Can I Shoot An Attacker If They Don't Have a Weapon?

[@USCCAOfficial]

COMMENT BELOW: What other scenarios do you want Kevin and Tom to break down?

[@davidjkuchar]

Someone swings at you.....

[@nateand3]

Road rage. For instance someone gets pissed off at you and constantly, for miles, tries to make you rear end them. You're doing your best to keep as much distance as possible, but he's determined to make a fight. Say you eventually get caught up in the same traffic jam and he exits his vehicle and comes towards yours. At what point are you justified to defend yourself? When he busts your window? Or when he's dragging you out of your car through broken glass? I've encountered so many people who are high as on whatever it is that they're on and they're angry and psychotic and I know they probably can't feel anything. How many of my own knuckles do I have to break on him before I use deadly force?

[@douglaswithrow7341]

What if you are physically disabled with chronic illnesses to where you can't run or fight do you have that obligation to use your weapon to save yourself against someone who was threatening to do some harm to you.

[@Fight4freedom.]

All these people have valid points here ! USCCA needs more info to us law abiding citizens on these issues and circumstances scenarios

[@JJoker69]

I have several damaged disc's in my neck and back from a drunk driver, risking being severely injured or paralyzed, where is the line drawn for me to defend myself against a violent encounter using a firearm?

[@AMX86]

Any attack will cause great bodily harm, you don't know until you're maimed or dead. Stopping any attack is essential, especially when the attacker is bigger, stronger or multiple attackers.

[@thickseed]

*can cause

[@MrAlucard7]

@@thickseed Yes, I agree. But it's safe to assume great bodily harm in any altercation, in my opinion. Because we are human and are very kill-able and prone to accidents even in a friendly scuffle. That doesn't mean apply deadly force, of course, for situationdictates. But the variable that needs to be focused on is "being attacked", and "by what and/or whom," I believe. So yes, "can cause" depending on the situation and variables.

[@marka.clarkii9764]

@@nadinerome2154 So true, i feel too much focus is being placed on Deadly Force. I feel that if I have a gun and someone attacks me that doesn't, i can at least shoot the attacker in the arm or leg to stop the threat. Do you agree? What are the laws on just that. ?

[@MrAlucard7]

@@marka.clarkii9764 Yeeeaah, no. There are large arteries in the legs (and arms I believe) that could cause one to bleed out in secondsif not minutes (so that would be pointless), and both arms and legs are small, (most likely) moving targets. Unless, you're at point blank range or extremely good at getting rounds to where you want them to go, then you'd definitely want to aim center mass. It's a larger target, and leaves less room for error/missing. I mean, if ye want them to suffer whilst bleeding out, or have the possibilities of missing increase then go for the legs, but eh that's not me preference.

[@marka.clarkii9764]

@@nadinerome2154 You are very wise Nadine, I am listening closely to your wise words. Your right, if your going to draw its already serious. Im still learning, learning something new everyday. Please continue to train and stay educated and I will do the same. Please be safe out there.

[@jp2578]

Laws need to be adjusted to be more in favor of law abiding citizens that come under attack!

[@IVANHOECHAPUT]

I totally agree! There are laws today that favor the criminal and look the other way for the innocent person who was attacked.

[@lcee6592]

You mean like how they favor blm and antifa? And how parents are labeled domestic terrorists now for protesting the indoctrination in schools?

[@IVANHOECHAPUT]

@@lcee6592 Yep!

[@mr.riposte2280]

Well criminals are law abiding citizens, they have to obey/know the law in order to break it

[@dangeloabdul-thestar8439]

Yeah bc he’s making it to where law abiding citizens are at a disadvantage if im a 5’6 & my weight class is 135 i cant afford to be grappled at all depending on whos trying to take me down at that point when i start to wrestle it probably will be too late . I think the ppl making these laws need to try fighting or wrestling someone 100 pounds heavier than u bc this makes no sense

[@robertr.beauchamp453]

I’ll never forget the prosecutor in Rittenhouse arguing that “sometimes you just have to take a beating.”

[@alexm566]

the only acceptable context for that if the attacker was a 4 yo girl and you're atleast 3 times her weight and age

[@birddog7492]

This also made me think of Rittenhouse. What a political mess the prosecutor made of that. Thank God for all the video evidence in that case.

[@bruh-so8vp]

that prosecutor has never even SEEN a fight. Fights end up permanent brain damage, or death. Even in a semi controlled setting like an MMA ring, people every year die or are left with permanent injuries.

[@TetraSamurai]

If I have a weapon on me, I am not going to let an attacker get close to me and beat me. For one, They could start kicking my head in and trying to kill me, way to late for me to draw my firearm. Number 2, that attacker could take my gun and use it against me. Now I never believed in instigating fist fights when carrying a gun, but If i have a gun and that attacker is chasing me trying to beat me, I will be pulling my gun

[@Jeff_Guapo]

Rittenhouse literally crossed state lines with a weapon to go to a location that wasn’t his home he didn’t have to be there. Not saying I agree with taking a beating but he literally went looking for trouble looking at all facts.

[@Cornish_Co]

If I am at the point that I'm going to lose control/possession of my firearm to an attacker, I draw the line. Would the attacker draw a line at shooting an unarmed victim? I assume not.

[@drjonesey5]

Nope, they'd shoot, stab, stomp, bite, scratch, gouge you with not a care in the world. In every single instance of Self defense the citizen who is minding his or her own business not doing anything illegal is the one that has to always worry about the law, not the law breaker. Has nobody noticed this? and if they have, has anyone noticed how politics and social ideas ALWAYS favor the criminal? It's pure idiocy.

[@macker007]

That’s my thought, loose your gun your as good as dead.

[@lilx1652]

Yea I wish we had a better law system be it seems to me I’m suppose to let whatever is a threat harm me n not use my firearm according to the law which as stupid considering I didn’t buy it for no reason

[@peterlopez9403]

We are never in favor ..in self defense ..but l live in arizona ..we have a right to carry here ..with or without a permit ..

[@Mamba503]

Exactly this. Imminent compromise of your weapon is grounds for lethal force

[@dreamking893]

My brother has life long health issues due to being assaulted by an unarmed attacker. I seen and experienced first hand at what an unarmed attacker can do. I'm not about to let myself become a victim as well.

[@johnj8514]

jI agree. I will do everything i can to de escalate a situation including trying to leave. If all fails, sometimes you just have to do what you have to do. Think outside the box. I admit, i LOOK for trouble.......in attempt to avoid it. I'm not a people person to begin with, which makes it much easier for me. Like most, i despise a bully and have zero empathy for one.

[@dylanandrew1122]

3 weeks ago I was attacked and thought I was going to die. Arming myself is 10 times better than not waking up

[@dylanandrew1122]

@You Tube unarmed attackers can take lives and the law should be changed.

[@dylanandrew1122]

@You Tube what are you doing to change stuff? It's easy to point the finger. Don't be that person. There is no need to fight with the civilians that fall victim to the system we were born into.

[@dylanandrew1122]

@You Tube also the only ones that can change the system and the laws are us. We the people. Social media is a platform for the people to unite and talk. No one person will fix what thousand worked to curopt. It sounds to me like your are just as desperate as the rest of us for some change. I think we all are.

[@timkeenan7419]

If an attacker didn't want to get shot, he should probably not be an attacker

[@timb8970]

it's not "almost" a political issue. It is a political issue.

EXACTLY👍

[@triclopsgamer5934]

The guy is a lawyer. He has to be careful about what he says. But I agree with you. It has become a political issue.

[@whydotheathensrage]

indeed, that's all it is.

[@whiteroseamericana7161]

It is NOT political, but legal. Having a gun on your hand is actually unfavorable to you in the court, especially when the "alleged" attacker is smaller, weaker, looking innocent, unarmed, with no criminal record.

[@triclopsgamer5934]

@@whiteroseamericana7161 The bigger victim card is all that matters in court.

[@stewartbeckman7909]

I was fortunate to receive my ccw lc. training from the man who actually provided firearms training to the states police academies. He had also been a Sargent Major in the Marine Corp. His opening statement to the class was, "one of the things left wing liberals hope you never find out is that 10 times more people are bludgeoned to death with hands and feet than are shot by guns." And then he said, "for those that don't understand what bludgeoned mean, it means they were beaten to death". Anyone that believes that anyone at any time is unarmed is either a fool or a liar with an agenda.

[@BloodGrooveKnives]

This needs a verifiable statistic and needs to be publicized nationwide.

[@tinicoleofficial]

Libs DEFINITELY don’t wanna look up & talk about those statistics.

[@neutrino78x]

So if you admit most attackers don't have firearms, why would you need one yourself? Just learn how to defend yourself without one. It's not that hard. Even western boxing and western wrestling would do the trick, although I would suggest real martial arts (Karate, Kung Fu, ITF Taekwondo, etc.).

[@HR-ms6ed]

@@neutrino78x tell that to a 50 60 year old adult being attack by someone half there age

[@neutrino78x]

@@HR-ms6ed "tell that to a 50 60 year old adult being attack by someone half there age " Still don't need a gun. Fighting isn't about strength if you're doing it right. And no, I'm not a master. Just a guy who has had to use ITF Taekwondo in real life self defense situations against larger people, and it worked. I'm 46, I don't carry a gun and don't need a gun.

[@joningram4187]

The main thing I've always pondered is fairly straight forward. If I'm carrying concealed and someone assaults me, I'm thinking, "what if they get my gun and use it on me?" With that said, if I'm carrying, any forceful physical assault warrants me drawing the weapon. If the attacker continues to pursue and I cannot escape, lethal force is warranted, imho.

[@YasselAlvarez33157]

This is my concern as well

[@Zoco101]

I think you're slightly off here. Drawing your gun because somebody (who is unarmed) might go for it (in your opinion) puts you in a very dangerous gray area. Much better is to carry another tool as well, such as OC spray so you can leave the gun holstered until you're sure you need it. Also, if your gun is well hidden, the perp shouldn't see it. And if you move to Texas, I hope you will not consider open-carry.

[@dynjarren5454]

​@@Zoco101 not in a place where the defender is also protected by a stand your ground law. It essentially says I do not have to retreat from any would be attacker and a simple gesture to pull my weapon does not mean I have brandished it or would use it. I was cleared of any wrong doing using this to distract a large man from assaulting my sister

[@Zoco101]

@@dynjarren5454 Thank you for explaining some of this, but can you tell me what happens if he ignores the gun, and punches you or your sister? Are you allowed to shoot him? If not, you have put yourself in a bad position, because now he might take that gun before you realise that this is his intention. Or if you may shoot him, does this also apply while protecting a stranger in the street? I'd hate to have to decide whether to shoot an unarmed man with such tight margins for time and distance (probably with the backdrop changing constantly) and I'd prefer to use an intermediate tool such as OC.

[@efirce]

Your question is very valid one, look at officers who weapons' were taken from them many were shot with there very own gun. I think you answered your question.

[@musicman1eanda]

As a fairly small man (5ft 6, 125lbs) I've always pondered this question. When you watch videos of people getting attacked, sometimes they're knocked out cold after one good punch or kick, leaving them at the complete mercy of the attacker. How could that not add in to reasonable fear of losing your life from an unarmed person, especially when there is a physical disparity?

[@stephen4763]

Great point

[@pizzasmithdude]

Agreed, also why it's a great idea to learn as much situational awareness as possible, it's never a bad idea to look over your shoulder from time to time when you're out and about. Also never a bad idea to have tools that are stronger than you or a potential threat and know how to use them. Stay calm, stay alive

[@g.hoosier1826]

If you are 1foot tall you can kill and be killed. Fear can do a lot of things and not necessarily good. The officer found not guilty in the breonna/Kentucky shooting. Did you see the bullets he shot according to the FBI. He was shooting back at fellow officers. He said he shot 3 times at mussel flash area. I would not want that "young lady" (joking) as my partner. Fear cannot be implied...I think I was afraid or he/she seemed like they were 20 feet tall.

[@Road_Work_Ahead]

Right there with ya. 5'8 and 140 I'm almost always smaller than the men around me. I think about this often from a defensive perspective. If I'm attacked, it's safe to assume the guy twice my size poses a serious threat to me. Will my OC spray stop him? Would I be justified in pulling my knife and stabbing him? What if he takes my knife and uses it on me? Should I not risk it and just shoot him as soon as I know the attack is imminent or is already in progress? One good punch could knock anyone out cold. What if they don't stop attacking and kill, paralyze or cause permanent damage to me? I've come to the conclusion that I'll trust my instinct and use the tool I feel is most likely to stop the threat up to and including a gun. Of course deescalation is the first tactic anyone should use. Not all but most conflicts can be avoided by putting your ego in check and letting them win the arguement or whatever, even if they're wrong.

[@rhuulu110]

@@Road_Work_Ahead Im in same boat but alittle worse haha im 5'4 140lbs with a genetic form of lung disease and a nervous system disorder that causes fainting when I get excited for any reason anger,laughter etc...so walking to the mailbox winds me so in a fight if I managed to not pass out I might be able to struggle poorly for 15 seconds.

[@champy1210]

Stop asking permission to defend yourself. The only question is this: *“Must* I do this to prevent harm to myself or others?” Period.

[@peterlopez9403]

Yes that's true

[@bandito_dino]

Then face significant prison time and a lifetime felony? I’m good, stick to pepper spray if you have an unarmed attacker.

[@bandito_dino]

@@davehart7943 my opinion, if it’s effective enough for a police arsenal, then it should be perfect for you! I had to pepper spray a meth head one time, and I’ll just say that it worked, very effectively. I’d recommend anyone carrying a firearm to also carry pepper spray along with a pocket knife. No such thing as too safe and being prepared for any attack force increases survivability.

[@erikgilreath3305]

@@bandito_dino That's a good idea!!! I'll get me some pepper spray, already have the others.

[@erikgilreath3305]

Agreed 💯

[@nsboost]

This is ridiculous… if someone advances or attacks a person with intent to cause any bodily harm, they have forfeited their life. I don’t attack people. And if I were to move on someone I would fully expect them to defend themselves as if their life was being threatened. A law abiding citizen shouldn’t have to fear the government over defending themselves.

[@voodooreptiles3553]

If they attack you and are unarmed you better be sure, because a shooting is gonna get you put in prison or at the least cost you upwards off 100k in court.

[@edgarcruzsr9695]

Talking about ears..how about EYES???

[@mogwaiwarrior1823]

Amen.

[@frank68x]

Exactly. If someone attacks you physically, you have NO IDEA what's about to happen. Even a big man can be knocked out by a good shot from a smaller person, then if your head hits the ground or another object in the wrong way, that can spell death. And that's just one example.

[@Zoco101]

@@frank68x There is no such thing as perfect safety (from humans) unless you wipe out all the other humans. Self defence should be reasonable - not shooting everything that moves. Just to present an extreme scenario that opens a crack in your argument: It really does look bad if a giant shoots an unarmed dwarf.

[@raymondherbst7126]

You hit the nail on the head… it has become a “political issue”, a gender or race issue as well as the media influencing the trial.

[@kirbyroad5743]

I'm too old to fight, and too crippled to run so it's my only option.

[@kayakdan48]

Same here...with arthritis even walking fast to avoid/escape is not an option any more...

[@erc1971erc1971]

I hear you. my feet, knees, lower back and neck are all in bad shape. Even your average man could easily cause me great bodily harm if he was unarmed.

[@MonochromaticBlues]

I don’t blame you I wish everyone can just be safe …except the attackers

[@SkinnyboyyKharree]

That Part

[@ryanhale4116]

In short, bad guy gets to decide the level of seriousness and can escalate at any time while we have to determine their intentions and danger level and act responsibly

[@baddrandy]

The law is broken and worthless. Those that practice and enforce it should be ashamed of themselves! The fist is a deadly weapon the threat of using them is a deadly threat. If u put your hands on someone they don’t know what your capable of and should be given the benefit of the doubt. The initial aggresssor should always be held accountable! The law is full of double standards and is useless!

[@kurtschmidt5005]

I agree! The law is unjust.

[@Apocalypse_Cow]

In CT the law is against the person that has a legal right to carry a pistol. If you shoot a rapist raping you or your wife, you will be arrested for shooting/killing the rapist.

[@duaner.962]

Law enforcement has their hands tied.

[@baddrandy]

The people’s hands are tied.as much as police are needed they will not be there to “defend” u when the felon is threatening bodily harm and or death! Those two things are perceived in the moment! The citizens should be free to defend themselves. Th law is in the way! It broken and no longer serves the law abiding citizens.

[@rkow8508]

@@Apocalypse_Cow In CT doesn't surprise me.

[@blackhawkinternationalsecu6962]

As a former Deputy, politics factor in more than most might think. Hope you NEVER have a self defense shooting in an DA's election year.

[@red9man2130]

Unfortunately THAT is largely true, However I,d qualify that by saying the Politics of the area/region matters more Example if the area is "Liberal" or Democrat. Here in North Central Florida it becomes a disparity of force issue. I always tell people to have a less than lethal option like an impact device or pepper spray.

[@shrimuyopa8117]

Agreed.

[@blackhawkinternationalsecu6962]

@@red9man2130 Absolutely. You definitely need something between hard hand and lethal force. OC covers that well. Here in NC an impact weapon is the same as using a firearm. You can get charged with "Assault with a Deadly weapon" by using either baton or firearm. But also additional can be added, "...inflecting serious injury" and/or "...with intent to kill." In a liberal area you'll get charged every time regardless of elections years.

[@Valorius]

Or a blue county. Or in a blue state.

[@Valorius]

@@red9man2130 EVERYONE who carries a gun should carry pepper spray.

[@David-qf9gp]

My CWC instructor stressed Situational Awareness, being aware of what's going on around you, and if possible exit before the trouble begins. Obviously that does not cover every situation, but will help avoid a dangerous situation if you have that option.

[@alexs4934]

That’s good advice. The best way to win a fight is to avoid it.

[@lyfandeth]

And these days a bite, mixing blood and saliva (both level 2 biohazards at a minimum) can be considered an attack with a deadly weapon.

[@RESTORED_REPUBLIQ]

Thats political 😂😂

[@sealofakatosh]

But also I think in a self defense situation as a civilian if I’m minding my own business and if someone knowingly does something that could get themselves killed then they shouldn’t do it in the first place

[@iwkaoy8758]

Driving ken get you killed

[@foxdaledigital]

Remember the knock-out game in Chicago? All it takes is one punch in the right place to knock you out. You fall, head hits pavement - coma or death...laws need to be changed...

[@HardcoreFourSix]

In a just world ruled by common sense, the aggressor waives his right to safety/life by initiating the attack. We need to instill that principle back into our laws (criminal and civil).

[@natural_skeptic9685]

The perpetrator, though, is not at fault, though. He's just a dope head misunderstood victim of an impoverished community of color who was never given his rightful wealth and status.

[@rodneycaupp5962]

Tell the Moderators about your Thoughts... They always seem confused, and very leftist, controlling, threatening of isolation from the public. Go tell it on the Mountain Tell the truth about what happens when they show up in your face with violent intent, for no reason. AMERICA .......2023

[@neutrino78x]

"the aggressor waives his right to safety/life by initiating the attack. We need to instill that principle back into our laws (criminal and civil)." That was never the law, my friend. That's not how it works.

[@saxmusicmail]

The most insane thing I've ever heard is a judge stating that if the assailant has a club, the victim is not allowed to use anything more than a club. And if the assailant has a knife, the victim can't use anything more deadly than a knife. And if the assailant has a gun... etc. Well, excuse me, but when an assailant attacks most people don't have the luxury of carrying around a club, a knife, a gun, just in case he needs to select the judge's appropriate response.

[@AtomicMan45]

I lived in Nebraska for a while and that is the actual law in that state(or was at the time).I always thought that expecting a 120 pound 60 year old to get in knife fight with a 250 pound 20 year old was insane, definitely not what I would call a fair fight.

[@andrewbetances1203]

That's how it is in France currently I think

[@fredrickcarbery2147]

Police will.take away YOUR BAT

[@kevinmalone3210]

Those are liberal opinions, and they make liberal laws based on them. The real world is much different.

[@USALibertarian]

All of those are deadly force which is why deadly force in defense is justified.

[@ulrichvonstomp6031]

As an elderly person I can not hope to match a younger more physically fit assailant in physical combat. Do I just let them kill me? Hell No! Nuff said!

[@bantau88]

My grandfather was pistol whipped in SW Philly. Wish he a pistol and the reflexes. Excellent information. Thank you

[@williamsporing1500]

Exactly…I’m old too. My fighting days were decades ago.

[@FlaThunderstorm]

Ulrich Von Stomp The old tried statement "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". Kind of sums it up.

[@michaelbarry8373]

I think you have to ask him if his intent is to kill. If "yes" then you may shoot.

[@billp4]

@@FlaThunderstorm Getting poked by 2-3 Bubbas has to factor in also, however.

[@usaveteran1813]

My attorney friends tell me that the entire profession relies on "gray matter". According to this attorney, the scales of justice are tilted against the victim and tilted in favor of the violent attacking criminal. So it appears that you will have to first suffer a serious injury and then and only then be somewhat, kind of justified in using deadly force. But we have to rely on the fact that the injury does not disable or kills us first. It also tells me that the criminal justice system has to be taken back by law abiding people by whatever means necessary.

[@G.B.A9067]

JUST TO PROVE THAT SOME ONE HAD JUSTIFICATION TO SHIOOT THE ATACKER HE OR SHE HAS TO LET HIM ROUGH HER UP ,,WHAT IF THE ATACKER GETS A GRIP ON THE GUN 😳☠

[@scottgarvy]

Without absolute truth, there will never be a fair trial.

[@deebee4575]

Depends what state you’re in.

[@scottgarvy]

@@deebee4575 Not with absolute truth. It's in the phrase absolute truth.

[@Andy-im3kj]

Especially with DA's....

[@slundgr]

@@Andy-im3kj DAs are interested in convictions, not justice. We have a legal system, not a justice system.

[@jimgordon3206]

I think the adversarial system we have leads to innocent people being convicted and guilty people going free. The emphasis of the investigation and trial should be to get to the truth instead of winning or losing.

[@sv2697]

Not everyone is a physically trained MMA fighter, firearm is the great equalizer.

[@swivel63]

neither is every attacker. average joe including bad guys can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. not only do you have to train with your firearm, you have to train how to fight and defend yourself.

[@MrLandslide84]

@@swivel63 I.E. Firearm retention. Don't bring one if you can't hold onto it. So I agree 1000%

[@willnotcomply1328]

Sam Colt said something to that effect… he was correct and so are you.

[@willyjohn6352]

Damn right !..

[@daveyboy6985]

If somebody attacked somebody to seriously hurt them , they deserve a servere retaliation ( ie, gun) An I'm saying this as a non American ( kiwi).

[@HexproofAnarchist]

The problem with this situation is that there are laws that can incriminate people who use force to defend themselves from violence.

[@MonochromaticBlues]

Yh it’s there because even the criminals in high court wants to be‘protected’ while they make everyone else fight each other

[@jody7865]

My dad always said, "It's better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6."

[@danriley903]

i was looking for this one before i was going to add it! soooooo.....true!!!! :)

[@Henry-yf2np]

Pretty sure that’s not your Dad’s quote.

[@jody7865]

@@Henry-yf2np didn't claim it was

[@Basstroutfishing]

Have you worked in a prison? It’s not better than being dead but knowing the law of whatever State you live in is good to avoid both.

[@devilsoffspring5519]

Yeah, but the judge might disagree and that's what all this is about.

[@rustynail7866]

There is no such thing as an unarmed attacker, unless they have no arms.

[@abc-wv4in]

You make a good point. Especially if there is disparity of force, arms/hands/legs are weapons too.

[@rustynail7866]

@@abc-wv4in In 2019 664 people in the US were beaten or strangled to death, according to FBI statistics. Compare that to the 364 people killed by rifles in 2019 and it changes perspective.

[@maxlumens9085]

I have no arms, but my swinging meat has been known for murdering.

[@maxlumens9085]

@@rustynail7866 best reply ever.

[@Fight4freedom.]

Best comment ever 👍🏽

[@maximumachievement361]

@8:48 excellent goal and excellent advice. 1. Survive the incident. 2. Stay on the right side of the law. This is best done by keeping a clear head.

[@steveandulsky566]

I look at it this way. If I'm minding my own business and I am brutally attacked by someone who is gouging out my eyes and biting off my ears, at that moment I'm not going to be too concerned about violating his civil rights. Because when he decided to attack me, without warning, he just gave up all his rights. And when it comes down to my life or his, well, the choice is simple. Do society a huge favor.

[@fredminpin]

I love how they tap dance the answers, and of course arm chair quarterbacks are never there for the event, they want to judge after the fact - hence hindsight having 20/20 vision. ...When you are confronted by a crazy person or attacker, how far into getting your ear bitten off, stabbed or losing an eye before you can legally be justified?? And the fact that lawyers aren't around when you need them to simply accept a case or representation for free says a lot about the system too.

[@Bcarr122391]

Sooo - I recently sat through a CCW Class, and a USCCA rep came in and talked about this program. I was skeptical at first, but ended up signing up. Now I am getting YT recommendations from USCCA. But it gets better: I've watched SO MANY videos from USCCA... and was clueless. XD Great content, and great service.

[@mikenoonantech]

That doesn't sound reasonable at all. The armed victim has to wait until they've not only been injured...they have to endure more violence until it becomes life threatening or risk to losing a limb? That doesn't sound right to me

[@Vandicoup]

No, he's not saying that. This lawyer agrees that you should be able to use deadly force if you feel reasonably threatened that deadly force is about to be used against you. See here @ 4:30: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJm1Y6Wid8mjr6c

[@jerryhayden8720]

I was injured pretty bad while working a couple year's ago and my recovery was less than hoped for leaving me in a condition that I have difficulties doing basic things such as bathing and dressing and often wear a brace when having a extra bad day. If a crazed assailant charges me I can't take a beating just to show justification for using deadly force. I hope and pray I never have to do such but if I find myself in an impossible to avoid situation there's no way I'm going to let myself be maimed worse than I already am or killed because some libtards think I, disabled, should have to go toe to toe with an perp to prove a point. That's just plain ole stupid. I'm using an equalizer. And that's that.

[@treye705]

A fight can become deadly in .5 seconds and it becomes too late if you get knocked out or put into a choke hold. Why would I wait around til I find out how deadly it’s going to be?

[@tombworld9012]

This video should have been five seconds long: If you reasonably fear for your safety, yes. Laws don't matter when you're dead.

[@anonypersona3189]

The issue is: what is reasonable fear? It can be a blurry line in some cases. One could argue anything can cause "great bodily harm." Sometimes it's grey.

[@edxlee]

its hard to judge in the moment sometimes, cant just be shooting people out of "fear" everytime. Do you shoot someone cause they sucker punch you for fun (game alot of kids were playing in recent years, punching random people)?

[@ryanjones7681]

Yeap. Nor when you're unconscious. I'll empty the mag every time before I let that happen.

[@Leo_Pard_A4]

@@edxlee it's not a "game"; it's assault.

[@patrickkinniburgh6429]

@@anonypersona3189 Reasonable fear may be a blurry line but being dead is not so chances in court are better then being dead

[@Valorius]

If you are being attacked unprovoked by a stranger, it would be wise to assume it's with the intent to cause grave bodily harm.

[@_Jake.From.Statefarm_]

so "by a stranger" needs to be added? A friend can't harm or kill you? How do I know if my girlfriend is going to kill me when she gets pissed... they always want to cause bodily harm lol

[@foxdaledigital]

Remember the knock-out game in Chicago? All it takes is one punch in the right place to knock you out. You fall, head hits pavement - coma or death...laws need to be changed...

[@parkeralan19]

@@_Jake.From.Statefarm_ I mean you raise a good point that is something that would generally take a bit more investigating to prove. Someone random person on the street attacking you should be open shut especially with any sort of video evidence. I mean If I pull a gun on someone trying to attack me and they still keep coming wtf are you suppose to assume their attentions are? Not that you even disagree with that just adding in lol

[@_Jake.From.Statefarm_]

@@parkeralan19 spot on Mang. I brought it up because people generally put their blinders on and never think of the long term blow back or problems with their theory. The stupid ones just make excuses for them. Now they are fixing multiple issues instead of coming up with a better solution in the first place lol.

[@jacksaintjack2844]

Unless the attacker has no arms (seriously) he isn't "unarmed". Big difference between being weaponless and unarmed. There are so many documented instances of people being killed by a single punch, let alone many punches. The fist can kill. It has, it does, and it will.

[@neutrino78x]

There's this thing called blocking. You might want to check it out.

[@teflondonii9298]

If my ear is in the attackers possession, I'll be trading 230gr+p HP's for my ear back. I think that a fare trade.

100% Agree, bottom line end of damn story.

[@Wind_slash0]

Yep. But how does one prevent and know whether or not they'll lose their ear

[@joem3524]

@@Wind_slash0 The wild-eyed look, accompanied by the rapidly-approaching open mouth with bared teeth, is a better-than-good indication that 'something' is about to be violently removed from you...

[@tsarbomba1]

What?

[@deusdestroi]

Best comment ever! You won the internet brother🤣

[@pauljenkins6877]

If someone has lost an ear, can he expect a fair hearing…?

[@FGCVidz]

😂🤣

[@AtomicMan45]

As someone who has lost a lot of my hearing,I would be offended if I wasn't laughing my ass off at your hilarious observation 🤣

[@kalikasurf]

What?

[@jason200912]

his hearing would be entirely one-sided.

[@jn3750]

Heheheh

[@JayzenFreeze]

Help with a question: Say a single attacker is hitting you and maybe it could go either way for a win but the attacker notices your firearm. He goes for it, can you draw it and fire to protect your self and keep your weapon out of the attackers hands?

[@buickjam]

I love that we get to gamble our life on whether or not the attacker is going to be reasonable with the amount of physical damage they plan on doing to us. We just get to hope that when we are unconscious that the attacker won't pull out a knife for a gun so that they don't leave a witness. The fact that there is so much gray area legally on something that has absolutely no gray area morally is crazy. In the case where somebody is the attacker there should be no gray area, somebody doesn't attack you unless they expect to win whether it's from their strength, their youth, or if they outnumber you. If they would remove the gray area I think there would be a lot less attacks, after a spike in self-defense. Lives would be lost, but it would be the lives of attackers. If they are willing to risk the victim's life with a possible well-placed hit or the way that the victim lands on the ground, then they should assume the same risk for themself

[@ZorroinArkham]

I am scared because in my current case people ask if I have photos or videos of my attacker pointing a gun at me. No, I would never have that footage, dead people have that footage. Living people put the phone down and act.

[@neutrino78x]

"The fact that there is so much gray area legally on something that has absolutely no gray area morally is crazy" Sounds like YOU are crazy. There is in fact a lot of gray area morally with killing someone. Come on.

[@Fight4freedom.]

Besides being a member of the USCCA, I’m almost ready to buy and wear a body camera if I’m going to carry my firearm!

[@gw6496]

Sounds like a good ideal!!

[@The-WWDRD-SHOW]

I do everyday

[@eddym4378]

I say this all the time, if I’m ever in a heated situation I just put my phone on record. Just to have some extra back up for myself

[@gomcse]

I wear a police grade body camera almost everywhere I go.

[@denverplayspc]

Stream irl on twitch

[@kfelix2934]

I luv it "Nuance of each case" is so true.

[@SaturdaySportsman]

Trouble is, actions taken under extreme stress get judged from an armchair.

[@MarkENorman]

Kevin, please do a video talking about how the clause in your policy that states; if you have a self-defense case that goes to court and you lose, you are required to pay-back USCCA every dollar spent defending your case, benefits us, the insured members.

[@jackhewett141]

As much as I appreciate all of the videos and training tools USCCA offers, this here is one of the main reasons I did not to go with them when choosing who would represent me if I ever had to use deadly force.

[@nrmorales82]

wow I did not know that that was the case. I was looking into these insurance policies and thank you for pointing that out

[@rsquaredinnovations]

Wow, glad I read this, I was about to join. It was between USCCA and US Law shield, I will check this issue with US Law Shield.

[@JRPLawyeress1]

Once it got to the point the guy got his eyes gouged out, it was a little late for him.

@John Ontargos Listening to this made we want to throw my pistol in the garbage, but hell n'all that's exactly what they want. They're objective is to put fear in all law abiding citizens that carry for protection.

[@jefflitten66]

I see !

[@GRat9717]

The laws are whacked because an unarmed attacker can still be dangerous.

[@sumdumcat]

I would like to know, as someone whom has a pacemaker, if I could use deadly force if I am attacked either by an unarmed or armed attacker. I have several health issues that have made me disabled, so I would not be able to defend myself without a firearm.

[@wkn123456789]

It depends.

[@3am585]

It don’t matter, if someone is there to cause you great harm or death blow them mfs away

[@TheOriginalRick]

This falls under the concept of "disparity of force". It is a critically necessary piece of self defense. Please look it up and study it

[@earlestes8649]

I would say yes better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6

[@jv82-r7t]

None of this apply to cops: shoot 1st and talk later . None of this apply to criminals: attack first and run later. Citizens: deal with both of them.

[@Gas_man]

This is a ridiculous statement. First of all, the laws governing police officers are not the exact same as the laws governing citizens, so a direct comparison really can’t be made between the two groups. That being said, they obviously can’t use deadly force if not warranted and many officers have been held accountable for improper use of force, particularly recently. Secondly, criminals are subjected to the same laws everyone else is and they are held accountable as well. The difference is most of them just don’t care.

[@CombatVetTom]

On the attorney saying "Maybe" I'd add to that > a LOT depends on what State it happens in.

[@PsychoC4rnivore]

My dad always told me that its better to be judged by 12, than to be carried by 6. Take that how you want

[@darnellbush2408]

There's only 1 way to take it, anything else doesnt exist

[@Kevin-nm8ih]

Today, it's often the country and a backhoe. If you make it to the news, the number of ignorant people who judge you, with zero information, is ridiculous. And out of all the people you know, few will cry at your funeral. We've taken away all of the rituals of death to make it absent of feeling. I had three evil siblings who stole from my parents, attended the funeral I planned and went on to laugh and have a great time partying.

[@tkdamusicman]

My dad says the opposite

[@GeneSchmidt]

If someone breaks into my home or enters unwanted, they are getting shot. (and NOT in the leg)

[@deebee4575]

They’re not really talking about in your home in this video though. Out on the street is a MUCH different story.

[@grimthreeper1173]

Exactly, once that door is breached, it doesn't matter who they are or what they may be carrying. I'll find out once the threat is immobilized.

[@JasonCF1968]

@Bartholomew Roberts If the attacker is a more experienced fighter, he is not unarmed. Fists, elbows and feet can kill you just as effectively as a bullet or knife.

[@deebee4575]

@Ralph M. Chavez Um…no.

[@mattbradley1374]

Center of mass

[@larryjackson6064]

Here in Kentucky the Kentucky Court of Appeals says a blow thrown by a person is initial aggression and we can use force if the person doesn't stop !

[@crazylikeafox1000]

If you think your life is in danger, yes.

[@charlesmoore1762]

I would fear for my life!

[@Stronghand-yw1lk]

Yeah, that only works out if you are a cop!

[@iwkaoy8758]

It has two bee reasonable fear like a dead Lee weapon ore multiple attackers

[@ilearncode7365]

@@iwkaoy8758 "if its only one guy with a bat, you must let him take your car or do what he wants" sounds logical

[@michaelbarry8373]

If your attacked your life is in danger.

[@Fun4GA]

All lawyers answer all legal questions with, "It depends..." then they spend the next billable hour explaining their statement and you walk away more confused than you started.

[@nickprague1481]

Never forget that court is a game and the best lawyer always wins.

[@abc-wv4in]

Well, but in this case it's just the truth!

[@maxlumens9085]

Just remember, you have the right to defend yourself, sometimes, but maybe not so always stand your ground.... Or maybe not.

[@paulhightower4523]

@@nickprague1481 the best lawyer is always yourself

[@alexandermendez9013]

@@paulhightower4523 if you want to lose

[@jponyboyace]

In your home …hell yeah as a break in!!!

[@markm3330]

Wow, interesting video. During my CCW training it was described that if you allow someone to get to the point of biting you, it’s too late. You have the right neutralize the situation before then. The thought is the assailant can remove the weapon from you during a tussle. This is a little scary.

[@johnhalpin1847]

seriously Good luck with that You'll need to be able to articulate the facts and circumstance why you were actually threaten not just a feeling of fear, to a prudent person that would have felt threaten from deadly force or serious physical injury

[@isaiahsherman2199]

What I always think, why wait to use deadly force until I’m getting kicked or punched to the ground, how am I suppose to pull my handgun out ?

[@godisgoodgodisgreat3434]

@@isaiahsherman2199 come on bro you can’t pull your gun out while some random stranger is punching you in the face unbelievable!

[@isaiahsherman2199]

@@godisgoodgodisgreat3434 That was pretty illiterate

[@IISeverusll]

@@isaiahsherman2199 It was a joke lol r/woosh

[@bubbapeppers4354]

Great topic... "legal gray area" defense. How about researching some cases where unarmed attackers were shot in self defense and present the legal outcomes here in this format.... that would be real education for me. Unfortunately, in a court room, the law tends to look backwards (in terms of precedence), not forward (what if).

[@adelelucas3593]

I like the "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" mindset. I am 86 years old, suffer from congestive heart failure and have a pacemaker. If I can get to my CCW, I'll definitely use it on any person who could possibly do permanent and deadly harm. No question about it. By the way this is not Adele speaking, it's her husband Bill.

[@nagaviper1169]

Laws are made to protect the criminal. Just say "I thought I saw a weapon" and "I feared for my life ", it works for cops all the time. They can pull a gun on you for no reason whatsoever.

[@robertwatson818]

Absolutely.In My case I have a neurological condition (not obvious) which could be fatal if I am struck in the head--or if I am thrown to the ground with enough force. I have to defend my self sooner than a person without this disorder.

[@OFCbigduke613]

It's very simple actually. UNARMED DOES NOT THE MEAN THE SUSPECT IS NOT DANGEROUS.

[@bowtieguy85]

I'm already unarmed so that's an easy one.

[@lewisnash7381]

The laws are crazy Police can use force whenever they feel threatened. But we as U S citizens have to wait until we're attacked to use deadly force. My advice is to protect yourself at all costs, and deal with the consequences later. F_ _k this justice system

[@ScottGrow117]

Yup! I will do whatever I have to to make sure I come home.

[@frankeldredge9425]

I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I can't see into the future so I have to assume an attacker is out to do me harm or kill me. So I will be in fear of my life. As for the prosecutor in my case prove me wrong.

[@larrymcguire9686]

Frank, if you live in a city where a DA resides, and George Soros backed their political campaign with thousands of dollars, it won't matter if you exterminate a thug even if they are armed with a dozen firearms on them, you'll be prosecuted. That's the way those democrat controlled cities roll. My suggestion in that case is to move to an actual American city that has people who will back the Constitution.

[@StutteRx]

@@larrymcguire9686 like nevada or Arizona. Probably the most open and I'm best places to be able to open carry and or concel with a ccw. Look up the laws here in Nevada.

[@frankeldredge9425]

@@larrymcguire9686 I live in Dallas Texas self defense shootings do happen here. I have not heard of any prosecutions of the shootings.

[@martyminer828]

@@frankeldredge9425 Yeah,,,bc, #1....dead men don't talk/lie. Or. #2. Everyone KNOWS,,,,"Don't Mess with TEXAS" LOL. EVERYONE CARRIES...👍🤠

[@TopFlightMc]

Hey I have a torn acl in my right leg and and surgery repaired leg in my left . If someone attempts or is in progress of attacking me am I able to defend myself with my firearm . Any answers are welcome

[@klj5150]

Love the content. I am a former Federal LEO with 30+ years and I feel if you are armed and the unarmed assailant is causing you great/grievous bodily harm AND You feel your life is in jeopardy you should be able to defend yourself PLUS they may also get your weapon from you and harm more people or yourself. If you articulate that fear, can you be justified?

[@billp4]

George Zimmerman says yes

[@kayakdan48]

Sooo...USCCA lawyers would defend you with an opening statement: "Your Honor...Members of the Jury...my client MAY be innocent"? I learned nothing from this other than it is sooo nuanced that their lawyers aren't convinced of anything concrete for your/my ultimate defense either.

[@franklinstower6721]

The entire justice system needs a facelift.... I'm with you on this. It's not fair that defenders who have clearly done it correctly have to fear prison time.

[@abc-wv4in]

No, no good lawyer would say that. The point is that this is not always cut and dried and anyone who carries a gun should be aware of that. Btw, there are no "USCCA lawyers." Local lawyers have agreed to represent USCCA members IF the member chooses them. You can use any lawyer you want (unless that's recently changed; which I hope it hasn't.

[@waynecastleman1363]

Not to mention that if your found guilty, your insurance will not pay off.

[@RogueAndroid]

Physical disparities between humans and the fact the human body can be a harmful and deadly weapon without using any weapons... you should be able to

[@j.michaelwilhelm7349]

In Florida, we have to go by the term "A perceived threat of bodily harm or imminent threat of death". The attacker does not necessarily have to have a firearm, he could have a pipe or baseball bat...both of which are lethal weapons. This attorney is correct in that this term can be very misleading by a prosecuting attorney and a jury. The burden of proof lies solely on the defense lawyer on your behalf. So it's a catch 22 scenario at best, but the main thing you have to do is protect your life and or the life of another first and hope that the guy you just shot and killed had a criminal record for doing just what he got shot for.

[@MongoSlade1]

This was awesome and truly pointed out the reality of having to use deadly force and what you can expect.

[@Nolaman70]

I'll let my attacker know, hold on while I check my local laws. Noooo, I'll just protect myself from harm. I'm not loosing an ear and then deciding, it's too late then...

[@doctorartphd6463]

Actually, I would like to PREVENT myself from suffering great bodily harm...I am older (68)...and don't heal as quickly like I used to. So, yes, I am going to shoot sooner than a 25 yr old. Maybe when our Republic begins honoring our Constitution, things will "lighten up" for firearm owners.

[@jeremybrinlee1965]

I agree with you, but I'm not holding my breath.

[@doctorartphd6463]

@@jeremybrinlee1965 It is simply up to us to force the issue. Stay prepared my compatriot. WWG1WGA

[@_Delta_P_]

In our lifetime the prisons will be filled with law abiding citizens who broke some dumb technicality and we will all exist in a peaceful prison world while the criminals run the outside world.

[@loganshotrod4x464]

“Maybe” is a great legal answer that keeps attorneys rich & honest citizens tied up in a legal system. Be sure & read legal precedent & statutes when you’re getting your eyes gouged out & your ears bit off by a maniac. All jokes aside, this attorney is spot on! 😎👍

[@GodKiller97]

“Maybe” is a legitimate answer because you can’t just say yes or no to such a vague question. That’s like asking are people allergic to shellfish? Well sometimes. “Sometimes isn’t a real answer. it’s yes of no” See how that doesn’t work?

[@bigtrout]

In NC "disparity of force" is something that supposedly comes into consideration as a factor which justifies use of deadly force. Multiple attackers, physically fit young attacker against an elderly person, large man attacking a small woman, etc. In other words, disparity of force is justification to use deadly force. This was taught in the concealed carry class training. Having said that, still there is some ambiguity there because "disparity of force" would have to be defined on a case by case basis. One would have no problems MOST of the counties in NC with local law enforcement. All bets are off around Raleigh or Charlotte which, like most cities around the whole country, are not representative of the rest of the "normal" state's residents and law enforcement agencies.

[@raymond4307]

Imagine being in a situation in which you think you may lose your life, defended yourself and a juror who wasn't there telling you wasn't. It's a gambling at this point

[@chrishooge3442]

Just because the outcome of an assault is not a life threatening injury...you can't know that in the moment. Once the first ear is bitten off you can't know what is coming next.

[@davidjkuchar]

I have been attacked by an unarmed neighbor and I said I would shoot if he kept attacking and he called the police and SWAT came and I had to plea out to threats of violence. We have no stand your ground or castle doctrine in my state. I didn't lose my firearm rights but I cannot get work til it's expunged.....

[@justiceforallthepeople2642]

Damn. Sorry to hear that

[@lee22822]

Proof of a broken justice system! REFORM is what I support

[@aaronrodden8121]

What State are you in if you don't mind me asking? I would NEVER plea out to something like that! Easier said than done, I know but just remember...Your freedom and innocence is worth the long haul! I'd talk to a better attorney as well! Pleas are most of the time, for lack of a better word "lazy lawyers" or at minimum, a not very confident/good one!

[@martenkrueger8647]

What state?😳

[@erc1971erc1971]

I am in Michigan, and our laws are the same. You cannot threaten to shoot, because if you have time to do that then you are "not in danger." It has to be all or nothing.

[@charlesbrown6635]

If the law refuses to protect me,they have no right to prosecute me when Im forced to defend my life.Criminals give up all their rights when they choose to hurt or kill someone in my book,and many others feel this way

[@neutrino78x]

Too bad your feelings don't constitute law

[@perkjames]

"you need proper education and training to understand where the lines are". I'm in Attorney practicing for 20 years and I don't know where the lines are.

[@eskieman3948]

It depends whom is in power politically.

[@gregknutson8524]

Depends if you are in a Communist state, see the Kenosha Kid

[@josephscott6642]

When it comes to one life or another it gets ugly fast

[@stunna1050]

@@fayemarshall2254 Some of our fathers were dropped into warzone at 17 by the US military. Are they idiots too?

[@SnackPack913]

@@fayemarshall2254 this was pure self defense. The kid shot a sex offender coming after him with a gun. He even attempted to retreat. Close and shut self defense. Many people were from out of area/state with weapons in that area yet the felons rioting get off Scott free

[@matthewkinsey9044]

Is it common for somone to be knocked unconscious from one punch? Can you die from hitting hitting your head on the ground? Then a threat to beat someone should be cause for deadly force.

[@sotired7562]

@@matthewkinsey9044 the trucks on a skateboard are more than capable of causing death. There were also multiple attackers which with each additional attacker the chance of dieing from the attack increases.

[@martyc1533]

Once Again: As long as you / your lawyer can clearly articulate that you were in fear of your life or another person's life or serious bodily harm and the force used was a "last resort" then you "should" be justified. Some states may require you to make every attempt to flee before using force, know your state's laws!!!

[@davidmccormick7419]

screw any law that forces you to flee. it only makes it easier to stab someone in the back..

[@natural_skeptic9685]

NO! Don't just "know" your state laws, CHANGE your state laws. Demand and force your legislators to return your rights to you and hold criminals responsible for their actions.

[@trevertravis8963]

I'll never understand why a person being attacked needs to "flee" instead of fighting back.

[@elmateo77]

I have black belts in several martial arts, and have been training since I was 6 years old. I'm only 5'9 and 160 pounds (your average size guy, I look a bit buff but not especially intimidating), but I can kill somebody with 6 inches and 100 pounds on me in seconds even unarmed. I don't walk around wearing a warning sign though. If someone is attacking you, especially unprovoked, you have to assume that they're a deadly threat.

[@MaxairEngineering]

Remember, disparity of force, proper articulation of threat. Never ever trust lawyers. YOU are your own best advocate. He/she works for you.

[@BIGGUNS-dz4hg]

It’s simple if you feel like your life is in imminent danger and if you feel like you could receive great bodily harm from the perpetrators imminent actions then you should use force (deadly force)!!!! Who the hell is going to wait until they get physically attacked, these companies, lawyers, prosecutors make big bucks off of putting fear into people.

[@helenhighwater5313]

Any attacker who is bigger, stronger, and faster than you ought to be legally considered armed. That is why a gun is referred to as an "equalizer". The law needs to reflect that. And what about an assailant trained in martial arts? Are they not "armed"? Or what if the intended victim is trained in martial arts and gets the best of their assailant....is that legal?

[@jsmunitions1471]

An unarmed attacker can easily become an armed attacker if they manage to get their hands on your firearm.

[@ilearncode7365]

This is exactly the logic that cops use to shoot someone coming at them. I dont know why people think it would only make sense in cop's situations. If you have a gun, anyone trying to fight you at all is life endangering situation. I would argue further that even if you didnt have a gun, anyone trying to fight you is a life threatening situation as you can get killed or injured even if the person isnt trying to kill you or injure you.

[@Youtubesucks916]

Apparently In stupid California where I live you can only shoot the attacker when he takes your gun away from you and shoots you

[@johndoe-im9fr]

"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

[@lucasbrown743]

A "simple" fight especially when you're not the aggressor can potentially be fatal when you have a gun that could end up in the hands of the person trying to harm you.

[@BigLeagueDrew]

Seeing how you can be killed with a single punch, in some instances, I’d say yes if you aren’t the aggressor. Not to mention if you’re unconscious you can be grievously harmed. Since you don’t know how far someone will go until it’s too late… I think the courts and jurors should be far more lenient than they may be currently. I think if we took this standard people may think twice about starting a fight.

[@ninja23yt]

Well, I have a very solid defense if I fear for my life. As I am a short and thin guy, a simple test of strength should be more than enough if the attacker was bigger and taller

[@edg8535]

I live in Texas, I am over 70, what do you think my answer is?

[@furonwarrior]

I believe if you’re physically disabled or an elderly person, a physical attack should constitute grave bodily harm. But it seems that you should always take the punch or first attack before using lethal force to justify your reason for self-defense. For all they know, they just looked at you wrong and you have anger issues.

[@furonwarrior]

@Chris Adams You can use an open holster to lock the gun in place. For CCW, they won’t even know you have a firearm which is more reason to get the license if you conceal well. What I’m saying is that taking the first punch would be proof that you were under attack. How can you prove that you were under attack when you shot a person and claiming self-defense when nothing shows your life was in danger unless you had a body camera. Another option is to call 911 the moment you feel threaten to record the conversation to the authorities so they can analyze the situation and see how you handle the situation to calm the situation down. Just like what the lawyer said, it would be in our best interests to avoid using our firearms until we absolutely have to. I recommend carrying pepper spray with you.

[@VLAPredz]

@@furonwarrior Are you certified and trained in the use of Pepper Spray? By who? Is their teaching certification valid? Do you know almost every time you employ pepper spray you are also going to be contaminated with it? congrats you didn't use a firearm but you still illegally assaulted someone with a chemical irritant and can be in just as much trouble open to civil suit then if you shot them.

[@furonwarrior]

@@VLAPredz I test fired pepper spray before and have never been contaminated. There is assault, and assault and battery. There are also weapon charges. There is also having a good lawyer. There is a difference between using Pepper Spray and a Firearm because Pepper Spray is not an act of deadly force. It is important to read your local laws, find a good lawyer ahead of time, use good judgment, and be the first one to call 911. Chances are, the bad guy isn’t going to call the police and if he or she has been laced with Pepper Spray, if they don’t know you, they’re not going to convict you because they would need enough evidence to suggest that they were the victim in this situation. If they went out of their car to confront me, banged on my car and was sprayed, they would have to explain why they left their car to begin with. Point is, it’s complicated, but the evidence what proves who is guilty and who is innocent. What is most important is being safe and avoiding danger if possible, period.

[@desertmaverick7567]

Lawyers can never give you a definitive answer because they know there is none. It's all a crap shoot in any situation. But knowing the law in your state helps like 10%. No one can make a split second decision when being attacked. I've always looked at it like this. When all else has failed and the jerk that is coming at me with what can be considered a "deadly weapon" I'm going to use deadly force to stop the attack. There is no other way to react. Believe me I've been in a situation like this and that is just how the human brain works. No one can go through all of the advice being given in this video in a tenth of a second and then decide what to do. You react and take the consequences after wards; as so does the attacker! Also make sure that you have "self defense insurance".

[@neutrino78x]

"When all else has failed and the jerk that is coming at me with what can be considered a "deadly weapon" I'm going to use deadly force to stop the attack. There is no other way to react. " Sure there is. Solar plexus strike, liver strike, groin strike, neck strike, etc.

[@drewjackson9723]

This discussion series won a subscriber.

[@mikeknape7064]

If you are carrying a weapon and have to wait until you are getting beat on badly in order to use it there are two big issues... 1. What if the bad guy takes it. Your own gun is a liability at that point. 2. Are you physically going to be able to draw and fire it while getting beat on and after taking damage?

[@TheBruces56]

In criminal law dealing with self-defense there is a concept known as "preponderance of force". One is not required to use force equal to their attacker. The victim may be disabled, elderly or just physically inadequate to defend themselves. There may also be multiple attackers. No one would expect a 100 lbs. woman to prevail against a 200 lbs. rapist. She can and should do whatever is necessary to save her own life.

[@devilsoffspring5519]

Are you from the United States? In Canada it's frowned upon to use force that exceeds that of your attacker. Which, if you think about it, is absolutely necessary if you're going to stop your attacker!

[@TheBruces56]

@@devilsoffspring5519 I am from the US and a cop.. Anyone has a natural right to use whatever force is necessary to defend themselves. This will vary depending on the victim and should not exceed that which is necessary. Some jurisdictions also have a legal obligation to flee if possible.

[@devilsoffspring5519]

@@TheBruces56 Ok, gotcha. I'm Canadian and defending yourself using anything except your own body is really frowned upon. Using a gun is very strictly verboten regardless of circumstances and the Supreme Court will have to decide whether or not to toss you in the clink or dismiss charges. It's really weird because it puts all the power in the hands of the criminals and renders the innocent mostly defenseless. Natural rights and laws are two entirely different things, generally speaking Canadians are expected to either run like hell or surrender, but generally speaking, you must use nothing but your own body to defend yourself and if the attacker is bigger or they're more numerous you must run or give up. So, you can defend yourself up here, but you must be careful not to exceed your attacker's force. Even if you don't go to prison, you could end up a targeted individual for the rest of your life for "disturbing the natural order" (Canada's police are corrupt as all hell and VERY psychopathic, contrary to our reputation for being a "nice" country--we're nothing of the sort.)

[@devilsoffspring5519]

@@TheBruces56 Oh yeah, I almost forgot: Natural rights do not vary from state to state, or even with what country you're in. Breathing, eating food, and minding your own business are natural rights. Fighting is not unless it's mutually consensual and takes place in a location built specifically for that purpose (a boxing gym or arena, for example) when you're in Canada. If someone attacks you on the street and you fight back, then yes, you're automatically charged with a *very* serious crime (aggravated assault) and it's up to the judge to decide whether to dismiss it or not. The charge is automatic and the police themselves don't have to physically arrest you and inform you, in Canada you're basically on the lam until you turn yourself in to the cops and tell them you've been fighting. That means that many, many Canadians, including yours truly, have spent most of our lives on the lam :)

[@TheBruces56]

@@devilsoffspring5519 You make valid points. I feel for your citizens as our societies are very similar in many ways. In this debate we have a saying here, "It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6". You have to survive for anything else to matter.

[@user-qm1gr3eh2e]

No such thing as an unarmed attacker, unless they don't have arms.

[@rbm6184]

Here is the question, are you going to wait and see if the physical attack on you is life threatening? There is no such thing as an unarmed attacker. Hands and feet alone can kill another human being. The attacker can also take your gun from you and use it on you. If the threat is inside seven yards after being warned to stay back and in fear for your life, I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.