Quote:
|
Originally Posted by f5fstop
Most states have a clause in their self-defense laws in regard to "disparity of force" that allows a legally armed person (some states allow an illegally armed person), to use a weapon if they are attacked by a number of people even if they are not carrying weapons.
All the person has to do is reasonably fear for their life. Well, if twenty people run up to your vehicle and attempt to drag you outside, then exercising your rights is totally legal. (In other words, shoot five, the rest will run like hell, or pull out their own weapons.) You can easily consider it a carjacking, and if one of those thugs is armed, then it can be a Federal offense.
|
I think most states don't require you to be attacked at all. As you say, you need only reasonably fear for your life. There are countless scenarios where you would do so even if the opponent had not (or not yet) demonstrated that he had a weapon or begun an attack. You can use an incremental approach if you have the luxury in a given circumstance of drawing before you fire. It is even more easy to justify merely drawing a weapon when confronted with a percieved threat. Once you get to that point, it's harder to screw up legally. If the threat continues to approach (or otherwise threaten), at that point, you must fire. Otherwise, you risk that they will surely soon be armed - with your weapon.