I pay no attention to the force continuum....
...I do whatever is necessary to immediately take control of the situation, and no more than that amount of force. Ive never tazed or sprayed anyone but I am a big fan of taser after none verbal compliance.
From my experience if you appear to be in excellent shape, uniform squared away, and talk softly people will comply. Like the big guy from the green mile. Dont want to hurt no body boss but he certainly is capable if he has to. Kinda off topic but I love talking about the force continuum.
I carry Sabre pepper spray, a large clip folder (CRKT), and a handgun. Steps one thru three. Hopefully I never have to go to step three.
Um... Yes. I'm not saying your 3 rules are wrong, I'm saying you're missing one. Avoidance and removal are, IMO, the best ways to end a fight. But you can't always avoid a confrontation. What if the threat is a nuisance? Maybe your buddy's friend is a little too drunk and he keeps punching you on the arm saying "Whatchya gonna do about that? Huh?" Are you really going to shoot that guy?
The problem with all self defense cases is that after you're done in criminal court you can still be sued by the victim (or their family) in civil court. Even if you aren't charged with a crime or are acquitted of all charges you can still lose a civil case and have to pay damages for the injuries you inflicted.
.
Really?!
That weak assed example is the best situation you can think of?!
Found it and highlighted it. Don't think you need to worry about civil suits as long as you acted within the law.
If force is needed it will be lethal force. Period. You will be giving ample warnings to cease what you are doing and leave me and mine alone. I am not a Prize fighter that fights for fun or money, I fight to survive. Uncle Jimmy won't stop beating his Nephew, Uncle Jimmy knows that Jeremy WILL do him bodily harm. My wife knows that if I am backed into a corner, I am going to be talking to the Cops also.YES!!! I'm specifically trying to put out "weak" examples. Do you seriously believe there is not one single situation where you would ever have to use less than lethal force? What if you're at a family reunion and ole uncle Jimmy won't stop roughhousing with his favorite nephew. He doesn't mean you any harm, but he won't take a hint either. Are you really going to limit yourself to two options (leaving or shooting him)?? What if your wife or girlfriend is in the restroom at a crowded bar and somebody starts giving you crap? Sure you can walk out, but would you really leave your woman behind?
I'm not saying this is something you should default to right away, or is even common, but I just don't think EVERY situation that can't be solved through avoidance should immediately transition to lethal force.
Yes I am a Soldier. I have more than Rudimentary Training with my hands and other various tools. I have been in enough fights to know a couple of things, there is know referee to call fouls, there is no timer or bell to signal round changes, and there are no rules. If you are fighting for your life with anything less than Lethal Force you are a fool. Regardless, of whether it is with a Firearm, a Knife, or Your Hands. Fighting with anything less than Lethal intent is very Foolish...If I remember correctly you're in the military, right? Shouldn't you have some rudimentary hand to hand skills? The other guy doesn't always deserve to make it out alive, but carrying a weapon doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of judicious use of force. If anything it places more responsibility on your shoulders because you have the capability to swiftly end someone's life. My personal view is that a gun is something to fall back on if the threat is too much for me to handle any other way.
I'm not so sure... Acting within the law certainly helps, but what I've been told by law enforcement personnel speaking about the legality of civilian use of force is that you will pay for all damages you cause. The state may find you justified in slamming Jimbo's head into a brick wall to end the fight, but civil court is a slippery slope and full of greedy b******s. The prosecution can vet a jury and turn them against you. "Poor Jimbo has a wife and two children, but now he has permanent brain damage! How can he provide for his poor grieving family if he can't remember how to walk? You could have ended this another way, but you chose to do this; your intent was to cripple this man. You should have to pay his bills and provide for his family."
It sounds cruel and twisted, but given the overly litigious state of today's society I'd rather play it safe. And god forbid you should have any hand to hand or martial arts training. They'll paint you as a "trained killer" quicker than you can blink.
Again, this is just what I've been told by the people who have been involved with these kinds of things. If any INGO lawyers would care to step in and reinforce or correct me it would be much appreciated
If force is needed it will be lethal force. Period. You will be giving ample warnings to cease what you are doing and leave me and mine alone. I am not a Prize fighter that fights for fun or money, I fight to survive. Uncle Jimmy won't stop beating his Nephew, Uncle Jimmy knows that Jeremy WILL do him bodily harm. My wife knows that if I am backed into a corner, I am going to be talking to the Cops also.
Yes I am a Soldier. I have more than Rudimentary Training with my hands and other various tools. I have been in enough fights to know a couple of things, there is know referee to call fouls, there is no timer or bell to signal round changes, and there are no rules. If you are fighting for your life with anything less than Lethal Force you are a fool. Regardless, of whether it is with a Firearm, a Knife, or Your Hands. Fighting with anything less than Lethal intent is very Foolish...
That is why Fighting is MY very last option, and it is a Lethal Option...
Well jeremy, I see that you're pretty set in your ways as far as self defense goes. I'm not going to change your mind so I'll just shut my trap. Good luck with that all or nothing method, I hope it doesn't land you in any hot water.
Although I'm still hoping some INGO lawyers will come weigh in on that legal liability stuff I talked about earlier. Pretty please?
...The state may find you justified in slamming Jimbo's head into a brick wall to end the fight, but civil court is a slippery slope and full of greedy b******s. The prosecution can vet a jury and turn them against you. "Poor Jimbo has a wife and two children, but now he has permanent brain damage! How can he provide for his poor grieving family if he can't remember how to walk? You could have ended this another way, but you chose to do this; your intent was to cripple this man. You should have to pay his bills and provide for his family."
It sounds cruel and twisted, but given the overly litigious state of today's society I'd rather play it safe.
Go talk with a REAL Lawyer...
You have been misinformed by "several Law Enforcers"...
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.