search
top
Currently Browsing: Carrying / Self-Defense

The Media Will Spin Things For Their Own Purposes

I was a bit concerned when I noticed that The Truth About Guns was running a high profile “simulation” of the Charlie Hedbo massacre given that site’s propensity for grandiose self-promotion. I don’t think my fears were unwarranted. The resulting story in the press essentially conveys the notion that armed self-defense is useless. It was even linked approvingly by our favorite Brady Board member.

I’m absolutely not criticizing the idea of running a simulation like this. It’s never a bad idea to see what we can learn. What was a bad idea was inviting the media along in the name of self-promotion and publicity, before the results were understood and digested. Even if TTAG’s subsequent analysis turns out to be very useful, the media’s version of the story is already out there; running away is a better tactic than armed self-defense. It only adds to the arguments of our opponents.

It may very well be that in a Charlie Hedbo scenario, you’re pretty well screwed no matter what you do. No one except fools argue that a defensive firearm is a talisman that wards off all evil and harm. Nor would anyone argue that sometimes a hasty retreat is the best way to stay alive. But that’s a very different thing than offering the media and our opponents an opportunity to reinforce what they already believe: that armed self-defense is a myth, and you’re better off just running away.

The Danger of Off-Body Carry

One of the big stories over the holiday is the unfortunate accident in Idaho involving a toddler who got into his mother’s carry purse, and managed to shoot her dead. I lean more toward Bob Owens position, “I hate off-body carry with an unbridled passion, and personally feel that if you can’t carry a weapon on your body, that you should not be carrying a firearm at all,” but I’m an absolutist about damned few things. That said, it’s I think it’s a pretty terrible option. Anyone who feels they need to carry this way needs to think long and hard. Are you a forgetful person? Are you prone to misplacing your purse, satchel, or briefcase? Are you habituated to leaving it unattended, even for short periods of time? How would you access it if you had to use it? Is your draw technique safe enough to deal with the fact that you will have to cross-draw with a purse?

Deciding on your method of carry, or whether to carry at all, requires serious introspection. I had considered briefly keeping a pistol in a jacket pocket, but I remembered that one time I left my coat at a restaurant. I’ve left my laptop bag in a restaurant once. Two incidents is enough to convince me that off-body carry is not an option for me, because I’m too careless with items that aren’t directly on my person.

The other big issue with purse carry is that in perusing concealed carry purses with Bitter, I’ve come to the conclusion that they are all pretty awful. Most models I’ve seen just have a special pocket you stuff the gun into. Some of them provide an access opening so small, you couldn’t effectively and confidently draw from it. You almost certainly couldn’t re-holster the firearm intuitively. None I’ve seen have adequate protection for the trigger. None I’ve seen have good enough retention to keep the firearm in the purse if you decide to leave the compartment unzipped. If there’s retention at all, they often have awkward passive retention, often just velcro. A simple polymer sleeve, fit to the gun, would be enough to provide both good trigger protection and to keep the gun locked in sleeve until broken by the draw. I’ve never seen a concealed carry purse that had such a thing, or could even reasonably accommodate it. In belt holsters, we mock the sausage sack, but I’ve never seen a concealed carry purse that had anything better than one, if it had anything in the gun compartment at all.

That said, if you have enough people, with enough guns, the law of averages is going to catch up with you eventually. This case is the first I’ve ever heard of like it. With probably about 10 million people having toters permits by now, many of them carrying regularly, one incident is hardly an epidemic. With the need to keep bringing more women into the issue, I’d hate to demand that all women eschew off-body carry. But I do think off-body carry requires a lot more habituation and training than other methods, if it is to be done safely. Holster and carry purse makers designing better options for women wouldn’t hurt either.

 

30 Years Ago Today

goetzBernhard Goetz shot four muggers on the New York City Subway, and got the country talking. He was acquitted on all charges, except for carrying a firearm without a license, for which he was sentenced to a year in prison, of which he only served eight months. Newspapers everywhere called his act of self-defense vigilantism. In fact, he was called the “subway vigilante” by the media.

This incident is regarded as being a prime contributor to the concealed carry movement that would begin to sweep the nation starting with Florida passing the Jack Hagler Self-Defense Act in 1987.

Interesting Development in PA Spree Killer Case

I noticed last night the media reported the spree killer attempted a carjacking in Doylestown, which is the seat of my county. What the media didn’t report is that he may have made the error of bringing a knife to a gunfight, and gotten himself shot at by the guy he tried to carjack. They don’t report whether he was hit, but I would bet not. Not the wisest thing to do, to try to carjack people in a state where about one in every 6 adults has an LTC.

UPDATE: I’m told local news sources are reporting the incident may not have happened. I’m still going on the last police statement on the matter, bad spelling and all.

UPDATE: The spree killer has been found dead near his home. He shot himself. So the guy who did the Doylestown carjacking wasn’t him. Now, if it turns out that the guy who claims to have fought off a carjacker was making a false report, trying to be the hero, you can bet your first born the media will be sure to spread that far and wide.

Teaching Self-Defense and Policing

Massad Ayoob is hoping this video makes the rounds, and I agree it’s something everyone needs to see.

You have too much being taken out of context these days. Every time I hear someone bitch that sumdood shouldn’t have been shot because he was unarmed, I want to scream. Bob Owens, for instance, highlights an undercover officer who drew his pistol on an unruly crowd after a person in that crowd assaulted him. Disparity of force aside, in all states that I’m aware of, it’s legal to use deadly force on riotous persons.

You couldn’t pay me to embed in a protest that has a high degree of likelihood of turning violent. You definitely couldn’t pay me to do it with anything less than a submachine gun for protection. If this officer was being hounded by the crowd, he’s perfectly justified in drawing his side arm. Though, I admit to not knowing what the gangsta grip is all about.

Guns are Good for Business

The restaurant owner who expanded his law enforcement discount of 10% off to anyone lawfully carrying a gun said that he has seen a 15% increase in business since the policy was announced.

State Rep Trades Gun Fire with Robber

During an attempted armed robbery on the streets of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania State Rep. Marty Flynn apparently pulled out his own gun and fired at the criminals.

Interestingly, Rep. Flynn refused to return an NRA questionnaire in 2012, so he was rated ?. On the only votes we’ve had recently, he did vote for strengthening preemption in HB 1243. He also voted against the private sale on long guns amendment.

The World Is Not As It Should Be

I’ve followed Megan McArdle since her days as a self-publishing penurious blogger through her gigs at the Atlantic, the Daily Beast, and now Bloomberg News. I don’t always agree with her, but she’s a thoughtful writer. And her comments are refreshingly multi-partisan (to the point of ideologues from all points of the political compass calling her a hack for their enemies.)

One article that recently caught my eye started from a discussion of the recent revelations that, yes, Virginia, some people will hack other people’s cloud storage accounts and distribute them far and wide. She then segues into why we can’t social engineer away crime:

[Y] ou cannot possibly subscribe to the idea that only social sanctions, well-designed law-enforcement penalties and a more equitable welfare policy stand between us and a nearly-crime-free utopia.

The point is that crime still happens even when everyone agrees that it is wrong, and crime still goes unpunished even when we would very much like to punish it. That’s because many people are … well, something that’s not printable on a family blog. Let’s just say that a troublesome minority of people will ignore basic decency and morality and do terrible, wrong things to get what they want.

The conclusion of the piece is one that I think readers here will agree with. “It is not “victim blaming” to urge their targets to protect themselves from that threat.” All together, a nice justification of the right to self defense.

Self Defense in NJ

New Jersey publishes the jury instructions online in PDF and DOC format (link is to a PDF table of contents). I once sat as a juror in an aggravated assault and unlawful use of a weapon case (a stabbing in a public place) where the defendants claimed self-defense. At this point, the details are unimportant, except that in the course of the trial I received an education in the standards by which actions in self-defense are to be judged in courtrooms in NJ. This, of course, is of utmost importance to know for anyone who owns a firearm and keeps it in functional condition, even more so if you plan on carrying a firearm in public (not an option in NJ for the regular person, of course.) It is, however, a good idea for anyone to be aware of, both for their own personal legal safety and also to be a well-informed person. Well-informed or not, I am not a lawyer, please consult one before believing anything or everything you read on the internet about the law.

One thing about jury instructions that I believe to be superior to reading caselaw and statute law and attempting to interpret, is that they are written to explain the law as-applied for the benefit of the layman, rather than a lawyer, judge, or legislator. Technical terms are explained in layman’s term, and while can lead to leaky abstractions, it’s good for an overview.

The section I’m going to be looking at in this post is found in Chapter 3 “General Principles of Justification” – specifically

JUSTIFICATION – SELF DEFENSE In Self Protection (PDF)

JUSTIFICATION – USE OF FORCE IN PROTECTION OF OTHERS (PDF)

JUSTIFICATION – SELF DEFENSE USE OF FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY (PDF)

JUSTIFICATION – USE OF FORCE UPON AN INTRUDER (PDF)

The middle two I’ll just touch on briefly, as they are rather wordy explanations of some pretty simple concepts.

First, let’s look at the general case, Self Defense in Self Protection, excerpted below

The statute reads:
“The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.”

In other words, self defense is the right of a person to defend against any unlawful force. Self defense is also the right of a person to defend against seriously threatened unlawful force that is actually pending or reasonably anticipated. When a person is in imminent danger of bodily harm, the person has the right to use force or even deadly force when that force is necessary to prevent the use against him/her of unlawful force. The force used by the defendant must not be significantly greater than and must be proportionate to the unlawful force threatened or used against the defendant.

The use of deadly force may be justified only to defend against force or the threat of force of nearly equal severity and is not justifiable unless the defendant reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself/herself against death or serious bodily harm. Deadly force is defined as force that the defendant uses with the purpose of causing or which he/she knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. By serious bodily harm we mean an injury that creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement or which causes a protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
For example, if one were to purposely fire a firearm in the direction of another person, that would be an example of deadly force. A mere threat with a firearm, however, intended only to make the victim of the threat believe that the defendant will use the firearm if necessary is not an example of deadly force.

A reasonable belief is one which would be held by a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence situated as this defendant was.

Even if you find that the use of deadly force was reasonable, there are limitations on the use of deadly force. If you find that the defendant, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm to another person, provoked or incited the use of force against himself/herself in the same encounter, then the defense is not available to him/her.

If you find that the defendant knew that he/she could avoid the necessity of using deadly force by retreating, provided that the defendant knew he/she could do so with complete safety, then the defense is not available to him/her

So we have a proportionality requirement in NJ – you can’t use deadly force except in reasonable belief that such force is necessary and (for lack of a better word) proper. My problem with this is that the average person does not really believe that an unarmed attack may “create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm.” See, e.g, the Zimmerman “trial-by-press” or pretty much any self-defense incident where the attacker was unarmed. I don’t see this changing any time soon, either.

The really scary thing, from the point of view of use of deadly force in self-defense is the second highlighted passage. This one requires that the defender be a mind-reader, and be able to distinguish in the heat of the moment whether someone who offers a threat of violence is sincere about it or not, or is merely trying to scare the defender. I about fell out of the jury box when I heard that part of the instruction; as the judge made it clear that a mere threat was not sufficient. I am given to understand this is outside the mainstream of US law on self-defense, but I’ve not made any more than a cursory study of non-NJ law. So, in NJ it would appear you have to let them shoot/stab/swing first if you wish to use deadly force in self-defense (in public, anyway, see below). UPDATE: Mike, below, points out that the sentence actually refers to the defendant, meaning that the jury instructions say that you threaten to shoot someone as part of your self-defense, that is not considered use of deadly force. Since you can use force to defend yourself against the threat of force, it would appear that in the face of a threat of deadly force you may actually respond with use of deadly force. In theory, anyway.

Finally, there is a duty to retreat (with the apparently usual “in complete safety” caveat) prior to the use of deadly force (but not, apparently, prior to the use of force).

In all cases,

The State has the burden to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense of self defense is untrue.

Which is something, I guess.

Use for force in protection of others is basically the same as using force in defense of yourself:

… the use of force upon or toward that person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:
(1) The actor would be justified … in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect and
(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
(3) The actor reasonably believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

Interestingly enough, the defendant’s knowledge of the situation, not the actual facts of the situation, apply

In applying this test [of reasonable belief] you are instructed to disregard any finding that the person in whose behalf (defendant) intervened was in fact the aggressor or that no defensive measures on his/her behalf were actually necessary, but you may consider everything defendant knew when he/she acted, including these same factors if you find that he/she knew them.

The rest of the instruction basically summarizes the duties and rights incumbent on the use of force on one’s own behalf, and would appear to be intended for use with the appropriate jury instruction for those cases.

Use of force in defense of personal property – you basically can’t use deadly force at all, and use of non-deadly force is limited in several ways. Since this is a firearms rights blog, and since actual use of a firearm is deadly force (and brandishing one without intent is unwise), I’ll give it a pass.

Use of force on an intruder is an exception to the general rule requiring retreat, and there is no direct mention of proportionality; though the instructions do not specifically disclaim proportionality. However the conditions under which a defendant is justified in using force include refusal of an intruder to disarm, surrender, or withdraw.

Under certain conditions, the law allows a person to use force upon another, and the use of such force does not constitute a criminal offense. The law exonerates a defendant who uses force (or deadly force) upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling when the defendant reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself/herself or other person(s) in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion.

For the force used by the defendant against another to be justified, the following two conditions must exist:
1. The other person (victim) was an intruder who was unlawfully in a dwelling.  An intruder is one who is unlawfully in the dwelling–that is, he/she was not licensed or privileged to be in the dwelling. The term “dwelling” means any building or structure, though movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is used as a person’s home or place of lodging. (A dwelling includes a “porch or other similar appurtenance.”)
2. The defendant reasonably believed that force (deadly force) was immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself/herself or other person(s) in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion.
A reasonable belief exists when a defendant, to protect himself/herself or a third person, was in his/her own dwelling at the time of the offense or was privileged to be thereon, and the encounter between the defendant and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the defendant to act instantly, and the defendant reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the defendant or others in the dwelling, or the defendant demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so.

If the defendant did employ protective force, he/she has the right to estimate the necessity of using force without retreating, surrendering position, withdrawing or doing any other act which he/she has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

Now, absence of evidence is not necessarily absence of evidence, but the two highlighted sections suggest that the normal rules of proportionality of force are suspended. This is definitely someplace I’d like actual legal advice on, though; but I’m not going to pay Mr. Nappen’s consulting rate to get an answer to, or buy his out-of-print book at over $100 to answer, at least not today. This eventuality was brushed over by the judge in the case I sat on the jury on (he did mention it, though, despite there being no chance of the defendants using this defense), possibly out of a sense of completeness.

Anyway, the state of jury instructions covering the use of force in NJ suggest that it’s not really a good idea if you have any alternatives, but it is an alternative in extremis.

The management is responsible

I regret that I was not able to fully participate in the discussion that my last post engendered; but a family vacation out of country intervened. But I’m back now, so I can address a couple of points that came up.

First, of course, I don’t believe that the usual business owner should discriminate against the usual firearms bearer, either as a visitor or employee (except as far as dress code; don’t open carry a white rifle after labor day, don’t open carry at people, &c); at least not as a matter of course. There are circumstances where certain specific areas of a business might be off-limits to carriage of firearms; you don’t necessarily want to allow large chunks of ferrous metal into the MRI room, or non-instrinically-safe items into a place with a volatile atmosphere, for example. Not to mention tightly-secured aras such as prisons, mental hostpitals, or certain areas of courthouses. However, I am also somewhat leery of using the blunt force of law to enforce this societal norm against private property owners. In this case, while I’m not unaware of the civil rights aspect, it’s not a free-for-all, either. Regardless of your right to free speech, a private property owner may ask you to leave if you exercise it in certain ways, for example; or if you are an employee your free speech rights may be quite sharply curtailed while on the property or on the clock.

However, I chose the title of the last post and this one to highlight that my suggestion is to change the “default” assumptions. Today, the “no guns” sign functions against lawyers as a bunch of garlic does against vampires; as a mythical ward against their depredations. The suit in Colorado aims to change this assumption, but not particularly in a way that the supporters of the RKBA should be happy about; the plaintiffs claim that the theater chain should have had more security, not that they should not have posted, and that the theater should be on the hook for compensating the victims and families.

In a better legal regime, the property owner might be excepted to take basic and minimal security precautions, such as ensuring any exterior lighting is in proper order, just as they should ensure that the parking lot does not have any sinkholes, &c. When it comes to controlling access to the property by possessors of weapons, thought, they can have a choice. On the one hand, that if a property owner does not prohibit firearms to the people who are inclined to observe such a restriction, they should be immunized (a la the Protection of Commerce in Lawful Firearms acts immunization of retails and manufacturers of firearms, as a very off-the-cuff suggestion). But, on the other hand, that if the property owner does post, they should be required by law and custom to make a serious effort to ensure that all visitors are protected. IE, that a secure perimeter be established, at the boundaries the visitors be given the opportunity to safely and securely disarm and stow their weapons and later safely and securely recover and rearm, and that the property owner be potentially liable in civil (and if appropriate, criminal) court for malicious acts perpetrated against visitors (and employees), not to mention the secured weapons.

This is something that could and should be codified in law, that if a business owner wishes to declare part or all of their property a “weapons-free” zone, they must make a sincere and thorough effort to ensure that it remains as such. In theory, I suppose the courts could force the issue, but in practice I don’t think they will, at least not in a manner we would recognize as supportive of the general RKBA.

« Previous Entries

top