What does "prevent great bodily harm" encompass?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

corwin1968

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 10, 2010
Messages
105
Reaction score
0
Location
Oklahoma City
The Oklahoma SDA law states:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

I got to thinking about this after watching a video linked in a thread over at ARFCOM. In the video, a guy confronts a kid at a gas station who is wearing a "Sons of Anarchy" jacket. Several times the guy basically threatens to take the jacket from the kid if he doesn't take it off. In this situation, if the guy made that statement and began to advance on the kid, is it reasonable for the kid to believe himself in danger of great bodily harm? Is a one-on-one barehanded attack sufficient provocation to use a CCW weapon? Does it vary from person to person? Is someone with some medical condition that could kill or cripple them in a fight more justified in using deadly force than someone relatively young and healthy or are they equal?

I'll add that although I've had my CCW for 9+ years, I've never carried even once so this is more an academic question than a plausible scenario for me.
 

Jwryan84

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
3,286
Reaction score
682
Location
NW OKC
Turn in your man card and erase your question. Never carried even once, what in the actual ****. What difference does it make? Can't shoot them if you aren't armed.
 

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
87,259
Reaction score
68,789
Location
Ponca City Ok
There are numerous cases where a person was killed or crippled with one punch.
It's going to end up with the local prosecutor making a decision based on his personal/political beliefs and the evidence in the case as presented to him.
It's a slippery slope to shoot someone who wants to punch you.
Could a young punk threatening a senior citizen that can't fight back be guilty while a young punk threatening a peer with a punch be more or less guilty?
It's all up to a grand jury or prosecutor.
 

tRidiot

Perpetually dissatisfied
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 23, 2009
Messages
19,521
Reaction score
12,715
Location
Bartlesville
In my position, I could very easily make the case that I feel a single punch from a halfway-capable assailant makes me fear for my safety. One punch, lights out, and then you're helpless. These aren't the days of people duking it out and then shaking hands and moving on... to me someone who is intent on beating you may just turn out to be the next person who is in some viral video stomping an unconscious person to death. That person isn't going to be me, if I have ANY tool at my disposal to prevent it. Too many people completely incapacitated, seriously injured and killed by a "single punch".
 

chuter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
5,658
Reaction score
8,594
Location
over yonder
I'm no lawyer, but I think disparity of force might be a factor. An old, slow guy like me facing a young big guy, I'm going to lose.
All it takes is for you head to hit the concrete and you're out or dead. There have been too many stories lately about hand-to-hand fights ending with someone dead or permanently disabled.
Just ask the off duty officer who is now in a wheel chair for going up against those two guys in a restaurant a few years ago.
 

Old rookie

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 16, 2016
Messages
215
Reaction score
43
Location
El Reno
Turn in your man card and erase your question. Never carried even once, what in the actual ****. What difference does it make? Can't shoot them if you aren't armed.

I have to agree with this response...

To the OP - if you have a license, and aren't carrying, it don't make a tinkers' dam what the rule says. You gonna wave your license at 'em and hope they run???
MY (and my wife's) purpose is quite simple....we both want to have some confidence that we can affect an outcome of an assailant's efforts. If that means dead....well, the assailant gave away the right to live when he decided on assault and battery.
There's gonna be videos and Facebook, and witnesses' phones to subpoena anyway....
 

dennishoddy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2008
Messages
87,259
Reaction score
68,789
Location
Ponca City Ok
I'm no lawyer, but I think disparity of force might be a factor. An old, slow guy like me facing a young big guy, I'm going to lose.
All it takes is for you head to hit the concrete and you're out or dead. There have been too many stories lately about hand-to-hand fights ending with someone dead or permanently disabled.
Just ask the off duty officer who is now in a wheel chair for going up against those two guys in a restaurant a few years ago.

I think he was later killed in an auto accident.
 

MadDogs

Sharpshooter
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
2,960
Reaction score
631
Location
Edmond, OK
The law here in OK allows deadly force if a person has "reasonable fear of imminent peril." If you have "reasonable fear" that you could receive bodily damage such as losing an eye or getting a testicle popped you have a right to defend yourself and meet force with force to prevent such said "bodily harm".

That said defining your "reasonable fear" while in a public place can get tricky if only mean words are used.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom