Brandt wrote:In Oklahoma and Texas (where I live and go to school), If someone pulls a gun on me, I can legally disarm them and shoot them with their own gun.
This is not even remotely true - I can't speak for Oklahoma, but in Texas, shooting an unarmed attacker would definitely have repercussions. Once you have disarmed your opponent, I am imagining that a jury would find it very difficult to believe that you had a necessity to use deadly force in that situation.
From the Texas Penal Code:
"Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing, death or serious bodily injury.
Sec. 9.21. PUBLIC DUTY. (a) Except as qualified by Subsections (b) and (c), conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is required or authorized by law, by the judgment or order of a competent court or other governmental tribunal, or in the execution of legal process.(b) The other sections of this chapter control when force is used against a person to protect persons (Subchapter C), to protect property (Subchapter D), for law enforcement (Subchapter E), or by virtue of a special relationship (Subchapter F).(c) The use of deadly force is not justified under this section unless the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is specifically required by statute or unless it occurs in the lawful conduct of war. If deadly force is so justified, there is no duty to retreat before using it.(d) The justification afforded by this section is available if the actor reasonably believes:(1) the court or governmental tribunal has jurisdiction or the process is lawful, even though the court or governmental tribunal lacks jurisdiction or the process is unlawful; or(2) his conduct is required or authorized to assist a public servant in the performance of his official duty, even though the servant exceeds his lawful authority.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.
There's also reams and reams of case law wherein persons WERE found guilty of using deadly force against someone whom they had disarmed, all over the United States. Part of an affirmative defense to prosecution for (insert charge or lesser included offense here) is that you felt an immediate threat of Death or Serious Bodily Injury. Which, while perhaps true, would be exceedingly difficult to prove in court.
I suggest a serious look at the laws in whatever state you habituate, and gain an in-depth understanding of those laws and how they pertain to you and your safety. This is especially noteworthy given recent events.
Just my 2 cents. Otherwise, nice write-up on Krav Maga, I think I'll check it out.
<edited to add: Wow, I didn't see how old the original post was, my bad>