This isn’t a request for legal advice. Even if you give a legal opinion, I would not follow your advice, because I am not your client. That being said, has anybody heard of a similar scenario, and it’s outcome? Here goes: Wife in car outside of store. Strange Jerk opens car door while wife is inside it, saying “I want some money”. Husband comes out. Jerk reaches into pants saying “I’ll smoke you.”
A friend told me that this happened to him recently, and I was thinking that if I was packing, and it was my family member in the car, the guy would be in Valhalla this evening.
Does anybody know of similar situations, case law, and the outcomes?
Thanks,
handsomeharry
Never mind. I would say “yes” but in the end it would come down to adrenaline.
“May you?” Whether or not you shoot someone is 100% your decision.
Shooting someone almost always has consequences, while I can’t say anything about the legal consequences definitively it will have emotional consequences for the rest of your life, that I can guarantee.
What I can say (as a layman) about the legal consequences is while every state has different self defense laws and standards if you truly feel that your life is in imminent danger and the only way you could save yourself was through self defense resulting in death of the assailant then as long as you assert that and retain a lawyer immediately you would have a good chance of not going to prison.
I’ve been told that if you ever have to kill someone in self defense the only proper response is to immediately call 911, call a lawyer right afterward and say nothing at all to the police other than “I feared for my life, I can’t say anymore until my lawyer is here.” (FWIW I was told this on the internet on a message board–possibly even this one, though I can’t remember.)
It also REALLY depends on where the OP is.
Texas - maybe.
New York? You’re better off letting the guy kill you, because if you shoot him, you’ll spend the rest of your life being raped in prison.
ETA - unless you have a police badge, or are some politico’s buttboy.
Let’s keep in mind that this is GQ, and not make stupid comments about places you don’t like.
New York statute permits the use of deadly force in protecting one’s home from burglary or arson. The duty to retreat in a self-defense case depends on jurisdiction and circumstances. In general, the duty is significantly lessened if you are acting in defense of another person who is unable to retreat or defend themselves.
New York does not have a “stand your ground” law, which means that in order for self-defense to be considered justifiable, the person must reasonably believe that they or another person are in mortal danger, and there is no way to safely extricate themselves or the other person from the danger.
I believe this may be the situation where some say, “Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.”
It will depend entirely upon which State you are in. According to my CCW course I took which had a curriculum developed by the Attorney General’s office, in Kansas the answer is yes, but you’d better be really sure that there was an IMMEDIATE and CREDIBLE threat to the life or safety of yourself, those within the vehicle, or other innocents. Notably, you could NOT shoot the person if they tried to damage, steal from, or steal your empty vehicle.
If you can convince 12 people your actions where not criminal you can shoot anyone you want.
Cynically enough, that’s what I would (heh) shoot for. Damned to the law and count on your attorney to make the right story stand out in the minds of the jury.
Just my opinion, but if you’re a gun owner, you really ought to familiarize yourself with the actual laws of your state, rather than assuming and supposing.
Friedo is right, and here’s a link to Section 35.15.2 for those who want to read the details.
There was a case in my community last weekend where a guy woke up in the middle of the night, heard kids breaking into a car across the street, went out to confront them, and ended up shooting and killing one of the kids. He was arrested and charged with with second degree murder.
If you shot and killed the guy in the hypothetical you described, I have no doubt that you’d face the same charges.
Some of the answers here are missing the relevant factor that Harry’s wife is in the car, and is apparently being threatened by Strange Jerk. So the justification for the homicide is not self defense, but defense of Harry’s wife. Harry may have a duty to retreat if it’s just his car being threatened, but he has a right to defend his wife from an apparent threat to her life.
" I’ll smoke you " sounds like a direct threat to kill to this potential juror.
I can only answer for my state. In Texas, you can use deadly force to protect a third person to the same degree you would be justified in using deadly force to protect yourself:
Deadly force in defense of one’s self (in some circumstances) is authorized in Penal Code Section 9.32.
I doubt reaching into his pants would be enough to warrant shooting him. If he pulled a gun out, yes, but you don’t even know if he has a weapon.
In the CCW class I took, we were told that if we saw an armed robber running out of the bank, we couldn’t fire unless he started to bring the gun up. If seeing a robber with a gun doesn’t equate immediate danger, neither would someone reaching into their pants.
>, the person must reasonably believe that they or another person are in mortal danger
This is largely universal. If you feel in mortal danger then all gloves are off. The case mentioned above was about kids breaking into a car, not attempting to hurt anyone. I would be wary about shooting someone damaging or stealing property as thats not usually protected, but when it comes to bodily harm and threats, then everything changes.
I think this stuff breaks into two categories: defense and offense. In defense youre reacting to a dangerous situation. This is largely protected. In offense you’re Dirty Harry shooting a robber running away in the back or shooting at kids trying to steal a car. I think its obvious how the two situations differ. Killing to protect yourself or others? Ok. Killing to protect property only? Not so good.
INAL but I’m pretty that regardless of jurisdiction (even in the UK) at this point a reasonable person would consider his life in mortal danger, and be legitimate to use deadly force (as long as there were witnesses to him doing this).
I don’t usually do this, but I can’t resist:
Am I the only one really happy the OP didn’t add “need answer fast!” to the end of his thread title?
Go straight to jail, do not pass go - and you’d have gun-charges added to what you did.
At least that’s what would happen here in Iceland.
I assume you’re exaggerating for rhetorical purposes. But just to be clear, New York does recognize self-defense (which includes defense of another person) as justification for the use of deadly physical force. The specific situation described in the OP would be covered within this law.
Section 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person (Subsection 2):
I would disagree here. The point is an armed robber running out of bank is NOT necessarily a direct threat to you, if you intervene you are doing so to prevent a crime taking place. Someone reaching into their pants saying “I’m gonna smoke you”, definitely is.