Gun versus Fist: Lawful Self-Defense?

FREE! Law of Self Defense “HARD TO CONVICT” Webinar!


Provider of Legal Service Memberships (aka “self-defense insurance”) Andrew is personally a member of CCW Safe! Learn more about what they have to offer at: Save 10% off your first year membership with code: LOSD10

FREE BOOK! “The Law of Self Defense” Physical book, 200+ pages, we just ask that you cover the S&H: 

FREE 5-ELEMENTS INFOGRAPHIC: Totally free infographic explaining the 5-elements of any claim of self-defense, if you don’t understand these 5-elements you cannot have any idea what lawful self-defense consists of, PDF download, zero cost: 

NOTE: Nothing in today’s content represents legal advice. If you are in need of legal advice, please retain competent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. 

7 thoughts on “Gun versus Fist: Lawful Self-Defense?”

  1. Andrew, in a “gun v fist” case where it is apparent that the aggressor had the ability to inflict serious physical injury, cause death, or commit a forcible felony, what type of facts would the prosecution need to introduce into evidence to meet its burden of introducing evidence sufficient to overcome beyond a reasonable doubt the Constitutional legal presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear of serious physical injury, death, or a forcible felony?

  2. guilty as charged

    This incident is also covered by Active Self Protection at
    John stated that when the person shot takes off his shirt, the defender saw that the aggressor had a knife sticking out, and claims he reached toward the knife before his lunge. This would no longer be gun v fist in that case. Sometimes lawyers tell the client what to say to avoid convictions, then they add, “I not telling you to lie”.

    1. I don’t know where this knife thing started. The defender himself in an interview said that he knew, being neighbors, the attacker owned a Sig handgun. He said the attacker reached down, and the defender thought he was going for a gun and that’s when he shot him.

      1. ‘The defender himself in an interview said that he knew, being neighbors, the attacker owned a Sig handgun.” Immaterial and irrelevant. Not evidence sufficient for him to infer that the guy was armed with a gun on the present occasion and that he was reaching for it with malicious intent. Now if the guy said something like “I’m going to blow your head off” and then reached as if to pull a concealed firearm, then that is a different story.

        The “defender” should not be talking about the use of force incident and his attorney should have impressed that upon him right from the start. It’s not over until the fat lady sings and appeal rights have been exhausted.

Leave a Comment