Excellent Analysis of a Defensive Use of Force

[sk8knight]

We have discussions here all the time about gun control and self-defense. Here is a defensive use of force with a gun that did not involve the defender shooting the attacker. Mr. Branca, a lawyer and expert on self defense laws, analyzes the legal aspects about why this worker’s actions constituted a legal use of a firearm in defense of herself and another. It’s a great read and informative especially for the pro-2A crowd that have never really thought about the legal aspects of defending yourself.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/07/law-of-self-defense-milwaukee-restaurant-attack/

 

[sk8knight]

Also, this event would probably have not been included in the statistics as a defensive use of a gun unless Milwaukee charged her with something.

 

[UCFWayne]

glad she was able to protect herself and the other individual. you are right, that defensive use probably would never be counted.

 

[UCFBS]

It’s a great read and informative especially for the pro-2A crowd that have never really thought about the legal aspects of defending yourself.

Actually, if you point a weapon at someone, it can be considered a form of 'assault' in many locales. And yes, she could have been arrested in some.

That's why the recommendation is to only brandish, not point, because pointing is considered "I'm going to shoot." This "point to threaten" is a 100% Hollywood'ism that police, law abiding citizens, etc... abhor.

Do not point unless you intend to shoot. Have your hand on your hip and be ready to pull, aim and fire. Sorry, I have a real problem with these types of arguments. People going around 'threatening' with guns is how 'the wrong people get shot.'

I mean, imagine if the police showed up as she had him at gunpoint?

 

[CommuterBob]

Also, this event would probably have not been included in the statistics as a defensive use of a gun unless Milwaukee charged her with something.

It was included as a defensive use in the gun violence archive.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/1158490

 

[sk8knight]

Actually, if you point a weapon at someone, it can be considered a form of 'assault' in many locales. And yes, she could have been arrested in some.

That's why the recommendation is to only brandish, not point, because pointing is considered "I'm going to shoot." This "point to threaten" is a 100% Hollywood'ism that police, law abiding citizens, etc... abhor.

Do not point unless you intend to shoot. Have your hand on your hip and be ready to pull, aim and fire. Sorry, I have a real problem with these types of arguments. People going around 'threatening' with guns is how 'the wrong people get shot.'

I mean, imagine if the police showed up as she had him at gunpoint?

Did you read the analysis or just watch the video?

Whenever you utilize force for self-defense, you are committing an act that is either a crime or a justifiable use of force. The first tenet to all of these cases is that you are confessing that you utilized force, i.e that you threatened the man with the gun. If you don’t have an airtight justification for that, you will go to jail for the crime to which you confessed. This is true in all jurisdictions in the US. You are more likely to be arrested than not, especially if you used deadly force. I strongly suggest Laws of Self Defense as a mist-read for everyone.

In this case, the analysis explains quite clearly why this woman’s actions would constitute a justifiable use of force. I think he actually understates the threat from this man. HThe attacker had access in that kitchen to all sorts of deadly weapons, including his hands. Her actions were appropriate and you have to give her credit for not shooting him when he took his sweet time retreating. In all, isn’t this the way we would like defensive use of force incidents to turn out?

 

[sk8knight]

It was included as a defensive use in the gun violence archive.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/incident/1158490

That is good. It’s hard to accurately measure the numbers when most defensive uses that didn’t involve a shot are not reported.

 

[UCFBS]

Did you read the analysis or just watch the video?

Whenever you utilize force for self-defense, you are committing an act that is either a crime or a justifiable use of force. The first tenet to all of these cases is that you are confessing that you utilized force, i.e that you threatened the man with the gun. If you don’t have an airtight justification for that, you will go to jail for the crime to which you confessed. This is true in all jurisdictions in the US. You are more likely to be arrested than not, especially if you used deadly force. I strongly suggest Laws of Self Defense as a mist-read for everyone.

In this case, the analysis explains quite clearly why this woman’s actions would constitute a justifiable use of force. I think he actually understates the threat from this man. HThe attacker had access in that kitchen to all sorts of deadly weapons, including his hands. Her actions were appropriate and you have to give her credit for not shooting him when he took his sweet time retreating. In all, isn’t this the way we would like defensive use of force incidents to turn out?

Both.

My point is that some people are saying, "See! She didn't have to shoot the gun!"

My response is, "It's not about that. She should either just brandish and be ready to pull, or just pull, aim and shoot. That's really what should be, in an ideal circumstance."

In any case, in the UK, even if she had a valid permit, she would be going to jail. There's no right to 'self-defense,' even without a gun.

 

[sk8knight]

Both.

My point is that some people are saying, "See! She didn't have to shoot the gun!"

My response is, "It's not about that. She should either just brandish and be ready to pull, or just pull, aim and shoot. That's really what should be, in an ideal circumstance."

In any case, in the UK, even if she had a valid permit, she would be going to jail. There's no right to 'self-defense,' even without a gun.

That’s fair. I would also hope that she would’ve been able to pull the trigger had the attacker advanced on her after seeing the gun. In any case, people should have in their minds and practice a reasoned and graduated response to an attacker for the instances where it’s not as simple as shoot this guy right now or I’m dead.

 

[UCFBS]

That’s fair. I would also hope that she would’ve been able to pull the trigger had the attacker advanced on her after seeing the gun. In any case, people should have in their minds and practice a reasoned and graduated response to an attacker for the instances where it’s not as simple as shoot this guy right now or I’m dead.

Hollywood and TV have ruined people's perceptions of how firearms are used. It shows in even how young police officers react, because they are far more 'trained' by Hollywood/TV, than their years on the force teaches them proper.

Any seasoned officer, or law abiding citizen, knows to, at most, unsnap the holster and have your hand on the firearm or close to it, ready-to-pull, but not to 'aim' as that indicates an *immediate* 'intent to shoot.'

I honestly wish people weren't so mass ignorant in the world. But I'm just glad people like this woman will have a good defense, if the DA even decides to press charges in similiar cases.