• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Hey, wait up a 2nd there

Is there a constitutional right to lethal self-defense?

Oddly enough, the matter hasn't been settled, and has been little studied by scholars . . . There's a smattering of other material on it, but quite little.

Since Indiana has strengthened its self-defense law, adding a no-retreat provision, this is of more than passing interest here.

Comments

Bob G.
Wed, 11/08/2006 - 6:33am

One aspect to all of this boils down to one very important question:

How does one define one's "perspective"?

What constitutes a valid LETHAL response to one person might surely not to another. How does law-enforcement interpret this?

Does a person invading your home check their rights at your front door? I'd like to think they do. If a perp wants to escalate a situation into a realm of lethality...then they should expect a likewise response. That thought might deter some crime in and of itself...

How many people, when faced with an imminent threat (as they perceive it) would "shoot to wound only"?

Personally I live by the saying that goes: Trespassers (read home invaders) will be shot...survivors will be shot AGAIN".

Defensive handgun procedure would dictate that you go for the LARGEST body mass area (where a lot of important organs and stuff are, btw)...

Then again...what if a person doesn't use a firearm, but hacks the perp with a sword, knife, or even a claw hammer? ANYTHING can become a weapon for offensive or defensive use, if utilized properly. Will we ban pens and pencils for kids in school then?

There is definite room for much debate over this...as there are more questions with every answer rendered...and it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

B.G.

Steve Towsley
Wed, 11/08/2006 - 11:35am

People in the real world neither shoot to wound nor shoot to kill. Unless their name is Annie Oakley, they shoot to stop the attack, period, and then they call 911 to save the wounded perp if possible.

Shooting to 'wing' the bad guy is purely a Hollywood invention which real life experts agree will virtually always result in a miss, anger the attacker, and get you hurt worse than ever.

In other words, nobody in any self defense class I've ever heard of, in or out of law enforcement, teaches shooting to wound, whether arm, leg, gun hand, or head. Aiming is a luxury of time that victims almost never have; fine motor skills go out the window during a violent assault anyway; one is fortunate simply to halt an attacker at all and that's why defensive handgun classes all teach shooting at the attacker's chest, i.e. center of mass.

A respected study has estimated that even well-trained cops miss their target 75% of the time under the pressure of a real world incident.

That's one hit for every 4 rounds fired. With those odds, shooting for center of mass is the last best hope of stopping an assault before potentially fatal damage is done to the would-be victim.

Steve Towsley
Wed, 11/08/2006 - 3:37pm

Oops. I should have said "intended victim," I think. There are "would-be victims" in the world, but they have other problems.

Larry Morris
Wed, 11/08/2006 - 4:09pm

Yes, Steve, I concur. Down here in Texas, all the instructors teach "shoot for the largest part of the body" - just so happens to be where all the major organs are too. And, yes, the Texas penal code says you're supposed to be shooting to "stop the attacker", not to kill, killing is just an incidental by-product of shooting at center mass, ...

Bob G.
Thu, 11/09/2006 - 6:32am

SO how would the penal codes (in TX) handle FIVE shots that do NOT kill but maim a criminal as opposed to ONE shot that kills him outright?

That alone would seem a judicial nightmare, both in criminal court as well as civil court.

Another ancillary aspect to lethal response indeed.

B.G.

Larry Morris
Thu, 11/09/2006 - 6:43am

If it takes you 5 shots to stop an attacker, so be it. The only distinction that's made down here is "was he (she, whatever) still attacking ?". If you shoot him once and he turns and starts to run away, ... now we're talking about something else.

Steve Towsley
Thu, 11/09/2006 - 11:25am

Larry is right. You shoot to neutralize a violent threat to you and yours in an emergency. Any parsing beyond that can generally be chalked up to anti-gun-rights ideology. Good citizens don't use lethal force unless they fear being maimed or killed themselves. Pardon me, but if one of us has to accept those risks, it's going to be the perpetrator.

Some people seem to forget that the criminal is the sole guardian of his own consequences by the initial choice he makes to commit or not commit a given criminal act. No violent law-breaker will be lucky forever. The eventual results are pretty much built in.

Bob G.
Thu, 11/09/2006 - 2:33pm

I'm glad the *C* word was used (consequences).....goes hand in hand with personal responsibility and accountability in my book...and as ANY gun enthusiast would tell you...you can't have ONE without the other TWO.

Good info, gentlemen.

B.G.

Quantcast