Can You Use a Gun Against an Unarmed Person?

[Fly320s]

No, there does not have to be ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.

Yes, those must be present.  Without those conditions a "reasonable person" wouldn't have a need/feeling to use deadly force.

If an unarmed 10 year old girl walks up to you and says, "I'm gonna kill you right now," would a reasonable person be justified in using deadly force?

If a 25 year old, professional athlete male yells the same thing in a menacing manner, would a reasonable person be justified to use deadly force?

[KD5NRH]

Hollywood rarely shows the hero getting punched once in the face, knocked unconscious, and suffering a concussion or worse as a result.

Or all the kung fu movies where the guy takes a full force kick to the side of the knee, complete with the squishy crunch of dislocation, shakes it off and keeps fighting.  One of the things I learned from my dislocation is that the knee makes an excellent target; hard to defend, puts the opponent on the ground for a while, and he'll have years of reminders not to bother you again.

[Brad Johnson]

Or all the kung fu movies where the guy takes a full force kick to the side of the knee, complete with the squishy crunch of dislocation, shakes it off and keeps fighting.  One of the things I learned from my dislocation is that the knee makes an excellent target; hard to defend, puts the opponent on the ground for a while, and he'll have years of reminders not to bother you again.

I have firsthand experience with said squishy-crunch, both knee and shoulder (courtesy of cow and 4 wheeler, respectively).  I, too, Lol at the movie version.

Brad

[Tallpine]

I have firsthand experience with said squishy-crunch, both knee and shoulder (courtesy of cow and 4 wheeler, respectively).  I, too, Lol at the movie version.

Brad

Both of those will buck you off 

[SADShooter]

In light of Ferguson and Michael Brown, I will observe that "having your hands up" cuts both offensive and defensive reaction time. This is an active component of the krav maga curriculum in dealing with a potential confrontation.

[Jamisjockey]

The key words are "In fear of your life."

You don't even need to be in fear of your life in Texas

"PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person
is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor
against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief
that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is
presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was
used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully
and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business
or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove
unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or
place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder,
sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C
misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the
time the force was used."

Nowhere is the use of a  weapon mentioned. 

[Jamisjockey]

Yes, those must be present.  Without those conditions a "reasonable person" wouldn't have a need/feeling to use deadly force.

If an unarmed 10 year old girl walks up to you and says, "I'm gonna kill you right now," would a reasonable person be justified in using deadly force?

If a 25 year old, professional athlete male yells the same thing in a menacing manner, would a reasonable person be justified to use deadly force?

Texas specifically says that threats are not justification of deadly force.  You'd have a hard time defending yourself in either case.

[KD5NRH]

Texas specifically says that threats are not justification of deadly force.  You'd have a hard time defending yourself in either case.

Therein lies the importance of distinguishing between a plain threat and the verbal component of an actual assault.  (For example, holding a knife casually is not assault.  Holding it casually while saying "I'm going to cut you" would almost certainly be classed as assault even before taking an aggressive stance, since the time required to transition can be too short to react effectively.  Applying this to a roid-raging athlete without a weapon threatening to beat you to a pulp might be tougher, but a good lawyer should be able to make it stick.)  22.01(a)(2) only requires a threat of imminent bodily injury.  9.31 specifies when your actions will be presumed reasonable, not every case where they can be determined to be reasonable by the court.

[Jamisjockey]

Therein lies the importance of distinguishing between a plain threat and the verbal component of an actual assault.  (For example, holding a knife casually is not assault.  Holding it casually while saying "I'm going to cut you" would almost certainly be classed as assault even before taking an aggressive stance, since the time required to transition can be too short to react effectively.  Applying this to a roid-raging athlete without a weapon threatening to beat you to a pulp might be tougher, but a good lawyer should be able to make it stick.)  22.01(a)(2) only requires a threat of imminent bodily injury.  9.31 specifies when your actions will be presumed reasonable, not every case where they can be determined to be reasonable by the court.

Truth.   

[drewtam]

It may be difficult to convince a jury otherwise.

May I present to the jury Jon Jones vs Alexander Gustafsson. Jones (black trunks) "won" and remains the Light Heavyweight (186lbs to 205lbs) champion. Remember, this is "just a fist fight", even with lightly padded gloves



Before:


After:



Fun bonus fact:
Jones' tattoo in the second pic says Philippians 4:13 - I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

[KD5NRH]

May I present to the jury Jon Jones vs Alexander Gustafsson. Jones (black trunks) "won" and remains the Light Heavyweight (186lbs to 205lbs) champion. Remember, this is "just a fist fight", even with lightly padded gloves

Heck, Sonny Banks.  24 years old and in probably the high side of the 99th percentile for physical condition, and only got hit with fully padded boxing gloves.

Levander Johnson, 35, quite possibly in better shape than Banks had been, but also died after being hit with regular boxing gloves.

[SteveS]

This is another situation where "can" and "should" are two different things.  By that I mean that under the law, as mentioned above, an armed person can validly fire in self defense against an "unarmed" assailant.  Where the problem occurs is with the jury.  I've seen mention above that people think in terms of "just a fist fight." 

I live in Michigan. Prior to the stand your ground legislation, case law had pretty much established that there wasn't any duty to retreat and allowed for the use of deadly force in any situation where a person reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent death, GBH, or sexual assault. One notable exception that still applies, is if you are involved in a mutual affray. If this escalates, you do have a duty to reatreat, if possible, before using lethal force.

[brimic]

May I present to the jury Jon Jones vs Alexander Gustafsson. Jones (black trunks) "won" and remains the Light Heavyweight (186lbs to 205lbs) champion. Remember, this is "just a fist fight", even with lightly padded gloves



Before:


After:



Fun bonus fact:
Jones' tattoo in the second pic says Philippians 4:13 - I can do all this through him who gives me strength.

he got most of his beard knocked off! 

[KD5NRH]

Forgot one of the most famous; Houdini wasn't even hit in the head.