Excaliber wrote:I'd like to offer my thanks to Humanphibian for sharing his complex and dynamic incident with the forum members. I think you reasoned your way through a most difficult incident, and you handled the situation extraordinarily well. There is a huge amount of material in your account that can be mined for productive discussion. I look forward to reading your own post incident review once things quiet down enough to allow reflection.
I will comment on just a few points initially:
1. IANAL, but from the facts as presented, I don't see a clean case for use of deadly force under the circumstances (no weapon, multiple attackers, disparity of force, etc.). One could make an argument that a single punch to the temple could create serious bodily injury, but it wouldn't be clear cut by any means. Keeping it on the hand to hand level even though you were armed showed great restraint. I hope this was documented in the police report - it may well come in handy later. Folks without your level of physical fitness and skill might well not have had this option, but you did and you used it to come out of the situation about as successfully as is possible under the circumstances. Outstanding work!.
*******"Great Restraint" was used by EVERY officer on scene, and was noted in the reports.
Excaliber wrote:2. If the assailant had grabbed for the holstered weapon, or if the weapon had become dislodged from the holster and the assailant attempted to retrieve it, the situation would immediately have gone to the deadly force level..
*******ABSOLUTELY!! My primary concerns were #1: Deflect blows, #2: secure weapon......those two handled, and the rest will handle itself.
Excaliber wrote:3. A castle doctrine defense would have been substantially muddied by the fact that the assailant had been invited to the property by the owners / leaseholders (even reluctantly under the circumstances) and the situation occurred in a garage with the door open and in proximity to the property to be picked up. Of course even an invited guest isn't allowed to commit a criminal attack on the property, but these facts could create a level of complexity that wouldn't be helpful and could be used to misrepresent what actually happened. Not needing the castle doctrine defense at all here is clearly the best position to be in..
*******This one was the sticky part. He was informed that his things would be on the sidewalk when he got there. I believed at the time and still do that Castle Doctrine would have applied in this case, as he drove past his belongings, within 2 feet, and instead chose to enter the residence with ill-intent. Invited.....maybe.....muddy circumstances.....SURE! This is not a court battle I would want to fight, but I think I would have prevailed under the circumstances, and with the history taken into consideration.
Excaliber wrote:4. I very much agree with the other posts advising extra caution for both you and your fiance. Staying at Condition Orange is mandatory under the circumstances so you can routinely keep multiple barriers and lots of distance between you and him, and prepare options for the possibility that those barriers and distance may not be sufficient to prevent an attack..
*******AGREED!!
Excaliber wrote:People with the type of history you described for your attacker often become obsessed with injuring or killing the people they focus on. They operate at an emotional level where uncontrolled drives are very strong and rational consideration of negative consequences of actions (arrest, loss of income, property, freedom, etc.) are very weak. Use of intoxicating and / or mind altering substances further reduces any inhibitions they may have. Many of them see their victims as responsible for everything that is wrong in their own lives and do not plan a future beyond an attack, or plan to die through either police action or suicide immediately afterward (the "blaze of glory" ending). Their major go / no go decision at any given time is often based upon whether they think they can succeed in the goal of the attack (harm the victim), regardless of what happens to them afterwards.
Although each case is different and there is no way to predict with certainty how any given one will turn out, yours has a lot to be concerned about. Your assailant has shown a steady progression from low level harassment through an escalating series of threats and has now committed an unprovoked direct physical attack which for him, ended in retreat and humiliation. A deadly attack would be the next escalation on this continuum, with your fiance at particular risk (he could effectively hurt both by engaging the easier target and showing that he is in control after all).
It would be wise to regard him as extremely dangerous. Special precautions should be taken at the two places where one can most predictably be found - at home and in the workplace. In your individual circumstances, there may be others as well (the gym, for instance). The danger will remain as long as the subject is focused on you and yours.
[/quote]
******Daily Routes are changed, regular times for Gym, groceries, dry cleaners all changed. Local and County PD's and So's where work address are have been notified and supplied with his personal information. History of situation, along with current photos of him as well as vehicle were included.
