Recommended Resource for Learning About Legal Self-Defense?
September 12th, 2011 | 
Author:
Hi, some questions I have are: 1 – Does the principle of "obligation to retreat" apply to self-defense only (if someone else was in danger of death at a gas station, could someone with a conealed pistol license who has the gun in a glove box in a car outside go get the gun and use lethal force to prevent the apparent armed attack? 2 – If attacked by someone without a weapon (punching/kicking), could the defender use an aid without using deadly force (like a baseball bat)? 3 – If someone is walking down an ally or street, and is approached by more people than could be handled in an attack (3-4 "thugs"), could the defender show the pistol, and even use deadly force if the group does not cease to advance? 4: If someone is robbed at gunpoint and wisely chooses not to draw a concealed weapon (since that may provoke the attacker to actually shoot), once the attacker withdraws and turns away, can the defender then show the pistol, insist that the wallet be returned, and if the attacker points his own weapon, use deadly force? In addition to your answer, do you have a recommended resource or website that defines "legal self-defense" and the defense of others using "justifiable deadly force", preferably with situation examples? Thanks!
Other Baseball Site
Posted in Batting Gloves | 
Tags: ally, attacker, baseball bat, bat 3, deadly force, gas station, glove box, gunpoint, lethal force, obligation, pistol license, principle, self defense, wallet
The doctrines the govern self-defense vary by state in both their content and their implementation.
For example, my state makes no mention of self-defense matters in written law whatsoever. The doctrines of self-defense are defined in caselaw and jury instructions. Why? Self-defense is simply an "excuse" (aka Affirmative Defense) raised when you’ve been arrested and are being tried. If in the above situations the police are never summoned, nothing happens. If they are summoned, in most the situations you mentioned, you would probably be arrested or at least taken to the police station, though in many of the cases you would be released.
I can address your questions in order though, based on caselaw I have reviewed and the doctrines of a my state as an example.
1. Duty to retreat in the majority of cases does not apply when defending another person.
2. The use of an weapon against an unarmed attacker can be justified but it limited to just enough force needed to stop them. I have two cases where a person with a knife defended themselves against larger unarmed opponents, and killed them (knives are deadly but have no stopping power). Both these people are now serving murder or manslaughter because they used DEADLY force against non-deadly threats when they have obvious avenues of escape (Their petty sense of "honor" made them confront another person needlessly)
3. Same as above, the pretense of multiple attackers makes the need for an equalizer justifiable. A large factor would be an expression of intent by the thugs ("We gon’ kill you, @#$!" would be a threat of death, therefore brandishing a deadly weapon would likely be justified provided you could prove it to people who were not there at the time)
4. This is unlikely to be justifiable, as it is deadly force to retrieve simple property. Further, it is not very safe, considering the other person could fast draw and then you have a one-on-one gun battle. Bad news.
Most pistol training courses give excellent training on justifiable deadly force for the specific area one lives in. I would trust those over any website out there. Also, gunshop owners are mines of useful information on a lot of these laws, especially if the managers.
One last thing is the political climate of the courts in the area. The best resources on this are at your local courthouse. The caselaw library provides examples of situations and how the law ruled in them. And often, if you are a pretty smooth, talker, you can even talk to the SA or DA’s Office about the subject, as their office is the one that decides whether to prosecute people.