Jump to content

is it legal to use deadly force when an attacker is drawing a weapon after verbally threatening to use deadly force


hoarhey
 Share

Recommended Posts

if a offender says im going to kill you , or i will kill you or anything of the nature verbally describing great bodily harm with a weapon , then continues to withdraw a firearm from their pocket or somewhere from there body. is it legal for the defender to draw their weapon and use deadly force before the offender can draw and aim their weapon on the defender ?

 

after the verbal threat of deadly force , is it legal to use deadly force while the offender is drawing their firearm ?

 

what if the offender just pulls out a firearm ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the total situation which determines the real answer. In general, if someone threatens to kill you, then pulls a gun, it's reasonable to believe that he means it.

 

If you're as pure as the driven snow, then you may legally defend yourself with lethal force.

 

If you've just kicked his door in, your legal options are leave or die.

Edited by Euler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each and every situation has its own set of rules and outcomes for that event.

Not sure that there will be a set rule as to when and how in every situation.

Like posted above, lots and lots of what ifs and varying scenarios in which to discuss.

 

Good Luck and Welcome to the Forums

 

 

*****copy n pasted from another thread about near same question*****

Edited by Bubbacs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is the situation. a guy hit my car while i was sitting in my car . the driver gets out and says he didn't cause the damage , which i know he did. so me and the driver start going back and forth about him hitting my car and causing the damage. the passenger gets out of his car , walks behind me i can see him looking at me , so im guessing he was checking me out. the passenger now starts talking random bs, says im a tough guy , then says he would pop off ( start shooting) and some other verbal threats , he then starts reaching in his pockets, brandishes a weapon saying he would shoot me . i told him he aint going to do shhh.

 

now would i be legal to use deadly force since he threatened to kill me then brandished the weapon ? he never pulled it all the way out . just gripping the handle , showing it from his pocket.

 

i always thought the weapon had to be aimed at me putting me at imminent danger , someone told me once he showed his weapon i could of used deadly force.

 

basically i want to know if a person/defender can use deadly force on a offender, before the offender can use deadly force on the defender. the offender verbally threated to kill and use a weapon, then he exposes a weapon(he could of been drawing to aim and fire) , why wait until he draws and fires, if i can draw and fire on him quicker.

Edited by hoarhey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest thing to remember is that self defense (especially deadly) is an invoked and asserted affirmative defense, it's never a given.

 

The entire concept behind an affirmative defense is that you did what would normally be a crime, but if you can prove the affirmative defense you are not charged/convicted of what normally be a crime.

 

That said each and every single self defense case will be unique there is rarely a clear cut yes/no to these kind of questions.

 

For example in your case, with no witnesses it could be argued who provoked the conflict, who said "I'm gonna' kill you" first, who drew their firearm first, and were you justified to draw your weapon in the first place aka did the threat rise to the level of lethal self defense. These are all quesitons a prosecutor will consider among other things like witness and video or prior history of the individuals.

 

Again you are asking for a black and white answer to a question that rarely has a black and white answer, hypothetical situations are just that hypothetical and should only be used as a starting point to decide if self defense might be a valid defense or not.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's your answer:

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

 

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

 

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K7-1#:~:text=Sec.,imminent%20use%20of%20unlawful%20force.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!

The EXACT thing happened to me not long ago.

This guy started talking smack...said he was gonna 'pop' me...yada..yada...

I was in fear of my life and had to draw. Luckily nobody fired and nobody was harmed.

According to the police report, I was the victim.

Luckily there was somebody there to capture it on their phone.....

The cops let me go after seeing the video...

For the purposes of full disclosure I'm posting a clip of the incident below.

 

post-15072-0-28007000-1612323363.gif

post-15072-0-28007000-1612323363_thumb.gif

Edited by MagSlap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ANYWAYS. no one is looking for a support group to help make a decision. just a discussion to see what other people thought . when did i ask what if or maybe ?

 

you should not waste time with useless responses, bubbacs . you must of didnt read and or understood my ?

 

the question overall, was is it legal to use deadly force while a weapon was being brandished or drawn after verbal threats of using such weapon.

 

i asked 2 le officers this question and they both told me answers very different from most of your responses. ill check with a defense attorney for their input.

Edited by hoarhey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I didnt have the exact answer you are looking for.

 

IF is the very first word in your original post

The very last sentence in your original post starts as WHAT IF

 

Youve gotten two replies of the events are always going to be different

You get a post of a statute

You get a sarcasm (ie purple) and a video

 

So if you didnt want a particular member heres opinion then you should have defined such in the original post!

In the end as it has been for years you will now do what you knew you would do from the start, ask a professional.

 

P.S. getting two separate and different answers from two leos should be your best clue that there is no solid and correct answer.

Edited by Bubbacs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"he never pulled it all the way out . just gripping the handle , showing it from his pocket."

 

One clue here is, he didn't draw the gun - just showed he had it in his pocket. Playing a tough guy by showing a gun and making verbal threats might not rise to 'justified use of force" with some grand juries/juries. Like the guys say - each situation is different. Looks like you did the right thing because you all walked away and you're not looking for a defense attorney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cops are not lawyers. Cops are especially not YOUR lawyer.

 

It's not their job to hand out legal advice. It's not even their job to know the law. It's their job to follow procedure and policy, which (if formulated well) enforce the law.

 

Regarding you, it's not their job to keep you out of jail. If you take their advice and do what they say, but you still end up in jail, it's not their fault. It's yours. It's also not their job to get you back out of jail. If anything, it's their job to put you IN jail and keep you there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like this explaination. Remember that you will not be the one making the decision on whether you were justified when things go bad. Its a no win situation either way. I certainly never want to be in that position. Especially not over car damage or road rage. Too many wackos out there .

 

http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i asked 2 le officers this question and they both told me answers very different from most of your responses. ill check with a defense attorney for their input.

 

Cops are not lawyers. Cops are especially not YOUR lawyer.

 

It's not their job to hand out legal advice. It's not even their job to know the law. It's their job to follow procedure and policy, which (if formulated well) enforce the law.

 

I want to 2nd what Euler said, don't seek legal advice from a cop, they spend far more time learning how to effect an arrest and drive their car than studying law, same with Internet advice, thus the reason you have been given the "It depends" answer because to be blunt that is the best advice anyone can give, including a lawyer, especially when only one side of the story is presented.

 

There is something that almost always rings true, there are three (or more) sides to every story the left side, the right side and the truth that almost always lies in the middle of the left/right story and that truth will be interpreted differently by different individuals.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like this explaination. Remember that you will not be the one making the decision on whether you were justified when things go bad. Its a no win situation either way. I certainly never want to be in that position. Especially not over car damage or road rage. Too many wackos out there .

 

http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/

Thats some good reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the judge and depends on the lawyers.

Do they hate guns and want to make an example of you?

He has a witness that would likely say you provoked the incident.

You got out of the car, ok, gotta look at the damage and speak to the other party. Once it begins to escalate you return to your vehicle and remove yourself from the conflict. Cell phone video is your friend. Call it in with their plate and discription and video evidence.

 

I have been in courtrooms and listened to judges erupt when a plaintiff/defendent said "Well the police officer told me...".

I've had officers pull my daughter over because she had one license plate (she lives in Indiana). I've asked detectives what their carry weapon was and they only knew it was a Glock.

I tried to answer your question without telling you if it was ok to shoot the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No lawyer here.

AOJ

Did he have the ability to harm you?

Did his location to you give him the opportunity to harm you?

Were you in jeopardy. Did his words or action demonstrate manifest intent to do grievous harm?

What would a reasonable person conclude?

Your call for what you do. You waited him out without incident with ideal outcome.

What if he had pulled the gun? Could you have reacted quick enough to survive?

I do not see where the law requires you endure a punch, knife or gun shot wound before we can defend ourselves. I grant this wounding may make it easier to mount an affirmative defense if you are alive.

Your call your gamble.

In a fender bender is it not reasonable and lawful for both drivers to get out to exchange info? Is it not unlawful for the second person to threaten and brandish a gun?

Police should be called and complaint filed against person threatening and showing a gun.

Just my humble opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cops are not lawyers. Cops are especially not YOUR lawyer.

 

It's not their job to hand out legal advice. It's not even their job to know the law. It's their job to follow procedure and policy, which (if formulated well) enforce the law.

 

Regarding you, it's not their job to keep you out of jail. If you take their advice and do what they say, but you still end up in jail, it's not their fault. It's yours. It's also not their job to get you back out of jail. If anything, it's their job to put you IN jail and keep you there.

Cops don't even always know the law even, as so many 1st and 2nd Amendment auditors show regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Cops are not lawyers. Cops are especially not YOUR lawyer.

 

It's not their job to hand out legal advice. It's not even their job to know the law. It's their job to follow procedure and policy, which (if formulated well) enforce the law.

 

Regarding you, it's not their job to keep you out of jail. If you take their advice and do what they say, but you still end up in jail, it's not their fault. It's yours. It's also not their job to get you back out of jail. If anything, it's their job to put you IN jail and keep you there.

Cops don't even always know the law even, as so many 1st and 2nd Amendment auditors show regularly.

 

To be fair, yes SOME LEOs are not well versed in all of the laws they are expected to enforce.

Just think about al the laws the ILGA pumps out every year.

OTOH SOME LEOs are very knowledgeable and make a very serious effort of understanding the laws.

Many of them a 2A supporters too.

 

Again, being fair, just as some LEOs don’t understand some laws, neither do some firearms owners as is proven by some of the questions that are asked here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, based upon the OP’s post the question at hand doesn’t have an answer which would fit.

It’s been posted and posted about here several times.

Based upon deleted our posts for not having an answer, then all the above should be deleted. You can not answer the OP’s question!

 

I now bow my head and slowly step backwards again with the respect given to Mods..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, based upon the OP’s post the question at hand doesn’t have an answer which would fit.

It’s been posted and posted about here several times.

Based upon deleted our posts for not having an answer, then all the above should be deleted. You can not answer the OP’s question!

 

I now bow my head and slowly step backwards again with the respect given to Mods..........

You've made it very clear that, in your opinion, no question should be asked that has ever been asked before. But ya' know, it's ok to ask again sometimes. If that bothers you there are thousands of other topics you can post in and leave these to those who want to provide useful information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go to court remember you along with your lawyer have to defend your actions. What a reasonable person would do in the same situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's your answer:

 

(720 ILCS 5/7-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

 

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

 

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K7-1#:~:text=Sec.,imminent%20use%20of%20unlawful%20force.

 

 

 

This is the best answer you can get. If your situation qualifies with 38:7-1(a), then you are justified. Every nuanced situation is different, and there are a lot of "shades of gray" on any individual situation, and different people may see the same situation in a different light. Only you can decide if you "believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" and it is a tough decision. Guess wrong in one direction = death. Guess wrong in the other direction = prison. I'm glad it ended up ok for you (since you're posting here).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each of us has to decide every time that we carry at gun if having that gun puts us at more risk than we would be without that gun. Obviously if you don’t have a gun you will never be facing a jury charged with shooting someone, but you also might be on the ground with a chalk drawing around your dead body. Carrying a gun brings with it a level of risk that some are not willing to take, but others are.

 

And here in IL, it is not at all difficult to imagine an incident where the circumstances totally support your use of deadly force, but the carrying of a gun in that place itself was a violation of the law. Makes me think of the famous Bernard Getz case in NYC where his shooting of several thugs was ruled as justified self defense but his mere possession and carrying of the gun ended up putting him in prison for six months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...