If there are ANY states where that IS sufficient, please let me know so I can move!!
In Arizona, for instance, you may threaten or used deadly force in the following cases:
- If a reasonable person would consider his life in immediate danger
- To stop a rape or attack on another (where a reasonable person would consider the life of the other in immediate danger, including a LEO down and in danger)
- To stop a 1st degree burglary (burglary of an occupied property): threaten only
The following indicates that you did NOT think your life was in immediate danger:
- Your experience or capabilities were such that you had a reasonable expectation of handling the situation without resorting to deadly force (opponent assessment, martial arts training, etc.)
- Shooting from too great a distance (you had other options, like running)
- You shoot to wound (enough time to consider specific target, so immediacy is reduced: He or his family can and will get serious money from you)
Here is what I'm getting at: You see that 4 guys are loading your scoot into a truck with a 5th guy driving. If you did not have a gun, you would never do anything but yell from a distance allowing you to escape. However, you run right in with gun drawn, and wound one and kill another, and the other 3 got away.
LEO arrives at the scene. Once you are allowed to get up off of the ground, after having been disarmed, you describe what happened. You are arrested. The reason, is that you used deadly force, when it was not justified.
"But, I believed my life was in danger".
"Did any of these guys pull a weapon of any kind?"
"No. But there was so many I was sure if I did not shoot, I was going to be killed."
"Then, why did you engage them instead of keeping your distance and calling us?"
"They were stealing my bike"
"So, you did not think your life was in danger when you engaged them?"
"I guess I didn't think of it like that. I just wanted them to stop stealing my bike"
"Sir, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning. Do you understand these rights as I have stated them to you?"
"Yes, but..."
"Sir, please turn around and put your hands on your head." Now you can look forward to 3 years of your life and a minimum of $150,000, and that is just in self defense and other possible litigation.
...First, you have said too much, without the benefit of counsel. Maybe enough to put you in serious muck. 2nd, Even without your "explanation", you will have a terrible time justifying the threatening of deadly force, much less using it. 3rd, you will have to live with what you have done for the rest of your life, justified in your own mind or not.
I'm not judging. I never go anywhere without my Glock, but it is definitely not a "get out of any trouble free card." Don't carry if you have not fully considered the ins and outs of using it, and the willingness to use it and live with the consequences. You have to know when you can and when you can't, and if you can't you better not. Also, warning shots are absolutely futile and ineffective (don't ask me how I know).
I'm just sayin'...
Enjoy,
Rich P