Branca at Legal Insurrection gives a primer on self defense. We should listen.

A few caveats.

1. In this current environment, if you find yourself killing people in self-defense, and those people turn out to be black, and there are no witnesses- walk away.  Do not help Sharpton and Holder label you racist.

2. If, IF the police show up (and that’s a big if, especially when the police figure out from the crime scene what happened) tell them the story and why you left, which was you didn’t want to be attacked again.

3. All of this predicated on you not telling anyone else EVER what happened.

4. Don’t fall prey to the sad “what a wasted life, who could he have become” crap you see. They are thugs. They will always be thugs. They will make thug babies- who will grow up being thugs.

It isn’t race, it is a culture.  This is a battle between civilized and uncivilized. Makers vs takers.  They want you, your stuff, your fear, your blood.  (Just listen to the chants when the victim is being pummeled, it is a WAY OF LIFE!)  They exist in the tribes in Afghanistan, and the warring tribes of the Boko Harem in Africa.

5. We encourage it here, because of PC.  No more PC. No more listening to ignorant white/black/liberal/silly people telling you we need to do more.  Enough. Holder knows his window is closing and it took them SIX years and one manufactured race shooting (Zimmerman the “white Hispanic” Seriously??) to find a “racist” crime he can launch his discussion with.  A brave news person would lead every interview with Holder with the clips of the black thug on white victim videos and ask him to comment.  But we suffer PC blindness, don’t we?

Fight PC. It is a cancer that kills nations. Ask Britain.

(Here is the raw story on the beating at Krogers.  This falls under the “numbers of assailants” defense theory. )

Now to Branca and the legal aspect of violent confrontation with thugs.  Branca went into detail he linked to in an earlier post.  Here are the salient points.

 One of the most common laments to come out of Ferguson these last days has been that surely it was outrageous for Office Darren Wilson to use his service pistol to shoot an “unarmed” Mike Brown.  (Earlier iterations of this narrative went further in their misinformation, describing the 18-year-old 6’4″ 292 pound Brown as a “kid” or “child,” as well as falsely claiming that Wilson shot Brown in the back, but such misinformation falls outside the scope of this post.)  Similar arguments were made in the context of the shooting by George Zimmerman of the “unarmed” Trayvon Martin.

The notion that a defender may use a firearm in self-defense only if they themselves are faced with a firearm is entertainingly naive, but has no basis in actual law, nor in common sense.

In the eyes of the law a gun is not some magical talisman of power, it is merely one of perhaps an infinite number of means of exerting force.  Legally speaking the law tends to divide force into two broad buckets:  non-deadly force and deadly force.

Deadly Force: Force Likely to Cause Death or Grave Bodily Harm


It should also be noted that when the legal system uses the phrase “deadly force,” it is not merely referring to force than can literally cause death.  Of course, force likely to cause death qualifies, naturally.  But the law’s view of “deadly force” is broader than the phrase might suggest.  In fact, “deadly force” includes BOTH force likely to cause death, as well as force likely to cause “grave bodily harm.”

We all understand “death,” but what could possibly be meant by “grave bodily harm.”? Typically, grave bodily harm means something along the following lines:  the temporary loss of an important bodily function/organ, the permanent loss of even a minor bodily function/organ, maiming, rape, or debilitation to the point of defenselessness.

Note, also, that under the law of self-defense, NONE of these must ACTUALLY be experienced by the victim before the victim can lawfully respond.  Rather, there must be an imminent threat of one of these occurring, as perceived by a reasonable and prudent person, in the same or similar circumstances, possessing the same or similar capabilities as the defender, having the same or similar knowledge as the defender, and experiencing the same or similar mental stress as would a defender being threatened with such harm.

Proportionality of Force

One of the five elements of the law of self-defense is proportionality (the others being innocence, imminence, avoidance, and reasonableness). Proportionality governs the degree of force that a defender can lawfully use in self-defense.  In brief, the defender’s force must be proportional to the force with which he is threatened.

Again, limiting ourselves to instances of the use of deadly force in self-defense, such use of deadly force is permissible only where the defender was facing an imminent threat of deadly force.  Or, more accurately, the use of deadly force is permissible only where the defender was facing an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm.

A gun almost always represent a threat (or, if fired, a use) of deadly force.  So in order for a defender to be lawfully permitted to “go to the gun,” they must be facing a reasonably perceived imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm against which they are defending themselves.

Does that mean that they can only go to the gun if they are faced with a gun?  Of course not.  There are myriad ways that an attacker can represent a threat of death or grave bodily harm, only one small slice of which involve the attacker using a gun.  Naturally, an attacker bringing to bear a “classical” deadly weapon such as a gun or knife would represent a threat of death or grave bodily harm.  But such a classical deadly weapon is not required.


Disparity of Force

What the law actually looks at is not whether the attacker possessed a classical weapon, but whether the attacker presented the defender with a disparity of force, such that the defender faced a reasonably perceived imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm unless the defender himself resorted to deadly force.  Again, for a defender facing a gun or knife, the disparity of force is obvious.  This disparity of force also arises, however, in many other circumstances.

Disparity of Numbers

Disparity of Fighting Ability

Disparity of Size/Strength

Disparity of Physical Fitness

In the Disparity of Numbers we have the Kroger beating and the couple being jumped in Missouri.  Both of those situations call for the victim to target and eliminate as many of the attackers as possible, until they break and run.  Don’t chase them, shooting all the while, just leave.  Pick up your brass, and leave.

Remember, as Zimmerman proved, in THIS current environment you cannot assume being right and being legal will protect you. Hyper-racial politics is being used as a saber wielded against anyone who doesn’t fit the narrative.  When the police show up, and you are standing there, you simply state “I was in fear of my life.  I want to talk to my lawyer.”  Apologize for not doing more and making the detective’s job harder, he or she will get exactly what you are doing- protecting yourself. It would be what they would do or ask their families to do.

Someday, if history is written honestly, we’ll look back on this time as a very dark period, where race and guilt and power and corruption came together to enrich a few and victimize many- of all races and colors.

But that is for the future.  What you need to concentrate on is surviving the present.  Stay alert, stay armed, be ready to do violence to those who would do violence to you. If you don’t do these things, this could be you.









This entry was posted in politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply