# Self defense laws...



## CNida (Dec 28, 2013)

Question for anyone who cares to read this and is willing to elaborate a bit:

What are the "self defense laws" where you currently live? I use the term self defense laws loosely because I am not certain that there are such laws in some places.

For instance, during my tour in South Korea, I was told that there is no immediate right granted to you for self defense simply because you are attacked. Fleeing has the be your first consideration, always. If there is no way you can get away and call for help, and you are absolutely, positively backed into a corner with nowhere to run, then and only then can you take measures to physically defend yourself.

I'm a little foggy about the US laws. I think, here in Arkansas where I am staying, it's not so restricting. There is obviously such a thing as going too far, but I believe that generally it's expected that if you are attacked that you will do what it is necessary to defend yourself: be it running away or standing your ground. 

I know some states differ, and obviously other countries will be vastly different than ours here in the states, I am sure.


____________________________

"A man who has attained mastery of an art reveals it in his every action." - Anonymous


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 28, 2013)

Here is a link to a blog post regarding Nevada self-defense laws.  Note that this is a video put out by a Legal Team trying to get business:

http://brianvancise.com/2013/12/20/nevada-self-defense-laws-explained-by-a-lawyer/

This is their website where they break it down a bit more: http://www.shouselaw.com/nevada/self-defense.html

I think it is very important in your self defense training to get legal advise.  Personally I try to get it from several sources!

Self Defense laws do very from state to state here in the United States.  I think it is very important that you get good advise on what you legally can do in your state!


----------



## Tgace (Dec 28, 2013)

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17071 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Dec 28, 2013)

Here is another blog post regarding Michigan law:

http://brianvancise.com/2008/01/30/personal-protection-101-know-the-laws-in-your-state-country-etc/


----------



## Tgace (Dec 28, 2013)

Here's some stuff I've written on NY law:

http://tgace.com/category/law-enforcement-2/article-35/

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 28, 2013)

CNida said:


> Question for anyone who cares to read this and is willing to elaborate a bit:
> 
> What are the "self defense laws" where you currently live? I use the term self defense laws loosely because I am not certain that there are such laws in some places.
> 
> ...



Every state is different, and you really need to consult someone knowledgeable about your state laws.  There are some general principles across the US that are fairly consistent -- which is not to say that there aren't wrinkles that are unique.  Generally, you may use the force reasonably necessary to safely resolve a situation, and no more.  However, there are issues like so-called Stand Your Ground laws which may effect your duty to retreat and the Castle Doctrine that come into play, as well.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 28, 2013)

What's very interesting and important to know is that some States have self defence laws that are "affirmative defences"....which means YOU have to prove defence by a preponderance of the evidence while others have it as a "defence"...which means the State has to disprove self defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 28, 2013)

Tgace said:


> What's very interesting and important to know is that some States have self defence laws that are "affirmative defences"....which means YOU have to prove defence by a preponderance of the evidence while others have it as a "defence"...which means the State has to disprove self defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


I'm curious... which states don't treat self defense as an affirmative defense?  It's my understanding that the general principle is that self defense is an affirmative defense, requiring the accused to admit they did in fact commit the offense, but they were justified in doing so because they were (in the case of self defense) in fear of assault, bodily harm, or death.  As I understand it, even the states that have codified self defense or things like the Stand Your Ground laws don't change that proposition; they simply spell out specific circumstances that apply.


----------



## K-man (Dec 28, 2013)

Basically in Australia if there is any doubt you will end up in court to justify your actions. If there is CCTV, or witnesses showing you were attacked and had no option but to retaliate, then you will probably be ok as long as you didn't use excessive force. So rule of thumb, try to keep out of trouble in the first place.
:asian:


----------



## Tgace (Dec 28, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> I'm curious... which states don't treat self defense as an affirmative defense?  It's my understanding that the general principle is that self defense is an affirmative defense, requiring the accused to admit they did in fact commit the offense, but they were justified in doing so because they were (in the case of self defense) in fear of assault, bodily harm, or death.  As I understand it, even the states that have codified self defense or things like the Stand Your Ground laws don't change that proposition; they simply spell out specific circumstances that apply.



In NY The Defense of Justification is a "defense".

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Dec 28, 2013)

jks9199 said:


> I'm curious... which states don't treat self defense as an affirmative defense?  It's my understanding that the general principle is that self defense is an affirmative defense, requiring the accused to admit they did in fact commit the offense, but they were justified in doing so because they were (in the case of self defense) in fear of assault, bodily harm, or death.  As I understand it, even the states that have codified self defense or things like the Stand Your Ground laws don't change that proposition; they simply spell out specific circumstances that apply.



To clairfy:

http://www.usacarry.com/new-york-castle-doctrine-stand-your-ground-laws-facts-and-myths/



> Most states consider the use of deadly force in self-defense an Affirmative Defense  not so with New York:
> 
> THE RIGHT TO DEFEND ONESELF OR ANOTHER WAS EARLY CODIFIED IN THIS STATE AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE MURDER STATUTES, AND THIS COURT HAS LONG HELD THE PEOPLE HAVE THE BURDEN OF DISPROVING BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT A DEFENDANTS CLAIM THAT HE WAS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THAT RIGHT. ACCORDINGLY, JUSTIFICATION UNDER THE PENAL LAW IS AN ORDINARY DEFENSE RATHER THAN AN AFFIRMATIVE ONE. AS SUCH, WHENEVER JUSTIFICATION IS SUFFICIENTLY INTERPOSED BY THE DEFENDANT, THE PEOPLE MUST PROVE ITS ABSENCE TO THE SAME DEGREE AS ANY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. PEOPLE V. MCMANUS, 67 N.Y. 2D 541 (1986)
> 
> ...



And as spelled out in our penal law:



> In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 35.05 through 35.30, *is a defense*.



Whereas in our "insanity defense":



> 40.15 Mental disease or defect. In any prosecution for an offense, it is an *affirmative defense* that when the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect.
> 
> ...



This is why NY does not need or have a "Castle Doctrine" statute.....

So yes, a person has indeed admitted "I did it and I was justified", but he/she doesn't have to "prove it"....the State has to disprove it.

A shameless plug for some of my work further explaining NY Art 35:

http://tgace.com/category/law-enforcement-2/article-35/



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Dec 29, 2013)

As an interesting discussion regarding "citizens arrest", this is how MY state covers the use of force in that situation.

http://tgace.com/2013/12/28/stop-in-the-name-of-the-law/



> _4. A private person acting on his or her own account may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he or she reasonably believes to have committed an offense* and who in fact has committed such offense*; and may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
> _
> This covers &#8220;citizen arrests&#8221;.
> 
> ...



AKA "the you better be right law".


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> What's very interesting and important to know is that some States have self defence laws that are "affirmative defences"....which means YOU have to prove defence by a preponderance of the evidence while others have it as a "defence"...which means the State has to disprove self defence beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Self defense by its legal nature is always an affirmative legal defense. The reasons for using force and the extent of the force used must be proven to be reasonable by the person should he be prosecuted by the state or sued in civil court.


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 29, 2013)

Tgace said:


> As an interesting discussion regarding "citizens arrest", this is how MY state covers the use of force in that situation.
> 
> http://tgace.com/2013/12/28/stop-in-the-name-of-the-law/
> 
> ...



Be careful, if you mistakenly detain a person, you could be sued for false arrest or even prosecuted for kidnapping.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 29, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> Self defense by its legal nature is always an affirmative legal defense. The reasons for using force and the extent of the force used must be proven to be reasonable by the person should he be prosecuted by the state or sued in civil court.



Not in every State it's not. Read my post above regarding NY law.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/198660867NY2d541_1553



> This right to defend oneself or another was early codified in this State as an integral part of the murder statutes (see, e.g., L 1787, ch 22; 2 Rev Stat of NY, part IV, ch I, tit II, § 3 [1829]), and this court has long held the People have the burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt a defendant's claim that he was acting in the exercise of that right (see, e.g., People v Taylor, 177 N.Y. 237, 245, supra; People v Riordan, 117 N.Y. 71, 74-75). *Accordingly, justification under the Penal Law is an ordinary defense rather than an affirmative one* (see, Penal Law § 35.00). *As such, whenever justification is sufficiently
> *
> *interposed by the defendant, the PEOPLE MUST PROVE its absence to the same degree as any element of the crime charged *(People v Reed, 40 N.Y.2d 204, 209; People v Steele, 26 N.Y.2d 526, 528).


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Not in every State it's not. Read my post above regarding NY law.
> 
> http://www.leagle.com/decision/198660867NY2d541_1553



Ok. However, a person still must make a defense. He is not shielded from civil liability either. See the case of Bernard Getz.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 30, 2013)

Rumy73 said:


> Ok. However, a person still must make a defense. He is not shielded from civil liability either. See the case of Bernard Getz.



Civil liability is an entirely different subject. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Rumy73 (Dec 30, 2013)

Tgace said:


> Civil liability is an entirely different subject.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Yes, it is. However, it cannot be ignored.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 30, 2013)

Ill start with staying alive as the first priority.....getting sued as a second.


----------



## Tgace (Dec 30, 2013)

It appears that Hawaii has Justification classified as a "defense" (vs. Affirmative Defense) as well:

http://statutes.laws.com/hawaii/volume-14/title-37/chapter-703/hrs-0703-0301-htm

Of course the defendant in any self-defense case will have to provide some sort of evidence that his/her use of force was in self-defense, BUT once that's provided the State then has to disprove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

In "affirmative defense" cases its on the defendant to prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This is a major difference in how your court experience will go if you ever have to use force in self-defense.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/histatutes/5/37/701/701-115



> The Code establishes two classes of defenses. As to both, it places an initial burden on the defendant to come forward with some credible evidence of facts constituting the defense, unless, of course, those facts are supplied by the prosecution's witnesses.
> 
> As to the burden of persuasion, two different rules are codified. In the case of defenses which are not affirmative, the defendant need only raise a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. The other side of the coin is that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt facts negativing the defense. The prosecution in fact does this when the jury believes its case and disbelieves the defense.
> 
> ...


----------



## K-man (Dec 30, 2013)

It also may depend on any injury caused. If there was an altercation where one person was obviously to blame for a situation, as in an unprovoked attack, and the person attacked defends themselves without causing injury to the attacker, it would be extremely unlikely that police here would do more than interview the person who used force to defend them self. That could even occur if minor damage was inflicted. However, as soon as there is an injury there is the chance of civil litigation, a very good reason to ensure that force used is not excessive.
:asian:


----------



## PhotonGuy (Jan 25, 2014)

CNida said:


> For instance, during my tour in South Korea, I was told that there is no immediate right granted to you for self defense simply because you are attacked. Fleeing has the be your first consideration, always. If there is no way you can get away and call for help, and you are absolutely, positively backed into a corner with nowhere to run, then and only then can you take measures to physically defend yourself.


The problem with that is a person shouldn't have to flee a public place just because some hoodlum attacks them. Lets say Im attacked on the street, the hoodlum doesn't own the street and I have as much as a right to be there as they do. I shouldn't have to leave a place I have a right to be at, just because some troublemaker attacks me.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 25, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> The problem with that is a person shouldn't have to flee a public place just because some hoodlum attacks them. Lets say Im attacked on the street, the hoodlum doesn't own the street and I have as much as a right to be there as they do. I shouldn't have to leave a place I have a right to be at, just because some troublemaker attacks me.



Dude... You need some reality checking.  Life ain't fair, and while you may feel you have a right to go where you want, there are formal and informal rules.  Wander down the wrong streets of Anacostia in DC or in the Tenderloin in San Fransisco, or enter the wrong hollow in the Appalachian Mountains, and you'll learn that they play by different rule sets, and they don't care about yours.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 26, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Dude... You need some reality checking.  Life ain't fair, and while you may feel you have a right to go where you want, there are formal and informal rules.  Wander down the wrong streets of Anacostia in DC or in the Tenderloin in San Fransisco, or enter the wrong hollow in the Appalachian Mountains, and you'll learn that they play by different rule sets, and they don't care about yours.



Absolutely true!!!


----------



## wingchun100 (Mar 17, 2014)

CNida said:


> Question for anyone who cares to read this and is willing to elaborate a bit:
> 
> What are the "self defense laws" where you currently live? I use the term self defense laws loosely because I am not certain that there are such laws in some places.
> 
> ...



Where I live you are allowed to do "enough" to get out of a situation safely. If you are cornered in an alley, then you are supposed to do what you can to make an escape route and then leave. Let's say five guys have you trapped in this alley. If you have a clear shot to run once you knock one of them down, then you would not be legally justified to beat the crap out of the other four.


----------



## wingchun100 (Mar 17, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Dude... You need some reality checking.  Life ain't fair, and while you may feel you have a right to go where you want, there are formal and informal rules.  Wander down the wrong streets of Anacostia in DC or in the Tenderloin in San Fransisco, or enter the wrong hollow in the Appalachian Mountains, and you'll learn that they play by different rule sets, and they don't care about yours.



Yes, I have heard something about this too. You walk through a neighborhood that is well-known to be a high crime area. Some thugs attack you. You defend yourself. The police get involved. It goes to court. They will say, "Well why would you walk through a neighborhood you knew was bad?"

Is it unfair? Yes. Is it the same as saying that a rape victim was asking for it? Yes. But this is the kind of stunt that defense lawyers will pull.


----------



## drop bear (Mar 17, 2014)

Honestly I don't know anymore.

I was kicking out a guy who I wound up having to drop.

In the process he bit me and I rape choked him.

It went to court and he got off.obviously because of the choke right?

No. It was because at one point I grabbed his elbow because he was turning and swearing at me. I had unlawfully assaulted his elbow. And he bit me in reasonable self defence.


----------



## The_Awesome_User (Jun 1, 2015)

Thankfully in the us we believe if someone forces his way onto your property you can pretty much use as much force as you can. Because you never know when someone is hiding a weapon.

However some liberal states like California basicly force you to hide in your bedroom while someone robs your house.

Burglar in Texas "hey don't steel from that guy. He's got a mini gun"

Burglar in Texas's buddy " I wont because I heard he has chuck Norrises phone number let's move to California"








Calafornia resident "hey are you finished yet"

Burglar from Texas in California "nah I am still having trouble getting the tv through the door"

(Disclaimer this is a hyperbole and it is suposed to be bad . Don't get offended or the trolls will find your house and turn you into a meme)


----------

