First: The only sure way to win in a violent confrontation is to avoid the confrontation altogether.Second: A gun is a tool of Last Resort. It is not to be used to resolve petty arguments etc, it is only to protect innocent life that is in imminent and immediate jeapody.When can I shoot in Self-Defense?As defensive pistol Instructor, an NRA Training Counselor and a personal protection instructor I get this question all the time from my students. The answer is not as clear cut as many would think and greatly differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. So I will try to answer this as best I can that may keep you out of trouble and out of jail. Most States, even the most anti-guns states out there allow you to protect your life and the life of your loved ones when it is justified. The question is not if you have authority to defend your life or authority to shoot, the real question is will the local DA or Attorney going to think your actions were justified by using the reasonable person test. He will ask himself if he will be able to convince 12 reasonable people (the jury) that your actions were not justified and will he be able to convince those same 12 people that you acted recklessly or that your actions were excessive or unnecessary?Yeah, I know; not as easy to answer as one would think since most juries are made up of people with varying opinions, especially about guns. When it comes to juries and trials either criminal or civil nothing is guaranteed. So what does one need to know when carrying a gun for personal protection?There are four elements to a legitimate self defense shooting and they must all be present simultaneously in order for you to be some-what confident that the DA will not press criminal charges against you. (Although nothing can guarantee that they won't.)They are:AbilityOpportunityManifest IntentPreclusionLet me explain each one and how they apply.Ability - Your attacker must have the ability to seriously injure you (a loved one or innocent person). This usually is in the form of a weapon of some sort but can also be a person with no weapon at all. Not all attackers need weapons to inflict serious bodily injury. Keep in mind that threats alone does not mean the attacker has the ability to injure you. For example, someone in a wheel chair might not be able to carry out a threat unless they have a gun because you could simply out run them, whereas a martial arts expert with no weapon can certain inflict harm. Every situation is different and you have to make these decisions most of the time in a split second. Ask yourself, does he have the ability to cause me serious injury.Opportunity - At the same time, your attacker has to have the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm. Where a firearm is usually considered deadly at almost any range, someone with a knife 25 yards away would not be considered to be an immediate threat because of distance. Effective range is a very important factor in opportunity and remember to ask yourself does this attacker pose an "immediate threat"? Is he so far away that I could simply retreat safely, run away, get into my vehicle and drive off? These are all questions the DA is going to ask himself in the decision process of whether to bring criminal charges against you.Manifest Intent (or Imminent Jeopardy) - You are in "imminent jeopardy" when the attacker indicates, by verbalization or his actions, that it is his intention to kill or seriously injure you, and that he intends to do so now. However, in many cases the attacker may not verbalize that he intends to cause you serious bodily harm, intent of course is a mental process and many times it is how you perceive the actions of your attacker that gives you cause to act in self defense. How do you know he intends to kill you if he doesn't tell you? Remember the 12 reasonable people we talked about.... Based on the how the attacker was acting, his actions etc... would those 12 people conclude based on his actions that he intended to cause you serious bodily injury - "Perception is everything in this case". If you have reasonable grounds for believing his intentions are to kill you then you are probably justified in using lethal force to protect yourself. Also, remember that this would include circumstances where the attacker's weapon turns out to be fake, unloaded etc since you had no reason to believe that it wasn't, and sometimes a situation arises when a person is acting recklessly with no specific intent to kill you but you could most certainly end up with serious bodily injury or death as a result of his actions. Remember intent is a thought process and is very hard to prove, but if you had reasonable belief of the perceived threat it may be enough to justify your self-defense actions. Preclusion - Preclusion, simply means that you had no other options available to you and you had to shoot to protect your life and that ALL other options were considered and precluded. The 12 reasonable people on the jury must be persuaded that, under the circumstances, you had no logical or reasonable alternative but to use deadly force to defend yourself. Remember it is good if the jury perceives your actions as restrained, reasonable and agree that you used every reasonable effort to abate the situation. Keep in mind that some states have "mandatory retreat laws" so you need to know the laws in your State and jurisdiction. Generally, mandatory retreat laws apply to every situation, except when the victim is in his own home.In MOST cases you must not be the initial aggressor. If you started an argument with someone and it turned ugly, or someone started in on you and then retreated but you then went after them, your actions as the initial aggressor or continued aggressor just might land you in jail even if all 4 items above were present or not. You must be the innocent party in almost all cases. The decision to use deadly force always hinges upon a balance of two opposing factors: risk exposure and restraint.The outcome of criminal or civil court proceedings is often determined not so much by how the law is written, but who can persuade the 12 reasonable people to be sympathetic to their side, and preclusion is often the magic ingredient to acquit you. Juries are sometimes not so reasonable as each side will try to select jury members sympathetic to their side.The Force on Force ContinuumWhoa, what is that? The Force on Force Continuum is a standard that provides law enforcement officials & security officers (such as police officers, probation officers, or corrections officers etc.) with guidelines as to how much force may be used against a resisting subject in a given situation. The purpose of these models is to clarify, both for officers and citizens, the complex subject of use of force. Simply put it all deals with the escalation of force that a reasonable person can apply in any given situation and again is a factor in your decision making process.The continuum of force progresses from verbal orders, through physical restraint, non-lethal force such as pepper sprays, tazers etc, up to, and in some cases, lethal force. The general rule for application of force is that only necessary force may be used. When force is applied by an individual (for example, to protect life, or property), the force permissible is only that which is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances.When a level of force beyond verbal commands is used, you are accountable for the degree of force applied. You are usually legally allowed to use an equal level of force that your attacker is using to protect yourself or others or to end the encounter. In the case of lethal force, other levels of force must have been attempted first unless lethal force is the only way to minimize loss of life or prevent serious injury.For example, you're in a bar having drinks with your special lady when a male gentleman comes to your table and begins to harass your lady friend. You tell the guy to beat it and he immediately starts to verbally threaten you, so you draw your firearm and shoot him. This of course would be considered excessive use of force. Having an unbalanced use of force can and will land you in jail since you can only apply the amount of force that is necessary and reasonable to control the situation.In another example, let's say you showed restraint and told the guy to get lost and he then left the scene as you requested, but an hour later you're walking home from the bar, and that same individual jumps out from the shadows and surprises you, you notice he has a knife or what appears to be a knife and he is screaming he is going to kill you..... in this case you would be justified in using your firearm in self defense since you can use equal force on your attacker, he appears to have a deadly weapon and also has the ability, the opportunity and has stated verbally his intent to kill you. You now use your firearm to defend your life, because you have determined there is no way to retreat safely and there is no time to use or consider other options, you may have a justifiable defensive shooting. Notice I said may have.... Nothing in this game is guaranteed, I have seen jury trials go very wrong very fast and this can happen even if you think you are the one in the right. Most likely that wouldn't happen if the evidence and witness statements support the evidence, but I need to keep you always thinking about, what if?Disparity of ForceDeadly force cannot be used unless the victim is in fear of grave bodily injury or death. This usually requires the presence of a weapon. However, sometimes a significant disparity in the strength or fighting ability between the parties is accepted as a substitute weapon. Examples: A man against a woman, A martial arts expert against a normal man. These and other disparities are considered in law, however there are no steadfast guidelines. A 250 pound man vs. a 150 pound man would usually be considered no dispar
