Assuming we pass some version of a CCW permit, the problem with invoking self-defense in public is still with us. A visibly unarmed person (he may have a knife, but it could be concealed) argues with you in a mall, and then starts to approach you. You may say, "don't get any closer if you intend to harm me", but at what stage do are you allowed to escalate the possible use of force? State of HI would have the perp get as close enough to give you a bear hug, and if it harms you, then you can draw your CCW and fire. Same question with drawing a taser in the stated situation. It is a non-lethal weapon, as is pepper spray, but it raises the level of the conflict. Legislature needs to codify a Stand Back warning, which, if ignored by the potential attacker, allows you to elevate the use of self-defense measures.

I recommend you take a defensive handgun class offered by a reputable training company somewhere on the mainland at your earliest opportunity.

The Front Sight 5-day Defensive Handgun Class not only qualified me and helped with the paperwork for several non-resident CCW permits.  They also gave classroom and hands-on instruction in a variety of topics dealing with defensive uses of guns (DUG).  That included various laws of states, permit reciprocity, deescalation of situations, etc.

When you carry in public, you are a totally different person.  You know you have a firearm within a second or two of being able to use it.  You also know that you have the power to end someone's life -- justified or not.

When you think saying, "don't get any closer if you intend to harm me", is reasonable, proper training will tell you that's not how it's done.  You need to make your commands and declarations simple, concise and easy to follow.  Saying, "if you intend to harm me," not only invites the threat to continue approaching because he SAID he's not threatening you leaves the door open for him to still attack when he's close enough.  It also indicates you're not in charge -- he is, by virtue of you telling him his intentions are driving the situation.

You yell, "Don't come any closer!  Stop right there!"  If they continue, then say, "I told you to stop.  I will shoot you if you come closer!  Leave now!"  If the threat becomes more immediate, you will have to assess if you feel your life is in danger.  If you draw your weapon, you are legally obligated to fire unless the threat retreats upon sight of your weapon.  If you brandish a gun with no intention to use it, you can be charged with brandishing, assault, and assault with a deadly weapon.  If you didn't think you were in sufficient danger to fire, why did you draw your weapon?  It's a legal snafu that DAs will get you on.  "I was just trying to scare him away," is no justification in most states. 

Rule of thumb:  never draw your weapon until you are prepared to use it.  Same rule applies to firing a warning shot.  If you felt threatened enough to do that, you should have felt threatened enough to aim that warning shot at the attacker's chest.  Guns are not warning devices for civilians.  They are a last-resort defensive weapon -- that's WEAPON!  Would you point a knife at someone to convince them you are serious?  What about a bow and arrow?  Weapons are for defending yourself, not for causing fear.

Legislature does not need to codify warnings. We already see where any "magic words" required by law can be simply stated by the Cop or defending individual, such as "I was in fear for my life."  Those words are difficult to refute, and they rise to the level necessary to justify pulling a trigger.  If saying, "I have a gun.  Stop or I'll shoot you!" are codified, guess what words the intended victim will be instructed by lawyers to say they said?  Without a witness or video with sound, it'll be your word as to what was said.  Not very effective, huh?

The reverse can also be problematic.  If granny doesn't say the magic words required by law, and she stops a guy following her in a parking lot just seconds from him being on top of her, does she forfeit the justification of self defense?

These situations happen in seconds usually, and no specified group of words will deescalate them all.

When you're carrying, and someone talks smack to you, it's easier to just walk away.  It's preferable to ending another life and then dealing with the legal and emotional aftermath.

If you're truly the victim, you may have no choice in escalation or deescalation.  The other person/s has the choice to stop, continue or ratchet it up if you don't respond.  Depending on the other person's intentions, a physical altercation may be a predetermined outcome.  No law or specific words will prevent escalation, and the escalation will be  all one-sided.

As a correction to your comment, Tasers are considered less-lethal weapons, not non-lethal.  People have died from being Tasered.  Most, if not all, of the rules of engagement that apply to firearms should apply to Tasers.  So says the President of TASER International:

Less-lethal is a means of acknowledging that all uses of force carry some finite
level of risk -- and it removes the semantic debate over "non-lethal" from the court defense of any
less-lethal weapon. Less-lethal is the generally preferred terminology used today for everything from
OC to batons. So, we too have adopted the terminology "less-lethal" to describe all of our weapon
systems, from 7 Watts up to 26 Watts.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/taser_intl_less-lethal_v_non-lethal.pdf

Think about it.  If someone is a perceived threat, do you really want to play your trump card (draw your weapon) before you absolutely have to?  Do you want to advertise you're armed, giving them time to formulate a way to relieve you of it, or come up with a way to counter your weapon?  Letting people know you're armed is not always the best move.  Even if nothing happens, if you advertise you are armed, what's to stop the bully from calling 911 and lying to the Cops that you were waving your gun around and threatening them?  Better to just not say anything and walk away.  You're the one armed with a firearm.  Who do you think most Cops are going to be focused on?

Best advise is to call 911 and leave the line open.  As the situation escalates, everything will be recorded that's picked up on the phone call.  If you handle yourself properly, everything you say and do will be evidence that you did all that you could to avoid having to pull the trigger.

If you didn't have time to call 911, you probably didn't have much time to have a conversation before being attacked either.

Read use of deadly force law and taser law. Then post back here. This will answer ur question and hhpothetical.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You have to feel threatened by serious bodily injury (stab. Broken bones, etc) or death, before using deadly force and a jury will decide if it was reasonable.
You could use lesser force like OC or taser, you still need to be threatened or else youre committing assault.  Learn some basic hand to hand skills.  You can back up, get behind something like a table or wall, get other peoples attention, etc.  Best not get into an argument in the first place.

Get one big dog.

Get one big dog.

Or a few cats. 

Or a few cats. 

Or work on your insults then drop the mike!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

You have to feel threatened by serious bodily injury (stab. Broken bones, etc) or death, before using deadly force and a jury will decide if it was reasonable.
You could use lesser force like OC or taser, you still need to be threatened or else youre committing assault.  Learn some basic hand to hand skills.  You can back up, get behind something like a table or wall, get other peoples attention, etc.  Best not get into an argument in the first place.

But what if they are a brainwashed know-it-all liberal? 

 

But what if they are a brainwashed know-it-all liberal? 

 

Then you make the following statement: "My pronoun is xhe. I believe all should be triple vaxxed and wear mask at all times.  Also ALL assault machine guns are bad. and no one needs a 30 round clip.  I also drive a Prius". But no high five because they have soft hands and would get hurt.

But what if they are a brainwashed know-it-all liberal? 

 

That's actually not a crazy point.

If a Karen sees you eating out and not wearing a mask (2 mutually exclusive things), they might just call the Cops on you with no indication you are armed.  Once the Cops arrive, the Liberal tattler could overhear that you are carrying and then enhance their story by lying that you threatened to shoot them.  That's card's been played a lot.

The Libtards and Karens are so used to getting away with their crap, they don't see any downside in lying to the Cops if it means getting you cuffed and stuffed.  It ruins your day, they feel victorious, and unless you sue them and win, nothing will likely happen if it's a "he said / Xhe said" situation.

That's actually not a crazy point.

If a Karen sees you eating out and not wearing a mask (2 mutually exclusive things), they might just call the Cops on you with no indication you are armed.  Once the Cops arrive, the Liberal tattler could overhear that you are carrying and then enhance their story by lying that you threatened to shoot them.  That's card's been played a lot.

The Libtards and Karens are so used to getting away with their crap, they don't see any downside in lying to the Cops if it means getting you cuffed and stuffed.  It ruins your day, they feel victorious, and unless you sue them and win, nothing will likely happen if it's a "he said / Xhe said" situation.

Or use red flag. Like the crossing guard at the diner situation.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

But what if they are a brainwashed know-it-all liberal? 

 

You want to argue with them?  It doesn't really do anything.  Best not get into it cause to an outsider, it looks like 2 idiots yelling at eachother.

You want to argue with them?  It doesn't really do anything.  Best not get into it cause to an outsider, it looks like 2 idiots yelling at eachother.

I'd want to throw rocks at them, but no one on 2a does anything illegal. . .

And no, as a general rule, I don't argue with folks who are by very nature irrational and detached from reality. . .

Btw, that post was in jest. . .

SHIRLEY! AIRPLANE!



Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

I second Flapp's suggestion. There are a lot of legal potholes when it comes to using lethal force in protection of yourself and others, especially when outside of someone's own home. Anyone considering carrying in any state, especially this one, should get some training or do a lot of reading to be prepared in case they are faced with a force situation.

I second Flapp's suggestion. There are a lot of legal potholes when it comes to using lethal force in protection of yourself and others, especially when outside of someone's own home. Anyone considering carrying in any state, especially this one, should get some training or do a lot of reading to be prepared in case they are faced with a force situation.

And keep your mouth shut if cops ask questions if the situation does happen. Talk to a lawyer before making any statements.

And keep your mouth shut if cops ask questions if the situation does happen. Talk to a lawyer before making any statements.

Lots of good videos on that subject, not to mention the advice given in defensive handgun classes.

"I was in fear for my life.  I fired my weapon to stop a violent threat.  I called 911 for police and medical services right away.  While I intend to cooperate fully with your investigation, I'd rather not answer any more questions without my lawyer present."

Don't give ANY details of the encounter on the spot.  ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN, AND WILL, BE USED AGAINST YOU.  Nothing you say will prevent that.  All it takes is a fuzzy recollection or poor choice of words, and then you're suddenly having to explain more and more.  Once you start having to explain what you meant, you're already being looked at as a possible liar.

Silence id golden.

After watching dozens of videos on youtube, this is the one with practical, hands-on advice, especially the critical factors we need to evaluate to pick a "self-defense" insurer.



Andrew Branca is an attorney who carries a concealed weapon. He states that in every case that he has consulted with USCCA's underwriter, the case did not go to trial. If true, then this is one of the top 3 companies for CCW insurance. Still, I would like to get more information from defendants (or potential defendants) who were actually placed in a self-defense life or death situation. Experience is the greatest teacher, sadly, after the fact. Kyle Rittenhouse could educate us with useful facts, but we may never know some of the techniques his attorneys employed to get him acquitted. If prosecutions have a 90% success on convictions or plea deals, we face difficult odds in court. We live in a state where the police allow potential murder suspects to leave a missing person scene, only to have them escape the islands. On the other end, Hawaii state prosecutors would rather play slam dunk with a citizen resident of the state who must use a weapon to defend himself. Very bad guidance in the criminal justice system, and any of us could be their next target.

I have had USCCA insurance for the past 7 years. It used to be $250k legal defense limit on the plan I had. Couple years ago they changed to no limit, so even if your defense cost $1M, you are covered.

After watching dozens of videos on youtube, this is the one with practical, hands-on advice, especially the critical factors we need to evaluate to pick a "self-defense" insurer.



Andrew Branca is an attorney who carries a concealed weapon. He states that in every case that he has consulted with USCCA's underwriter, the case did not go to trial. If true, then this is one of the top 3 companies for CCW insurance. Still, I would like to get more information from defendants (or potential defendants) who were actually placed in a self-defense life or death situation. Experience is the greatest teacher, sadly, after the fact. Kyle Rittenhouse could educate us with useful facts, but we may never know some of the techniques his attorneys employed to get him acquitted. If prosecutions have a 90% success on convictions or plea deals, we face difficult odds in court. We live in a state where the police allow potential murder suspects to leave a missing person scene, only to have them escape the islands. On the other end, Hawaii state prosecutors would rather play slam dunk with a citizen resident of the state who must use a weapon to defend himself. Very bad guidance in the criminal justice system, and any of us could be their next target.

Rittenhouses trial is online. But if you don't want to sit and watch hours of vid, then basically his attorneys told the truth and the state had no case at all. This should not have even gone to trial.  I doubt Kyle had self defense insurance because it was never mentioned.  This is the technique for this example you provided.

Federal prosecutors have a 90% success rate not only in court but also count plea deals (guilty pleas).  IDK what state prosecutions success rate is. 

The biggest thing that affects choice of a self defense insurance is retainer or not.  I'm not a fan of attorneys on retainer in a network because if the limit is $50,000 and you're in deep kim chee, then no good attorney would take the case for that little amount of money.  I have USCCA.