Forced to use Lethal Force

[Chikara]

True, there are certain variables to consider. But like I said, I wouldn't chase the person or continue if he or she stopped. That right there would make my defense legal. Only escalating to the legal level, but stopping. I was trying to say that the law would go easier on me than it would a man. I don't think I got that across right.

[tallgeese]

Yep, all kinds of variables come into play. The key is to articulate, and do it well, why you were reasonably in fear for your life. And it can't just be because "you" felt so. It has to be congruent with what a "reasonable person" would have felt as well. A reasonable person with all those same variable that you possess and/or were privy to.

You can't over-articulate either.

As for how many out of a hundred, I really can't say. It certainly varies based on your location, profession, etc.

As for what bushido man was saying earlier- I agree, that control of the weapon, I think the example was a knife, is paramount in an armed encounter. Yes, the guy can still hurt you. But the likelyhood of a free, uncontrolled knife doing it is far higher.

[joesteph]

The key is to articulate, and do it well, why you were reasonably in fear for your life. . . . It has to be congruent with what a "reasonable person" would have felt as well.

Thinking of what you posted, Tallgeese, a nickname for a lawyer is a "mouthpiece." It may be that you should be saying as little as possible and politely but firmly insist on consulting with an attorney. No matter how right you may be--or think you are--you can dig a hole for yourself if you go beyond a certain point trying to convince the police to be on your side. This is, as I understand the thread, most likely a case of your having used deadly force.

I agree about the proper verbalizing, and it's very true about the "reasonable person" standard, but I'd want legal consultation, the attorney present during questioning, even if the police say to me that it makes them suspicious, just to be certain that, in trying to "plead my case" to the officers, I don't dig myself into a hole that the more I say, the deeper I find myself.

Deadly force can lead to an ugly situation--even if you're the law-abiding one.

[bushido_man96]

I agree about the proper verbalizing, and it's very true about the "reasonable person" standard, but I'd want legal consultation, the attorney present during questioning, even if the police say to me that it makes them suspicious, just to be certain that, in trying to "plead my case" to the officers, I don't dig myself into a hole that the more I say, the deeper I find myself.

I see what you are saying here, Joe, and it does make sense, but it doesn't necessarily work out the way you might think it does on the day of the event.

I'll give you a typical scenario of a self-defense situation in my area. We'll go with the bar fight scenario, as it is the most common around here. A guy starts roughing you up, and you fight back to defend yourself. While "defending" yourself, the cops roll up, and you both get cuffed and arrested, most likely for disorderly conduct at first glance. This may not sound right, but when the cops roll up, they just see a fight; they seperate, and then evaluate.

From here, you have two options if you get taken down to the station:

Option 1: You say you want to give a statement (usually written) as to what happened. The officer reads you Miranda, and you give your statement (which he probably records), and then asks you to write it out. If you are able to articulate correctly what happened, then you may walk without getting charged.

Option 2: The officer reads you Miranda, and then asks you if you'd like to make a statement as to what happened. You tell him no, you want your attorney present. Now you will most likely be charged with the disorderly conduct, and where I live, you would have to post a bond to get out of jail that night.

So, as you can see, the ability to articulate what happend and how you reacted to the officers at that time can be very beneficial to you, if for nothing else than convenience.

[joesteph]

So, as you can see, the ability to articulate what happend and how you reacted to the officers at that time can be very beneficial to you, if for nothing else than convenience.

I follow you, Brian. My concern about lethal force was the overriding factor. If it's not at that point, it seems much better to use Option1. I can see that they would be obligated to take someone in if it's the lethal force situation; it'll likely be considered within context if it's a bar fight, you speak up in a level-headed manner, and the police have more leeway to use their discretion.

[Chikara]

Yes, true. It would look like 2 drunks just causing trouble at first glance. I guess 9 times out of 10 (depending on circumstances) something like this can be avoided. Just like a car accident, the cop will ask if you could have avoided the confrontation or if the other person was adament about fighting.