or no to your question. You have to evaluate if you can reasonably believe that you are about to suffer death or grievous bodily harm or not. You may have mere seconds to arrive at your conclusion. Someone other than yourself is going to look at the situation after the fact and determine whether you used justifiable use of force or not.

This is why a trailer bill should modify the the FCCA to allow for carrying of Tasers and/or other less lethal weapons with the license.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#138 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,625 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 23 May 2014 - 11:30 AM

So, just theoretical situation, lets say theres 2 guys, 1 has a cane/bat/something that can be used to bash you, and is coming at you in a threatening manner.  what do you do? what should you? And are you allowed to use force in this scenerio?There is no simple yes or no to your question. You have to evaluate if you can reasonably believe that you are about to suffer death or grievous bodily harm or not. You may have mere seconds to arrive at your conclusion. Someone other than yourself is going to look at the situation after the fact and determine whether you used justifiable use of force or not.This is why a trailer bill should modify the the FCCA to allow for carrying of Tasers and/or other less lethal weapons with the license.


Or simply strike their prohibition from the UUW law.

#139 Trevis

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,920 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 07

Posted 23 May 2014 - 12:24 PM

 


Or simply strike their prohibition from the UUW law.

 

Thank Blago for that one. That really frustrated me when they added that to the list, as I delivered pizzas and they made it illegal when I already owned one. Then I had absolutely no protection. It was exactly then I came into realization about the backwards state I lived in with regards to rights of self defense.


Edited by Trevis, 23 May 2014 - 12:25 PM.

"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom...and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged..." - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

 

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

― Lysander SpoonerNo Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

1AApp.jpg


#140 Jerze2387

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 14

Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:48 PM

So, just theoretical situation, lets say theres 2 guys, 1 has a cane/bat/something that can be used to bash you, and is coming at you in a threatening manner.  what do you do? what should you? And are you allowed to use force in this scenerio?

 

To expound on this further, given the state of the laws, what WOULD you do?  Would you put your hand on the handle in holster? Unholster and have at a down and ready position, to deter further advance and to be ready if the potential attacker gets closer than the, say 5 feet, he is presently at? or do you draw and aim?, or draw, aim, and shoot? 



#141 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,730 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:35 PM

/quote"]http://www.thetrutha...k-edition/quote[/url] name="Jerze2387" post="753825" timestamp="1400860105"]
So, just theoretical situation, lets say theres 2 guys, 1 has a cane/bat/something that can be used to bash you, and is coming at you in a threatening manner.  what do you do? what should you? And are you allowed to use force in this scenerio?[/quote]Here is a similar incident to what you described which involved a thug hit both a man and a woman with a baseball bat and unfortunately the woman suffer serios bodily injury due to brain injury that prevents her from being able to function on her own.

Edited by borgranta, 23 May 2014 - 07:39 PM.

The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#142 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,730 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:35 PM

http://www.thetrutha...attack-edition/
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#143 Jerze2387

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 14

Posted 23 May 2014 - 07:52 PM

 

 

/quote"]http://www.thetrutha...k-edition/quote[/url] name="Jerze2387" post="753825" timestamp="1400860105"]
So, just theoretical situation, lets say theres 2 guys, 1 has a cane/bat/something that can be used to bash you, and is coming at you in a threatening manner.  what do you do? what should you? And are you allowed to use force in this scenerio?[/quote]Here is a similar incident to what you described which involved a thug hit both a man and a woman with a baseball bat and unfortunately the woman suffer serios bodily injury due to brain injury that prevents her from being able to function on her own.

 

Thats exactly what inspired my question.  Because obviously this is a realistic scenerio any of is could face at any time, so i was wondering what most of us would do given the circumstances.  Do you preempt the swing of the bat if they are moving toward you in an obviously aggressive way? Or do you wait until the situatuion escalates into more?

 

given that 1 hit could render you unconcious or incapacitated, i was just curious what most of us would do, and what we should do given the legal ramifications



#144 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,730 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:20 PM

[quote name="Jerze2387" post="754117" timestamp="1400896377"][quote name="borgranta" post="754104" timestamp="1400895334"]
http://www.thetrutha...attack-edition/
[/quote]
 
 


/quote"]http://www.thetrutha...k-edition/quote[/url] name="Jerze2387" post="753825" timestamp="1400860105"]
So, just theoretical situation, lets say theres 2 guys, 1 has a cane/bat/something that can be used to bash you, and is coming at you in a threatening manner.  what do you do? what should you? And are you allowed to use force in this scenerio?
Here is a similar incident to what you described which involved a thug hit both a man and a woman with a baseball bat and unfortunately the woman suffer serios bodily injury due to brain injury that prevents her from being able to function on her own.
[/quote]
 
Thats exactly what inspired my question.  Because obviously this is a realistic scenerio any of is could face at any time, so i was wondering what most of us would do given the circumstances.  Do you preempt the swing of the bat if they are moving toward you in an obviously aggressive way? Or do you wait until the situatuion escalates into more?
 
given that 1 hit could render you unconcious or incapacitated, i was just curious what most of us would do, and what we should do given the legal ramifications[/quote]In such a situation I would fear that the attacker plans to beat my brains out and would shoot to stop the threat.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#145 Specops

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 69 posts
  • Joined: 27-April 14

Posted 24 May 2014 - 10:04 AM

So, just theoretical situation, lets say theres 2 guys, 1 has a cane/bat/something that can be used to bash you, and is coming at you in a threatening manner.  what do you do? what should you? And are you allowed to use force in this scenerio?

 

 

That's an easy one for me,   I'd engage the first threat,, then the second, disarming them of the weapon, and fight until they were no longer a threat.  I would not use my firearm in that case.  But I have martial arts training, and it is easier than a lot of people realize to defend against a bat or that type of weapon.

 

Now if it were a knife, that's a different story.  It's very easy to get cut BAD.  If it were a knife, the gun would come out.  My gun doesn't come out unless I'm going to fire, so all I could hope is during my draw, that they stop and retreat.  If my gun comes to the ready position, I'm firing. 

 

There's a disparity of force, 2 on one, plus the use of a weapon.  Use of force, up to and including deadly force is warranted. 


 De Oppresso Liber

 

 


#146 Hipshot Percussion

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,728 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 24 May 2014 - 01:41 PM

For what it's worth... If I am drawing my sidearm, I have made the decision that I am about to die.  That's the only reason for me to pull my gun.  That's the only thing I will be thinking about in a situation of this kind.  Not "it is justified."  Not "disparity of force."  Nothing like that.

 

"I am about to die."

 

Stay Safe and Carry Responsibly


“I have fought the good fight to the end; I have run the race to the finish: I have kept the faith."  Timothy Chapter 4 verse 7

 

"Legitimate self-defense has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal misuse of guns."   Gerald Vernon, veteran firearms instructor

 

New Gunner Journal

 


#147 Bud

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,572 posts
  • Joined: 06-August 09

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:03 PM

 

So, just theoretical situation, lets say theres 2 guys, 1 has a cane/bat/something that can be used to bash you, and is coming at you in a threatening manner.  what do you do? what should you? And are you allowed to use force in this scenerio?

 

 

That's an easy one for me,   I'd engage the first threat,, then the second, disarming them of the weapon, and fight until they were no longer a threat.  I would not use my firearm in that case.  But I have martial arts training, and it is easier than a lot of people realize to defend against a bat or that type of weapon.

 

Now if it were a knife, that's a different story.  It's very easy to get cut BAD.  If it were a knife, the gun would come out.  My gun doesn't come out unless I'm going to fire, so all I could hope is during my draw, that they stop and retreat.  If my gun comes to the ready position, I'm firing. 

 

There's a disparity of force, 2 on one, plus the use of a weapon.  Use of force, up to and including deadly force is warranted. 

 

baWAhahahahahaha!!!!!

 

Oh, wait. Sorry, I didn't realize you were serious.

 

Please let us know how that works out for you if you're ever in that situation, okay?

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=xPZ6eaL3S2E


Edited by Bud, 24 May 2014 - 03:07 PM.

Bud
 
 
Winter is coming
and the White Walkers are already attacking the cities



ITWT Club Member 001

ONE STATE- ONE LAW

#148 Jerze2387

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 14

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:47 PM

For what it's worth... If I am drawing my sidearm, I have made the decision that I am about to die.  That's the only reason for me to pull my gun.  That's the only thing I will be thinking about in a situation of this kind.  Not "it is justified."  Not "disparity of force."  Nothing like that.
 
"I am about to die."
 
Stay Safe and Carry Responsibly


So given the scenerio proposed, since it's not a gun or knife but still potentially deadly weapon plus numbered 2 to 1, does that fall into a reasonable assumption of possible death?

#149 Trevis

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,920 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 07

Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:51 PM

 


So given the scenerio proposed, since it's not a gun or knife but still potentially deadly weapon plus numbered 2 to 1, does that fall into a reasonable assumption of possible death?

 

A blunt object definitely has the potential to be a deadly weapon. 


"You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy: 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom...and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged..." - Capt. Jean-Luc Picard

 

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

― Lysander SpoonerNo Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

1AApp.jpg


#150 Jerze2387

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 14

Posted 24 May 2014 - 04:16 PM

So given the scenerio proposed, since it's not a gun or knife but still potentially deadly weapon plus numbered 2 to 1, does that fall into a reasonable assumption of possible death?

A blunt object definitely has the potential to be a deadly weapon.

I fully agree. I was just curious as to what overall what everybody thinks and would do given the circumstances. In light of how badly the bat attack on the woman was, and how we have seen some views where it's considered a lesser weapon, I wanted to get the general consensus on the scenerio