# Use of Force Law



## Tgace

As a source of discussion, as well as a refrence thread, I was hoping everybody would look up their state law regarding use of force. Or for those outside the US, whatever law applies.


----------



## Tgace

New York State

ARTICLE 35--DEFENSE OF JUSTIFICATION
Section 35.00 Justification;  a defense 

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


Section 35.05 Justification;  generally 

 Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when: 

 1. Such conduct is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree, or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of his official powers, duties or functions;  or 

 2. Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.  The necessity and justifiability of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder.  Whenever evidence relating to the defense of justification under this subdivision is offered by the defendant, the court shall rule as a matter of law whether the claimed facts and circumstances would, if established, constitute a defense. 


Section 35.10 Justification;  use of physical force generally 

 The use of physical force upon another person which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances: 

 1. A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one or an incompetent person, and a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a person under the age of twenty-one for a special purpose, may use physical force, but not deadly physical force, upon such person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of such person. 

 2. A warden or other authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional institution may, in order to maintain order and discipline, use such physical force as is authorized by the correction law. 

 3. A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under his direction, may use physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but he may use deadly physical force only when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury. 

 4. A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself may use physical force upon such person to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to thwart such result. 

 5. A duly licensed physician, or a person acting under his direction, may use physical force for the purpose of administering a recognized form of treatment which he reasonably believes to be adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient if (a) the treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient is under the age of eighteen years or an incompetent person, with the consent of his parent, guardian or other person entrusted with his care and supervision, or (b) the treatment is administered in an emergency when the physician reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent. 

 6. A person may, pursuant to the ensuing provisions of this article, use physical force upon another person in defense of himself or a third person, or in defense of premises, or in order to prevent larceny of or criminal mischief to property, or in order to effect an arrest or prevent an escape from custody.  Whenever a person is authorized by any such provision to use deadly physical force in any given circumstance, nothing contained in any other such provision may be deemed to negate or qualify such authorization. 


Section 35.15 Justification;  use of physical force in defense of a person 

 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless: 

  (a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor himself with intent to cause physical injury to another person;  or 

  (b) The actor was the initial aggressor;  except that in such case his use of  physical force is nevertheless justifiable if he has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force;  or 

  (c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. 

 2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless: 

  (a) He reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force.  Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he knows that he can with complete safety as to himself and others avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;  except that he is under no duty to retreat if he is: 

   (i) in his dwelling and not the initial aggressor;  or 

   (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30;  or 

  (b) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery;  or 

  (c) He reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting  to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20. 


Section 35.20 Justification;  use of physical force in defense of premises and in defense of a person in the course of burglary 

 1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a crime involving damage to premises.  He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force if he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson. 

 2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon such premises.  He may use any degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force in order to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three. 

 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary. 

 4. As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings: 

  (a) The terms "premises," "building" and "dwelling" have the meanings prescribed in section 140.00; 

  (b) Persons "licensed or privileged" to be in buildings or upon other premises include, but are not limited to, police officers or peace officers acting in the performance of their duties. 


Section 35.25 Justification;  use of physical force to prevent or terminate larceny or criminal mischief 

 A person may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such other person of larceny or of criminal mischief with respect to property other than premises. 


Section 35.27 Justification;  use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited 

 A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest, whether authorized or unauthorized, which is being effected or attempted by a police officer or peace officer when it would reasonably appear that the latter is a police officer or peace officer. 


Section 35.30 Justification;  use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape 

 1. A police officer or a peace officer, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest, or of preventing or attempting to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense, may use physical force when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, or to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force;  except that he may use deadly physical force for such purposes only when he reasonably believes that: 

  (a) The offense committed by such person was: 

   (i) a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or attempted use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person;  or 

   (ii) kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime;  or 

  (b) The offense committed or attempted by such person was a felony and that, in the course of resisting arrest therefor or attempting to escape from custody, such person is armed with a firearm or deadly weapon;  or 

  (c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the police officer or peace officer or another person from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. 

 2. The fact that a police officer or a peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force under circumstances prescribed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subdivision one does not constitute justification for reckless conduct by such police officer or peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody. 

 3. A person who has been directed by a police officer or a peace officer to assist such police officer or peace officer to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such police officer's or peace officer's direction, unless he knows that the arrest or prospective arrest is not or was not authorized and he may use deadly physical force under such circumstances when: 

  (a) He reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;  or 

  (b) He is directed or authorized by such police officer or peace officer to use deadly physical force unless he knows that the police officer or peace officer himself is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances. 

 4. A private person acting on his own account may use physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed an offense and who in fact has committed such offense;  and he may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to: 

  (a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;  or 

  (b) Effect the arrest of a person who has committed murder, manslaughter in the first degree, robbery, forcible rape or forcible criminal sexual act and who is in immediate flight therefrom. 

 5. A guard, police officer or peace officer who is charged with the duty of guarding prisoners in a detention facility, as that term is defined in section 205.00, or while in transit to or from a detention facility, may use physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner from a detention facility or from custody while in transit thereto or therefrom.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

Excellent idea.  I have no idea what it is for Indiana.


----------



## Tgace

Edmucate youself.....Some good search parameters are: <your state>/penal law/use of force/defense/justification.


----------



## Feisty Mouse

lol - I will be back when edumacated!


----------



## Gary Crawford

laws ruin all the fun.The gist of what I understand of laws concerning defending yourself is that you are only allowed to use enough force to stop the attack,beating the dog out of em to make sure they never consider attacking you again is not allowed.


----------



## dearnis.com

Nice Topic; I'm away off for the weekend; will post Monday night.


----------



## loki09789

Gary Crawford said:
			
		

> laws ruin all the fun.The gist of what I understand of laws concerning defending yourself is that you are only allowed to use enough force to stop the attack,beating the dog out of em to make sure they never consider attacking you again is not allowed.


That may be the general 'gist' but if you notice the details in NYS penal law/Article 35, you better be more versed than just the 'spirit of the law.'  I notice many a comment about the unfairness of the law and how the law stacks the deck against the responsible citizen...well yeah.  It is always harder on the person who is trying to act morally, responsible and with a respect for life and property.  The guy who doesn't care will see more options everytime - because he doesn't CARE.

Knowing the law better than 'gist' will help you stay out of jail, court and from crying 'that's not fair' because you know the 'rules of the game....'

I may be a BB in this empty hand stuff, but Lawyers/LEO are the ranking experts in the letigious arena of self defense.  Consulting them, understanding what documents/regulations they work from (ie the law) when dealing with me after or during a situation is a good thing to know.


----------



## Sapper6

here is missouri state law regarding defense justification/use of force.  would be neat to compare state to state to note differences :idunno: 



> Use of force in defense of persons.
> 563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:
> 
> (1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided
> 
> (a) He has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or
> 
> (b) He is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or
> 
> (c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;
> 
> (2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force.
> 
> 2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson.
> 
> 3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
> 
> 4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
> 
> (L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180)
> 
> 
> 
> Battered spouse syndrome evidence that defendant acted in self-defense or defense of another--procedure.
> 563.033. 1. Evidence that the actor was suffering from the battered spouse syndrome shall be admissible upon the issue of whether the actor lawfully acted in self-defense or defense of another.
> 
> 2. If the defendant proposes to offer evidence of the battered spouse syndrome, he shall file written notice thereof with the court in advance of trial. Thereafter, the court, upon motion of the state, shall appoint one or more private psychiatrists or psychologists, as defined in section 632.005, RSMo, or physicians with a minimum of one year training or experience in providing treatment or services to mentally retarded or mentally ill individuals, who are neither employees nor contractors of the department of mental health for the purposes of performing the examination in question, to examine the accused, or shall direct the director of the department of mental health, or his designee, to have the accused so examined by one or more psychiatrists or psychologists, as defined in section 632.005, RSMo, or physicians with a minimum of one year training or experience in providing treatment or services to mentally retarded or mentally ill individuals designated by the director, or his designee, for the purpose of examining the defendant. No private psychiatrist, psychologist, or physician shall be appointed by the court unless he has consented to act. The examinations ordered shall be made at such time and place and under such conditions as the court deems proper; except that if the order directs the director of the department of mental health to have the accused examined, the director, or his designee, shall determine the reasonable time, place and conditions under which the examination shall be conducted. The order may include provisions for the interview of witnesses.
> 
> 3. No statement made by the accused in the course of any such examination and no information received by any physician or other person in the course thereof, whether such examination was made with or without the consent of the accused or upon his motion or upon that of others, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the issue of whether he committed the act charged against him in any criminal proceeding then or thereafter pending in any court, state or federal.
> 
> (L. 1987 H.B. 341)
> (1990) Evidence of "battered spouse syndrome" admissible in claims of self-defense does not depend on defendant's marital status. (Mo.App. E.D.) State v. Williams, 787 S.W.2d 308.
> 
> (1995) Where wife looked for someone to kill her husband for over three months prior to murder, statute prohibits the battered spouse syndrome because defendant had not been able to raise the issue of self-defense. Anderson v. Goeke, 44 F.3d 675 (8th Cir.).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use of physical force in defense of premises.
> 563.036. 1. A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of the crime of trespass by the other person.
> 
> 2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 of this section only:
> 
> (1) When such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
> 
> (2) When he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or burglary upon his dwelling; or
> 
> (3) When entry into the premises is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering physical violence to any person or being in the premises and he reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony.
> 
> 3. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
> 
> (L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180)
> 
> 
> 
> Use of physical force in defense of property.
> 563.041. 1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.
> 
> 2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.
> 
> 3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so.
> 
> 4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
> 
> (L. 1977 S.B. 60)
> Effective 1-1-79
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.
> 563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.
> 
> 2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.
> 
> 3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
> 
> (1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
> 
> (2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested
> 
> (a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or
> 
> (b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or
> 
> (c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay.
> 
> 4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
> 
> (L. 1977 S.B. 60)
> Effective 1-1-79
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private person's use of force in making an arrest.
> 563.051. 1. A private person who has been directed by a person he reasonably believes to be a law enforcement officer to assist such officer to effect an arrest or to prevent escape from custody may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3, use physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to carry out such officer's direction unless he knows or believes that the arrest or prospective arrest is not or was not authorized.
> 
> 2. A private person acting on his own account may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3, use physical force to effect arrest or prevent escape only when and to the extent such is immediately necessary to effect the arrest, or to prevent escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes to have committed a crime and who in fact has committed such crime.
> 
> 3. A private person in effecting an arrest or in preventing escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only
> 
> (1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
> 
> (2) When he reasonably believes such to be authorized under the circumstances and he is directed or authorized by a law enforcement officer to use deadly force; or
> 
> (3) When he reasonably believes such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest of a person who at that time and in his presence
> 
> (a) Committed or attempted to commit a class A felony or murder; or
> 
> (b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon.
> 
> 4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
> 
> (L. 1977 S.B. 60)
> Effective 1-1-79
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Use of force to prevent escape from confinement.
> 563.056. 1. A guard or other law enforcement officer may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2, use physical force when he reasonably believes such to be immediately necessary to prevent escape from confinement or in transit thereto or therefrom.
> 
> 2. A guard or other law enforcement officer may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only
> 
> (1) When such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or
> 
> (2) When he reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the escapee will endanger human life or cause serious physical injury unless the escape is prevented.
> 
> 3. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
> 
> (L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1983 H.B. 713 Revision)
> 
> 
> 
> Use of force by persons with responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others.
> 563.061. 1. The use of physical force by an actor upon another person is justifiable when the actor is a parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person or when the actor is a teacher or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor for a special purpose; and
> 
> (1) The actor reasonably believes that the force used is necessary to promote the welfare of a minor or incompetent person, or, if the actor's responsibility for the minor is for special purposes, to further that special purpose or to maintain reasonable discipline in a school, class or other group; and
> 
> (2) The force used is not designed to cause or believed to create a substantial risk of causing death, serious physical injury, disfigurement, extreme pain or extreme emotional distress.
> 
> 2. A warden or other authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional institution may, in order to maintain order and discipline, use whatever physical force, including deadly force, that is authorized by law.
> 
> 3. The use of physical force by an actor upon another person is justifiable when the actor is a person responsible for the operation of or the maintenance of order in a vehicle or other carrier of passengers and the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent interference with its operation or to maintain order in the vehicle or other carrier, except that deadly force may be used only when the actor reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
> 
> 4. The use of physical force by an actor upon another person is justified when the actor is a physician or a person assisting at his direction; and
> 
> (1) The force is used for the purpose of administering a medically acceptable form of treatment which the actor reasonably believes to be adapted to promoting the physical or mental health of the patient; and
> 
> (2) The treatment is administered with the consent of the patient or, if the patient is a minor or an incompetent person, with the consent of the parent, guardian, or other person legally competent to consent on his behalf, or the treatment is administered in an emergency when the actor reasonably believes that no one competent to consent can be consulted and that a reasonable person, wishing to safeguard the welfare of the patient, would consent.
> 
> 5. The use of physical force by an actor upon another person is justifiable when the actor acts under the reasonable belief that
> 
> (1) Such other person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical injury upon himself; and
> 
> (2) The force used is necessary to thwart such result.
> 
> 6. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.
> 
> (L. 1977 S.B. 60)
> Effective 1-1-79
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Accidents an excuse for crime, when.
> 563.070. 1. Conduct which would otherwise constitute a crime under chapter 565, RSMo, is excusable and not criminal when it is the result of accident in any lawful act by lawful means without knowingly causing or attempting to cause physical injury and without acting with criminal negligence.
> 
> 2. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of excuse authorized under this section.
> 
> (L. 1983 S.B. 276, A.L. 1984 S.B. 448 § A)


----------



## Tgace

Very similar to NY except for the battered spouse section.


----------



## AnimEdge

Stuff i found for Texas:

CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE​CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON​Sec. 83.001.  AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.  It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using deadly force under Section 9.32, Penal Code, against a person who at the time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


Thats the uh only thing i can find so far


----------



## 8253

Sorry i dont have an ORC with me right now but as far as Ohio goes it is the use of force continuem, basically you can defend yourself physically up to and including deadly force only untill the threat is no longer present.  Basically if a person hits you, you hit them back and they run away, you cant chase them down and commence to beating on them.   One subject that i really dont agree with in the ORC is that if someone is breaking into you house to steal something, and not physically threating you, there is really nothing that you can physcally do to them.    Fortunately, when you have fired several warning shots, they dont really stick around long to see if you will hurt them so they can sue you. :uzi:


----------



## Tgace

AnimEdge said:
			
		

> Stuff i found for Texas:
> 
> CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE​
> CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON​
> Sec. 83.001.AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the defendant, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using deadly force under Section 9.32, Penal Code, against a person who at the time of the use of force was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant.
> 
> Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
> 
> 
> Thats the uh only thing i can find so far


[HINT]Section 9.32, Penal Code[/HINT]


----------



## Tgace

8253 said:
			
		

> One subject that i really dont agree with in the ORC is that if someone is breaking into you house to steal something, and not physically threating you, there is really nothing that you can physcally do to them. Fortunately, when you have fired several warning shots, they dont really stick around long to see if you will hurt them so they can sue you. :uzi:


Thats different than NY...

3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person *when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.*

The bolded part is where the lawyers will look to get ya'.


----------



## JPR

Indiana law for any interested.

####################################################
*IC 35-41-3-2* 


_Use of force to protect person or property_
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling or curtilage.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if: 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. 

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1.


*IC 35-41-3-3* 

_Use of force relating to arrest or escape_
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony. However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary: (A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or (B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2. 

As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.9; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.2; P.L.245-1993, SEC.1. 
####################################################
It seems pretty subjective to me because it is based upon what I "believe" a bad person is about to do and the level of threat they represent to me or to others. I am sure there is a ton of case law that better defines the rules.

JPR


----------



## OULobo

8253 said:
			
		

> Sorry i dont have an ORC with me right now but as far as Ohio goes it is the use of force continuem, basically you can defend yourself physically up to and including deadly force only untill the threat is no longer present.  Basically if a person hits you, you hit them back and they run away, you cant chase them down and commence to beating on them.   One subject that i really dont agree with in the ORC is that if someone is breaking into you house to steal something, and not physically threating you, there is really nothing that you can physcally do to them.    Fortunately, when you have fired several warning shots, they dont really stick around long to see if you will hurt them so they can sue you. :uzi:



Then you get hit with the various discharging a firearms and endangerment charges. However I have heard a few officers tell me that they often showed up at a scene where the homeowner had apprehended and secured the suspect for the officer pre-LEO arrival. There were no charges or lawsuits against the homeowner and I would assume he use a modicum of force. Maybe the suspect didn't know he could sue.


----------



## OULobo

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thats different than NY...
> 
> 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person *when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.*
> 
> The bolded part is where the lawyers will look to get ya'.



That's still better than we have here. That's the first law from NY that makes me want to move. It always seems tantamount to me to be able to defend the sanctity of a legal home by any means necessary.


----------



## someguy

I'll get edumatacted after this weekend probably.  If I remeber and nobody does it for me.
Hmm Texan law I figured it would be if ya don't shoot 'em very very dead you get the chair.


----------



## loki09789

someguy said:
			
		

> I'll get edumatacted after this weekend probably. If I remeber and nobody does it for me.
> Hmm Texan law I figured it would be if ya don't shoot 'em very very dead you get the chair.


I thought it was if you kill it you gotta clean it.....

Seriously though, I have noticed, as has been mentioned the spirit of these laws are similiar ( I am NYS so the penal code is already up) but the specifics about what justifies (please read can keep you from being sentence for manslaughter or assault) use of force/deadly force can really indicate the 'flavor' of that particular region.  Does anyone notice a 'midwest' tone to the laws of that area or a 'NorthEast' tone for that region as well?

Tom pointed out the domestic portion having differences.  Could regional culture be playing a part in that and if so how?


----------



## Tgace

Excellent start....keep em coming.

Heres a good starting point....
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/state_statutes.html

This goes right to the list of penal codes....
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/state_statutes2.html#criminal_code


----------



## Shurikan

Montana,

There are several different sections of law that cover this such as disorderly conduct , domestic abuse, assult. But basically one thing in common is that for you to use force agianst another individual you have to feel threatened. So if someone comes up and starts pushing you around and you feel that you are in harms way you can defend yourself but on the other hand if you dont feel he is a threat pushing you around you are not allowed to cause harm or bodily injury.
So make sure if you are going to hurt someone you can act like it was a life or death situtation when he stole your candy bar.


----------



## Tgace

Shurikan said:
			
		

> Montana,
> 
> There are several different sections of law that cover this such as disorderly conduct , domestic abuse, assult. But basically one thing in common is that for you to use force agianst another individual you have to feel threatened. So if someone comes up and starts pushing you around and you feel that you are in harms way you can defend yourself but on the other hand if you dont feel he is a threat pushing you around you are not allowed to cause harm or bodily injury.
> So make sure if you are going to hurt someone you can act like it was a life or death situtation when he stole your candy bar.


Actually Montana has a penal law "use of force" section....
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca_toc/45_3_1.htm


----------



## AnimEdge

Tgace said:
			
		

> [HINT]Section 9.32, Penal Code[/HINT]


Wow theres a lota stuff here  There site looks so easy untill you try and look fopr something


----------



## AnimEdge

PENAL CODE​CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY​SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS​Sec. 9.01.  DEFINITIONS.  In this chapter:

(1)  "Custody" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.

(2)  "Escape" has the meaning assigned by Section 38.01.

(3)  "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.

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;  Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 293, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.

Sec. 9.02.  JUSTIFICATION AS A DEFENSE.  It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.

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. 9.03.  CONFINEMENT AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE.  Confinement is justified when force is justified by this chapter if the actor takes reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows he safely can unless the person confined has been arrested for an offense.

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. 9.04.  THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE.  The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this chapter.  For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force.

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. 9.05.  RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON.  Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

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. 9.06.  CIVIL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED.  The fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

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.

SUBCHAPTER B. JUSTIFICATION GENERALLY​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.

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.

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS​Sec. 9.31.  SELF-DEFENSE.  (a)  Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(b)  The use of force against another is not justified:

(1)  in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2)  to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3)  if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4)  if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A)  the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter;  and

(B)  the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;  or

(5)  if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A)  carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02;  or

(B)  possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c)  The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search;  and

(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d)  The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

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;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Sec. 9.32.  DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.  (a)  A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31;

(2)  if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated;  and

(3)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)  to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;  or

(B)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

(b)  The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983;  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994;  Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Sec. 9.33.  DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.  A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1)  under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect;  and

(2)  the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

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. 9.34.  PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.  (a)  A person is justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.

(b)  A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an emergency.

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.

SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY​Sec. 9.41.  PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.  (a)  A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b)  A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1)  the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor;  or

(2)  the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

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. 9.42.  DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.  A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1)  if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41;  and

(2)  when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A)  to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;  or

(B)  to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;  and

(3)  he reasonably believes that:

(A)  the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;  or

(B)  the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

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. 9.43.  PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.  A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1)  the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property;  or

(2)  the actor reasonably believes that:

(A)  the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B)  he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property;  or

(C)  the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

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. 9.44.  USE OF DEVICE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.  The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1)  the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury;  and

(2)  use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.  Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, Sec. 6, eff. Sept. 1, 1975.  Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

SUBCHAPTER E. LAW ENFORCEMENT​Sec. 9.51.  ARREST AND SEARCH.  (a)  A peace officer, or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after arrest, if:

(1)  the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he reasonably believes the warrant is valid;  and

(2)  before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace officer or as one acting at a peace officer's direction, unless he reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.

(b)  A person other than a peace officer (or one acting at his direction) is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making a lawful arrest, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after lawful arrest if, before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to and the reason for the arrest or reasonably believes his purpose and the reason are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.

(c)  A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (a) and:

(1)  the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force;  or

(2)  the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is delayed.

(d)  A person other than a peace officer acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make a lawful arrest, or to prevent escape after a lawful arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (b) and:

(1)  the actor reasonably believes the felony or offense against the public peace for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force;  or

(2)  the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to another if the arrest is delayed.

(e)  There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force justified by Subsection (c) or (d).

(f)  Nothing in this section relating to the actor's manifestation of purpose or identity shall be construed as conflicting with any other law relating to the issuance, service, and execution of an arrest or search warrant either under the laws of this state or the United States.

(g)  Deadly force may only be used under the circumstances enumerated in Subsections (c) and (d).

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. 9.52.  PREVENTION OF ESCAPE FROM CUSTODY.  The use of force to prevent the escape of an arrested person from custody is justifiable when the force could have been employed to effect the arrest under which the person is in custody, except that a guard employed by a correctional facility or a peace officer is justified in using any force, including deadly force, that he reasonably believes to be immediately necessary to prevent the escape of a person from the correctional facility.

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. 9.53.  MAINTAINING SECURITY IN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY.  An officer or employee of a correctional facility is justified in using force against a person in custody when and to the degree the officer or employee reasonably believes the force is necessary to maintain the security of the correctional facility, the safety or security of other persons in custody or employed by the correctional facility, or his own safety or security.

Added by Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 512, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

SUBCHAPTER F. SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS​Sec. 9.61.  PARENT-CHILD.  (a)  The use of force, but not deadly force, against a child younger than 18 years is justified:

(1)  if the actor is the child's parent or stepparent or is acting in loco parentis to the child;  and

(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to discipline the child or to safeguard or promote his welfare.

(b)  For purposes of this section, "in loco parentis" includes grandparent and guardian, any person acting by, through, or under the direction of a court with jurisdiction over the child, and anyone who has express or implied consent of the parent or parents.

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. 9.62.  EDUCATOR-STUDENT.  The use of force, but not deadly force, against a person is justified:

(1)  if the actor is entrusted with the care, supervision, or administration of the person for a special purpose;  and

(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to further the special purpose or to maintain discipline in a group.

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. 9.63.  GUARDIAN-INCOMPETENT.  The use of force, but not deadly force, against a mental incompetent is justified:

(1)  if the actor is the incompetent's guardian or someone similarly responsible for the general care and supervision of the incompetent;  and

(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary:

(A)  to safeguard and promote the incompetent's welfare;  or

(B)  if the incompetent is in an institution for his care and custody, to maintain discipline in the institution.

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.

go texas


----------



## Tgace

Good Job..a large % of LEO work is knowing where to find and how to interpret this stuff. I think every MA'ist should at least read their state statute once.


----------



## AnimEdge

I found one about weapons as well, doesnt say much about MA transfer of stuff agenst the law but in short:

A Illegal Club: Is anything that is made or can be used to cause bodly harm or death(so basicly anything from a stick to a Bo staff or whatever)

A Illegal Knife: A knife that is over 5 and a half Inches, throwing knifes/stars, and spears

A firearm 

Knuckles ect ect ect

It says you can carry them if your a officer,military,ect and its kept in the open.

I didnt find anything about MA though like if i get pulled over with a tanto in my passenger seat but im sure if i had proof of that i do MA they might be fine who knows 

I guess i shoudl keep my Kubaton in my pocket eh?


----------



## 8253

OULobo said:
			
		

> Then you get hit with the various discharging a firearms and endangerment charges. However I have heard a few officers tell me that they often showed up at a scene where the homeowner had apprehended and secured the suspect for the officer pre-LEO arrival. There were no charges or lawsuits against the homeowner and I would assume he use a modicum of force. Maybe the suspect didn't know he could sue.




That last part of what i said was supposed to be a funny, as far as aprehending a person who has broken into your house, that is a kind of grey area where you can secure them until a LEO arrives, but they can sue you in civil court.  As far as aprehending them though, while securing the person breaking into you house, you really cant go any further than taking any danger away.  Unfortunately if you throw in an extra punch or something, you could actually be held liable in criminal and civil court according to the wording in the ORC.  On a good note about this though, i dont believe that any jury in a criminal case would find a person guilty for throwing in an extra whack to someone who just broke into their house.  Unfortunately a person could still be found guilty in a civil court case and have to pay a settlement to the criminal.  Its not right, fair, etc. but unfortunately theres not much a person can do about it.


----------



## GAB

Hi, 

In California a lot of the thought goes to reasonable force, a reasonable man, someone who is reasonable, trying to inturpret this is the very reason each and every law, is under the scrutiny of Lawyers and Law makers.

It is good to know the law but, how about the case law, that has followed it?

Most of the talk I hear or see coming out of these boards is just that talk. 
To be honest it is not reasonable talk either.
Start by being reasonable then go to the idea that, first you have got to spend the money to get reimbursed, so that being said. 

You first need to be a victim, you need to train with someone who has the authority to be able to give you the right information. Fear for ones life comes to mind, when do you have the right to take someones life? Fear for your life!
In some states never, and in other countries never. You might want to add that to your curriculm at the Dojo.

In California, they were thinking very seriously of going after the Martial Art instructors, hold them liable for the particular thing they teach. 

Come around and check them out, just like a gym, issuing a certificate to the person teaching and they are the teachers, not some blue belt who has learned enough to get them in trouble.  (the cert. teacher) 

As far as I know it has not come up again, but it will rear its ugly head in the future, if the people in Martial Arts, do not do something within their own systems to advocate a firmer thought of being reasonable.

Rather then gouging out eyes, and mayhem over a dispute that calls for less brutal tactics.  Learn good holds and tactics that will incapacitate, rather then leaving them in a curled up bloody mess. 

Groin shots are great for discussion, I see in some of the threads. Choking someone out, how close to death do you release? Breaking their neck for a simple misunderstanding, busting an arm when a deflect is better, maybe a simple leg sweep to knock them to the ground. 

You better have some good substantle injuries to support your action. Also you need to be able to live with what you did, after you were taught wrong in the first place. 
Are you law enforcement or should you run and tell your story?

You hurt somebody, leave them with a life long injury, you might find yourself in a very long court battle, then you will learn all about reasonable force.    
Regards, Gary:asian:


----------



## OULobo

8253 said:
			
		

> Its not right, fair, etc. but unfortunately theres not much a person can do about it.



I hear that. Mabey a few letters and votes could help.


----------



## Silat Student

Now if we could just get the Law Makers to listen to the CDB song "Simple Man" the laws might not be so likely ta screw ya over.


----------



## Flatlander

From the Canadian Criminal Code:​ ​ 
Defence of Person​ 
Self-defence against unprovoked assault​
*34.* (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
Extent of justification​
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(_a_) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and
(_b_) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 34; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F).
Self-defence in case of aggression​
*35.* Every one who has without justification assaulted another but did not commence the assault with intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, or has without justification provoked an assault on himself by another, may justify the use of force subsequent to the assault if
(_a_) he uses the force
(i) under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence of the person whom he has assaulted or provoked, and
(ii) in the belief, on reasonable grounds, that it is necessary in order to preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm;
(_b_) he did not, at any time before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose, endeavour to cause death or grievous bodily harm; and
(_c_) he declined further conflict and quitted or retreated from it as far as it was feasible to do so before the necessity of preserving himself from death or grievous bodily harm arose.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 35.
Provocation​
*36.* Provocation includes, for the purposes of sections 34 and 35, provocation by blows, words or gestures.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 36.
Preventing assault​
*37.* (1) Every one is justified in using force to defend himself or any one under his protection from assault, if he uses no more force than is necessary to prevent the assault or the repetition of it.
Extent of justification​
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to justify the wilful infliction of any hurt or mischief that is excessive, having regard to the nature of the assault that the force used was intended to prevent.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 37.
Defence of Property​
Defence of personal property​
*38.* (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, and every one lawfully assisting him, is justified
(_a_) in preventing a trespasser from taking it, or
(_b_) in taking it from a trespasser who has taken it,
if he does not strike or cause bodily harm to the trespasser.
Assault by trespasser​
(2) Where a person who is in peaceable possession of personal property lays hands on it, a trespasser who persists in attempting to keep it or take it from him or from any one lawfully assisting him shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 38.
Defence with claim of right​
*39.* (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property under a claim of right, and every one acting under his authority, is protected from criminal responsibility for defending that possession, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
Defence without claim of right​
(2) Every one who is in peaceable possession of personal property, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the authority of a person who claims it as of right, is not justified or protected from criminal responsibility for defending his possession against a person who is entitled by law to possession of it.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.
Defence of dwelling​
*40.* Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using as much force as is necessary to prevent any person from forcibly breaking into or forcibly entering the dwelling-house without lawful authority.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 40.
Defence of house or real property​
*41.* (1) Every one who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, and every one lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority, is justified in using force to prevent any person from trespassing on the dwelling-house or real property, or to remove a trespasser therefrom, if he uses no more force than is necessary.
Assault by trespasser​
(2) A trespasser who resists an attempt by a person who is in peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property, or a person lawfully assisting him or acting under his authority to prevent his entry or to remove him, shall be deemed to commit an assault without justification or provocation.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 41.
Assertion of right to house or real property​
*42.* (1) Every one is justified in peaceably entering a dwelling-house or real property by day to take possession of it if he, or a person under whose authority he acts, is lawfully entitled to possession of it.
Assault in case of lawful entry​
(2) Where a person
(_a_) not having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
(_b_) not acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,
assaults a person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be without justification or provocation.
Trespasser provoking assault​
(3) Where a person
(_a_) having peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right, or
(_b_) acting under the authority of a person who has peaceable possession of a dwelling-house or real property under a claim of right,
assaults any person who is lawfully entitled to possession of it and who is entering it peaceably by day to take possession of it, for the purpose of preventing him from entering, the assault shall be deemed to be provoked by the person who is entering.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 42.
Protection of Persons in Authority​
Correction of child by force​
*43.* Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 43.
Master of ship maintaining discipline​
*44.* The master or officer in command of a vessel on a voyage is justified in using as much force as he believes, on reasonable grounds, is necessary for the purpose of maintaining good order and discipline on the vessel.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 44.
Surgical operations​
*45.* Every one is protected from criminal responsibility for performing a surgical operation on any person for the benefit of that person if
(_a_) the operation is performed with reasonable care and skill; and
(_b_) it is reasonable to perform the operation, having regard to the state of health of the person at the time the operation is performed and to all the circumstances of the case.


----------



## shesulsa

Flatlander suggested we make this thread a sticky and I agree.

So it has been stuck!


----------



## still learning

Hello, At least it is written so someone can understand them. (lawyers only).  In Hawaii they are written the same way.

Interpetations...ah!  ..this is where we really need a attorney....?

Man wrote the laws...man can rewrite them..or change them..what is written then is what was thought to be the right thing to put down on the law books  ....time and things change...so do the laws have to be rewritten.

Interpetations's of the laws : a good attorney...can save your butt..Aloha


----------



## RBaddorf

More than you ever wanted to know about Arizona CCW and use of force laws.  Discussed and written by a lawyer.

http://www.dps.state.az.us/ccw/version11-1.pdf


----------



## Erik H

North Carolina basic rundown of self-defense laws

Considering ther are revisions in this state's laws every year here's what it was when I went through police training.....

-NC has NO self defense laws.  Which means that if you are caught fighting at all you go to jail for"simple affray" which is a lesser offense but still carries jail time.  The only instance it is even considered  is if a third party is in danger and lethal force can be used.  Weapons are a big no-no, they will just be chalked up to aggravated assault and battery or assault with a deadly weapon situations pending, they go together here, and give more jail time.  Contrary to popular opinion, martial artists, boxers etc. are NOT required to register themselves as "lethal weapons".  There are alot more to it but that's just the tip.

Take care and God Bless
Erik H


----------



## kravkundo

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thats different than NY...
> 
> 3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person *when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.*
> 
> The bolded part is where the lawyers will look to get ya'.


 
HHHHMMMMM...the good old reasonable doctrine. Sounds similar to what coppers have to deal with.Usually measured against what a person with like training and experience would have done in your situation. basically if they would have done the same thing your good. your frame of mind and the facts you had at the time are usaully wieghed. NOt supposed to be juded with the 20/20 of hindsight but rather the facts availible at the time.


----------



## Shidoshi0153

As a state trooper, I can tell you the most important aspect of any criminal or civil hearing is articulation!!  Know the law and articulate accordingly.  Most laws include phrases such as "what a reasonable person would..." or "in fear of serious physical injury or death", etc.  The thing to keep in mind is that you must convince judge and jury is that your actions were justified due to the totality of the circumstances and how you felt at the time of the incident.  Be as clear as possible and paint a clear picture for all to understand your level of fear at the time.  Remember, though, if you beat the dog snot out of the guy after he has been disarmed or is attempting to flee, you have not acted as a "reasonable person" would have.


----------



## Senjojutsu

Shidoshi0153 said:


> The thing to keep in mind is that you must convince judge and jury is that your actions were justified due to the totality of the circumstances and how you felt at the time of the incident. Be as clear as possible and paint a clear picture for all to understand your level of fear at the time.


Very well put.

Or as I still remember from my college days (decades ago) that a claim of self-defense is an affirmative defense - the party making an affirmative defense has the burden of proof in using that defense.

Unlike for example, being charged with DUI or theft - where the state needs to do the heavy lifting against you  within a self-defense claim you are asserting (proving) the proposition that I killed or maimed the bastard (i.e., homicide/mayhem) *but here is why I did it* - and thus I should walk free. 

While it is interesting to compare the details amongst the various state statutes I remember watching a video of a self-defense pistol course, the Instructor asks the class:

Question: When are you justified in using deadly force?
Answer: When you are willing to go through the resulting three-to-five year criminal and civil proceedings against you that will follow your action.

As I stated before on this board, understand most US lawyers will bill you in six-minute increments!


----------



## That One Guy

This is what I was able to find for my home state, Oregon.

___________________________________________________________________


*161.205 Use of physical force generally.* The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:        (1) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person. A teacher may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the teacher reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order in the school or classroom or at a school activity or event, whether or not it is held on school property.
        (2) An authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional facility may use physical force when and to the extent that the official reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is authorized by law.
        (3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
        (4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart the result.
        (5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1]

*      Note:* See note under 161.015.

*      161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person.* Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]

*      161.210* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

*      161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person.* Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:
        (1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or
        (2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or
        (3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. [1971 c.743 §24]

*      161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.* Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
        (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
        (2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
        (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

*      161.220* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

*      161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises.* (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
        (2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:
        (a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or
        (b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.
        (3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, premises includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, premises includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]

*      161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property.* A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]

*      161.230* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

*      161.235 Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.* Except as provided in ORS 161.239, a peace officer is justified in using physical force upon another person only when and to the extent that the peace officer reasonably believes it necessary:
        (1) To make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless the peace officer knows that the arrest is unlawful; or
        (2) For self-defense or to defend a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while making or attempting to make an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent an escape. [1971 c.743 §27]

*      161.239 Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.* (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.235, a peace officer may use deadly physical force only when the peace officer reasonably believes that:
        (a) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
        (b) The crime committed by the person was kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
        (c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force; or
        (d) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony and under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place, the use of such force is necessary; or
        (e) The officers life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances involved.
        (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section constitutes justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom the peace officer is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody. [1971 c.743 §28]

*      161.240* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

*      161.245 Reasonable belief described; status of unlawful arrest.* (1) For the purposes of ORS 161.235 and 161.239, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would in law constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody.
        (2) A peace officer who is making an arrest is justified in using the physical force prescribed in ORS 161.235 and 161.239 unless the arrest is unlawful and is known by the officer to be unlawful. [1971 c.743 §29]

*      161.249 Use of physical force by private person assisting an arrest.* (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person who has been directed by a peace officer to assist the peace officer to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force to be necessary to carry out the peace officers direction.
        (2) A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer under circumstances specified in subsection (1) of this section may use deadly physical force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape only when:
        (a) The person reasonably believes that force to be necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
        (b) The person is directed or authorized by the peace officer to use deadly physical force unless the person knows that the peace officer is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances. [1971 c.743 §30]

*      161.250* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

*      161.255 Use of physical force by private person making citizens arrest.* (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a private person acting on the persons own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested under ORS 133.225.
        (2) A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. [1971 c.743 §31; 1973 c.836 §339]

*      161.260 Use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited.* A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest by a peace officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful. [1971 c.743 §32]

*      161.265 Use of physical force to prevent escape.* (1) A guard or other peace officer employed in a correctional facility, as that term is defined in ORS 162.135, is justified in using physical force, including deadly physical force, when and to the extent that the guard or peace officer reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner from a correctional facility.
        (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a guard or other peace officer employed by the Department of Corrections may not use deadly physical force in the circumstances described in ORS 161.267 (3). [1971 c.743 §33; 2005 c.431 §3]

*      161.267 Use of physical force by corrections officer or official employed by Department of Corrections.* (1) As used in this section:
        (a) Colocated minimum security facility means a Department of Corrections institution that has been designated by the Department of Corrections as a minimum security facility and has been located by the department on the grounds of a medium or higher security Department of Corrections institution.
        (b) Department of Corrections institution has the meaning given that term in ORS 421.005.
        (c) Stand-alone minimum security facility means a Department of Corrections institution that has been designated by the department as a minimum security facility and that has been located by the department separate and apart from other Department of Corrections institutions.
        (2) A corrections officer or other official employed by the Department of Corrections is justified in using physical force, including deadly physical force, when and to the extent that the officer or official reasonably believes it necessary to:
        (a) Prevent the escape of an inmate from a Department of Corrections institution, including the grounds of the institution, or from custody;
        (b) Maintain or restore order and discipline in a Department of Corrections institution, or any part of the institution, in the event of a riot, disturbance or other occurrence that threatens the safety of inmates, department employees or other persons; or
        (c) Prevent serious physical injury to or the death of the officer, official or another person.
        (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)(a) of this section, a corrections officer or other official employed by the department may not use deadly physical force to prevent the escape of an inmate from:
        (a) A stand-alone minimum security facility;
        (b) A colocated minimum security facility, if the corrections officer or other official knows that the inmate has been classified by the department as minimum custody; or
        (c) Custody outside of a Department of Corrections institution:
        (A) While the inmate is assigned to an inmate work crew; or
        (B) During transport or other supervised activity, if the inmate is classified by the department as minimum custody and the inmate is not being transported or supervised with an inmate who has been classified by the department as medium or higher custody.
        (4) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a person to use physical force under ORS 161.205 (2) or 161.265. [2005 c.431 §2]


----------



## Jai

For some reason I can not find anything for Minnesota...


----------



## jks9199

Jai said:


> For some reason I can not find anything for Minnesota...


Many states have not codified self defense in quite those words.  They may be mentioned in the rules of the court, as a definition of affirmative defenses, or the state may rely on the common law principle that a person may justify what would otherwise be the offense or tort of some form of assault by asserting that they defended themselves.  (I think this is why I didn't bother to try to dig up VA law on this; I know there's not much spelled out.)


----------



## Blotan Hunka

Try searching for "defense of justification" or something like that.


----------



## chinto

That One Guy said:


> This is what I was able to find for my home state, Oregon.
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> *161.205 Use of physical force generally.* The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:        (1) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person. A teacher may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the teacher reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order in the school or classroom or at a school activity or event, whether or not it is held on school property.
> (2) An authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional facility may use physical force when and to the extent that the official reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is authorized by law.
> (3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
> (4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart the result.
> (5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1]
> 
> *      Note:* See note under 161.015.
> 
> *      161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person.* Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]
> 
> *      161.210* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
> 
> *      161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person.* Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:
> (1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or
> (2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or
> (3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. [1971 c.743 §24]
> 
> *      161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.* Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
> (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
> (2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
> (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
> 
> *      161.220* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
> 
> *      161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises.* (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
> (2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:
> (a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or
> (b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.
> (3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, premises includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, premises includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]
> 
> *      161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property.* A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]
> 
> *      161.230* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
> 
> *      161.235 Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.* Except as provided in ORS 161.239, a peace officer is justified in using physical force upon another person only when and to the extent that the peace officer reasonably believes it necessary:
> (1) To make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless the peace officer knows that the arrest is unlawful; or
> (2) For self-defense or to defend a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while making or attempting to make an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent an escape. [1971 c.743 §27]
> 
> *      161.239 Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.* (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.235, a peace officer may use deadly physical force only when the peace officer reasonably believes that:
> (a) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
> (b) The crime committed by the person was kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
> (c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force; or
> (d) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony and under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place, the use of such force is necessary; or
> (e) The officers life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances involved.
> (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section constitutes justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom the peace officer is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody. [1971 c.743 §28]
> 
> *      161.240* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
> 
> *      161.245 Reasonable belief described; status of unlawful arrest.* (1) For the purposes of ORS 161.235 and 161.239, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would in law constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody.
> (2) A peace officer who is making an arrest is justified in using the physical force prescribed in ORS 161.235 and 161.239 unless the arrest is unlawful and is known by the officer to be unlawful. [1971 c.743 §29]
> 
> *      161.249 Use of physical force by private person assisting an arrest.* (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person who has been directed by a peace officer to assist the peace officer to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force to be necessary to carry out the peace officers direction.
> (2) A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer under circumstances specified in subsection (1) of this section may use deadly physical force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape only when:
> (a) The person reasonably believes that force to be necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
> (b) The person is directed or authorized by the peace officer to use deadly physical force unless the person knows that the peace officer is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances. [1971 c.743 §30]
> 
> *      161.250* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]
> 
> *      161.255 Use of physical force by private person making citizens arrest.* (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a private person acting on the persons own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested under ORS 133.225.
> (2) A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. [1971 c.743 §31; 1973 c.836 §339]
> 
> *      161.260 Use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited.* A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest by a peace officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful. [1971 c.743 §32]
> 
> *      161.265 Use of physical force to prevent escape.* (1) A guard or other peace officer employed in a correctional facility, as that term is defined in ORS 162.135, is justified in using physical force, including deadly physical force, when and to the extent that the guard or peace officer reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner from a correctional facility.
> (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a guard or other peace officer employed by the Department of Corrections may not use deadly physical force in the circumstances described in ORS 161.267 (3). [1971 c.743 §33; 2005 c.431 §3]
> 
> *      161.267 Use of physical force by corrections officer or official employed by Department of Corrections.* (1) As used in this section:
> (a) Colocated minimum security facility means a Department of Corrections institution that has been designated by the Department of Corrections as a minimum security facility and has been located by the department on the grounds of a medium or higher security Department of Corrections institution.
> (b) Department of Corrections institution has the meaning given that term in ORS 421.005.
> (c) Stand-alone minimum security facility means a Department of Corrections institution that has been designated by the department as a minimum security facility and that has been located by the department separate and apart from other Department of Corrections institutions.
> (2) A corrections officer or other official employed by the Department of Corrections is justified in using physical force, including deadly physical force, when and to the extent that the officer or official reasonably believes it necessary to:
> (a) Prevent the escape of an inmate from a Department of Corrections institution, including the grounds of the institution, or from custody;
> (b) Maintain or restore order and discipline in a Department of Corrections institution, or any part of the institution, in the event of a riot, disturbance or other occurrence that threatens the safety of inmates, department employees or other persons; or
> (c) Prevent serious physical injury to or the death of the officer, official or another person.
> (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)(a) of this section, a corrections officer or other official employed by the department may not use deadly physical force to prevent the escape of an inmate from:
> (a) A stand-alone minimum security facility;
> (b) A colocated minimum security facility, if the corrections officer or other official knows that the inmate has been classified by the department as minimum custody; or
> (c) Custody outside of a Department of Corrections institution:
> (A) While the inmate is assigned to an inmate work crew; or
> (B) During transport or other supervised activity, if the inmate is classified by the department as minimum custody and the inmate is not being transported or supervised with an inmate who has been classified by the department as medium or higher custody.
> (4) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a person to use physical force under ORS 161.205 (2) or 161.265. [2005 c.431 §2]



just remember that the 'reasonable man doctrine' still controls that in that all the legal paramotores of deadly force and what constitutes  is a deadly threat and  such is decided by the jury.


----------



## jmoree

I'm glad someone started this post; otherwise, I might not have ever looked this up:

*Georgia Code - Crimes and Offenses - Title 16, Section 16-3-23
*


A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other´s unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
 (1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; 
 (2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
 (3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.


There is more that goes with this, but that's the basis of it.  Reading on - as others pointed this out - there is the word 'reasonably' appears often...even when talking about using deadly defense.


----------



## chinto

in my state it is the reasonable man doctrine except for a few things. it is a deadly force situation to stop burglary arson or any major felony on yourself or another. and you may meet any deadly force threat with deadly force. that is black letter law. the reasonable man doctrine is what would a reasonable person consider a deadly force threat. pointing a fire arm would provably be considered more then enough justification as would a knife with in 21 ft being brandished.. gets tricky some times other wise... but braking into a dwelling or standing there with some kind of incendiary is cut and dried...  thank god I do not live east of the Mississippi river..there in a lot of states they have duty to retreat laws and such that pretty much tie your hands in your right to stay alive.


----------



## kwaichang

RBaddorf said:


> More than you ever wanted to know about Arizona CCW and use of force laws. Discussed and written by a lawyer.
> 
> http://www.dps.state.az.us/ccw/version11-1.pdf


As a former resident of the great state of Arizona, I don't even bother to look.  Everyone can carry; a ccp needed if you want one; openly.  More cases of breakin guys gettin killed and the homeowner is never charged.  Loved it.


----------



## stonewall1450

We have it made in the shade here in florida thanks to old Jebby. We can carry in state parks. We can shoot to kill if we feel our lives are in danger. And we have the Castle law, if someone is breaking into our house, that makes it justifiable for us to shoot to kill. I LOVE IT! Course before those laws were passed I would have shot to kill so a law suit wouldnt come up anyway.


----------



## jks9199

stonewall1450 said:


> We have it made in the shade here in florida thanks to old Jebby. We can carry in state parks. We can shoot to kill if we feel our lives are in danger. And we have the Castle law, if someone is breaking into our house, that makes it justifiable for us to shoot to kill. I LOVE IT! Course before those laws were passed I would have shot to kill so a law suit wouldnt come up anyway.


"Shooting to kill" will not prevent a lawsuit.  In fact, making statements like "I'll shoot to kill" may guarantee a lawsuit.  Even assuming you kill the person you believe attacked you, and are not held *criminally* liable, you'll almost certainly find yourself being sued civilly by the guy's family.

You just might want to be sure that you really understand the law as it relates to using lethal force to defend yourself...


----------



## KenpoTex

The Castle Doctrine in Fla. and some other states also provides civil immunity in a justified use of force situation.  Some even go so far as to require the plaintiff to pay all the court costs (including the defendant) if their suit is found to be without merit.


----------



## jks9199

Each state will have different laws, and different interpretations.  Even then, civil immunity in case like this may be qualified in various ways.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise

The best advice I could give would be to know your state laws thoroughly and when in doubt have an attorney/judge explain them to you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Be an informed citizen and know your legal rights within the law.


----------



## HerbM

[I am not a lawyer so the following is JUST my opinion and worthless as legal advice....ask a real (criminal) lawyer in your locality, preferably one who specialized in criminal assaults and self-defense.]

Much of Texas law has already been posted, so a few notes on context my help (for any state):

Texas for instance now has a "Castle Law" which changes the rules (and invokes civil immunity as well) in many cases.

During CHL classes everyone learns there are oddities to the TYPE of force you use:  practically by definition, use of a firearm is considered "deadly force" which is not (automatically) true of other weapons, objects, or methods of defense.

Merely referring to a firearm (e.g., "I have a gun and will use it.") can easily be "deadly force" in Texas -- it's considered a form of 'brandishing' (another technical term here) which is by definition deadly force.

Odd thing is that if you are legally authorized to refer to or show your firearm you are TECHNICALLY authorized to shoot (and perhaps kill.)  

Now this doesn't mean it is always a good idea to do so, nor that it will be treated the same way legally from a practical perspective, but this is the letter of the law.

Similarly, once authorized 'deadly force' you may shoot the attacker in the front, back, top of the head, etc -- all are equally 'LEGAL'.  

It is however true that you later PROOF that you were authorized might be based on where and how (and how many times etc) that you shot the attacker.   E.g., it is somewhat harder to claim he was rushing at you with a knife if you shoot him square in the back (unless you have witnesses or other evidence).

Another issue is that deadly force authorization terminates once the threat stops.  (E.g., you cannot shoot an attacker once he is unconscious on the ground.)

Generally the best simple plan is to shoot (use deadly force) only when in immediate "Fear for your life" and to shoot only to "Stop the attack".)

Of course, "fear for your life" can in most cases be extended to another (innocent) person.

It takes a couple of hours to go through just the basic law in a Texas CHL class.

This is a major portion of the class in fact.


----------



## sparky12

8253 said:


> Sorry i dont have an ORC with me right now but as far as Ohio goes it is the use of force continuem, basically you can defend yourself physically up to and including deadly force only untill the threat is no longer present. Basically if a person hits you, you hit them back and they run away, you cant chase them down and commence to beating on them. One subject that i really dont agree with in the ORC is that if someone is breaking into you house to steal something, and not physically threating you, there is really nothing that you can physcally do to them. Fortunately, when you have fired several warning shots, they dont really stick around long to see if you will hurt them so they can sue you. :uzi:


As far as breaking into your house, I think that has changed since the Castle Law took effect.
Regards, Don


----------



## Kyosanim

sparky12 said:


> As far as breaking into your house, I think that has changed since the Castle Law took effect.
> Regards, Don




I don't know about ohio but here in michigan the castle law which I refer to as the make my day law works like this.

If someone is in your home (uninvited) in the middle of the night you don't have to ask questions you can just shoot them. There is a catch however. They have to be facing you!!!!!!! If not it's still murder. Basically what it comes down to is if you feel your life or the lives of others in your house are in danger, which is provable according to the law by them facing you. I do not know this following part for sure. I believe that the law was extended so it covers anyone at any time being in your house unwelcome. I believe this part is to cover the issue of home invasions. This law covers property in general in texas, meaning that if you were to so much as trespass there you could be shot.

So 21st degree black belt or not it's a really good idea to own a gun as I don't know how much the law changes when non fire arms come into play, and it's an even better idea to put it in your pocket when answering the door for strangers. There was a string of home invasions near where I live a year or so before I moved in. They say that the home invaders would knock on the door in the middle of the after noon (generally when this type of thing happens) and one would say their car broke down and the other two hid. When the person came back with the phone they had a shotgun in their face. I guess they killed several people, but I don't really know for sure. My point with the story is thank god they passed a law like this.




Note: if it was unclear in the text as this part is important. In Michigan like most states that have castle laws the person must be inside your house and facing you!!!!!


----------



## Bill Mattocks

Kyosanim said:


> I don't know about ohio but here in michigan the castle law which I refer to as the make my day law works like this.
> 
> If someone is in your home (uninvited) in the middle of the night you don't have to ask questions you can just shoot them. There is a catch however. They have to be facing you!!!!!!! If not it's still murder. Basically what it comes down to is if you feel your life or the lives of others in your house are in danger, which is provable according to the law by them facing you. I do not know this following part for sure. I believe that the law was extended so it covers anyone at any time being in your house unwelcome. I believe this part is to cover the issue of home invasions. This law covers property in general in texas, meaning that if you were to so much as trespass there you could be shot.
> 
> So 21st degree black belt or not it's a really good idea to own a gun as I don't know how much the law changes when non fire arms come into play, and it's an even better idea to put it in your pocket when answering the door for strangers. There was a string of home invasions near where I live a year or so before I moved in. They say that the home invaders would knock on the door in the middle of the after noon (generally when this type of thing happens) and one would say their car broke down and the other two hid. When the person came back with the phone they had a shotgun in their face. I guess they killed several people, but I don't really know for sure. My point with the story is thank god they passed a law like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note: if it was unclear in the text as this part is important. In Michigan like most states that have castle laws the person must be inside your house and facing you!!!!!



No, that is incorrect.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...=958,771289&dq=castle+doctrine+michigan&hl=en



> *HB 5143*, sponsored by Rep. Rick Jones (R-71), creates the "Self Defense Act" and specifies that it is not a crime to use force or deadly force to defend oneself if that person is not breaking any laws when defensive force was used. The person must be facing imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.
> 
> *SB 1046*, sponsored by Sen. Alan Cropsey (R-33), outlines rebuttal presumptions for justified use of self-defense. The bill makes it clear that there is no "duty to retreat" if a person is in a place where he or she has a legal right to be.
> 
> *SB 1185,* sponsored by Sen. Ron Jelinek (R-21), allows for the award of court and attorney fees in civil cases where it was determined a person acted in accordance with the "Self Defense Act" and where civil immunities apply.
> 
> *HB 5548*, sponsored by Rep. Tim Moore (R-97), gives civil immunities to persons acting in accordance with the "Self Defense Act," preventing criminals and their families from suing law-abiding citizens.
> 
> *HB 5153*, sponsored by Rep. Leslie Mortimer (R-65), puts the burden of proof on the prosecutor to show that a person acted unlawfully in the application of force, rather than the person using the force having to prove they acted lawfully.
> 
> *HB 5142*, sponsored by Rep. Tom Casperson (R-108), expands the definition of "dwelling" to include a person's garage, barn, backyard, etc.
> 
> "On behalf of all NRA members in Michigan, I want to thank each of the bills' chief sponsors for their leadership in seeing these measures become law," Cox said. "The Castle Doctrine is about putting the law back on the side of the victim; the way it's supposed to be."



There is nothing in it about the intruder facing you or facing away from you when fired upon.


----------



## Hapkidoman

When faced with deadly force, it is important to remember that a "dead" attacker, can not testify against you.


----------



## Tez3

Hapkidoman said:


> When faced with deadly force, it is important to remember that a "dead" attacker, can not testify against you.


 
I wouldn't be so sure about that! the dead attacker can certainly 'give' evidence that may incriminate you if it wasn't SD.


----------



## AlanE

chinto said:


> just remember that the 'reasonable man doctrine' still controls that in that all the legal paramotores of deadly force and what constitutes is a deadly threat and such is decided by the jury.


 That's the key constraint. 

Most of the scenarios for the typical crimes I'd expect to witness, involve the attacker leaving either promptly, or slowly and methodically (no rush at all). Hence, my desire to apprehend, as a non-police officer, would run along the lines of seeing a person in need of CPR: I'd direct someone to call 911 and stay with the victim - praying they'll be willing to miss their bus and be altruistic if the victim is helpless. Meanwhile, I'll give pursuit and attempt a modest beatdown while apprehending the attacker. Risky, but we must try to stand up for others. We need laws to be (or stay) expanded beyond the "castle law," such as providing third party protection and citizen appprehension of criminals.


----------



## Indie12

WA State,

RCW 9A.16.020

Use of Force laws vary from state to state and may and/or may not include or cover certain things. I recommend really looking into your local, county, state, and federal laws since there are many and they all vary.


----------



## tinker1

Colorado's Use of Force Law


----------



## hglkpr

I was just looking into this for myself, so figured I'd share.  From an MCLE book, updated October, 2010, dealing with CRIMINAL law only.  (Note: I am a lawyer, but the below is for informational/educational purposes only - YMMV):
[h=2]SELF-DEFENSE[/h]A person may use reasonable force when necessary to defend himself or herself from physical harm at the hands of another. Such use of force in self-defense is fully justified and provides a complete defense to criminal charges arising out of the use of such force.


Strictly speaking, self-defense is not a defense at all. When the issue is properly raised, either through the Commonwealths case or through witnesses called by the defense, the Commonwealth has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant _did not_ act in self-defense. _See Commonwealth v. A Juvenile_ , 396 Mass. 108, 113-14 (1985). If, at the conclusion of the evidence, the finder of fact has a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted in self-defense, the defendant must be found not guilty. 


To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, the Commonwealth must show that one of the following elements of self-defense is absent from the case:



The defendant must have reasonably believed that he or she was being attacked or was immediately about to be attacked and that his or her personal safety was in immediate danger. 


Factors that may be considered in determining whether a defendants apprehension of immediate harm was reasonable include



relative size and strength of the persons involved,


whether weapons were involved,


the location of the incident,


whether threats were made, and


any other relevant factors arising from the circumstances of the event.



The defendant must have done everything reasonably possible in the circumstances to avoid physical confrontation before resorting to force, including retreating or escaping. However, this does not mean that a person must expose himself or herself to additional danger in order to retreat.


Factors relevant to this issue are



whether avenues of retreat or escape were available to him or her,


how imminent the threat of harm was, and


whether summoning aid would have helped.



The law recognizes that a person who is attacked may have to decide how to respond quickly and under emotional strain. As Justice Holmes noted in_Brown v. United States_ , 256 U.S. 335, 343 (1921), "[d]etached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife."


The requirement of retreat does not apply to one who is attacked in his or her own dwelling if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder is about to kill or seriously injure the occupant. G.L. c. 278, § 8A. This rule only applies if the "victim" is in the home unlawfully. So if the "victim" was invited into the defendants home and only later began to attack the defendant, then the rule absolving the defendant from the necessity of attempting retreat would _not_ apply. _Commonwealth v. Painten_ , 429 Mass. 536, 545-46 (1999). The amount of force that can be used is that force which is necessary to protect the occupants. G.L. c. 278, § 8A. 


The defendant must have used no more force than reasonably necessary in the circumstances to defend himself or herself.


Factors relevant to the consideration of this issue include



relative size and strength of the combatants,


use of weapons,


location of the incident,


perception of the danger by the defendant, and


availability of maneuvering room.


_See_ _Commonwealth v. Stokes_, 374 Mass. 583, 594 n.7 (1978) (quoting _Commonwealth v. Kendrick_, 351 Mass. 203, 212 (1966)).


[h=2]Use of Deadly Force[/h]The use of deadly force in self-defense has additional requirements. Deadly force, which is "force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm," _Commonwealth v. Klein_, 372 Mass. 823, 827 (1977), may be used to repel an attack only under the following circumstances:



where a person reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm;


where the person uses all other proper means to avoid physical confrontation before resorting to deadly force (note: the provisions of G.L. c. 278, § 8A explained above apply to the use of deadly force in ones home or dwelling); and


where the force used was no more than reasonably necessary under all circumstances.


_See Commonwealth v. Barber_, 394 Mass. 1013, 1013 (1985) (quoting _Commonwealth v. Harrington_, 379 Mass. 446, 450 (1980));_ see also Commonwealth v. Espada_ , 450 Mass. 687, 692-94 (2008); _cf_ . _Commonwealth v. Cabral_ , 443 Mass. 171, 182-85 (2005).


The burden remains squarely on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use deadly force or that the force was excessive. In murder cases, excessive use of deadly force in self-defense is manslaughter._Commonwealth v. Acevedo_, 446 Mass. 435, 443 (2006); _see also_ _Commonwealth v. Glover_, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 799, 804-09 (2010).


----------



## Indie12

hglkpr said:


> I was just looking into this for myself, so figured I'd share. From an MCLE book, updated October, 2010, dealing with CRIMINAL law only. (Note: I am a lawyer, but the below is for informational/educational purposes only - YMMV):
> [h=2]SELF-DEFENSE[/h]A person may use reasonable force when necessary to defend himself or herself from physical harm at the hands of another. Such use of force in self-defense is fully justified and provides a complete defense to criminal charges arising out of the use of such force.
> 
> 
> Strictly speaking, self-defense is not a defense at all. When the issue is properly raised, either through the Commonwealth&#8217;s case or through witnesses called by the defense, the Commonwealth has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant _did not_ act in self-defense. _See Commonwealth v. A Juvenile_ , 396 Mass. 108, 113-14 (1985). If, at the conclusion of the evidence, the finder of fact has a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant acted in self-defense, the defendant must be found not guilty.
> 
> 
> To prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense, the Commonwealth must show that one of the following elements of self-defense is absent from the case:
> 
> 
> 
> The defendant must have reasonably believed that he or she was being attacked or was immediately about to be attacked and that his or her personal safety was in immediate danger.
> 
> 
> Factors that may be considered in determining whether a defendant&#8217;s apprehension of immediate harm was reasonable include
> 
> 
> 
> relative size and strength of the persons involved,
> 
> 
> whether weapons were involved,
> 
> 
> the location of the incident,
> 
> 
> whether threats were made, and
> 
> 
> any other relevant factors arising from the circumstances of the event.
> 
> 
> 
> The defendant must have done everything reasonably possible in the circumstances to avoid physical confrontation before resorting to force, including retreating or escaping. However, this does not mean that a person must expose himself or herself to additional danger in order to retreat.
> 
> 
> Factors relevant to this issue are
> 
> 
> 
> whether avenues of retreat or escape were available to him or her,
> 
> 
> how imminent the threat of harm was, and
> 
> 
> whether summoning aid would have helped.
> 
> 
> 
> The defendant must have used no more force than reasonably necessary in the circumstances to defend himself or herself.
> 
> 
> Factors relevant to the consideration of this issue include
> 
> 
> 
> relative size and strength of the combatants,
> 
> 
> use of weapons,
> 
> 
> location of the incident,
> 
> 
> perception of the danger by the defendant, and
> 
> 
> availability of maneuvering room.
> 
> 
> _See_ _Commonwealth v. Stokes_, 374 Mass. 583, 594 n.7 (1978) (quoting _Commonwealth v. Kendrick_, 351 Mass. 203, 212 (1966)).
> 
> 
> [h=2]Use of Deadly Force[/h]The use of deadly force in self-defense has additional requirements. Deadly force, which is "force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm," _Commonwealth v. Klein_, 372 Mass. 823, 827 (1977), may be used to repel an attack only under the following circumstances:
> 
> 
> 
> where a person reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm;
> 
> 
> where the person uses all other proper means to avoid physical confrontation before resorting to deadly force (note: the provisions of G.L. c. 278, § 8A explained above apply to the use of deadly force in one&#8217;s home or dwelling); and
> 
> 
> where the force used was no more than reasonably necessary under all circumstances.
> 
> 
> _See Commonwealth v. Barber_, 394 Mass. 1013, 1013 (1985) (quoting _Commonwealth v. Harrington_, 379 Mass. 446, 450 (1980));_ see also Commonwealth v. Espada_ , 450 Mass. 687, 692-94 (2008); _cf_ . _Commonwealth v. Cabral_ , 443 Mass. 171, 182-85 (2005).
> 
> 
> The burden remains squarely on the Commonwealth to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entitled to use deadly force or that the force was excessive. In murder cases, excessive use of deadly force in self-defense is manslaughter._Commonwealth v. Acevedo_, 446 Mass. 435, 443 (2006); _see also_ _Commonwealth v. Glover_, 76 Mass. App. Ct. 799, 804-09 (2010).



Good article! I'd also remind everyone that every state law varies on use of force. For example in WA State RCW 9A.16.020 is the 'Use of Force' law for WA State.


----------



## chinto

jks9199 said:


> "Shooting to kill" will not prevent a lawsuit.  In fact, making statements like "I'll shoot to kill" may guarantee a lawsuit.  Even assuming you kill the person you believe attacked you, and are not held *criminally* liable, you'll almost certainly find yourself being sued civilly by the guy's family.
> 
> You just might want to be sure that you really understand the law as it relates to using lethal force to defend yourself...




if you are in fear of your life, you "shoot to stop".. which is Politically correct for kill!  if you are "shooting to wound" you will get sued and arrested both!!!  because at that point you obviously were not in real fear of your life!!  

just say I will stop the person trying to kill or badly injure me!! I was in fear of my life!   that is what lawyers told me..... I am NOT A LAWYER!! I do not claim to be one.. just passing on what I have been told.


----------



## seasoned

Shoot to terminate or stop, the act.


----------



## jks9199

chinto said:


> if you are in fear of your life, you "shoot to stop".. which is Politically correct for kill!  if you are "shooting to wound" you will get sued and arrested both!!!  because at that point you obviously were not in real fear of your life!!
> 
> just say I will stop the person trying to kill or badly injure me!! I was in fear of my life!   that is what lawyers told me..... I am NOT A LAWYER!! I do not claim to be one.. just passing on what I have been told.





seasoned said:


> Shoot to terminate or stop, the act.


You're shooting to stop the threat -- not kill the person making the threat.  The difference is partly semantic, I agree.  But it is important, because shooting to stop the threat shows that you intend to stop shooting as soon as the threat is ended, whether or not the person making the threat is dead.  Shooting to kill implies that you'll continue shooting until the the person making the the threat is dead.

It kind of reminds me of a story about the Gurkhas in WWII.  The story is that a Gurkha soldier was assigned to bury 10 dead Japanese bodies that had been piled up...  Well, as he begins to prepare, he discovers that one of the "bodies" hasn't quite become deceased yet.  He draws his kukri and is preparing to finish the Japanese soldier off when a British officer stops him, horrified.  The officer asked what he was doing, and the Gurkha soldier told him "I was ordered to bury 10 dead Japanese; there are only 9..."


----------



## szorn

While it's important to know the use-of-force laws of your state and jurisdiction as well as the laws of those states and areas you intend to travel, the most important thing is to have a proper understanding of general use-of-force via AOJ as this essentially applies to all states and jurisdictions- http://www.useofforce.us/


----------



## Tgace

Resurrecting this thread. Im working on a section by section series on NY's use of force law:

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


----------



## PhotonGuy

I am looking for any organization that believes in the right for people to use force in confrontations, and preferably an organization that would lobby for that right.


----------



## Tgace

PhotonGuy said:


> I am looking for any organization that believes in the right for people to use force in confrontations, and preferably an organization that would lobby for that right.



What?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> I am looking for any organization that believes in the right for people to use force in confrontations, and preferably an organization that would lobby for that right.


Depends on what you mean by confrontation.  You don't have a right to use force because someone is giving you a hard time.  You do for the most part have the ability to defend yourself when left with no other option


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> Depends on what you mean by confrontation.  You don't have a right to use force because someone is giving you a hard time.  You do for the most part have the ability to defend yourself when left with no other option



It depends on what you define as a hard time. Most people would call a physical confrontation a hard time. If somebody starts a physical confrontation you do have the right to fight back in self defense.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> It depends on what you define as a hard time. Most people would call a physical confrontation a hard time. If somebody starts a physical confrontation you do have the right to fight back in self defense.



Not always and not every where.  Laws vary by location.  Your best bet is to look up your local laws


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> Not always and not every where.  Laws vary by location.  Your best bet is to look up your local laws



What Im trying to do is to make it so that a person can use force in a confrontation and not get in trouble. People have the right of self defense. While I abhor picking fights, there is no reason why a person shouldn't be allowed to fight back if somebody picks a fight with them. Bullying should not be tolerated, at all. I am trying to see if they're organizations that lobby for laws to be passed that allow for people to use force in self defense, and to get rid of laws that don't allow it.


----------



## Tgace

PhotonGuy said:


> What Im trying to do is to make it so that a person can use force in a confrontation and not get in trouble. People have the right of self defense. While I abhor picking fights, there is no reason why a person shouldn't be allowed to fight back if somebody picks a fight with them. Bullying should not be tolerated, at all. I am trying to see if they're organizations that lobby for laws to be passed that allow for people to use force in self defense, and to get rid of laws that don't allow it.



What laws out there currently don't allow this?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SteveNC

PhotonGuy said:


> What Im trying to do is to make it so that a person can use force in a confrontation and not get in trouble. People have the right of self defense. While I abhor picking fights, there is no reason why a person shouldn't be allowed to fight back if somebody picks a fight with them. Bullying should not be tolerated, at all. I am trying to see if they're organizations that lobby for laws to be passed that allow for people to use force in self defense, and to get rid of laws that don't allow it.



First off you do have the right to defend yourself BUT you have to understand the full extents of the laws in your state. Please don't take any offense to this but I don't think you really understand what self defense is truly about. If what you are advocating for came to fruition it would be great news for people who thrive on violence.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> What Im trying to do is to make it so that a person can use force in a confrontation and not get in trouble. People have the right of self defense. While I abhor picking fights, there is no reason why a person shouldn't be allowed to fight back if somebody picks a fight with them. Bullying should not be tolerated, at all. I am trying to see if they're organizations that lobby for laws to be passed that allow for people to use force in self defense, and to get rid of laws that don't allow it.



What do you mean by picking a fight?


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tgace said:


> What laws out there currently don't allow this?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



From what I heard, in the aftermath of a confrontation if the other person is hurt worse than you, you can get in trouble, even if they took the first punch.


----------



## PhotonGuy

SteveNC said:


> First off you do have the right to defend yourself BUT you have to understand the full extents of the laws in your state. Please don't take any offense to this but I don't think you really understand what self defense is truly about. If what you are advocating for came to fruition it would be great news for people who thrive on violence.



People who thrive on violence are people that start fights. I don't advocate that and I don't think the law should allow it. What I do advocate is using force to stop fights.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> What do you mean by picking a fight?



If somebody takes the first punch or initiates contact with your person or any of your possessions, that's what I mean by picking a fight.


----------



## SteveNC

PhotonGuy said:


> People who thrive on violence are people that start fights. I don't advocate that and I don't think the law should allow it. What I do advocate is using force to stop fights.



I could spend an eternity on why a lawyer could still make your life a living nightmare but I wont. I do however want to ask you a question. If laws were changed to give you "the good guy" a so called legal leg to stand on how would that change your mentality about protecting yourself? Would you be more inclined to use force instead of walking away when you could? It seems to me as if you desire some built in protection in a court of law that gives you more freedom to potentially put yourself in a bad situation. A punch from a drunk and a knife attack are two different things


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> From what I heard, in the aftermath of a confrontation if the other person is hurt worse than you, you can get in trouble, even if they took the first punch.



It's not that simple.  Guy points a gun at me, I shoot him, he dies.  I'm not hurt.  Was my use of force justified?  Yep.  Will I be in trouble?  Nope.  But, someone bumps me, and I jump up and hit 'em in the jaw, knocking them out?  Yeah, probably in trouble.  Or... someone hits me, then turns and runs away.  I chase 'em down and shove their face into the mud.  They're not hurt at all, just their dignity.  I've got a bloody nose.  But I still get charged with assault.  Now, I'm oversimplifying these examples a bit -- but the principles are demonstrated.


----------



## PhotonGuy

SteveNC said:


> I could spend an eternity on why a lawyer could still make your life a living nightmare but I wont. I do however want to ask you a question. If laws were changed to give you "the good guy" a so called legal leg to stand on how would that change your mentality about protecting yourself? Would you be more inclined to use force instead of walking away when you could? It seems to me as if you desire some built in protection in a court of law that gives you more freedom to potentially put yourself in a bad situation. A punch from a drunk and a knife attack are two different things



That would depend. Some people might be reluctant to use force in self defense because they're afraid of getting in trouble. As to how it would change my mentality, I wouldn't be so reluctant to use force in self defense if it came to that. After all, its better to use force in self defense and not be afraid to use it, than it is to be a victim. The problem is, if you use force against a bully and you end up not a victim of the bully but a victim of the system because they want to punish you for refusing to be a victim to the bully. As for walking away, that would depend on the situation. It would depend on various factors such as your location, ect. If you're at your own home in most cases you wouldn't have to walk away because of the castle doctrine. However, in some places you can get in trouble for using force even against a home intruder. If you're in a public place and somebody attacks you, you shouldn't have to retreat because you've got as much of a right to be there as the attacker or anyone else. Lets say you're a college student on a college campus. If somebody attacks you on campus, you shouldn't get in trouble for using force to incapacitate them. You're a student and you've got every right to be on the campus. Of course the best case is if nobody messes with you in the first place so that you don't have to use force. The philosophy I live by is, "you don't bother me, I don't bother you." I don't try to put myself in bad situations. As for having to use force to incapacitate somebody, I wouldn't want it to come to that but if it does, I shouldn't get in trouble.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> It's not that simple.  Guy points a gun at me, I shoot him, he dies.  I'm not hurt.  Was my use of force justified?  Yep.  Will I be in trouble?  Nope.  But, someone bumps me, and I jump up and hit 'em in the jaw, knocking them out?  Yeah, probably in trouble.  Or... someone hits me, then turns and runs away.  I chase 'em down and shove their face into the mud.  They're not hurt at all, just their dignity.  I've got a bloody nose.  But I still get charged with assault.  Now, I'm oversimplifying these examples a bit -- but the principles are demonstrated.



In the case of the gun, that would depend on where you are. In some states such as Texas you wouldn't get in trouble but in a state such as New Jersey you might get a long prison sentence. In New Jersey, if guns are used at all they're only supposed to be used for hunting, sport shooting, and law enforcement. But Im talking about situations that don't involve guns. If you beat up an assailant with your bare hands in most cases you shouldn't get in trouble. Now, if you've already incapacitated somebody and they're no longer a threat, if you continue to beat on them you will get in trouble, I know that much and it would also apply to somebody running away because they're no longer a threat if they're running. If you do incapacitate somebody who is a threat and they end up hurt worse than you, than you shouldn't get in trouble.


----------



## SteveNC

PhotonGuy said:


> That would depend. Some people might be reluctant to use force in self defense because they're afraid of getting in trouble. As to how it would change my mentality, I wouldn't be so reluctant to use force in self defense if it came to that. After all, its better to use force in self defense and not be afraid to use it, than it is to be a victim. The problem is, if you use force against a bully and you end up not a victim of the bully but a victim of the system because they want to punish you for refusing to be a victim to the bully. As for walking away, that would depend on the situation. It would depend on various factors such as your location, ect. If you're at your own home in most cases you wouldn't have to walk away because of the castle doctrine. However, in some places you can get in trouble for using force even against a home intruder. If you're in a public place and somebody attacks you, you shouldn't have to retreat because you've got as much of a right to be there as the attacker or anyone else. Lets say you're a college student on a college campus. If somebody attacks you on campus, you shouldn't get in trouble for using force to incapacitate them. You're a student and you've got every right to be on the campus. Of course the best case is if nobody messes with you in the first place so that you don't have to use force. The philosophy I live by is, "you don't bother me, I don't bother you." I don't try to put myself in bad situations. As for having to use force to incapacitate somebody, I wouldn't want it to come to that but if it does, I shouldn't get in trouble.



What exactly would you change about the law in regards to a non-life threatening situation which in reality is plain old fighting and NOT self defense? If a punk or drunk gets in your face and gets physical with you should you be allowed to throw him on the pavement, ground and pound him and beat the tar out of him because you deem your actions as reasonable? My thinking here is that perhaps you desire a cut and dry law that deems any type of physical altercation as an assault on your well being. I don't think the laws need changing so much as I believe people need a better understanding of what legal "self defense" really is.


----------



## PhotonGuy

SteveNC said:


> What exactly would you change about the law in regards to a non-life threatening situation which in reality is plain old fighting and NOT self defense? If a punk or drunk gets in your face and gets physical with you should you be allowed to throw him on the pavement, ground and pound him and beat the tar out of him because you deem your actions as reasonable? My thinking here is that perhaps you desire a cut and dry law that deems any type of physical altercation as an assault on your well being. I don't think the laws need changing so much as I believe people need a better understanding of what legal "self defense" really is.



In a case like that, a person should be able to use whatever force is necessary to stop the punk or drunk. After throwing him to the pavement, it might not be necessary to ground and pound him if he doesn't get up and keep fighting. Once he is neutralized he is no longer a threat. Grounding and pounding a hoodlum who is no longer a threat is crossing the line. If I were to land one punch and knock the hoodlum out there would be no reason for me to keep pounding him, but I should not get in trouble for landing that one punch.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> In a case like that, a person should be able to use whatever force is necessary to stop the punk or drunk. After throwing him to the pavement, it might not be necessary to ground and pound him if he doesn't get up and keep fighting. Once he is neutralized he is no longer a threat. Grounding and pounding a hoodlum who is no longer a threat is crossing the line. If I were to land one punch and knock the hoodlum out there would be no reason for me to keep pounding him, but I should not get in trouble for landing that one punch.



The basic principle of self defense says that you may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to safely resolve the situation.  Not whatever force you want -- but whatever you can articulate in a way that would make a reasonable person say "Yep, that was necessary."  It's not a step-for-step formula, and it's subjective.  I'd be held to higher standard as a professional LEO than you would as a "mere" martial artist.  You'd be held to a different standard than an eighty year old woman with a walker.

It's not clear what you're looking for that's not already there.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> The basic principle of self defense says that you may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to safely resolve the situation.  Not whatever force you want -- but whatever you can articulate in a way that would make a reasonable person say "Yep, that was necessary."  It's not a step-for-step formula, and it's subjective.  I'd be held to higher standard as a professional LEO than you would as a "mere" martial artist.  You'd be held to a different standard than an eighty year old woman with a walker.
> 
> It's not clear what you're looking for that's not already there.



    I would be held to the standards of a martial artist only if the court knew of my background in the martial arts. If the court had no such knowledge, than I would probably be held just as accountable as an ordinary non martial artist. As for using just enough force to resolve the situation, if I was to continue to pound on an attacker after they're on the ground and incapacitated that would be excessive since they're no longer a threat. If I was to land one punch and seriously injure or even kill the attacker, Im not sure if the courts would consider that excessive but I would hope not. After all, if I don't continue to punch the attacker after he's been neutralized than I am not using excessive force. I should not get in trouble for landing one punch to stop the attacker even if I do hurt the attacker really badly. After all, why punish somebody for refusing to be a victim?


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> I would be held to the standards of a martial artist only if the court knew of my background in the martial arts. If the court had no such knowledge, than I would probably be held just as accountable as an ordinary non martial artist. As for using just enough force to resolve the situation, if I was to continue to pound on an attacker after they're on the ground and incapacitated that would be excessive since they're no longer a threat. If I was to land one punch and seriously injure or even kill the attacker, Im not sure if the courts would consider that excessive but I would hope not. After all, if I don't continue to punch the attacker after he's been neutralized than I am not using excessive force. I should not get in trouble for landing one punch to stop the attacker even if I do hurt the attacker really badly. After all, why punish somebody for refusing to be a victim?



In this day and age -- expect them to find out.  Heck, even without investigating social media, all it takes is a simple question under oath: "have you ever been taught how to punch or about self defense?"  to open the door.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> In this day and age -- expect them to find out.  Heck, even without investigating social media, all it takes is a simple question under oath: "have you ever been taught how to punch or about self defense?"  to open the door.



That would be about 99 percent of the people in the world. Most people have been taught how punch and some basic things about self defense by their parents and friends if not from anyone else. My dad taught me how to punch when I was a small child.


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> That would be about 99 percent of the people in the world. Most people have been taught how punch and some basic things about self defense by their parents and friends if not from anyone else. My dad taught me how to punch when I was a small child.



Investigators are not stupid its not hard to tell the difference between a trained fighter and some guy that was taught by his dad as a child.


----------



## PhotonGuy

If somebody uses a gun in a confrontation, it would be practically impossible to deny it. There would be way too much evidence against him, people would see him use the gun, people would hear him use it, there would be physical evidence, the bullet wound, the bullet, the gun itself, ect. Now, lets say somebody uses martial arts techniques in a confrontation. He could say its stuff that they saw on television or just thought up himself. I do know of a case where this boy from the orient used a bunch of palm strikes to stop a bully, when asked about it he said that he didn't have any martial arts training and that he didn't even remember what he did. He caimed he just acted in the heat of a confrontation.

That being said, somebody who has a martial arts background should not be held accountable for it in court unlike somebody who uses a gun in a confrontation. A gun is at a totally different level than martial arts, so it would make sense that the courts would take it quite heavily. However, such heavy accountability should be reserved for people who use guns in confrontation, not people who have martial arts backgrounds.


----------



## Tgace

PhotonGuy said:


> If somebody uses a gun in a confrontation, it would be practically impossible to deny it. There would be way too much evidence against him, people would see him use the gun, people would hear him use it, there would be physical evidence, the bullet wound, the bullet, the gun itself, ect. Now, lets say somebody uses martial arts techniques in a confrontation. He could say its stuff that they saw on television or just thought up himself. I do know of a case where this boy from the orient used a bunch of palm strikes to stop a bully, when asked about it he said that he didn't have any martial arts training and that he didn't even remember what he did. He caimed he just acted in the heat of a confrontation.
> 
> That being said, somebody who has a martial arts background should not be held accountable for it in court unlike somebody who uses a gun in a confrontation. A gun is at a totally different level than martial arts, so it would make sense that the courts would take it quite heavily. However, such heavy accountability should be reserved for people who use guns in confrontation, not people who have martial arts backgrounds.



Your opinion is not founded in law. Legitimate use of force is legitimate regardless of the weapon used. If the SITUATION justifies the use of deadly force you can use a gun, knife, rock, cat on a leash...

If you are talking about civil suits/getting sued, that's a different subject.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

Tgace said:


> As a source of discussion, as well as a refrence thread, I was hoping everybody would look up their state law regarding use of force. Or for those outside the US, whatever law applies.




Im an old martial artist who can still ply his art rather well with speed and power. An idea of my age: Grand Master Ed Parker tested me for brown belt. I have earned three black belts and studied some Aikido. I still teach private lessons.
I go by one defense by force law: If I am attacked, I use just enough force to stop the attack and no more. If he resumes the attack I again use just enough force to stop his attack. Of course I will try the first time to use what empty hand weapons will down him for good.
R. Mc
American Kenpo,
Tracy Kenpo,
Aiki-Kenpo


----------



## wingchun100

One interesting thing about the US: in eastern states like NY, if you are confronted on the street, the law is that you have to do whatever you can to create an escape route and leave. However, in the midwest and other locations, they take your pride into account! If some guy throws a punch at you, you are allowed to hit back even if you have a clear escape route. In NY they want you to take off like a punk, even if you could hand the guy his head on a platter. A lot of people hate NY State for a lot of reasons. I don't, although I certainly do hate THAT law.


----------



## wingchun100

Oops...sorry, I didn't mean to violate any rules with a curse word! Thank God for the edit feature.


----------



## Transk53

> *Is the defender under a duty to retreat?*
> ​The answer is "no" although it will be compelling evidence for the jury that the defender acted reasonably if he retreated as far as he possibly could before responding physically. However, this has not always been the position.
> For example, in the case of _Julien [1969] 1 WLR 839_ the court held that retreating was seen as a pre-requisite of establishing the defence of self defence. It was said that the defender must "demonstrate by his actions that he doesn't want to fight". This case was followed by _McInnes [1971] 1 WLR 1600_ where the reasonableness of the defender's actions might be looked at in the light of his willingness to "disengage and temporise". However, this is no longer the current position in English law.
> The present position is stated in _Bird [1985] 1 WLR 816_ where the Court of Appeal said that a demonstration by the defender's conduct that he did not want to fight is the best evidence that he was acting reasonably and in good faith in self defence; but it is no more than that. A person may in some circumstances act lawfully in self defence without temporising, disengaging or withdrawing.
> However, if the only reasonable course of action is to retreat, then to stand and fight would likely be seen as using unreasonable force.



I found that quite interesting. Now taking wingchun100 and the above posts, would it be deemed an act of aggression under UK law, if a Wing Chun practitioner managed to damage the opponent by sheer virtue of being conditioned. In court I imagine that could construed as being minimal force, if you could prove that you just deflected rather than strike. Even then, a final strike to put them down would still be "use of minimum force" as I see it. Whether this is true or I do not know, but I operated under the three warnings thing as a Doorman, because I was told that you give a person three warnings to back down and behave. As I say though, that is probably not founded in UK law, but the police accepted that mainly. These days the Doorman has a horrible time politically. Even if you have clearly defended yourself against an aggressor, The CPS (Criminal Protection Society) see the doorman as the aggressor.

Law Relating To SD


----------



## jks9199

wingchun100 said:


> One interesting thing about the US: in eastern states like NY, if you are confronted on the street, the law is that you have to do whatever you can to create an escape route and leave. However, in the midwest and other locations, they take your pride into account! If some guy throws a punch at you, you are allowed to hit back even if you have a clear escape route. In NY they want you to take off like a punk, even if you could hand the guy his head on a platter. A lot of people hate NY State for a lot of reasons. I don't, although I certainly do hate THAT law.



You've greatly oversimplified this. Each state has different laws and different interpretations of those laws. Duty to retreat is very situational. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## wingchun100

jks9199 said:


> You've greatly oversimplified this. Each state has different laws and different interpretations of those laws. Duty to retreat is very situational.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk



How can you oversimplify something that is already simple? Some states don't care if your personal pride is at stake, others do. Now if you get into who started what, THAT is where it gets more involved...but there is nothing complicated about the fact that, if you are not in your own home or cornered in an alley (for example), the law in NY State is that you are expected to retreat.


----------



## Tgace

wingchun100 said:


> How can you oversimplify something that is already simple? Some states don't care if your personal pride is at stake, others do. Now if you get into who started what, THAT is where it gets more involved...but there is nothing complicated about the fact that, if you are not in your own home or cornered in an alley (for example), the law in NY State is that you are expected to retreat.



http://tgace.com/2013/12/17/defend-yourself/



> 2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision oneunless:
> 
> Everything in part (1.) only justifies your use &#8220;physical force&#8221;, not &#8220;Deadly Physical Force&#8221;&#8230;unless the stuff below is true.
> 
> (a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:
> (i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
> (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30; or
> 
> ​If you reasonably believe someone is using or about to use &#8220;Deadly Physical Force&#8221;  against you you are justified in using DPF yourself, UNLESS you know you can retreat WITH COMPLETE SAFETY to yourself or others. You do not have to retreat if you are in your home (and you are not the person who started the fight).
> Cops don&#8217;t have to flee from the threat of DPF even if safe to do so. It is often wise to do so, but all sorts of thorny work related exceptions would come into play if it were mandated by law.
> 
> This is the section that gets some people wrapped around the axle over &#8220;stand your ground&#8221; laws. While&#8230;from one perspective I can see the &#8220;if I&#8217;m in the right why should the law require I flee?&#8221; point, I also think that avoiding unnecessary confrontation is always going to work out better in the long run. This law is not saying &#8220;to run&#8221; if the guy can shoot you in the back&#8230;that would not be &#8220;complete safety&#8221;. But if some guy outside your car is stabbing at your window with a knife (without success of course) and you can drive away&#8230;do so.


----------



## wingchun100

Again, that is stating the point I made. In NY if you can retreat, you are expected to do so. Someone takes a swing at me when I am walking down the street. I'm not supposed to hit back...I am supposed to leave the scene.


----------



## Tgace

wingchun100 said:


> Again, that is stating the point I made. In NY if you can retreat, you are expected to do so. Someone takes a swing at me when I am walking down the street. I'm not supposed to hit back...I am supposed to leave the scene.



No.

You are misunderstanding the law. It says you can not use DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE as long as you can retreat in complete safety. It does not say that you can't use Physical Force if someone takes a swing at you. Read the attached link and the other posts associated with it.


----------



## jks9199

wingchun100 said:


> How can you oversimplify something that is already simple? Some states don't care if your personal pride is at stake, others do. Now if you get into who started what, THAT is where it gets more involved...but there is nothing complicated about the fact that, if you are not in your own home or cornered in an alley (for example), the law in NY State is that you are expected to retreat.



Because, while use of force is actually largely common sense IF you understand the general principles, you've seriously misunderstood the general principles.  Tgace is covering it in more detail -- I think he's much more familiar with NY law and use of force issues than either of us, just like I know I'm much more familiar with Virginia law and issues than either of you are.  However, duty to retreat does not require you to run away at any cost -- only that any reasonable means of escaping be precluded.

Look, the general principle on using force to defend yourself can be pretty well summed up thusly: You may use only that force which is reasonably necessary to safely resolve the situation.  I'd love to see a state who's laws will permit you to defend your pride alone, rather than physical injury.  I don't think even Texas has gone quite that far.  You may be thinking of the fighting words doctrine; that's case law and you'd better hope that the judge or jury buys your argument about what constitutes fighting words.  

Oh, and who instigates a violent encounter, and the roles the parties play in the escalation of the encounter are pretty significant issues in assessing whether a particular use of force is justifiable.


----------



## wingchun100

No I'm not talking about defending your pride against fighting words. I'm talking about the fact that you can't pummel someone into oblivion. Once the threat is gone (for example, they give up), you can't keep hitting them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jks9199

wingchun100 said:


> No I'm not talking about defending your pride against fighting words. I'm talking about the fact that you can't pummel someone into oblivion. Once the threat is gone (for example, they give up), you can't keep hitting them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Name me ONE US state where you can legally "pummel someone into oblivion" and call it self defense.  Show me the code section that says it.  Re-read that sentence I wrote:  _You may use the force reasonably necessary to safely resolve the situation.  _That's the crux of the use of force in self defense.  If you pummel someone into oblivion -- you aren't defending yourself.  You crossed the line from defender into assailant.  And you'll likely get the title "defendant."


----------



## wingchun100

jks9199 said:


> Name me ONE US state where you can legally "pummel someone into oblivion" and call it self defense.  Show me the code section that says it.  Re-read that sentence I wrote:  _You may use the force reasonably necessary to safely resolve the situation.  _That's the crux of the use of force in self defense.  If you pummel someone into oblivion -- you aren't defending yourself.  You crossed the line from defender into assailant.  And you'll likely get the title "defendant."



Um...I never said you COULD do that in any state. I said there are some states where you can stand your ground and fight back whereas in others you are expected to retreat ASAP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351

wingchun100 said:


> One interesting thing about the US: in eastern states like NY, if you are confronted on the street, the law is that you have to do whatever you can to create an escape route and leave. However, in the midwest and other locations, they take your pride into account! If some guy throws a punch at you, you are allowed to hit back even if you have a clear escape route. In NY they want you to take off like a punk, even if you could hand the guy his head on a platter. A lot of people hate NY State for a lot of reasons. I don't, although I certainly do hate THAT law.


Since when is avoiding a fight and getting away safe make you a punk?  And no laws in any state give a crap about your pride


----------



## jks9199

wingchun100 said:


> Um...I never said you COULD do that in any state. I said there are some states where you can stand your ground and fight back whereas in others you are expected to retreat ASAP.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Apparently, I'm missing your point.  Perhaps you could try phrasing it another way -- because, at the moment, it seems that at least 3 of us who have professional, instructor level knowledge of use of force law, in 3 states, as well as the general principles across the US, are reading your posts pretty similarly.  If you want to administer an Educational Beat Down (thanks to Rory Miller for the terminology) -- you better first, be right in the culture, and second, be ready to accept the ramifications -- legal and culturally.  And that seems to be what you're implying...

However... I know in Virginia, we do have an idea called "mutual combat."  Maybe that's what you're aiming to describe? The classic example would be the "friendly bar fight."  It's social violence -- and everyone is really a willing participant.  If I respond, and the situation appears to be two guys (almost always, rarely do you find gals doing this) proving their manhood for the amusement of the watching audience...  we generally let the dust settle, maybe take 'em all in for Drunk In Public or the like, and let the fight be settled.  If they really want to push for a warrant, they can ask the magistrate themselves.  Of course, that goes out the window of someone is seriously injured...


----------



## wingchun100

I don't believe I was trying to give any kind of "beat down" or pretend I know more about the law than anyone else. All I tried to do was join in on the conversation with the laws that I read as I understood them. If I didn't grasp them completely, then naturally that is fine to say "you misunderstood that law." I'm humble enough to admit when I misunderstood something. However, I don't see the need to take it to a level of insulting someone. But hey, to each their own. If that's how some people get their kicks, who am I to take that joy away from them?

As for trying to phrase it in another way...nah, man, I'm good.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> Since when is avoiding a fight and getting away safe make you a punk?  And no laws in any state give a crap about your pride



Avoiding a fight and getting away doesn't make somebody a punk, but the way I see it, why should a person have to leave assuming they're in a public place. If somebody attacks me on the street why should I have to leave? I have as much of a right to be there as they do. To say people are expected to leave when confronted in public, that would mean that picking fights would legally give somebody more of a right to be at a place than whoever they're picking the fight with, because the person they're picking the fight with is supposed to get away and avoid the fight and thus leave the place.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> Avoiding a fight and getting away doesn't make somebody a punk, but the way I see it, why should a person have to leave assuming they're in a public place. If somebody attacks me on the street why should I have to leave? I have as much of a right to be there as they do. To say people are expected to leave when confronted in public, that would mean that picking fights would legally give somebody more of a right to be at a place than whoever they're picking the fight with, because the person they're picking the fight with is supposed to get away and avoid the fight and thus leave the place.



You don't necessarily have to bow out of each and every confrontation -- but you may lose the claim of self defense if you had alternatives to using force, most especially lethal force (which is generally defined as force that is likely to cause serious injury or death, not just guns or knives), and you didn't make some reasonable attempt to use them instead.  But it's also generally bounded in the concept of reasonableness; what is reasonably likely to safely resolve the situation.

Let's maybe try some examples to look at this a bit deeper.

Guy's walking down the street.  Someone clobbers him from behind, and he instantly turns and knocks the guy out with a spinning backfist.  Classic self-defense, huh?  He was hit, he reacted, and he didn't carry on to stomp the assailant's skull or anything like that.

OK...  So, let's change things up.  Guy is at a bar.  He's confronted by a drunk idiot.  They get to arguing about the relative merits of different versions of football.  Shouting leads to shoving, shoving leads to a looping overhand right, and the guy blocks, traps the arm, and throws the drunk to the ground.  He may not have a self defense claim; he was participating in the argument and the shoving match, and had plenty of opportunities to simply leave.  It might be something on the order of imperfect self defense, since he didn't throw the first punch.  It might go down as mutual combat. 

Most of the situations run somewhere in between; maybe someone else can paint a few others that we can examine.  The general idea is that we are a culture of laws and a certain level of civility, and we can resolve issues without killing each other -- or even simply pummeling each other into oblivion.  And that, if we're attacked, we don't get _carte blanche_ to mete justice out; we can protect ourselves, but are supposed to leave justice to the system.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> You don't necessarily have to bow out of each and every confrontation -- but you may lose the claim of self defense if you had alternatives to using force, most especially lethal force (which is generally defined as force that is likely to cause serious injury or death, not just guns or knives), and you didn't make some reasonable attempt to use them instead.  But it's also generally bounded in the concept of reasonableness; what is reasonably likely to safely resolve the situation.
> 
> Let's maybe try some examples to look at this a bit deeper.
> 
> Guy's walking down the street.  Someone clobbers him from behind, and he instantly turns and knocks the guy out with a spinning backfist.  Classic self-defense, huh?  He was hit, he reacted, and he didn't carry on to stomp the assailant's skull or anything like that.
> 
> OK...  So, let's change things up.  Guy is at a bar.  He's confronted by a drunk idiot.  They get to arguing about the relative merits of different versions of football.  Shouting leads to shoving, shoving leads to a looping overhand right, and the guy blocks, traps the arm, and throws the drunk to the ground.  He may not have a self defense claim; he was participating in the argument and the shoving match, and had plenty of opportunities to simply leave.  It might be something on the order of imperfect self defense, since he didn't throw the first punch.  It might go down as mutual combat.
> 
> Most of the situations run somewhere in between; maybe someone else can paint a few others that we can examine.  The general idea is that we are a culture of laws and a certain level of civility, and we can resolve issues without killing each other -- or even simply pummeling each other into oblivion.  And that, if we're attacked, we don't get _carte blanche_ to mete justice out; we can protect ourselves, but are supposed to leave justice to the system.



There is a problem when it comes to defining lethal force, since just about anything can kill so anything can be considered lethal force if the person on the receiving end dies. Tasers are generally not supposed to kill, they're just supposed to knock a person out but there are cases where people have been killed by tasers. A person could choke on pepper spray and die as unlikely as that is, or a person can be killed with a single punch although that's rare. Take your example of the guy being clobbered from behind and he hits his attacker with a spinning backfist. Lets say the attacker dies from the spinning backfist. Although chances are that won't happen, it can happen. Thus the defender used "lethal force" even if he didn't intend to kill his attacker. Just about anything can be called lethal force since just about anything can kill, pepper spray, tasers, bare hands, they can all kill.


----------



## CNida

jks9199 said:


> You don't necessarily have to bow out of each and every confrontation -- but you may lose the claim of self defense if you had alternatives to using force, most especially lethal force (which is generally defined as force that is likely to cause serious injury or death, not just guns or knives), and you didn't make some reasonable attempt to use them instead.  But it's also generally bounded in the concept of reasonableness; what is reasonably likely to safely resolve the situation.
> 
> Let's maybe try some examples to look at this a bit deeper.
> 
> Guy's walking down the street.  Someone clobbers him from behind, and he instantly turns and knocks the guy out with a spinning backfist.  Classic self-defense, huh?  He was hit, he reacted, and he didn't carry on to stomp the assailant's skull or anything like that.
> 
> OK...  So, let's change things up.  Guy is at a bar.  He's confronted by a drunk idiot.  They get to arguing about the relative merits of different versions of football.  Shouting leads to shoving, shoving leads to a looping overhand right, and the guy blocks, traps the arm, and throws the drunk to the ground.  He may not have a self defense claim; he was participating in the argument and the shoving match, and had plenty of opportunities to simply leave.  It might be something on the order of imperfect self defense, since he didn't throw the first punch.  It might go down as mutual combat.
> 
> Most of the situations run somewhere in between; maybe someone else can paint a few others that we can examine.  The general idea is that we are a culture of laws and a certain level of civility, and we can resolve issues without killing each other -- or even simply pummeling each other into oblivion.  And that, if we're attacked, we don't get _carte blanche_ to mete justice out; we can protect ourselves, but are supposed to leave justice to the system.



Theres too much gray area to say it so black and white like that. 

Take for instance your hypothetical bar-room incident. Let's say that instead of standing there and pushing back, the guy turns his back to the guy to leave and the guy attacks him from behind? What then? Does he have a claim for self defense if he were to turn around then and take a swing? Or, if he is still conscious and able to walk, is he legally obligated to continue trying to leave since he has the ability?

In my opinion theres too much to consider. You have no way to know what the other guys intentions are. Is he knocking you out to rob you blind? Is he trying to knock you out just for laughs? Is it a "mutually involved" fight that the guy only intends to win? Or is he attempting to kill you? No matter the context, I just don't see how anyone can know. So while you're trying to escape, the guy could either decide not to pursue or he could come after you.

Thats why I prefer a stand your ground law. Sure, there is such a thing as taking it too far. Even if there is reasonable suspicion that an assailant intends to take your life there is nothing saying you have to take theirs to prevent the loss of your own. You don't always have to kill to save your own life.

On that note, I shouldn't have to consider leaving anywhere if I am not doing anything wrong. If I am out enjoying a night with my wife or kids at the bowling alley and someone attacks me or my wife, I shouldnt be expected to get up and leave. It boggles my mind. I should be allowed to protect myself and my family without concern of legal action being taken against me, and I shouldn't have to face legal action for standing my ground. Of course that all changes if I invite the violence or I go overboard and knock the guy out and decide to choke him to death after he falls to the floor already unconscious. Theres a clear and easily discernible boundary between self defense and premeditated murder.

Hate to play devils advocate here, just curious what your thoughts are on that.


____________________________

"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens."


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> There is a problem when it comes to defining lethal force, since just about anything can kill so anything can be considered lethal force if the person on the receiving end dies. Tasers are generally not supposed to kill, they're just supposed to knock a person out but there are cases where people have been killed by tasers. A person could choke on pepper spray and die as unlikely as that is, or a person can be killed with a single punch although that's rare. Take your example of the guy being clobbered from behind and he hits his attacker with a spinning backfist. Lets say the attacker dies from the spinning backfist. Although chances are that won't happen, it can happen. Thus the defender used "lethal force" even if he didn't intend to kill his attacker. Just about anything can be called lethal force since just about anything can kill, pepper spray, tasers, bare hands, they can all kill.



A more complete definition would be that lethal force is that force which is reasonably likely to cause serious bodily injury or death.  Serious bodily injury is stuff like maiming, significant broken bones, blinding...  If you think "life altering injury", you're on the right track.  That certainly includes a lot of things that people don't ordinarily associate with being lethal force -- like baseball bats or automobiles -- but it's a pretty workable concept in practice.

As far as I know, there are no deaths *directly *attributed to the Taser.  Pretty much every Taser related death has been paired with excited delirium or some pre-existing condition.  Or people using them unwisely, like Tasing a guy standing on a ledge.  (The Taser didn't kill him... the sudden stop when he fell did.)

Now... let's look at that guy falling down after you punch him, and he dies from a freak landing just right at the curb to snap the neck or just lands just right on a rock.  There was a case a few years ago where an off-duty cop was charged with murder when he punched someone and they fell just right, cracking their skull.  (At least, that's how I recall it.  I couldn't find any links just now.)  Generally speaking, you take your victim as you find them.  Your defense at trial is going to be that your punch was a reasonable level of force in response to what you were facing, and there was no reasonable way to foresee the outcome would be so serious.  Get a good criminal defense attorney, fast -- and line up a good civil litigator, too.


----------



## jks9199

In looking some things up -- I came across this roundtable discussion: Self Defense & The Law

It's worth a read.


----------



## Chris Parker

wingchun100 said:


> I don't believe I was trying to give any kind of "beat down" or pretend I know more about the law than anyone else. All I tried to do was join in on the conversation with the laws that I read as I understood them. If I didn't grasp them completely, then naturally that is fine to say "you misunderstood that law." I'm humble enough to admit when I misunderstood something. However, I don't see the need to take it to a level of insulting someone. But hey, to each their own. If that's how some people get their kicks, who am I to take that joy away from them?
> 
> As for trying to phrase it in another way...nah, man, I'm good.



Hi,

I've watched the way the last few pages have gone, and I really do think it's simply a case of your not being anywhere near as familiar with the realities of self defence law as you believe, as well as other areas, and, as a result, are misunderstanding what you're being told. The above quote has another good example, where you seem to believe that JKS suggested you were trying to give him a "beat down"... that's not what he was talking about. You spoke about "pummel(ling) someone into oblivion"... which is not anything to do with self defence. In fact, it's quite simply a case of assault... and most often is seen as part of social violence. One common application of it is what Rory Miller described as an "educational beat down", where a beating is issued in order to instil a "lesson" (this is our turf, don't come round here, don't mess with my girl, you owe me money, etc). As a result, the beating is often to an extreme... which matches your description.

In other words, when JKS mentioned an "educational beat down", he was saying that that was what you were describing, not what you were doing. He wasn't insulting you at all... but he was using terminology you might not be familiar with.

And, to that end, I might suggest taking a moment when you read something that you perceive as an insult, and see if there's a possible way you could be misreading it... more often than not, it could be the case.


----------



## K-man

CNida said:


> On that note, I shouldn't have to consider leaving anywhere if I am not doing anything wrong. If I am out enjoying a night with my wife or kids at the bowling alley and someone attacks me or my wife, I shouldnt be expected to get up and leave. It boggles my mind. I should be allowed to protect myself and my family without concern of legal action being taken against me, and I shouldn't have to face legal action for standing my ground. Of course that all changes if I invite the violence or I go overboard and knock the guy out and decide to choke him to death after he falls to the floor already unconscious. Theres a clear and easily discernible boundary between self defense and premeditated murder.
> 
> Hate to play devils advocate here, just curious what your thoughts are on that.


Of course you can take what ever action you deem appropriate. If it ends up in court you need to justify your actions. Simple.



jks9199 said:


> Now... let's look at that guy falling down after you punch him, and he dies from a freak landing just right at the curb to snap the neck or just lands just right on a rock.  There was a case a few years ago where an off-duty cop was charged with murder when he punched someone and they fell just right, cracking their skull.  (At least, that's how I recall it.  I couldn't find any links just now.)  Generally speaking, you take your victim as you find them.  Your defense at trial is going to be that your punch was a reasonable level of force in response to what you were facing, and there was no reasonable way to foresee the outcome would be so serious.  Get a good criminal defense attorney, fast -- and line up a good civil litigator, too.


Exactly. 

In Australia there have been 90 deaths from people hitting their heads on the ground since 2000, which is why our SD laws have become much more restrictive. People are getting sick and tired of street violence.
:asian:


----------



## PhotonGuy

CNida said:


> On that note, I shouldn't have to consider leaving anywhere if I am not doing anything wrong. If I am out enjoying a night with my wife or kids at the bowling alley and someone attacks me or my wife, I shouldnt be expected to get up and leave. It boggles my mind. I should be allowed to protect myself and my family without concern of legal action being taken against me, and I shouldn't have to face legal action for standing my ground. Of course that all changes if I invite the violence or I go overboard and knock the guy out and decide to choke him to death after he falls to the floor already unconscious. Theres a clear and easily discernible boundary between self defense and premeditated murder.


Exactly. Why punish somebody for refusing to be a victim? That's messed up.


----------



## Tgace

Armchair lawyering is dangerous...no law says that if you "are attacked" you cannot use force to defend yourself. In most States (like mine) you have a duty to retreat if you can do so IN COMPLETE SAFETY before using DEADLY FORCE. Which has been explained several times here already.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tgace said:


> Armchair lawyering is dangerous...no law says that if you "are attacked" you cannot use force to defend yourself. In most States (like mine) you have a duty to retreat if you can do so IN COMPLETE SAFETY before using DEADLY FORCE. Which has been explained several times here already.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



   Deadly force. As I pointed out that can be open to debate. Just about anything can kill. Also, duty to retreat would apply depending on where you are. In most places, if you're in your own home you don't have to retreat and you're allowed to use deadly force against an intruder, its called the castle doctrine. So, there are all these factors to take into consideration.


----------



## stonewall1350

Well obviously state dependent. So I live in Florida. And we have the now infamous stand your ground law. I don't have the link to that legislation, but florida 790s deal with firearms and weapons and what you can and cannot possess.

An interesting bit about our law that I love is that ALL firearms legislation is statewide. Cities CANNOT legally pass any ordinance to further restrict firearms, and if they do so any enforcing officer can be fined...as can the official/s who enacted the legislation. That will be in the 790s statutes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stonewall1350

Tgace said:


> Armchair lawyering is dangerous...no law says that if you "are attacked" you cannot use force to defend yourself. In most States (like mine) you have a duty to retreat if you can do so IN COMPLETE SAFETY before using DEADLY FORCE. Which has been explained several times here already.
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Armchair lawyering is dangerous. That is why the concept of "duty to retreat" is a dangerous legal concept. Do you want someone...who wasn't there...debating whether or not you had the "ability" to "safely" retreat. But you are right. No law says that you can't defend yourself.

I haven't read the debate, but I know that in Florida "stand your ground" is an addendum to standard self defense law. It simply removes "duty to retreat" for the reason you stated (and I repeated  ). If you are in a place you are legally allowed to be...you do not have the duty to retreat (in Florida). The example is that one can claim self defense without invoking "stand your ground" as the legal defense. That is what happened in the Zimmerman/Trayvon Case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AIKIKENJITSU

I have been studying and practicing martial arts for fifty years and if I felt I had to defend myself, I would---period! It's better to be tried by twelve of your peers in court, than to be carried by six of your friends, to your grave.


----------



## K-man

AIKIKENJITSU said:


> I have been studying and practicing martial arts for fifty years and if I felt I had to defend myself, I would---period! It's better to be tried by twelve of your peers in court, than to be carried by six of your friends, to your grave.


Of course you would ... but times have changed. What you might have done with impunity 20 years ago may well find you taking an enforced holiday without your family in 2014. So now we need to take note of changes to society and changes to the law. It doesn't mean you can't defend yourself but you must defend yourself within the law. 
:asian:


----------



## PhotonGuy

I am not somebody who thrives on violence. Somebody who thrives on violence would want to get away with assaulting innocent people, such as in that stupid knock out game where a perpetrator takes a punch at a random person and tries to knock them out with one punch. Anybody who does that should go to jail. I would never do the knock out game and I would never condone it. However, I should not get in trouble for pounding somebody who instigates with me. I only beat people up if they bother me. The principal I live by is, "you don't bother me I don't bother you." In the perfect world nobody would bother me and so I wouldn't have to beat anybody up. As for having to pound somebody, I wouldn't want it to come to that. So I am not somebody who thrives on violence.


----------



## jezr74

PhotonGuy said:


> I am not somebody who thrives on violence. Somebody who thrives on violence would want to get away with assaulting innocent people, such as in that stupid knock out game where a perpetrator takes a punch at a random person and tries to knock them out with one punch. Anybody who does that should go to jail. I would never do the knock out game and I would never condone it. However, I should not get in trouble for pounding somebody who instigates with me. I only beat people up if they bother me. The principal I live by is, "you don't bother me I don't bother you." In the perfect world nobody would bother me and so I wouldn't have to beat anybody up. As for having to pound somebody, I wouldn't want it to come to that. So I am not somebody who thrives on violence.



Becomes an ethical thing than really. 

If someone were able to show dominance over someone after they attacked, and then continued to assault (no longer defend) them. Then really that's a personal judgement call and has it's own consequences, almost separate from the initial action.


----------



## PhotonGuy

I am not concerned with ethics so much as I am concerned with legal aspects, although ethical and legal stuff sometimes overlaps. I would not continue to beat on somebody if they are no longer a threat but lets say I land one punch and hurt them really badly or even kill them as it is possible to sometimes kill with a single blow. What are the legal consequences then? I am not continuing to beat on them after they're down but my one hit causes tremendous damage and possibly death, could the courts see that as excessive? 
I would like to state my position on this on how I think the law should be. I should definitely be allowed to use incapacitating force or perhaps even deadly force in some cases if the troublemaker happens to be male, if its an assailant of the masculine gender. After all, men make up the majority of the troublemakers in this world. Just look at the prisons. There are women in prison but they make up only a small minority. By far, most of the people in prison are men. I will hold back against women and children but with men its open season if they bother me. Especially if its a large man. If its a man, and if its a physically large man, AND if he's bothering me, than I should have every right to put him down.


----------



## donnaTKD

bit different here cos the law got changed  if someone breaks into your house whilst you are there then you can use whatever force you deem necessary (even death) to eliminate the threat - you'll still go through the process of cops, lawyers etc..... but cos that person threatened you and your property it's game over for the person breaking in   and you don't need to prove that they were going to hurt you.  the fact that they were in your property is more than enough for due cause 

there have been a number of high profile cases where householders have killed intruders and after due process have been found not guilty 

you takes your pick where i live - you break into my house you leave in a pine box   at least the law got summat right in beautiful wales


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> I am not concerned with ethics so much as I am concerned with legal aspects, although ethical and legal stuff sometimes overlaps. I would not continue to beat on somebody if they are no longer a threat but lets say I land one punch and hurt them really badly or even kill them as it is possible to sometimes kill with a single blow. What are the legal consequences then? I am not continuing to beat on them after they're down but my one hit causes tremendous damage and possibly death, could the courts see that as excessive?
> I would like to state my position on this on how I think the law should be. I should definitely be allowed to use incapacitating force or perhaps even deadly force in some cases if the troublemaker happens to be male, if its an assailant of the masculine gender. After all, men make up the majority of the troublemakers in this world. Just look at the prisons. There are women in prison but they make up only a small minority. By far, most of the people in prison are men. I will hold back against women and children but with men its open season if they bother me. Especially if its a large man. If its a man, and if its a physically large man, AND if he's bothering me, than I should have every right to put him down.



Rather than rehash stuff I'm pretty sure is elsewhere in this thread...  stop focusing on how you think things should be, and learn how they work.  In assessing the use of force, factors that are considered include relative age and size, fitness, weapons, infirmities...  and even sometimes gender.   But your view on male vs female troublemakers is skewed, and inaccurate.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> But your view on male vs female troublemakers is skewed, and inaccurate.



Look at the prisons. By far most of the prison population is made up of guys and men. You've got many, many, MANY more men in prison than you do women.


----------



## MartialMellow

*Oregon
*Within the *2013* *Oregon Revised Statutes
*(a long read)

a corporation to the same extent as if such conduct were performed in the person&#8217;s own name or behalf. [1971 c.743 §17] 
JUSTIFICATION

*      161.190 Justification as a defense.* In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in ORS 161.195 to 161.275, is a defense. [1971 c.743 §18]

*      161.195 &#8220;Justification&#8221; described.* (1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when it is required or authorized by law or by a judicial decree or is performed by a public servant in the reasonable exercise of official powers, duties or functions.
      (2) As used in subsection (1) of this section, &#8220;laws and judicial decrees&#8221; include but are not limited to:
      (a) Laws defining duties and functions of public servants;
      (b) Laws defining duties of private citizens to assist public servants in the performance of certain of their functions;
      (c) Laws governing the execution of legal process;
      (d) Laws governing the military services and conduct of war; and
      (e) Judgments and orders of courts. [1971 c.743 §19]

*      Note:* See second note under 161.015.

*      161.200 Choice of evils.* (1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:
      (a) That conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury; and
      (b) The threatened injury is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.
      (2) The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection (1) of this section shall not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. [1971 c.743 §20]

*      Note:* See second note under 161.015.

*      161.205 Use of physical force generally.* The use of physical force upon another person that would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal under any of the following circumstances:
      (1)(a) A parent, guardian or other person entrusted with the care and supervision of a minor or an incompetent person may use reasonable physical force upon such minor or incompetent person when and to the extent the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain discipline or to promote the welfare of the minor or incompetent person.
      (b) Personnel of a public education program, as that term is defined in ORS 339.285, may use reasonable physical force upon a student when and to the extent the application of force is consistent with ORS 339.291.
      (2) An authorized official of a jail, prison or correctional facility may use physical force when and to the extent that the official reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order and discipline or as is authorized by law.
      (3) A person responsible for the maintenance of order in a common carrier of passengers, or a person acting under the direction of the person, may use physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to maintain order, but the person may use deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or serious physical injury.
      (4) A person acting under a reasonable belief that another person is about to commit suicide or to inflict serious physical self-injury may use physical force upon that person to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to thwart the result.
      (5) A person may use physical force upon another person in self-defense or in defending a third person, in defending property, in making an arrest or in preventing an escape, as hereafter prescribed in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971. [1971 c.743 §21; 1981 c.246 §1; 2011 c.665 §§10,11; 2013 c.133 §4; 2013 c.267 §4]

*      Note:* See second note under 161.015.

*      161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person.* Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]

*      161.210* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

*      161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person.* Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if:
      (1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or
      (2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or
      (3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. [1971 c.743 §24]

*      161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.* Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
      (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
      (2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
      (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

*      161.220* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

*      161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises.* (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises.
      (2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:
      (a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or
      (b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.
      (3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, &#8220;premises&#8221; includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, &#8220;premises&#8221; includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]

*      161.229 Use of physical force in defense of property.* A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief of property. [1971 c.743 §26]

*      161.230* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

*      161.235 Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.* Except as provided in ORS 161.239, a peace officer is justified in using physical force upon another person only when and to the extent that the peace officer reasonably believes it necessary:
      (1) To make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless the peace officer knows that the arrest is unlawful; or
      (2) For self-defense or to defend a third person from what the peace officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while making or attempting to make an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent an escape. [1971 c.743 §27]

*      161.239 Use of deadly physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.* (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.235, a peace officer may use deadly physical force only when the peace officer reasonably believes that:
      (a) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
      (b) The crime committed by the person was kidnapping, arson, escape in the first degree, burglary in the first degree or any attempt to commit such a crime; or
      (c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is necessary to defend the peace officer or another person from the use or threatened imminent use of deadly physical force; or
      (d) The crime committed by the person was a felony or an attempt to commit a felony and under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place, the use of such force is necessary; or
      (e) The officer&#8217;s life or personal safety is endangered in the particular circumstances involved.
      (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section constitutes justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom the peace officer is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody. [1971 c.743 §28]

*      161.240* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

*      161.245 &#8220;Reasonable belief&#8221; described; status of unlawful arrest.* (1) For the purposes of ORS 161.235 and 161.239, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would in law constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody.
      (2) A peace officer who is making an arrest is justified in using the physical force prescribed in ORS 161.235 and 161.239 unless the arrest is unlawful and is known by the officer to be unlawful. [1971 c.743 §29]

*      161.249 Use of physical force by private person assisting an arrest.* (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person who has been directed by a peace officer to assist the peace officer to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using physical force when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force to be necessary to carry out the peace officer&#8217;s direction.
      (2) A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer under circumstances specified in subsection (1) of this section may use deadly physical force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape only when:
      (a) The person reasonably believes that force to be necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or
      (b) The person is directed or authorized by the peace officer to use deadly physical force unless the person knows that the peace officer is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances. [1971 c.743 §30]

*      161.250* [Repealed by 1971 c.743 §432]

*      161.255 Use of physical force by private person making citizen&#8217;s arrest.* (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a private person acting on the person&#8217;s own account is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to make an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person whom the person has arrested under ORS 133.225.
      (2) A private person acting under the circumstances prescribed in subsection (1) of this section is justified in using deadly physical force only when the person reasonably believes it necessary for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force. [1971 c.743 §31; 1973 c.836 §339]

*      161.260 Use of physical force in resisting arrest prohibited.* A person may not use physical force to resist an arrest by a peace officer who is known or reasonably appears to be a peace officer, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful. [1971 c.743 §32]

*      161.265 Use of physical force to prevent escape.* (1) A guard or other peace officer employed in a correctional facility, as that term is defined in ORS 162.135, is justified in using physical force, including deadly physical force, when and to the extent that the guard or peace officer reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner from a correctional facility.
      (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, a guard or other peace officer employed by the Department of Corrections may not use deadly physical force in the circumstances described in ORS 161.267 (3). [1971 c.743 §33; 2005 c.431 §3]

*      161.267 Use of physical force by corrections officer or official employed by Department of Corrections.* (1) As used in this section:
      (a) &#8220;Colocated minimum security facility&#8221; means a Department of Corrections institution that has been designated by the Department of Corrections as a minimum security facility and has been located by the department on the grounds of a medium or higher security Department of Corrections institution.
      (b) &#8220;Department of Corrections institution&#8221; has the meaning given that term in ORS 421.005.
      (c) &#8220;Stand-alone minimum security facility&#8221; means a Department of Corrections institution that has been designated by the department as a minimum security facility and that has been located by the department separate and apart from other Department of Corrections institutions.
      (2) A corrections officer or other official employed by the Department of Corrections is justified in using physical force, including deadly physical force, when and to the extent that the officer or official reasonably believes it necessary to:
      (a) Prevent the escape of an inmate from a Department of Corrections institution, including the grounds of the institution, or from custody;
      (b) Maintain or restore order and discipline in a Department of Corrections institution, or any part of the institution, in the event of a riot, disturbance or other occurrence that threatens the safety of inmates, department employees or other persons; or
      (c) Prevent serious physical injury to or the death of the officer, official or another person.
      (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)(a) of this section, a corrections officer or other official employed by the department may not use deadly physical force to prevent the escape of an inmate from:
      (a) A stand-alone minimum security facility;
      (b) A colocated minimum security facility, if the corrections officer or other official knows that the inmate has been classified by the department as minimum custody; or
      (c) Custody outside of a Department of Corrections institution:
      (A) While the inmate is assigned to an inmate work crew; or
      (B) During transport or other supervised activity, if the inmate is classified by the department as minimum custody and the inmate is not being transported or supervised with an inmate who has been classified by the department as medium or higher custody.
      (4) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a person to use physical force under ORS 161.205 (2) or 161.265. [2005 c.431 §2]

*      161.270 Duress.* (1) The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense, other than murder, is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was coerced to do so by the use or threatened use of unlawful physical force upon the actor or a third person, which force or threatened force was of such nature or degree to overcome earnest resistance.
      (2) Duress is not a defense for one who intentionally or recklessly places oneself in a situation in which it is probable that one will be subjected to duress.
      (3) It is not a defense that a spouse acted on the command of the other spouse, unless the spouse acted under such coercion as would establish a defense under subsection (1) of this section. [1971 c.743 §34; 1987 c.158 §22]

*      161.275 Entrapment.* (1) The commission of acts which would otherwise constitute an offense is not criminal if the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because the actor was induced to do so by a law enforcement official, or by a person acting in cooperation with a law enforcement official, for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used against the actor in a criminal prosecution.
      (2) As used in this section, &#8220;induced&#8221; means that the actor did not contemplate and would not otherwise have engaged in the proscribed conduct. Merely affording the actor an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. [1971 c.743 §35]


----------



## ballen0351

PhotonGuy said:


> Look at the prisons. By far most of the prison population is made up of guys and men. You've got many, many, MANY more men in prison than you do women.



A woman is more then capable of killing or hurting you.  If your in a self defense situation and hold back because of gender your going to find yourself in a bad situation.  To flip that if your using excessive physical force beyond what's needed to defend yourself just because it's a man your also going to find yourself in a serious legal problem


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> Look at the prisons. By far most of the prison population is made up of guys and men. You've got many, many, MANY more men in prison than you do women.



There are a lot of things involved in that, and very few of them are the nature of violent attacks or the use of force.  Most of them reflect our culture and sentencing patterns.


----------



## wimwag

Wisconsin
939.48&#8195; Self-defense and defense of others. 

 (1)&#8194;A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. 

 (1m)&#8194;

(a) In this subsection: 

 1. "Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h). 

 2. "Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates. 

 (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies: 

 1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring. 

 2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business. 

 (b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies: 

 1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time. 

 2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies: 

 a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor. 

 b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker. 

 (2)&#8194;Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: 

 (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant. 

 (b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. 

 (c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense. 

 (3)&#8194;The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed. 

 (4)&#8194;A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person. 

 (5)&#8194;A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death. 

 (6)&#8194;In this section "unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.


----------



## PhotonGuy

ballen0351 said:


> A woman is more then capable of killing or hurting you.  If your in a self defense situation and hold back because of gender your going to find yourself in a bad situation.  To flip that if your using excessive physical force beyond what's needed to defend yourself just because it's a man your also going to find yourself in a serious legal problem



How about if its a large man? Not just a man but a physically large man.

Lets say Im in college, some other dude in college starts bothering me so I bash his brains out.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> How about if its a large man? Not just a man but a physically large man.
> 
> Lets say Im in college, some other dude in college starts bothering me so I bash his brains out.



Unless you can convince a judge or jury that you reasonably feared imminent serious bodily harm due to your relative sizes...  You'll likely go to jail.


----------



## wimwag

jks9199 said:


> Unless you can convince a judge or jury that you reasonably feared imminent serious bodily harm due to your relative sizes...  You'll likely go to jail.




Disparity of force.


----------



## wimwag

PhotonGuy said:


> .
> 
> Lets say Im in college, some other dude in college starts bothering me so I bash his brains out.


That's murder.  Learn to walk away.


----------



## wingchun100

One thing that frustrates me about these laws is this: okay, so you have to show you believed there was an immediate threat. So then you get to stand in court and be found guilty. In other words, it's like the judge is saying, "No, you didn't believe there was a threat." Excuse me? How the hell do YOU know what went through MY head at the time?


----------



## wimwag

wingchun100 said:


> One thing that frustrates me about these laws is this: okay, so you have to show you believed there was an immediate threat. So then you get to stand in court and be found guilty. In other words, it's like the judge is saying, "No, you didn't believe there was a threat." Excuse me? How the hell do YOU know what went through MY head at the time?




Ask George Zimmerman what it's like being called "white" when he is in fact a dark skinned Puruvian (Latino), told by police that they supported him and believed his story, then have the president and attorney general personally come after him and thrust their racist views out there, bus in protesters with taxpayer funds all in an attempt to deprive him of a fair trial.  And if that isn't enough, once acquitted, they tried to charge him with depriving his attacker of his civil rights...

Sadly, this is our society.  Liberals believe that it's never the criminals fault, all victims are perpetrators and being born white makes one guilty.


----------



## wimwag

donnaTKD said:


> bit different here cos the law got changed  if someone breaks into your house whilst you are there then you can use whatever force you deem necessary (even death) to eliminate the threat - you'll still go through the process of cops, lawyers etc..... but cos that person threatened you and your property it's game over for the person breaking in   and you don't need to prove that they were going to hurt you.  the fact that they were in your property is more than enough for due cause
> 
> there have been a number of high profile cases where householders have killed intruders and after due process have been found not guilty
> 
> you takes your pick where i live - you break into my house you leave in a pine box   at least the law got summat right in beautiful wales





watch the tones of your posts on this matter.  The prosecutors will dig up anything on you and twist it to convict you.  Just because a law is a law doesn't mean the court officers will abide by it.



Here's an example....



Mark Hoffman decided to exercise his right to bear arms, he was stopped and questioned.  Even though WI Act 35 states that simply being armed is not justification for a stop, he was detained and arrested for "being heavily armed" which is not a crime.  He was charged with disorderly conduct (after being booked and jailed) and obstruction for refusing to ID, which is his fifth amendment right.  DA threw the charges out and freed Mark.  Two weeks later, cops out on a vendetta charged him with loitering and obstruction.  Why loitering?  Because he had to stand around while detained.  Legally he could not move from that spot but really he could not stand there either.  If they can do that here (they're not getting away with it, believe me.  . I have rallied the troops and we are going to raise hell.) then in your country where you have no preexisting rights, you are in grave danger, legally speaking.  Mark was convicted of loitering simply for going for a walk.  He was deprived of his civil rights in the process and now because there is no accountability, I have to rally the community to make sure the appeal goes as planned and he is compensated.  

I'm not sure how you will take this lost, but it's a friendly reminder example and example of how a right codified over 200 years ago is ignored by politicians with their own agenda.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

There was an interesting story on this subject here in the UK a few years ago:

Munir Hussain and victims' rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm curious to know how it would be treated under US law and how it would be viewed over there?

My sympathies lie with the Hussains rather than Salem, but on balance I'd have to agree with Judge Reddihough


----------



## jks9199

As a caveat -- please remember that each state's laws are different within the US, and that I'm not a lawyer.

Based on the link -- Hussain and the others would likely have been charged and convicted of aggravated assault or similar offenses.  The Castle Doctrine (when available either through Common Law or statute) allows the use of force, including lethal force, in the defense of one's home during a burglar or similar offense.  Basically, it allows the homeowner to assume that anyone breaking in means them harm.  The homeowner loses that justification when the invader flees the house.  At that point, it becomes a question of citizen's arrest, which in Virginia and many states is limited to felonies and misdemeanor breaches of the peace.  In that role, the homeowner is limited to the force reasonably necessary to detain the person -- not as much force as they want.  When they cross that line of reasonableness, it becomes assault.  Anyone joining the homeowner takes on the mantle of their position...

So... this one looks pretty bad for the homeowner (Hussain).  He was good in his home.  I'd even give him the pursuit.  But when they severely beat Salem -- especially as they bring items like hockey sticks and cricket bats (for those who aren't familiar with it, a cricket bat rather resembles the illegitimate offspring of a baseball bat and a canoe paddle).  It's not clear if Salem was still armed at the time of the beating.  The quote from the judge sums things up rather well, I think:


> *Judge Reddihough:[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP]*The  prosecution rightly made it plain that there was no allegation against  you, Munir Hussain, in respect of the force you used against Salem in  defending your own home and family or of the force used by either of you  in apprehending Salem. However, the attack which then occurred was  totally unnecessary and amounted to a very violent revenge attack on a  defenceless man. It may be that some members of the public or media  commentators will assert that Salem deserved what happened to him, and  that you should not have been prosecuted and need not be punished. The  courts must make it clear that such conduct is criminal and unacceptable  ... If persons were permitted to take the law into their own hands and  inflict their own instant and violent punishment on an apprehended  offender rather than letting the criminal justice system take its  course, then the rule of law and our system of criminal justice, which  are hallmarks of a civilised society, would collapse.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

Seems pretty similar to the UK then (in Virginia at least)



jks9199 said:


> for those who aren't familiar with it, a cricket bat rather resembles the illegitimate offspring of a baseball bat and a canoe paddle:



Great description


----------



## jks9199

Hong Kong Pooey said:


> Seems pretty similar to the UK then (in Virginia at least)
> 
> 
> 
> Great description


Virginia is a Common Law state.   There are several offenses that aren't even described in our statutes; the code simply describes the punishment.  A lot of our principles still look back to English Common Law...


----------



## donnaTKD

before the laws got changed here in favour of the homeowner you never used to be able to do anything without being prosecuted for it (didn't stop it from happening) - you had to hold back.

now that the laws have been changed in the last few years you can go to town on intruder regardless of what their intentions are - if they're there uninvited then it they that take the risk and believe me everyone goes to town on intruders now and it's fantastic - the number of home invasions has dropped substantially and those that do contiue their illegal activities are being battered for it 

i firmly believe like so many in this country where firearms are more or less banned that using anything to defend yourself is more than agreeable and prosecutions should not be brought against the homeowner


----------



## PhotonGuy

donnaTKD said:


> before the laws got changed here in favour of the homeowner you never used to be able to do anything without being prosecuted for it (didn't stop it from happening) - you had to hold back.
> 
> now that the laws have been changed in the last few years you can go to town on intruder regardless of what their intentions are - if they're there uninvited then it they that take the risk and believe me everyone goes to town on intruders now and it's fantastic - the number of home invasions has dropped substantially and those that do contiue their illegal activities are being battered for it
> 
> i firmly believe like so many in this country where firearms are more or less banned that using anything to defend yourself is more than agreeable and prosecutions should not be brought against the homeowner



You're from the UK. From what I know about the UK handguns are banned but rifles aren't. So a homeowner could use a rifle against an intruder. But aside from that, I agree a person should be allowed to use force of any means to stop an intruder. After all, what good are weapons if you aren't allowed to use them against an assailant or intruder?


----------



## K-man

PhotonGuy said:


> You're from the UK. From what I know about the UK handguns are banned but rifles aren't. So a homeowner could use a rifle against an intruder. But aside from that, I agree a person should be allowed to use force of any means to stop an intruder. *After all, what good are weapons if you aren't allowed to use them against an assailant or intruder?*


Good question. I would suggest number one here would be target shooting, number two would be hunting and I can't think of any other reason for owning one. As a result I gave mine away years ago.
:asian:


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

PhotonGuy said:


> You're from the UK. From what I know about the UK handguns are banned but rifles aren't. So a homeowner could use a rifle against an intruder. But aside from that, I agree a person should be allowed to use force of any means to stop an intruder. After all, what good are weapons if you aren't allowed to use them against an assailant or intruder?



Not quite.

As far as I know all handguns and automatic weapons are banned for everybody apart from the police and military. Rifles are pretty much the same, the only other people I can think of who may be allowed them would be gamekeepers, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Shotguns are the most common guns here by far, but you need a licence for them and they need to be kept in a locked box or cabinet. Farmers are allowed them and some people still shoot pheasants & grouse on private land, but they're a tiny minority and I don't know what criteria have to be met to be allowed to own the guns they use.

In fact, most decent weapons of any kind are pretty much banned here!  

But the main point being self-defence or home protection is not an acceptable reason to be given a firearms licence, and there are very few households over here with guns so there are very few homeowners (if any) who could use a legally held rifle against an intruder. There is the odd case of shotguns being used against intruders here but they're so rare that it's big news when it does happen.

Reasonable use of force can be used against an intruder or assailant, and there have been people who have stabbed intruders to death with kitchen knives and not faced charges, or been acquitted in court.

However I'm not a lawyer or policeman so don't take my word for any of the above!


----------



## PhotonGuy

When I was talking about using weapons against assailants I wasn't talking about guns in particular, I was talking about any kind of weapon. Also, while home defense is important, I am also talking about personal defense outside the home such as on the street, which is also important. In the USA, and I would assume just about anywhere else in the world, you can get in trouble for using just about any kind of weapon, including your bare hands.


----------



## Hong Kong Pooey

PhotonGuy said:


> When I was talking about using weapons against assailants I wasn't talking about guns in particular, I was talking about any kind of weapon. Also, while home defense is important, I am also talking about personal defense outside the home such as on the street, which is also important. In the USA, and I would assume just about anywhere else in the world, you can get in trouble for using just about any kind of weapon, including your bare hands.



I'm pretty sure it was you that said "_From what I know about the UK handguns are banned but rifles aren't. So a homeowner could use a rifle against an intruder."
_
That's the point I was addressing.

Why would you assume that the same rules that apply in the US on self-defence also apply "_just about anywhere else in the world_"?


----------



## PhotonGuy

Sure, guns can be used against assailants and very effectively too, but its not the only thing that can be used. 

As to why I would assume the same rules would apply, in this particular case using force can get you in trouble in the USA and such a thing carries heavy consequences so I was just assuming it would also apply in most places, no reason.


----------



## PhotonGuy

This thread has died down so I will try to revive it. As I was saying, if I am in a situation where I use physical force against an assailant than there are certain conditions that if they apply, I feel I shouldn't get in trouble because somebody shouldn't get in trouble for refusing to be a victim. First of all, if its somebody who is causing trouble with me. I would not attack an innocent person, man, woman, or child, whose just minding their own business and not bothering me. If I were to do that I would be the assailant so I wouldn't do that but first and foremost the first condition is if its somebody who is instigating with me. The second condition is if they're a guy, if they're male. And the third condition is if they're a large guy, if they're big. Now, granted there are situations where a woman or a child can also be a very dangerous threat and force might be necessary to stop them but if its a large dude and most importantly, if its a large dude who is instigating trouble with me than I should be allowed to use whatever force is appropriate to take him down and not get in trouble. Somebody should not be punished for refusing to be a victim.


----------



## jks9199

I've said this before.  You can think our believe whatever you want. You had better be able to articulate it in a way that convinces a cop, a prosecutor, a jury, and a judge unless you want to go to jail. You might want to look into getting Marc MacYoung's latest book In The Name of Self Defense...

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

You thinking is too black and white. Theres an obvious "good guy" and a movie style "bad guy" and it's obvious to all who is who.

That's not how the real world works. 

Sometimes it's a blatant street robbery and you were defending yourself. Sometimes it's a dispute with your drunken brother-in-law who stuck you with a steak knife during a fist fight that YOU started...THAT is an entirely different story. The real world has a lot of grey in it.

That's why we have laws....


----------



## Chris Parker

PhotonGuy said:


> This thread has died down so I will try to revive it. As I was saying, if I am in a situation where I use physical force against an assailant than there are certain conditions that if they apply, I feel I shouldn't get in trouble because somebody shouldn't get in trouble for refusing to be a victim. First of all, if its somebody who is causing trouble with me. I would not attack an innocent person, man, woman, or child, whose just minding their own business and not bothering me. If I were to do that I would be the assailant so I wouldn't do that but first and foremost the first condition is if its somebody who is instigating with me. The second condition is if they're a guy, if they're male. And the third condition is if they're a large guy, if they're big. Now, granted there are situations where a woman or a child can also be a very dangerous threat and force might be necessary to stop them but if its a large dude and most importantly, if its a large dude who is instigating trouble with me than I should be allowed to use whatever force is appropriate to take him down and not get in trouble. Somebody should not be punished for refusing to be a victim.



I'll say it again for you as well.

It doesn't matter what you believe, think, feel, or want to be true. It just doesn't. It doesn't matter what self-directed "conditions" you put on your own justification of your actions. It doesn't matter if the "instigator" is male, female, or anything else&#8230; nor their size&#8230; it matters how well you understand the laws (in your area)&#8230; and how well you can either stay within them, or vocalise your reasons for violating them. I't just doesn't.

And, to be absolutely clear here, even if you can vocalise exactly why you felt justified in violating the legal criteria for use of force, you may very well go to jail yourself&#8230; whether you were "just defending yourself" or not&#8230; regardless of any belief, thought, feeling, or desire you may have.

In other words, if you want to understand this subject, stop thinking about what you think you would do&#8230; or could justify. It doesn't matter. Oh, and for the record, the way you present this argument here tells me that you have pretty much zero understanding of actual violence, individual responses to stress and adrenaline, how you would react and act, and, well, pretty much everything else associated with this area. So it might be a good idea to stop thinking about your ideas&#8230; they're not based in anything of value, to be blunt.


----------



## PhotonGuy

It also depends on where you are as the laws regarding use of force vary from place to place. In a place like New Jersey you can get in big trouble for any use of force in most circumstances. In Texas on the other hand, you have much more leeway on being able to use force against a troublemaker. And, Im stating what I think because Im allowed to do that. If I disagree with how the system is run Im allowed to say so and say how, and in my country if you disagree with a law or laws you can work to have them changed. Also, if Im wrong about stuff go ahead and tell me Im wrong and how Im wrong, that's how I learn.

So anyway, as I was saying lots of it depends on your location. Whether or not you can use force differs from place to place. Supposedly, in Australia you can assault somebody if they so much as say the wrong thing to you. At least that's what somebody who claims to be from Australia said on this board.


----------



## Chris Parker

Either you completely misunderstood them (most likely), or they were mistaken themselves. 

Nothing else in your post has anything to do with "Use of Force"&#8230; it really makes no difference to, and has no relation to, your perceived ideas of "freedom of speech"&#8230; really, it's all a completely irrelevant post.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Well here's the problem, when somebody is of the masculine gender and they don't deserve it.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Well here's the problem, when somebody is of the masculine gender and they don't deserve it.



Why don't they deserve to be masculine? do they deserve to be female then? I'm not sure what criteria you use to judge whether people deserve to be male or female.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Why don't they deserve to be masculine? do they deserve to be female then? I'm not sure what criteria you use to judge whether people deserve to be male or female.



Being male in this world takes lots of responsibility. Lots of guys just don't live up to that responsibility. That's the criteria I use.


----------



## pgsmith

PhotonGuy said:


> Being male in this world takes lots of responsibility. Lots of guys just don't live up to that responsibility. That's the criteria I use.



  Being a misogynist in this world, on the other hand, involves trying to refuse responsibility.
  Unless you're only 13, you've got a very poor understanding of how the world works. Being a decent *person* in this world takes a lot of responsibility. Male or female does NOT enter into the equation. Lots of *people* don't live up to that responsibility, and _that's_ the criteria you should use!

And stay off my lawn!


----------



## Mad_Dog

Use of force law, huh?  You can always do what I do, when some punk or drunk gives me lip I rely on the good ol' fashioned ground and pound.


----------



## elder999

Mad_Dog said:


> Use of force law, huh?  You can always do what I do, when some punk or drunk gives me lip I rely on the good ol' fashioned ground and pound.


You must have a good lawyer, and a whole team of psychiatrists, I'll bet.


----------



## The_Awesome_User

Well Republican states seem to trend to being more self defense frendly


----------



## K-man

The_Awesome_User said:


> Well Republican states seem to trend to being more self defense frendly


Depends on your definition of self defence.


----------



## PhotonGuy

So there has been some talk about self defense and the aftermath of using force in this other thread but as of now the thread has been closed pending staff review so I thought we could continue the discussion here. Moonhill99 comes across as a self proclaimed expert in the law regarding self defense and  has claimed that except for in the state of Texas you will go to jail for shooting a criminal. Moonhill99 has also said that yelling could get you thrown in jail. Then again, there were also people on the thread who appeared to be quite knowledgeable on the subject but since the thread is now closed here is where I think it would be good to continue the discussion.


----------



## Dirty Dog

I think it might be smarter not to re-start the fight that got the other thread locked in the first place.


----------



## lifelongstudent1

If I may, it would also be helpful for people to understand the following doctrines of Law.  If you ever get a chance take Massad Ayoob class on Armed Citizen MAG20.

Reasonable man Doctrine
Doctrine of Disparity
Doctrine of Necessity

You also want to understand what an Affirmative Defense is, as well as, state definition of an "aggressor".


----------



## Tez3

lifelongstudent1 said:


> If I may, it would also be helpful for people to understand the following doctrines of Law.  If you ever get a chance take Massad Ayoob class on Armed Citizen MAG20.
> 
> Reasonable man Doctrine
> Doctrine of Disparity
> Doctrine of Necessity
> 
> You also want to understand what an Affirmative Defense is, as well as, state definition of an "aggressor".



Not very helpful on an international site like this. It may not be helpful to Americans as I think I'm right in saying that laws depend on the State you are in?


----------



## geezer

I would hope that LEOs will (or should be) well informed on the laws regarding use of force applicable in their jurisdictions.

As far as the rest of us go, my approach to self-defense follows the well established sequence emphasizing -- in this order: Awareness, Avoidence, De-escalation, Escape, and _lastly,_ a physical defensive response (which will almost certainly have legal repercussions).

Significantly, the first four in the list above can be applied anywhere without running afoul of the law!


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Not very helpful on an international site like this. It may not be helpful to Americans as I think I'm right in saying that laws depend on the State you are in?



Some do. In the USA there are state laws that only apply to whatever state you're in and there are federal laws which apply everywhere in the country.


----------



## Juany118

Tez3 said:


> Not very helpful on an international site like this. It may not be helpful to Americans as I think I'm right in saying that laws depend on the State you are in?



The reasonable man doctrine (short form reasonableness) is actually founded in English Common Law however and is even referenced, using different terms, on the Crown's Prosecution website where they describe self defense.  I think sometimes people don't understand that while we have a Constitution with specific Amendments etc. the foundation of our legal system is the Common Law.

What individual State Laws do is define specifics.  Some States require people to retreat vs defend, if retreat is an option where others don't.  Some States place self defense as an "affirmative defense" where others require the State to also prove it was not self defense (if a self defense argument is raised).  However when arguing self defense, regardless of the side arguing, the Common Law standard of reasonableness under like circumstances is the yard stick. (This mental chaos is what happens when a would be academic becomes a cop lol)


----------



## PhotonGuy

So anyway if you continue to beat on an attacker after you've stopped them than it is no longer self defense and at that point you will face charges. However I would think there must be some exceptions such as in the case of rape or sexual assault. If somebody tries to rape you and you successfully stop them and continue to beat on them the courts must be sympathetic about it and hopefully not charge you. After all, sexual assault and particularly rape is not taken lightly, and it shouldn't be.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> So anyway if you continue to beat on an attacker after you've stopped them than it is no longer self defense and at that point you will face charges. However I would think there must be some exceptions such as in the case of rape or sexual assault. If somebody tries to rape you and you successfully stop them and continue to beat on them the courts must be sympathetic about it and hopefully not charge you. After all, sexual assault and particularly rape is not taken lightly, and it shouldn't be.



No, because no one should be above the law.
Courts don't charge people, the courts don't get the case until evidence has been collected and ready to present. before that the facts have to be sifted and found out, at first call the police have no way of knowing whether it's rape or not so a painstaking and careful investigation takes place. The victim may well have carried on hitting the attacker but out of fear or emotional distress then the prosecutors will look at that and the chances are there will be no prosecution, only that of the attacker. The law here takes everything into consideration.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Well sexual crimes aren't taken lightly. Although rape is one of the most if not the most severe of all sexual crimes it is not the only sexual crime. Nevertheless even lesser sexual offenses should be taken seriously. If somebody is committing a sexual offense against you than you should fight back and use whatever level of force you can, up to and including deadly force. And you shouldn't get in trouble for refusing to be a victim.


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> Well sexual crimes aren't taken lightly. Although rape is one of the most if not the most severe of all sexual crimes it is not the only sexual crime. Nevertheless even lesser sexual offenses should be taken seriously. If somebody is committing a sexual offense against you than you should fight back and use whatever level of force you can, up to and including deadly force. And you shouldn't get in trouble for refusing to be a victim.



The last sentiment is nice to think of but Statutes and Case Law differ.  Such as...



> The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:
> 
> (i)  the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
> 
> (ii)  the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating, except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be.



So lethal force to stop sexual crimes, other than forcible rape, are not justified in this section.  Secondly, based on Case Law, the use of force must also A) stop when the threat stops, and B) be objectively reasonable.  The law wants their to be a CLEAR distinction between self-defense and "street justice."


----------



## Juany118

Juany118 said:


> The last sentiment is nice to think of but Statutes and Case Law differ.  Such as...
> 
> 
> 
> So lethal force to stop sexual crimes, other than forcible rape, are not justified in this section.  Secondly, based on Case Law, the use of force must also A) stop when the threat stops, and B) be objectively reasonable.  The law wants their to be a CLEAR distinction between self-defense and "street justice."



Oh, for further clarity, in the same jurisdiction "serious bodily injury" is

"Bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."


----------



## hoshin1600

I always read posts about "what's legal"  and I don't think many understand statute law VS case law. 
It's the case law that get you in trouble when you thought you were in the right.


----------



## Juany118

hoshin1600 said:


> I always read posts about "what's legal"  and I don't think many understand statute law VS case law.
> It's the case law that get you in trouble when you thought you were in the right.




Yepper.  Just finished my annual updates last night (they now do it online) 6 credit hours of a total of 12 were simply about use of force.  98% of it, case law.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Juany118 said:


> Oh, for further clarity, in the same jurisdiction "serious bodily injury" is
> 
> "Bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."



Well there are also some things that are universally at least in the USA considered serious bodily injury whether or not they do cause any disfigurement or the loss of any functions of the bodily organs. For instance rape is classified as serious bodily injury. Also kidnap falls under the category of serious bodily injury even though kidnap might not result in any injury at all.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> For instance rape is classified as serious bodily injury



Not if the rapist is a swimmer though, then it's considered by the judge as a minor inconvenience for the swimmer who can swim really fast and by the rapist father as 20 minutes of 'action'. six month prison sentence, out in three months.
Ex-Stanford swimmer gets six months in jail and probation for sexual assault


----------



## Steve

Don't want to ruin the poor boy's life or anything.   He's got a bright future.


----------



## Paul_D

He was intoxicated.  I always find it strenge that the woman c


Tez3 said:


> Not if the rapist is a swimmer though, then it's considered by the judge as a minor inconvenience for the swimmer who can swim really fast and by the rapist father as 20 minutes of 'action'. six month prison sentence, out in three months.
> Ex-Stanford swimmer gets six months in jail and probation for sexual assault


He was intoxicated, and therefore his decison making was imapried, which I would imagine was taken into account when sentancing was decided.


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> Well there are also some things that are universally at least in the USA considered serious bodily injury whether or not they do cause any disfigurement or the loss of any functions of the bodily organs. For instance rape is classified as serious bodily injury. Also kidnap falls under the category of serious bodily injury even though kidnap might not result in any injury at all.


Not legally they aren't.  I think you REALLY need to start realizing the law and your preconceptions are very different.  You also need to remember something else, different terms may be used but what is largely universal is the concept that assaults involve either; "just" physical contact, bodily injury, serious bodily injury or death.  Laws on self defense and the use of force are among tbe most complicated out there because the Government needs to balance the need of a person to protect themselves against the fact there are people who will abuse such laws.  Please actually do research of case law and written law, via legal reference sites.  It will open your eyes, I am done being a paralegal since you keep sticking to your assumptions and not the law, since the written law I noted was specifically change to match SCOTUS case law in the 1970's and further clarified by same case law in the 80s.  Such case law trumping State Laws and Courts.


----------



## Juany118

Paul_D said:


> He was intoxicated.  I always find it strenge that the woman c
> 
> He was intoxicated, and therefore his decison making was imapried, which I would imagine was taken into account when sentancing was decided.



Ummm no.  That is why we have sentencing MINIMUMS and why the judge is now the target of a petition, required by Cali Law, to be the target of a recall as he blatantly ignored said minimums.  What the probation department report, that justified the sentence, should have said was "he's a rich white kid, not a Latino or black kid, so cut him a break." I can also guarantee you that kid will reoffend.  You don't rape someone outside behind a DUMPSTER, if you aren't a predator.

I also don't want to know where you were going with that first line because it looks VERY troubling.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Juany118 said:


> Not legally they aren't.  I think you REALLY need to start realizing the law and your preconceptions are very different.



Look it up. Rape is considered "grave bodily harm" by law and so is kidnap.


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> Look it up. Rape is considered "grave bodily harm" by law and so is kidnap.



Ummm if you looked they were specifically noted as being times when lethal force can be used.  Read both of my posts, the one saying when lethal force is justified, then then definition back to back.  The reason why rape and kidnapping are listed separately is because while they are definitely the term you use the law must also recognize different degrees of bodily injury, which was the point of the definition I posted.

It seems to me like you are simply talking in circles at this point to try and justify some broader idea of use of force in self defense.


----------



## Steve

In this case, he was lucky enough to take advantage of a loophole in California law where the sentences are much less severe if the victim is unconscious due to alcohol, and not just impaired.

This Rape Bill Will Close the Loophole That Let Brock Turner Off So Easily


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> Look it up. Rape is considered "grave bodily harm" by law and so is kidnap.



To continue, your posts seem to indicate a belief that people who are defending themselves, if they go overboard, should be given a pass because they started from a position of defense.  The law doesn't work that way.  All defense must be objectively reasonable and must stop when the threat ceases by case law.  Heck case law has completely invalidated Statutes in States where the law amounted to "he was a no good varmint". 

Why?  Because the law has to balance every individuals rights vs the needs of society and to be overly generous with self defense law is to invite vigilantism.


----------



## Juany118

Steve said:


> In this case, he was lucky enough to take advantage of a loophole in California law where the sentences are much less severe if the victim is unconscious due to alcohol, and not just impaired.
> 
> This Rape Bill Will Close the Loophole That Let Brock Turner Off So Easily



It wasn't only that however.  The sentencing guidelines typically required a 2 year mandatory minimum unless mitigating circumstances could be shown.  The Judge justified his decision in large part on a probation report that recommended leniency due to age and intoxication.

Now the 2 year mandatory is still far less than the current guidelines for other types of rape, and this law will fix that, but the bias in this case is pretty startling, even if the bias was subconscious.

This also brings to mind where I think Paul D was going with that line he never finished.  There is a BIG difference between being intoxicated so that the little voice that says "chill just because she snubbed you doesn't mean you can rape her to prove a point" is quite and being intoxicated to the point that you are actually incapable of action.  

A woman simply having sex then waking up the next morning saying "I regret that, I was too drunk, I will call 911 now" is a far cry from "omg she was so drunk she couldn't move, talk.." or "...was unconscious."


----------



## Paul_D

Juany118 said:


> You don't rape someone outside behind a DUMPSTER, if you aren't a predator


From the incident report I read they were at a party togther, had drinks and left together.  DNA tests also showed no evidnce of gential to genital contact, so I;m not sure "predator" is the correct word in this instance.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Juany118 said:


> Ummm if you looked they were specifically noted as being times when lethal force can be used.  Read both of my posts, the one saying when lethal force is justified, then then definition back to back.  The reason why rape and kidnapping are listed separately is because while they are definitely the term you use the law must also recognize different degrees of bodily injury, which was the point of the definition I posted.
> 
> It seems to me like you are simply talking in circles at this point to try and justify some broader idea of use of force in self defense.


Well let me ask you this, what is your legal background?


----------



## Juany118

Paul_D said:


> From the incident report I read they were at a party togther, had drinks and left together.  DNA tests also showed no evidnce of gential to genital contact, so I;m not sure "predator" is the correct word in this instance.



Yeah only if you insert a penis into a another person are you a predator.  Are you serious?


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> Well let me ask you this, what is your legal background?



Police Officer for 19 years...the guy who will decide if I arrest you or not in any case except a homicide where I need to consult a DA as well.  Also this is all fresh in my mind having just had to go over 6 credit hours exclusively on Use of force and self defense laws.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Juany118 said:


> To continue, your posts seem to indicate a belief that people who are defending themselves, if they go overboard, should be given a pass because they started from a position of defense.  The law doesn't work that way.  All defense must be objectively reasonable and must stop when the threat ceases by case law.  Heck case law has completely invalidated Statutes in States where the law amounted to "he was a no good varmint".
> 
> Why?  Because the law has to balance every individuals rights vs the needs of society and to be overly generous with self defense law is to invite vigilantism.



Well lets say you stop an attacker and they are lying there incapacitated, obviously no longer a threat. If you were to then kick and stomp them than that would be excessive and it would not be self defense since they are no longer coming at you and no longer a threat. And it makes sense for that to be considered excessive as you said otherwise it could invite vigilantism. However, using force to stop the attacker while he's coming at you I don't see why that would be a problem as in that case it clearly is self defense.


----------



## Paul_D

Juany118 said:


> Yeah only if you insert a penis into a another person are you a predator.  Are you serious?


Predator suggests to me he is roaming the streets at night looking for vulnerable women in secluded places to attack.

Going to a party, chatting to a girl, having drinks with her, leaving the party holding hands (all from the incident report) are not the actions of a predator.

Of course, you know perfectly well that was what I was referring to, but you have conveniently chosen not to include that part when you quoted me because you are clearly trolling, which I have neither the time nor the inclination to be drawn into.  So Goodbye.


----------



## Juany118

Paul_D said:


> Predator suggests to me he is roaming the streets at night looking for vulnerable women in secluded places to attack.
> 
> Going to a party, chatting to a girl, having drinks with her, leaving the party holding hands (all from the incident report) are not the actions of a predator.
> 
> Of course, you know perfectly well that was what I was referring to, but you have conveniently chosen not to include that part when you quoted me because you are clearly trolling, which I have neither the time nor the inclination to be drawn into.  So Goodbye.



Legally it can be determined from a single offense depending on the severity.  In this case he was convicted of penetrating the victim with foreign objects by force.  So yeah...


----------



## Tez3

Paul_D said:


> He was intoxicated.  I always find it strenge that the woman c
> 
> He was intoxicated, and therefore his decison making was imapried, which I would imagine was taken into account when sentancing was decided.





Paul_D said:


> From the incident report I read they were at a party togther, had drinks and left together.  DNA tests also showed no evidnce of gential to genital contact, so I;m not sure "predator" is the correct word in this instance.



She was *unconscious* and in no position to give consent. The victim does not say she left with him and even if she had that doesn't give or imply consent to sexually molest her while she was unconscious. He had tried to get off with the victim's sister and has admitted he was looking to get off with someone that night. I hope you have also read her impact statement. Here's The Powerful Letter The Stanford Victim Read To Her Attacker
The judge let him off because he was in the judge's words a talented swimmer, hence my comment.
There is no excuse for anyone whether drunk or not to sexually molest an unconscious person, it was a lapse in judgement, it was sexual assault.


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> Well lets say you stop an attacker and they are lying there incapacitated, obviously no longer a threat. If you were to then kick and stomp them than that would be excessive and it would not be self defense since they are no longer coming at you and no longer a threat. And it makes sense for that to be considered excessive as you said otherwise it could invite vigilantism. However, using force to stop the attacker while he's coming at you I don't see why that would be a problem as in that case it clearly is self defense.



But the thing is the level of force must be "objectively reasonable" under the totality of the circumstances, not simply the use and this is what gets people in trouble.


----------



## Tez3

Paul_D said:


> Predator suggests to me he is roaming the streets at night looking for vulnerable women in secluded places to attack.
> 
> Going to a party, chatting to a girl, having drinks with her, leaving the party holding hands (all from the incident report) are not the actions of a predator.
> 
> Of course, you know perfectly well that was what I was referring to, but you have conveniently chosen not to include that part when you quoted me because you are clearly trolling, which I have neither the time nor the inclination to be drawn into.  So Goodbye.



No excuses. She was unconscious.


----------



## Paul_D

Tez3 said:


> No excuses. She was unconscious..


Hi Tez, it wasn't presented as an excuse, it was merely a response to the inappropriate use of the word predator, which gives completely the wrong impression to people unfamiliar with the incident in question.


----------



## Juany118

Paul_D said:


> Hi Tez, it wasn't presented as an excuse, it was merely a response to the inappropriate use of the word predator, which gives completely the wrong impression to people unfamiliar with the incident in question.



First please familiarize yourself with Laws (again) before you say a term is inappropriate  Home

It does NOT require multiple offenses, you can be evaluated as one from a single incident.  Second I only said it because of your shenanigans regarding "walking away holding hands".  The only person to say that was the defendant.  

Every other witness describes him as being aggressive at the party and basically forcing himself on women.  He was even rebuffed by the rape victim according to witnesses.  If you read the statements he is seen to go up to her, try to start making out with her and she pushes him away pretty much disgusted.  This was a clear case of a horned up guy who got pissed off that he was rebuffed multiple times, how you read this  Complaint Brock Turner in its entireity and came to your conclusion is beyond me tbh.  

He also says that she was somehow consensual while passed out and that he had just decided to get up and leave her lying there because it was getting late and that for NO REASON two random guys just tackled him.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Juany118 said:


> But the thing is the level of force must be "objectively reasonable" under the totality of the circumstances, not simply the use and this is what gets people in trouble.



Alright so another words, if a little child whacks at you with a waffle bat you can't shoot him and call it self defense. Shooting a child in a case like that would be an extremely excessive level of force. I take it that's what you're saying.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> She was *unconscious* and in no position to give consent. The victim does not say she left with him and even if she had that doesn't give or imply consent to sexually molest her while she was unconscious. He had tried to get off with the victim's sister and has admitted he was looking to get off with someone that night. I hope you have also read her impact statement. Here's The Powerful Letter The Stanford Victim Read To Her Attacker
> The judge let him off because he was in the judge's words a talented swimmer, hence my comment.
> There is no excuse for anyone whether drunk or not to sexually molest an unconscious person, it was a lapse in judgement, it was sexual assault.



Well if a person is unconscious they are considered incapable of giving consent and so he obviously acted without her consent with her not being able to give consent. A person certainly shouldn't be let off just because they're a good swimmer or whatnot so this judge should be disbarred. Hopefully this case can be appealed and he can be convicted to the full extent of the law.


----------



## Tez3

Paul_D said:


> Hi Tez, it wasn't presented as an excuse, it was merely a response to the inappropriate use of the word predator, which gives completely the wrong impression to people unfamiliar with the incident in question.



He was being predatory though, he's the only one, obviously, who said they left together etc. to make his defence sound better. All the other witnesses said he was, as Juany posted, being aggressive and looking to have sex with someone, willing or unwilling as it turned out.


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> Alright so another words, if a little child whacks at you with a waffle bat you can't shoot him and call it self defense. Shooting a child in a case like that would be an extremely excessive level of force. I take it that's what you're saying.



Precisely, or if a guy "simply" pushes you and you respond with a buffalo punch to the throat, "simply" punches you and you wack them other the head with a baseball bat etc.  You basically have to be able to justify the level of force you use in return was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.  Now some people object to this saying "how can we suspect an average person to do that kinda math".  Thing is the courts recognize that and base the reasonableness on a fictional construct of a person in like circumstances with similar training and experience.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Juany118 said:


> Precisely, or if a guy "simply" pushes you and you respond with a buffalo punch to the throat, "simply" punches you and you wack them other the head with a baseball bat etc.  You basically have to be able to justify the level of force you use in return was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.  Now some people object to this saying "how can we suspect an average person to do that kinda math".  Thing is the courts recognize that and base the reasonableness on a fictional construct of a person in like circumstances with similar training and experience.



Well I can see how that makes sense up to a certain point. It definitely wouldn't be acceptable to shoot a little child for whacking you with a wiffle bat but when we're talking about situations when the difference isn't so obvious that's when it causes problems. A friend of mine who has a background in martial arts got beaten up by this little guy when he was in Oklahoma. He didn't fight back because with his larger size and his background in the martial arts he could've killed his attacker and being from NJ he was used to living in a place where fighting back is frowned upon. Yes in NJ you can defend yourself within reason but you cannot use deadly force except as a very last resort, such as if your own life is in danger. Supposedly OK is more lenient about that but if he had fought back and killed his attacker and had he been in NJ he would've been charged with manslaughter. Now, a small child whacking at you with a wiffle bat is one thing but I find it absurd that you should let a grown man beat you up. Somebody shouldn't be punished for refusing to be a victim.


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> Well I can see how that makes sense up to a certain point. It definitely wouldn't be acceptable to shoot a little child for whacking you with a wiffle bat but when we're talking about situations when the difference isn't so obvious that's when it causes problems. A friend of mine who has a background in martial arts got beaten up by this little guy when he was in Oklahoma. He didn't fight back because with his larger size and his background in the martial arts he could've killed his attacker and being from NJ he was used to living in a place where fighting back is frowned upon. Yes in NJ you can defend yourself within reason but you cannot use deadly force except as a very last resort, such as if your own life is in danger. Supposedly OK is more lenient about that but if he had fought back and killed his attacker and had he been in NJ he would've been charged with manslaughter. Now, a small child whacking at you with a wiffle bat is one thing but I find it absurd that you should let a grown man beat you up. Somebody shouldn't be punished for refusing to be a victim.



Oh I agree with the last bit.  I am more thinking about a few people in this thread and the one about the UK where people were basically saying "if you are attacked it's game on and if you cripple the guy over just getting punched you're all good." That might not be you, bit I was just trying to make it clear that the force has to be objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> acceptable to shoot a little child for whacking you with a wiffle bat



what the heck is a 'wiffle bat'?



Juany118 said:


> Oh I agree with the last bit.  I am more thinking about a few people in this thread and the one about the UK where people were basically saying "if you are attacked it's game on and if you cripple the guy over just getting punched you're all good." That might not be you, bit I was just trying to make it clear that the force has to be objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.




Nope, reasonable force only.



PhotonGuy said:


> A friend of mine who has a background in martial arts got beaten up by this little guy when he was in Oklahoma. He didn't fight back because with his larger size and his background in the martial arts he could've killed his attacker and being from NJ he was used to living in a place where fighting back is frowned upon. Yes in NJ you can defend yourself within reason but you cannot use deadly force except as a very last resort, such as if your own life is in danger. Supposedly OK is more lenient about that but if he had fought back and killed his attacker and had he been in NJ he would've been charged with manslaughter. Now, a small child whacking at you with a wiffle bat is one thing but I find it absurd that you should let a grown man beat you up. Somebody shouldn't be punished for refusing to be a victim.




Sorry but your friend is an idiot. If he has a background in martial arts he should know it's not all or nothing and he could have used force proportional to the danger, after all he doesn't kill people when training does he? does he not know how to defend himself without 'deadly force'?

if you mean the UK is more lenient with deadly force ( rather than OK) then you are completely wrong and have read nothing I've posted up before. the force used has to be reasonable preferably that isn't deadly force unless the situation calls for it and that had bloody well better be life or death, backs to the walls and last ditch not just because you feel you can.


----------



## Juany118

Tez3 said:


> what the heck is a 'wiffle bat'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, reasonable force only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but your friend is an idiot. If he has a background in martial arts he should know it's not all or nothing and he could have used force proportional to the danger, after all he doesn't kill people when training does he? does he not know how to defend himself without 'deadly force'?
> 
> if you mean the UK is more lenient with deadly force ( rather than OK) then you are completely wrong and have read nothing I've posted up before. the force used has to be reasonable preferably that isn't deadly force unless the situation calls for it and that had bloody well better be life or death, backs to the walls and last ditch not just because you feel you can.



A wiffle ball bat it a plastic bat used to hit plastic balls.  The balls also have slits cut in them to slow them down and make their course less consistent so kids can get better at the mechanics of hitting a baseball


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> what the heck is a 'wiffle bat'?








Nope, reasonable force only.



Tez3 said:


> Sorry but your friend is an idiot. If he has a background in martial arts he should know it's not all or nothing and he could have used force proportional to the danger, after all he doesn't kill people when training does he? does he not know how to defend himself without 'deadly force'?
> 
> if you mean the UK is more lenient with deadly force ( rather than OK) then you are completely wrong and have read nothing I've posted up before. the force used has to be reasonable preferably that isn't deadly force unless the situation calls for it and that had bloody well better be life or death, backs to the walls and last ditch not just because you feel you can.



If I ever see my friend again I will mention it to him about using proportional force. The fact of the matter is that you can do more damage that you intend to do even if you're really well trained. Its unlikely but possible to kill somebody with a punch when you only intend to stop them but not to kill them. And that's what I would use force for in such a situation, not to injure, not to kill, but to stop. 

And by OK I mean Oklahoma which is more lenient with the use of force, including deadly force. I don't know much about the UK in regards to this.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Its unlikely but possible to kill somebody with a punch when you only intend to stop them but not to kill them



In the 'one punch deaths' I've know about they have all been as a result of hitting their heads when they've hit the ground/road/whatever after they've been punched.
As for proportional force, training properly and regularly so that you don't panic and you do know how much force to use is the best thing. Too many people don't think about this when they train martial arts they just assume they can fight, unlikely though if all they do is touch sparring or worse non touch sparring.


----------



## Juany118

Tez3 said:


> In the 'one punch deaths' I've know about they have all been as a result of hitting their heads when they've hit the ground/road/whatever after they've been punched.
> As for proportional force, training properly and regularly so that you don't panic and you do know how much force to use is the best thing. Too many people don't think about this when they train martial arts they just assume they can fight, unlikely though if all they do is touch sparring or worse non touch sparring.



Exactly.  It takes about 1100 lbs of force to simply fracture the skull.  Add in the fact it's mounted on a neck that will recoil from the blow and even if you could punch with that the chances of it being fully imparted on the skull are slim.  However add the velocity imparted by a strike a drop from standing height and head hitting concrete can = death.  We had one of those once.  It was ruled good self defense because a reasonable person woukd not have know that A. The guy would fall like a chopped tree and B. That the guy had a plate in his head (weaker than skull) and a screw that would get launched into brain on impact.


----------



## PhotonGuy

I do know a case of somebody who was punched on the back of their head and they died. This was not a case of self defense and I couldn't imagine how punching somebody on the back of their head would be self defense but the point is it killed him. The back of the head is a spot where a punch can kill. There are other spots too such as the throat. And of course, as posted above a person can die from being punched if they fall and hit their head. It might not be the punch itself that kills in a case like that but the point is it was the punch that ultimately caused the death although indirectly. 

Also, Im not sure about this but if you injure somebody to a certain extent supposedly you could be charged with using deadly force even if they live. As to what extent you would have to injure somebody for it to be considered deadly force I don't know but supposedly in some jurisdictions if you break any bones that would be considered grave bodily harm and thus you're considered to have used deadly force if you did break any of your assailant's bones.


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> I do know a case of somebody who was punched on the back of their head and they died. This was not a case of self defense and I couldn't imagine how punching somebody on the back of their head would be self defense but the point is it killed him. The back of the head is a spot where a punch can kill. There are other spots too such as the throat. And of course, as posted above a person can die from being punched if they fall and hit their head. It might not be the punch itself that kills in a case like that but the point is it was the punch that ultimately caused the death although indirectly.
> 
> Also, Im not sure about this but if you injure somebody to a certain extent supposedly you could be charged with using deadly force even if they live. As to what extent you would have to injure somebody for it to be considered deadly force I don't know but supposedly in some jurisdictions if you break any bones that would be considered grave bodily harm and thus you're considered to have used deadly force if you did break any of your assailant's bones.



It actually takes a lot to do that on the back of the skull.  Usually a fatal punch is to the brain stem which is more of a "neck" shot.  But yes striking there and to the throat are kill shots so if you are intentionally making them you better be able to justify it.

As for whether that would be self defense remember two things.  1. You can use force in the defense of others. 2. Weird things happen in fights.  I was in a fight once where the guy I was fighting overbalanced and I back elbowed him in between the shoulder blades to help him in his path to face planting.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> As to what extent you would have to injure somebody for it to be considered deadly force I don't know but supposedly in some jurisdictions if you break any bones that would be considered grave bodily harm and thus you're considered to have used deadly force if you did break any of your assailant's bones.



Deadly force would be when the person is dead. 

You seem to be muddling up self defence and assault in such a way that who is assaulting who isn't clear.


----------



## jks9199

Extreme cases exist.  That's true.  They're called extreme cases because, while certainly possible, they are not likely.  You are held to the reasonably foreseeable outcomes of your actions when you use force, not every possible one.  You might punch somebody who has an unknown and undiagnosed closed decapitation, and literally knock their head off.  It's damn unlikely.  You might punch someone in the chest at just the moment to cause an arrhythmia and kill them.  It's not very likely, though.  You could have peanut dust on your knuckles and hit a stranger who is super highly allergic, and put them into anaphylactic shock -- but how would you know of their allergy?  That's not a reasonably foreseeable outcome.  

Photonguy, dude, you have a tendency to look for extreme situations/justifications and bright line rules or fixed answers.  Reasonableness isn't a bright line -- it's an area.  It's what a normal person would expect to have come about as  result of your actions.  There are lots of areas in life that are like that.  You can certainly be charged with aggravated assault, malicious wounding or similar offenses even if you don't use a weapon.  Can someone use lethal force without a weapon?  Of course!  Choke them out, punch them in the throat or in an area *likely *to cause serious bodily injury or death... Yep, that's lethal force.  But that doesn't meanevery use of force is deadly force...  It's just not that simple.


----------



## Juany118

For reference 

Objectively reasonable is determined by looking at it from the perspective of... a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. 

Then it must be proportional force...The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat.


----------



## marques

Juany118 said:


> Then it must be proportional force...The use of self-defense must also match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat.


I should recommend this thread to some of our online colleagues, here.  Peace.
Nothing personal. I even do not remember the (nick)name of the concerned people...


----------



## Juany118

marques said:


> I should recommend this thread to some of our online colleagues, here.  Peace.
> Nothing personal. I even do not remember the (nick)name of the concerned people...



Yeah, some of the responses I have read have reminded me of times at work when someone says "if they step into my unfenced yard I can shoot em" or "since this is a bad neighborhood and the guy arguing with me over a parking space says he will 'kick my ***' from 15 feet away but doesn't approach me I can shoot him right?". Then you have the almost as ridiculous...

Them-"well he started the fight by shoving me why am I arrested?"
Me-"ummm because you broke their jaw by repeatedly punching them face over a shove."


----------



## marques

Juany118 said:


> Yeah, some of the responses I have read have reminded me of times at work when someone says "if they step into my unfenced yard I can shoot em" or "since this is a bad neighborhood and the guy arguing with me over a parking space says he will 'kick my ***' from 15 feet away but doesn't approach me I can shoot him right?". Then you have the almost as ridiculous...
> 
> Them-"well he started the fight by shoving me why am I arrested?"
> Me-"ummm because you broke their jaw by repeatedly punching them face over a shove."



And there is more. If the 'bad guy' is really bad and knows where I live... I need to manage the situation very carefully (to act/do not, how? how much?...). Or I will suffer in the future. If nothing else, fear about the safety of my loved ones... But the warriors just kill them all. 

Once I did a 'soft intervention' in the Paris tube. And after that, I changed my routine for a month (longer way, from the usual and already long way...). If I was the 'bad guy' I would be waiting and/or stalking the one who crossed my way until having the opportunity to show him who is the boss.  

Against criminal minds, prevention.

A quick google, perhaps unrelated but interesting: Criminal Minds Are Different From Yours, Brain Scans Reveal


----------



## PhotonGuy

So lets say you shoot somebody and they live. Would you be charged with using deadly force? Sure, you might say its only deadly force if the person dies but supposedly in some jurisdictions there are some actions that are universally classified as deadly and shooting is one of them. So even if they live I would think in some cases if not all cases you could be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.


----------



## Juany118

marques said:


> And there is more. If the 'bad guy' is really bad and knows where I live... I need to manage the situation very carefully (to act/do not, how? how much?...). Or I will suffer in the future. If nothing else, fear about the safety of my loved ones... But the warriors just kill them all.
> 
> Once I did a 'soft intervention' in the Paris tube. And after that, I changed my routine for a month (longer way, from the usual and already long way...). If I was the 'bad guy' I would be waiting and/or stalking the one who crossed my way until having the opportunity to show him who is the boss.
> 
> Against criminal minds, prevention.
> 
> A quick google, perhaps unrelated but interesting: Criminal Minds Are Different From Yours, Brain Scans Reveal



Well actually in your own home you have much wider latitude in terms of self defense, at least in the US because the mere fact someone forced entry into you home is a felony. Castle doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia so that circumstance isn't that big an issue imo.


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> So lets say you shoot somebody and they live. Would you be charged with using deadly force? Sure, you might say its only deadly force if the person dies but supposedly in some jurisdictions there are some actions that are universally classified as deadly and shooting is one of them. So even if they live I would think in some cases if not all cases you could be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.


Yes if it was unjustified that would be Aggravated Assault and likely attempted murder.  The use of a firearm is usually seen out of the gate as demonstrating an intent to kill


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> So lets say you shoot somebody and they live. Would you be charged with using deadly force? Sure, you might say its only deadly force if the person dies but supposedly in some jurisdictions there are some actions that are universally classified as deadly and shooting is one of them. So even if they live I would think in some cases if not all cases you could be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.



Late edit: I may be misreading but it almost seems like you are trying to rationalize excessive force.


----------



## PhotonGuy

So if you shoot at somebody you are using deadly force. It doesn't matter if you miss or if you just injure them, taking a shot is seen as using deadly force by the courts regardless if your shot kills anybody. That's the impression I have.


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> So if you shoot at somebody you are using deadly force. It doesn't matter if you miss or if you just injure them, taking a shot is seen as using deadly force by the courts regardless if your shot kills anybody. That's the impression I have.



If you miss you MAY dodge attempt murder (but still catch aggravated assault) but if you "just" injure them, yeah.  You used a weapon that exists for one reason, to kill another living being.  Its one of the reasons, beyond the fact hitting limbs on purpose are hard as hell, that Police are trained to shoot center of mass, and if that fails head shots, and not limbs, because it is DEADLY FORCE and you can only use it if confronted with deadly force.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> So lets say you shoot somebody and they live. Would you be charged with using deadly force? Sure, you might say its only deadly force if the person dies but supposedly in some jurisdictions there are some actions that are universally classified as deadly and shooting is one of them. So even if they live I would think in some cases if not all cases you could be charged with assault with a deadly weapon.


Contact a lawyer.  Really.  Someone oughta get paid for explaining stuff like this to you over and over.

A firearm is pretty much guaranteed to be lethal force.  So is a knife.  Shoot someone in "self defense" (an affirmative claim where you admit doing something that would ordinarily be illegal, but you had a damn good reason to do it and so should be excused), and you could be charged with anything from murder to unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits.  Shoot and miss, and you can shift to "attempt" instead of actual commission.  Get solid training in the laws of self defense if you're going to carry a gun or a knife, put a lawyer on retainer, and know damn well whether what you're doing is right or not.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> Contact a lawyer.  Really.


I've got access to perhaps one of the best lawyers in the country in terms of firearm laws and I've got his book which is over 500 pages.



jks9199 said:


> Someone oughta get paid for explaining stuff like this to you over and over.


Until now, I don't recall recently inquiring about such stuff.



jks9199 said:


> A firearm is pretty much guaranteed to be lethal force.  So is a knife.  Shoot someone in "self defense" (an affirmative claim where you admit doing something that would ordinarily be illegal, but you had a damn good reason to do it and so should be excused), and you could be charged with anything from murder to unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits.  Shoot and miss, and you can shift to "attempt" instead of actual commission.  Get solid training in the laws of self defense if you're going to carry a gun or a knife, put a lawyer on retainer, and know damn well whether what you're doing is right or not.


According to Juany as posted above, if you shoot and miss you could possibly get it shifted to aggravated assault. As it is though the vast majority of the time I don't carry. Where I spend most of my time its virtually impossible to carry. I am much more likely to be involved in an altercation where I would swing at somebody rather than shoot them although I would hope for neither. I would not want to be in a situation where I would have to use any level of force against a person but if somebody insists on being a troublemaker I will do what is necessary to put them in their place although as I said, I am not that likely to be carrying any weapons should such an unfortunate situation present itself.


----------



## PhotonGuy

So anyway, as I said before sexual offenses and sexual crimes should not be tolerated and a person should not get in trouble for using force to deal with somebody who is committing a sexual offense. While rape is perhaps the most extreme and most severe of all sexual offenses the fact of the matter is that sexual offenses are not limited to just rape. There are other forms of sexual assault not to mention sexual harassment. As such a person should not get in trouble for using physical force in such situations as its self defense. As an example I am posting a video and I would like to point out that I side with the girl in this situation. Here is the video and the action starts at 0:40 for those who don't want to watch the entire video.


----------



## Juany118

And go to jail.  Seriously.  This is just stupid.  Not trying to be a jerk but yeah, just stop, your idea of use of force in self defense will get you, or anyone who listens to you, locked up.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> a person should not get in trouble for using force to deal with somebody who is committing a sexual offense





PhotonGuy said:


> As such a person should not get in trouble for using physical force in such situations as its self defense



Well they don't 'get into trouble', if it's self defence it's fine so why are you labouring the point? If it's clearly self defence they won't be charged or prosecuted.
Why are you using a film, to illustrate something? It's a science fiction film and has nothing to do with real life law, self defence or policing, it's fiction!!!!


----------



## PhotonGuy

Juany118 said:


> And go to jail.  Seriously.  This is just stupid.  Not trying to be a jerk but yeah, just stop, your idea of use of force in self defense will get you, or anyone who listens to you, locked up.


Sexual harassment is a big problem. Are you saying that if somebody is sexually harassing you that you should just let them do it? I don't put up with bullies and that includes people that sexually harass.


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> Sexual harassment is a big problem. Are you saying that if somebody is sexually harassing you that you should just let them do it? I don't put up with bullies and that includes people that sexually harass.



Verbal harassment as depicted in that video is something you simply can't address with physically force regardless.  It doesn't matter what kind of harassment it is.  Use of force in self defense needs to have certain "bright line" line legal limits and the minute you start allowing words to justify physical force you are not only creating a subjective standard vs the required objectively reasonable standard, but you essentially invite people to abuse it.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Why are you using a film, to illustrate something? It's a science fiction film and has nothing to do with real life law, self defence or policing, it's fiction!!!!



Ma'am, you're missing the point, sheesh! The video clip I posted might be from a fictional movie but the situation portrayed in the video is not unrealistic and is in fact quite common. Sexual offenses can be a big problem and that includes sexual harassment. The point Im making is its wrong to sexually harass people and that people who do it should be dealt with.


----------



## Paul_D

PhotonGuy said:


> The point Im making is its wrong to sexually harass people and that people who do it should be dealt with.


The way to find out if someone wants to play strip poker is to ask them.  I'm not sure why it is acceptable to physcially assault someone who asks you a quesiton. 

Surely a simple "no" would have been acceptable?

Of course, if the "no" is ingnored, then any continued quesitoning on the subject becomes harrasment, but I can't agree that the correct repsonse to a first question is to go round violently assualting people.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Ma'am, you're missing the point, sheesh! The video clip I posted might be from a fictional movie but the situation portrayed in the video is not unrealistic and is in fact quite common. Sexual offenses can be a big problem and that includes sexual harassment. The point Im making is its wrong to sexually harass people and that people who do it should be dealt with.



Aye aye Captain Obvious.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Juany118 said:


> Verbal harassment as depicted in that video is something you simply can't address with physically force regardless.  It doesn't matter what kind of harassment it is.  Use of force in self defense needs to have certain "bright line" line legal limits and the minute you start allowing words to justify physical force you are not only creating a subjective standard vs the required objectively reasonable standard, but you essentially invite people to abuse it.



Alright you've got a point. Now, how about any sort of sexual harassment that involves unwanted touching? Groping I would think and I would hope would justify the use of physical force. I am not trying to give advice I am trying to learn and I am stating my opinion. Where Im from you're allowed to state your opinion on whether you agree with stuff or not. So with groping, any sort of touching on any part of the body that is covered by the bathing suit without a person's consent, I would think and I would hope that at the very least slugging the groper would not get you in trouble as it would be self defense. And I assume you're quite aware of this but I am going to point it out anyway that although its usually women who are portrayed as being victims of sexual harassment men can be victims too. Men can and are sometimes sexually harassed by other men and this includes groping. So if a man is groped by another man I would hope and I strongly believe he should not get in trouble for slugging the other man. The reason for this post and for my earlier posts is not to give advice but to clarify what is legal in terms of self defense in certain given situations.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Paul_D said:


> The way to find out if someone wants to play strip poker is to ask them.  I'm not sure why it is acceptable to physcially assault someone who asks you a quesiton.


Asking somebody to play strip poker is being lewd. And earlier on in that scene the girl made it quite clear that she was not up for such stuff. If some random person on the street asked you if you want to play strip poker how would you react?


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Asking somebody to play strip poker is being lewd



Of course it's not. Nothing wrong with strip poker.



PhotonGuy said:


> If some random person on the street asked you if you want to play strip poker how would you react?



Depends on who is asking, I've played before and it was great fun.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Depends on who is asking, I've played before and it was great fun.



So lets say its some random guy on the street who asks.


----------



## Paul_D

PhotonGuy said:


> If some random person on the street asked you if you want to play strip poker how would you react?


If a member of the opposite sex came upto me in the street and asked me that, and then I told you I hit her in the windpipe and told her to stop beign sexist, would you find that as equally acceptable for me to do as you find it for the girl in the scene to do?


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> So lets say its some random guy on the street who asks.



Is he sober, clean minded, religious, moral?


If so I would say no, I want to have fun not be preached at. I want Deadpool.

Really, stop being prudish, you need to be around squaddies lol, they'll ask if you (honestly) want a shag, take no for an answer and work on the basis that if you don't ask you don't get. I'm not easily offended and depending on who asked me and what else I had to do would give my answer pleasantly, it might be yes or no, but no violence involved.


----------



## Buka

No offense intended, all in good fun - but I'll back you, bro. All the way.


----------



## Juany118

Tez3 said:


> Is he sober, clean minded, religious, moral?
> 
> 
> If so I would say no, I want to have fun not be preached at. I want Deadpool.
> 
> Really, stop being prudish, you need to be around squaddies lol, they'll ask if you (honestly) want a shag, take no for an answer and work on the basis that if you don't ask you don't get. I'm not easily offended and depending on who asked me and what else I had to do would give my answer pleasantly, it might be yes or no, but no violence involved.


Exactly.  I mean hell half of the reason for the bar scene as a 20 something was to try and go home with someone.  The trick is when they say "no thanks" move onto another topic...or slink away and finish your beer.  Even then it can iffy.  Such as, if I hit on a girl back then and she said "I should slap you" listen to her tone and read her body language.  Maybe the proper response is to whisper "only when I'm tied up" lol 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk


----------



## PhotonGuy

Paul_D said:


> If a member of the opposite sex came upto me in the street and asked me that, and then I told you I hit her in the windpipe and told her to stop beign sexist, would you find that as equally acceptable for me to do as you find it for the girl in the scene to do?



Well from what I know usually you're allowed to use a greater level of force against a male perpetrator than against a female perpetrator. Now I know that making lewd comments, as inappropriate as it is, does not warrant the use of physical force regardless of the gender of the person doing it and the video was a bit of an exaggeration. As Juany118 pointed out that when dealing with verbal harassment, including sexual verbal harassment, you cannot use physical force. And as I pointed out in a later post using physical force in response to any kind of sexual harassment that involves touching or groping, I would hope it would be acceptable from a legal standpoint, and contrary to what Buka assumes I am not talking about deadly physical force.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Is he sober, clean minded, religious, moral?
> 
> 
> If so I would say no, I want to have fun not be preached at. I want Deadpool.
> 
> Really, stop being prudish, you need to be around squaddies lol, they'll ask if you (honestly) want a shag, take no for an answer and work on the basis that if you don't ask you don't get. I'm not easily offended and depending on who asked me and what else I had to do would give my answer pleasantly, it might be yes or no, but no violence involved.



Well if I was to ask some random woman on the street if she wanted to play strip poker I would think at the very least she would be offended and I wouldn't be surprised if she ran to the nearest police officer. Not that I would ask a random woman to play strip poker in the first place.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Well from what I know usually you're allowed to use a greater level of force against a male perpetrator than against a female perpetrator. Now I know that making lewd comments, as inappropriate as it is, does not warrant the use of physical force regardless of the gender of the person doing it and the video was a bit of an exaggeration. As Juany118 pointed out that when dealing with verbal harassment, including sexual verbal harassment, you cannot use physical force. And as I pointed out in a later post using physical force in response to any kind of sexual harassment that involves touching or groping, I would hope it would be acceptable from a legal standpoint, and contrary to what Buka assumes I am not talking about deadly physical force.



You are wrong, the law applies to everyone and should be enforced as such. 'Lewd' comments are a matter of opinion, as you obviously find strip poker lewd where many of us don't.



PhotonGuy said:


> Well if I was to ask some random woman on the street if she wanted to play strip poker I would think at the very least she would be offended and I wouldn't be surprised if she ran to the nearest police officer. Not that I would ask a random woman to play strip poker in the first place.




Being offended isn't something one can 'run to a police officer' about, do you think women are so feeble that if they don't like what you said they won't tell you to Foxtrot Oscar off? Really, we aren't living in a 1950s Doris Day film, you say something to a woman she doesn't like and you will either be ignored or told where to go. You really need to get out more...and find someone to play strip poker with.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> You are wrong, the law applies to everyone and should be enforced as such. 'Lewd' comments are a matter of opinion, as you obviously find strip poker lewd where many of us don't.



Just what am I wrong about? I never said the law doesn't apply to everyone.



Tez3 said:


> Being offended isn't something one can 'run to a police officer' about, do you think women are so feeble that if they don't like what you said they won't tell you to Foxtrot Oscar off?



Sure she might, but that's not to say that she might also go to the police.



Tez3 said:


> Really, we aren't living in a 1950s Doris Day film, you say something to a woman she doesn't like and you will either be ignored or told where to go. You really need to get out more...and find someone to play strip poker with.



Where Im from sexual harassment is taken very seriously and it can involve stuff such as "accidentally" rubbing against somebody the wrong way or saying the wrong thing. Saying something a woman doesn't like is one thing but saying something a woman doesn't like that's sexually provocative such as strip poker can get you in trouble, at least here it can.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Where Im from sexual harassment is taken very seriously and it can involve stuff such as "accidentally" rubbing against somebody the wrong way or saying the wrong thing. Saying something a woman doesn't like is one thing but saying something a woman doesn't like that's sexually provocative such as strip poker can get you in trouble, at least here it can.



If strip poker counts as 'sexually provocative' then you are living in the most boring place on earth.



PhotonGuy said:


> Just what am I wrong about? I never said the law doesn't apply to everyone.



You did. 





PhotonGuy said:


> Well from what I know usually you're allowed to use a greater level of force against a male perpetrator than against a female perpetrator


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> Well from what I know usually you're allowed to use a greater level of force against a male perpetrator than against a female perpetrator.



False.  The use of force is determined by the force one is confronted with...not sex, age etc.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> If strip poker counts as 'sexually provocative' then you are living in the most boring place on earth.


If drawing cards to see who takes their clothes off isn't provocative than I don't know what is.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Juany118 said:


> False.  The use of force is determined by the force one is confronted with...not sex, age etc.



And usually a man is going to confront you with a greater level of force than a woman or child. In most cases they will certainly be capable of a greater level of force.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> If drawing cards to see who takes their clothes off isn't provocative than I don't know what is.



Good grief that's not how you play it, no wonder your town is repressed.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Good grief that's not how you play it, no wonder your town is repressed.



So than how do you play strip poker?


----------



## Juany118

PhotonGuy said:


> And usually a man is going to confront you with a greater level of force than a woman or child. In most cases they will certainly be capable of a greater level of force.



That isn't what you said and it is, again, a false assumption.  The level of force you may confront is defined by size, training and intent.  Making the assumption "usually a man..." is going to get you hurt and really seems to simply be a continuation of you trying to justify what has been an endless string of false assumptions and statements regarding use of force.

Example  How do you define child?  there are some HUGE 16 year olds on HS football teams.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> So than how do you play strip poker?



The clue is in the word 'poker' as in playing poker.


----------



## Tez3

Juany118 said:


> That isn't what you said and it is, again, a false assumption.  The level of force you may confront is defined by size, training and intent.  Making the assumption "usually a man..." is going to get you hurt and really seems to simply be a continuation of you trying to justify what has been an endless string of false assumptions and statements regarding use of force.
> 
> Example  How do you define child?  there are some HUGE 16 year olds on HS football teams.



I'm glad you wrote that as I really can't be arsed to write anymore explanations of why he is wrong...again.


----------



## Ademadis

Gah, I close my eyes for 5 minutes and I miss this gem of a discussion 

Just my 2 cents *(English Law.) *on self defence. (Skipping all the fluff on morality & sexism). For Self defence to be raised in court and succeed you Have to have been brought to court under some charge (anything from scaring the Victim to Murder) and have to have acted with 'reasonable force' in comparison to the force applied to you.

If you ever want to know if you'd go to jail for some form of self defence, just ask 12 random people on the street (ie: a jury) whether they believe your hypothetical actions of self defence were excessive or not.

Ie;if someone yells at you and you pull a gun on them you're going to jail.

Also 'Good Lawyers' (even 'Great Lawyers!') don't guarantee you a get out of jail free card, that's not their job. Their job is to know & interpret the law to find a the most honest and best solution for your actions.
You are responsible for your own actions, safety and the level of harm you deal to other people.

PS: Each to their own on morality and strip poker I guess, personally I'm game if anyone fancies a go?  _(JK)

PSS: Self defence does apply when defending other people as well._


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> The clue is in the word 'poker' as in playing poker.



Yes and in the "strip poker" version, the clue is in the word 'strip', every round whoever loses removes an article of clothing. At least that's how they play strip poker around here.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Juany118 said:


> That isn't what you said and it is, again, a false assumption. The level of force you may confront is defined by size, training and intent. Making the assumption "usually a man..." is going to get you hurt and really seems to simply be a continuation of you trying to justify what has been an endless string of false assumptions and statements regarding use of force.


Generally speaking a man is going to be larger and stronger than a woman or child. But yes, it depends on the individual and the specific situation as people come in all different shapes, sizes, and levels of training.




Juany118 said:


> Example  How do you define child?  there are some HUGE 16 year olds on HS football teams.



Again, that would depend on the situation. A large 16 year old with ill intentions can be a serious threat. And as it is 16 year olds are often not considered children in court in terms of how they can be charged. Lots of 16 year olds are charged as adults particularly for violent crimes. So in court 16 year olds often are considered adults at least in terms of how they can be charged for crimes.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Yes and in the "strip poker" version, the clue is in the word 'strip', every round whoever loses removes an article of clothing. At least that's how they play strip poker around here.



And? it's played by consenting adults with a sense of fun.

On a more serious note, this is something you do a lot....make a statement such as 'drawing cards to see who takes their clothes off' which you know isn't a true statement because you then say 'every round whoever loses removes an article of clothing' which is how the game is played. You distort the truth a lot, trying to twist it to mean something else. When it's strip poker I don't suppose it  matters but you have said things like 'you can't defend yourself in the UK' along other more serious accusations and lies. You post up these things as if they were true causing long explanations from us showing you how and why you are wrong, then you still persist in thinking only you are right. As an example again, drawing cards and playing a game are different things but you don't see it and make it as if they were the same because it fits your version not the truth.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> And? it's played by consenting adults with a sense of fun.
> 
> On a more serious note, this is something you do a lot....make a statement such as 'drawing cards to see who takes their clothes off' which you know isn't a true statement because you then say 'every round whoever loses removes an article of clothing' which is how the game is played. You distort the truth a lot, trying to twist it to mean something else. When it's strip poker I don't suppose it  matters but you have said things like 'you can't defend yourself in the UK' along other more serious accusations and lies. You post up these things as if they were true causing long explanations from us showing you how and why you are wrong, then you still persist in thinking only you are right. As an example again, drawing cards and playing a game are different things but you don't see it and make it as if they were the same because it fits your version not the truth.



Drawing cards is sometimes part of a game, depending on what game you're playing. Poker is one of those games. Poker involves drawing cards, at least that's how it was played the last time I checked. 

The fact of the matter is that in strip poker it involves taking clothes off, and consenting adults do play it but asking somebody if they want to play strip poker, its not the kind of thing you would ask a random person or you could get in trouble, at least around here you could. 

I don't recall ever saying you can't defend yourself in the UK and as it is I don't know how things are run over there and the fact of the matter is I don't really care. I don't live there and I don't hang out there.


----------



## pgsmith

Tez3 said:


> And? it's played by consenting adults with a sense of fun.
> 
> On a more serious note, this is something you do a lot....make a statement such as 'drawing cards to see who takes their clothes off' which you know isn't a true statement because you then say 'every round whoever loses removes an article of clothing' which is how the game is played. You distort the truth a lot, trying to twist it to mean something else. When it's strip poker I don't suppose it  matters but you have said things like 'you can't defend yourself in the UK' along other more serious accusations and lies. You post up these things as if they were true causing long explanations from us showing you how and why you are wrong, then you still persist in thinking only you are right. As an example again, drawing cards and playing a game are different things but you don't see it and make it as if they were the same because it fits your version not the truth.


  And that's exactly why I put him on ignore quite some time ago.  I always used to tell my boys "If you find yourself making excuses, stop and figure out what you did wrong. There's never one without the other."

  P.S. I'm for anything involving strip poker!


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Drawing cards is sometimes part of a game, depending on what game you're playing. Poker is one of those games. Poker involves drawing cards, at least that's how it was played the last time I checked.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that in strip poker it involves taking clothes off, and consenting adults do play it but asking somebody if they want to play strip poker, its not the kind of thing you would ask a random person or you could get in trouble, at least around here you could.
> 
> I don't recall ever saying you can't defend yourself in the UK and as it is I don't know how things are run over there and the fact of the matter is I don't really care. I don't live there and I don't hang out there.



You started a thread for goodness sake saying you can't defend yourself in the UK.

Drawing a card is a random process of picking a card out of a pack or at least a hand of cards. Losing a game of poker doesn't mean drawing a card. If I lost a game of poker I would say 'I lost that game' I would not say 'I drew a card'.

If people are so uptight that being asked if they want to play a risqué game upsets them I assume the real problems in life must drive them insane.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> You started a thread for goodness sake saying you can't defend yourself in the UK.


And where was that thread? Could you link it?



Tez3 said:


> Drawing a card is a random process of picking a card out of a pack or at least a hand of cards. Losing a game of poker doesn't mean drawing a card. If I lost a game of poker I would say 'I lost that game' I would not say 'I drew a card'.
> 
> If people are so uptight that being asked if they want to play a risqué game upsets them I assume the real problems in life must drive them insane.



I never said that drawing a card meant that you lose, I just said that it was part of the process of the game. 

I am not about to go around asking random people if they want to play a game that could involve taking their clothes off. And I wouldn't recommend you do that either if you're ever around here.


----------



## Tez3

N'importe quoi.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Ademadis said:


> Gah, I close my eyes for 5 minutes and I miss this gem of a discussion
> 
> Just my 2 cents *(English Law.) *on self defence. (Skipping all the fluff on morality & sexism). For Self defence to be raised in court and succeed you Have to have been brought to court under some charge (anything from scaring the Victim to Murder) and have to have acted with 'reasonable force' in comparison to the force applied to you.
> 
> If you ever want to know if you'd go to jail for some form of self defence, just ask 12 random people on the street (ie: a jury) whether they believe your hypothetical actions of self defence were excessive or not.
> 
> Ie;if someone yells at you and you pull a gun on them you're going to jail.
> 
> Also 'Good Lawyers' (even 'Great Lawyers!') don't guarantee you a get out of jail free card, that's not their job. Their job is to know & interpret the law to find a the most honest and best solution for your actions.
> You are responsible for your own actions, safety and the level of harm you deal to other people.
> 
> PS: Each to their own on morality and strip poker I guess, personally I'm game if anyone fancies a go?  _(JK)
> 
> PSS: Self defence does apply when defending other people as well._



Alright, thank you for clarifying this. I take it you must have some background in law.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Alright, thank you for clarifying this. I take it you must have some background in law.



For crying out loud you have been told this numerous times, you seem to have a gene that allows you to totally blank information you don't want to have to deal with. Did you think I had no knowledge of the law of policing? did you think I was just talking out of my backside when telling you how the police work in the UK or how the CPS works or how the law works. Oh my days you really take the biscuit.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> For crying out loud you have been told this numerous times, you seem to have a gene that allows you to totally blank information you don't want to have to deal with.


Then you must be glad I finally "caught on."



Tez3 said:


> Did you think I had no knowledge of the law of policing? did you think I was just talking out of my backside when telling you how the police work in the UK or how the CPS works or how the law works.


Systems work differently from place to place and from country to country. How things are done in your country doesn't really concern me.



Tez3 said:


> Oh my days you really take the biscuit.



My posts seem to really exasperate you. Therefore the way I see it these are your options. Option 1, you can simply refrain from reading my posts. Option 2, you can read my posts and take the risk of being exasperated. 

And then there's option 3, learn to not let what people say on the internet get to you.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> My posts seem to really exasperate you. Therefore the way I see it these are your options. Option 1, you can simply refrain from reading my posts. Option 2, you can read my posts and take the risk of being exasperated.
> 
> And then there's option 3, learn to not let what people say on the internet get to you.



Oh dear no, you make me laugh. You don't understand human interaction properly do you?
'taking the biscuit' isn't a phrase indicative of my exasperation, it's one of humour.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> Oh dear no, you make me laugh. You don't understand human interaction properly do you?
> 'taking the biscuit' isn't a phrase indicative of my exasperation, it's one of humour.



Since Im not from your country I didn't understand what the idiom "taking the biscuit" meant and so I looked it up. In this day and age we have this wonderful thing called the internet where you can look up all sorts of stuff. According to my searches here is what I found. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "taking the biscuit" as, "used to describe something that is extremely surprising, annoying, etc" It doesn't sound much like humor to me.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Since Im not from your country I didn't understand what the idiom "taking the biscuit" meant and so I looked it up. In this day and age we have this wonderful thing called the internet where you can look up all sorts of stuff. According to my searches here is what I found. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "taking the biscuit" as, "used to describe something that is extremely surprising, annoying, etc" It doesn't sound much like humor to me.




_From the Merrriam Webster dictionary website. "The most trustworthy dictionary and thesaurus of_ *American* _English_'' so that was a good choice wasn't it?

I think it's for the *English* writer to decide how an *English* expression is used don't you? Only you would argue the use of English expressions with an English person. I think you need to have a word with yourself.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tez3 said:


> I think it's for the *English* writer to decide how an *English* expression is used don't you? Only you would argue the use of English expressions with an English person. I think you need to have a word with yourself.


Alright than if you say taking the biscuit is an expression of humor than its an expression of humor.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Buka said:


> No offense intended, all in good fun - but I'll back you, bro. All the way.



That was a dumb post.


----------



## BigMotor

Tgace said:


> As a source of discussion, as well as a refrence thread, I was hoping everybody would look up their state law regarding use of force. Or for those outside the US, whatever law applies.



Non Deadly Use Of Force:
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

Use Of Deadly Force:
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

*Florida has laws that favor the attacked, and not the attacker. There is no duty to retreat, and the victim can shoot the attacker, or use any justifiable means needed, to injure or kill the attacker.*

My reference:
*Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine*


----------



## Juany118

BigMotor said:


> Non Deadly Use Of Force:
> (1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
> 
> Use Of Deadly Force:
> (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
> 
> *Florida has laws that favor the attacked, and not the attacker. There is no duty to retreat, and the victim can shoot the attacker, or use any justifiable means needed, to injure or kill the attacker.*
> 
> My reference:
> *Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine*


The last bit can be a bit questionable.  If the only witnesses are the person who used lethal force and the dead person there becomes an issue. Additionally, unless they have amended the law this is an issue that raises a similar question.  Drug dealer used 'stand your ground' to avoid charges in two killings

The head aches of the Florida Statute actually informed PA's when it was written so there are exceptions such as (paraphrase) "this law does not apply during the commission of a crime." So if you are a person not to possess or are slinging dope at the time you can't claim "stand your ground."


----------



## MaxRob

A good point and I adhere to the Law.
However if I was confronted seriously I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!


----------



## Transk53

PhotonGuy said:


> Since Im not from your country I didn't understand what the idiom "taking the biscuit" meant and so I looked it up. In this day and age we have this wonderful thing called the internet where you can look up all sorts of stuff. According to my searches here is what I found. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines "taking the biscuit" as, "used to describe something that is extremely surprising, annoying, etc" It doesn't sound much like humor to me.



Obviously I cannot use my usual profanity, but that phrase is one of politenes. I.E, if someone like me heard that, I would laugh like a Harpy, but I would still be annoyed. Get that?


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> The last bit can be a bit questionable.  If the only witnesses are the person who used lethal force and the dead person there becomes an issue. Additionally, unless they have amended the law this is an issue that raises a similar question.  Drug dealer used 'stand your ground' to avoid charges in two killings
> 
> The head aches of the Florida Statute actually informed PA's when it was written so there are exceptions such as (paraphrase) "this law does not apply during the commission of a crime." So if you are a person not to possess or *are slinging dope *at the time you can't claim "stand your ground."



I.E., goading?


----------



## Juany118

Transk53 said:


> I.E., goading?



PA law does have a "goading" exception as well.  Not sure about Florida,  I'll have to research that one.


----------



## Transk53

Juany118 said:


> PA law does have a "goading" exception as well.  Not sure about Florida,  I'll have to research that one.



I wonder if there is a sliding scale on goading. With you lot the threat level is more significant IMHO


----------



## stonewall1350

Juany118 said:


> The last bit can be a bit questionable.  If the only witnesses are the person who used lethal force and the dead person there becomes an issue. Additionally, unless they have amended the law this is an issue that raises a similar question.  Drug dealer used 'stand your ground' to avoid charges in two killings
> 
> The head aches of the Florida Statute actually informed PA's when it was written so there are exceptions such as (paraphrase) "this law does not apply during the commission of a crime." So if you are a person not to possess or are slinging dope at the time you can't claim "stand your ground."



Florida SYG law removes duty to retreat. That is all it does. Per Section 776.013 (use of force law)

Below is the link to the law removing our Duty to Retreat (aka Stand your ground)

Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine

2c-d)

(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine

I know our law was fumbled a little bit RIGHT when I got my concealed, but has since been updated to be more logical. If you are in the act of committing a crime...the law does not apply. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Juany118

stonewall1350 said:


> Florida SYG law removes duty to retreat. That is all it does. Per Section 776.013
> 
> 2c-d)
> 
> (c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
> (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
> 
> Statutes & Constitution        :View Statutes      :      Online Sunshine
> 
> I know our law was fumbled a little bit RIGHT when I got my concealed, but has since been updated to be more logical. If you are in the act of committing a crime...the law does not apply.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Oh I didn't know about the amendments made later, my bad.  I was simply remembering having DAs going en mass to Harrisburg to lobby for what you noted above in the PA law (which was passed shortly after FLs) pointing to the lack of said provisions in FL as an example of how not to do it.  Thanks for the update


----------



## stonewall1350

Duplicate ooops


----------



## stonewall1350

Juany118 said:


> Oh I didn't know about the amendments made later, my bad.  I was simply remembering having DAs going en mass to Harrisburg to lobby for what you noted above in the PA law (which was passed shortly after FLs) pointing to the lack of said provisions in FL as an example of how not to do it.  Thanks for the update



No problem. 

I am pretty up to date because of having my concealed carry. I don't like not knowing legislation. Plus our laws are REALLY easy to read. They have to reference the laws to which they refer and quote them. It is nice. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PhotonGuy

BigMotor said:


> Use Of Deadly Force:
> (2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.



Again that depends on how you define deadly force. Supposedly any sort of strike to the head can be defined as deadly force in court.


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> Again that depends on how you define deadly force. Supposedly any sort of strike to the head can be defined as deadly force in court.



Just no.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> Again that depends on how you define deadly force. Supposedly any sort of strike to the head can be defined as deadly force in court.


No.  There is a legal definition of deadly force.  Deadly force is that which is likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.  Or, in the code you replied to -- "imminent death or great bodily harm."  Pretty much synonymous.  The definition is consistent across courts and many countries, even.  Sometimes there's arguments about what amounts to "serious bodily harm" -- but it pretty typically amounts to injury that will significantly impair or impede normal function in life.


----------



## Juany118

jks9199 said:


> No.  There is a legal definition of deadly force.  Deadly force is that which is likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.  Or, in the code you replied to -- "imminent death or great bodily harm."  Pretty much synonymous.  The definition is consistent across courts and many countries, even.  Sometimes there's arguments about what amounts to "serious bodily harm" -- but it pretty typically amounts to injury that will significantly impair or impede normal function in life.



Pretty much.  I think sometimes people may get a "red zone" via the UoF continuum confused with lethal force.


----------



## wingchun100

Oh my bad...after reading through some of the exchanges, I thought I was on the Wing Chun forum for a moment. How has this not gotten locked down yet? LOL


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> No.  There is a legal definition of deadly force.  Deadly force is that which is likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.  Or, in the code you replied to -- "imminent death or great bodily harm."  Pretty much synonymous.  The definition is consistent across courts and many countries, even.  Sometimes there's arguments about what amounts to "serious bodily harm" -- but it pretty typically amounts to injury that will significantly impair or impede normal function in life.



Striking to the head has a good chance  of knocking out teeth, breaking noses and so forth both of which fall under the category of great bodily harm.


----------



## Transk53

PhotonGuy said:


> Striking to the head has a good chance  of knocking out teeth, breaking noses and so forth both of which fall under the category of great bodily harm.



Yes but not deadly force. The repercussions could be though. Say trauma caused when they hit the deck. Likely would result in being charged with manslaughter.


----------



## Tgace

PhotonGuy said:


> Striking to the head has a good chance  of knocking out teeth, breaking noses and so forth both of which fall under the category of great bodily harm.



Have you ever arrested or charged someone with assault/battery/harassment, or been involved in a prosecution for same? I think some of us have a pretty good grip at what qualifies ad deadly physical force and what doesn't within our particular jurisdictions.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tgace said:


> Have you ever arrested or charged someone with assault/battery/harassment, or been involved in a prosecution for same? I think some of us have a pretty good grip at what qualifies ad deadly physical force and what doesn't within our particular jurisdictions.



I've never been involved in any legalities regarding the use of force in a confrontation but I know of people that have.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> I've never been involved in any legalities regarding the use of force in a confrontation but I know of people that have.


You know of... or you know?  Either way -- you're missing the point.  Several of us INSTRUCT this stuff.  You're playing semantic games without getting the underlying point.  There is a fairly specific definition of what constitutes "lethal force" and "serious bodily injury", and while there is some variation across jurisdictions, or even from one judge or prosecutor to the next -- by and large, they're all in the same wheelhouse.  You're trying to suggest that a broken nose or even some missing teeth are on the same level as amputation of a limb, lacerations or incisions that threaten bleeding out, or other injuries that have a major impact on ordinary daily functioning of life.  Now, there are indeed times and circumstances that might escalate any blow to the head to lethal force, they're generally pretty rare.  And, of course, when you throw the punch, you buy anything that might be seen as springing from it, so if they guy falls and cracks his skull on a rock, you're screwed...   Then there are all the trained fighter arguments...


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> You know of... or you know?  Either way -- you're missing the point.  Several of us INSTRUCT this stuff.  You're playing semantic games without getting the underlying point.  There is a fairly specific definition of what constitutes "lethal force" and "serious bodily injury", and while there is some variation across jurisdictions, or even from one judge or prosecutor to the next -- by and large, they're all in the same wheelhouse.  You're trying to suggest that a broken nose or even some missing teeth are on the same level as amputation of a limb, lacerations or incisions that threaten bleeding out, or other injuries that have a major impact on ordinary daily functioning of life.  Now, there are indeed times and circumstances that might escalate any blow to the head to lethal force, they're generally pretty rare.  And, of course, when you throw the punch, you buy anything that might be seen as springing from it, so if they guy falls and cracks his skull on a rock, you're screwed...   Then there are all the trained fighter arguments...



I know specific examples of people getting in trouble causing specific levels of injury in confrontations. I know of a martial arts student who was charged and convicted of a felony for knocking a guy's teeth out in a confrontation although the circumstances leading up to the confrontation no doubt played a big role in his conviction. I do not consider knocking out teeth to be at the same level as some of the other injuries that you suggest such as amputation of a limb, lacerations, ect. but its not about what I consider it to be its about what the law considers it to be. In some states broken bones and knocking out teeth fall under the category of "grave bodily harm" and carry that weight in court.


----------



## jks9199

PhotonGuy said:


> I know specific examples of people getting in trouble causing specific levels of injury in confrontations. I know of a martial arts student who was charged and convicted of a felony for knocking a guy's teeth out in a confrontation although the circumstances leading up to the confrontation no doubt played a big role in his conviction. I do not consider knocking out teeth to be at the same level as some of the other injuries that you suggest such as amputation of a limb, lacerations, ect. but its not about what I consider it to be its about what the law considers it to be. In some states broken bones and knocking out teeth fall under the category of "grave bodily harm" and carry that weight in court.



Yes, charged with a felony for knocking teeth out.  Probably malicious wounding or aggravsted assault depending on state code.  That doesn't make it lethal force.  Find and cite a specific case or code section equating a broken limb, knocked out teeth, even broken ribs with *lethal * force, rather than serious injury by itself.  Knock a guy's tooth out, he falls, and suffers a depressed skull fracture hittibg the curb, and you might well find yourself charged with manslaughter.   Notice the added factor?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Tgace

jks9199 said:


> Yes, charged with a felony for knocking teeth out.  Probably malicious wounding or aggravsted assault depending on state code.  That doesn't make it lethal force.  Find and cite a specific case or code section equating a broken limb, knocked out teeth, even broken ribs with *lethal * force, rather than serious injury by itself.  Knock a guy's tooth out, he falls, and suffers a depressed skull fracture hittibg the curb, and you might well find yourself charged with manslaughter.   Notice the added factor?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk



Exactly. And even then...depending on all the circumstances...you may not get convicted.


----------



## Tez3

Oliver Dearlove: Banker killed with 'single punch' for talking to women - BBC News


This is a current court case going on here, no verdict yet as it's still ongoing. It would be interesting to read how people think it will go and/or what they think he should have been charged with.


----------



## jks9199

Tez3 said:


> Oliver Dearlove: Banker killed with 'single punch' for talking to women - BBC News
> 
> 
> This is a current court case going on here, no verdict yet as it's still ongoing. It would be interesting to read how people think it will go and/or what they think he should have been charged with.


I need more info, like what the mechanism of death was. On the surface, with what is here... manslaughter is reasonable.  I could see murder in the second depending on specifics like a blindside attack without any warning. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Tez3

The trial started yesterday and they haven't got to the medical evidence yet, nothing has been released prior to this as the media isn't allowed to report on it before trial. The only details so far are that he was punched and collapsed.


----------



## PhotonGuy

Tgace said:


> Exactly. And even then...depending on all the circumstances...you may not get convicted.



Well you shouldn't be convicted if its self defense although self defense does require that you use a proportional level of force to the attacker, which can cause complications in court.

As for the student that I know of who was convicted of a felony, this was in NJ and he was driving home when he accidentally cut off a pickup truck. The truck started following him and was still following him when he was a couple of blocks from his house and it was at this point he pulled over and got out of his car to confront whoever was driving the truck since he didn't want the driver of the truck knowing where he lived. The truck pulled up behind him and this big guy got out and came running at him. The student sidestepped him and kneed him in the stomach and then hit him in the mouth with a ridge hand and knocked some of his teeth out. As a result the student had to make two court appearances, was fined, sued, had to pay for the truck driver's teeth and during his second appearance he had a lawyer with him so he was able to avoid any prison time but he still ended up getting a felony conviction which will be for him with life and will severely limit his rights as an American citizen, including the possibility of holding down a job. 

So this student was convicted of a felony even though it was the truck driver that came running at him. This was in NJ where they're usually quite harsh about any use of force.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

PhotonGuy said:


> Well you shouldn't be convicted if its self defense although self defense does require that you use a proportional level of force to the attacker, which can cause complications in court.
> 
> As for the student that I know of who was convicted of a felony, this was in NJ and he was driving home when he accidentally cut off a pickup truck. The truck started following him and was still following him when he was a couple of blocks from his house and it was at this point he pulled over and got out of his car to confront whoever was driving the truck since he didn't want the driver of the truck knowing where he lived. The truck pulled up behind him and this big guy got out and came running at him. The student sidestepped him and kneed him in the stomach and then hit him in the mouth with a ridge hand and knocked some of his teeth out. As a result the student had to make two court appearances, was fined, sued, had to pay for the truck driver's teeth and during his second appearance he had a lawyer with him so he was able to avoid any prison time but he still ended up getting a felony conviction which will be for him with life and will severely limit his rights as an American citizen, including the possibility of holding down a job.
> 
> So this student was convicted of a felony even though it was the truck driver that came running at him. This was in NJ where they're usually quite harsh about any use of force.


I'd guess in that case his problem was that he stopped to confront the guy, rather than driving past his home. He wasn't in any imminent danger until he stopped and got out.


----------



## oftheherd1

gpseymour said:


> I'd guess in that case his problem was that he stopped to confront the guy, rather than driving past his home. He wasn't in any imminent danger until he stopped and got out.



That, and his next problem was going to court without a lawyer.  It doesn't matter how right you think you are or in fact actually are.  A judge or jury is only supposed to consider what is in front of them.  If you can't articulate well, your lawyer should help you with that, keeping you truthful and in the bounds of the law.  He will also know best how to question the other person to your advantage.


----------



## jks9199

Sounds to me like his lawyer got him to take a plea.  Maybe he thought it made sense financially -- fighting a charge is NOT cheap.

But, I'm kind of confused.  Your friend was "fined, sued, and had to" make restitution.  A fine is criminal; suing is civil.  I think you may be conflating two separate acts in the play.  It's quite possible to be found not guilty of an offense, or in the specific instance of self defense to be found to have been justified and thus acquitted -- but still found liable in civil court.  The two proceedings are separate, with hugely different burdens of proof and rules.


----------



## oftheherd1

jks9199 said:


> Sounds to me like his lawyer got him to take a plea.  Maybe he thought it made sense financially -- fighting a charge is NOT cheap.
> 
> But, I'm kind of confused.  Your friend was "fined, sued, and had to" make restitution.  A fine is criminal; suing is civil.  I think you may be conflating two separate acts in the play.  It's quite possible to be found not guilty of an offense, or in the specific instance of self defense to be found to have been justified and thus acquitted -- but still found liable in civil court.  The two proceedings are separate, with hugely different burdens of proof and rules.



There are some confusions there for sure.  I hadn't thought of the lawyer suggesting a plea.  If there was that much wrong the friend's relating his side of the story, it may have been a good idea for the criminal part, especially if at the first hearing he made statements that made him look bad (even if he wasn't).  That testimony would then be admissible in a civil case and because the burden of proof is so much less, he may have been lucky if all he had to pay was for never inexpensive dental work. 

Just one more reason to get a lawyer involved as soon as possible if you are going to court accused of a crime.


----------



## jks9199

Doesn't have to have been much wrong with the case.  I know of a case that I think had a pretty strong argument that he only left the scene of an accident because he would have gotten his *** beat if he stayed, and ended up taking a plea because the defendant simply didn't have the money to fight it at length.  Same thing happens in civil cases; sometimes the deepest pockets "wins" because the other side can't afford to fight.

By the way... here's a little more reading on one state's malicious wounding charge..


----------



## PhotonGuy

oftheherd1 said:


> That, and his next problem was going to court without a lawyer.  It doesn't matter how right you think you are or in fact actually are.  A judge or jury is only supposed to consider what is in front of them.  If you can't articulate well, your lawyer should help you with that, keeping you truthful and in the bounds of the law.  He will also know best how to question the other person to your advantage.



He did go to court with a lawyer during his second court appearance.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> Sounds to me like his lawyer got him to take a plea.  Maybe he thought it made sense financially -- fighting a charge is NOT cheap.
> 
> But, I'm kind of confused.  Your friend was "fined, sued, and had to" make restitution.  A fine is criminal; suing is civil.  I think you may be conflating two separate acts in the play.  It's quite possible to be found not guilty of an offense, or in the specific instance of self defense to be found to have been justified and thus acquitted -- but still found liable in civil court.  The two proceedings are separate, with hugely different burdens of proof and rules.



There are cases of people getting off in criminal court and still being found liable in civil court but in his case he was found guilty both criminally and civilly. He was able to get off from going to prison since he had a lawyer during his second appearance but he still was convicted and has a record.


----------



## PhotonGuy

jks9199 said:


> I know of a case that I think had a pretty strong argument that he only left the scene of an accident because he would have gotten his *** beat if he stayed, and ended up taking a plea because the defendant simply didn't have the money to fight it at length.


That's why its good to have insurance that will cover you for such legal expenses.


----------



## Psilent Knight

My attitude concerning self defense and use of force laws is simple; _to hell with those laws and to hell with the rotten scoundrels who make them._


----------



## Tez3

PhotonGuy said:


> There are cases of people getting off in criminal court and still being found liable in civil court but in his case he was found guilty both criminally and civilly. He was able to get off from going to prison since he had a lawyer during his second appearance but he still was convicted and has a record.




The burden of proof is different in civil courts to that in a criminal court.



Psilent Knight said:


> My attitude concerning self defense and use of force laws is simple; _to hell with those laws and to hell with the rotten scoundrels who make them._



Yeah they all say that until they are needing the protection of said laws then it's a miraculous change of mind....


----------



## mrt2

PhotonGuy said:


> Well you shouldn't be convicted if its self defense although self defense does require that you use a proportional level of force to the attacker, which can cause complications in court.
> 
> As for the student that I know of who was convicted of a felony, this was in NJ and he was driving home when he accidentally cut off a pickup truck. The truck started following him and was still following him when he was a couple of blocks from his house and it was at this point he pulled over and got out of his car to confront whoever was driving the truck since he didn't want the driver of the truck knowing where he lived. *The truck pulled up behind him and this big guy got out and came running at him. The student sidestepped him and kneed him in the stomach and then hit him in the mouth with a ridge hand and knocked some of his teeth out. *As a result the student had to make two court appearances, was fined, sued, had to pay for the truck driver's teeth and during his second appearance he had a lawyer with him so he was able to avoid any prison time but he still ended up getting a felony conviction which will be for him with life and will severely limit his rights as an American citizen, including the possibility of holding down a job.
> 
> So this student was convicted of a felony even though it was the truck driver that came running at him. This was in NJ where they're usually quite harsh about any use of force.



I am a criminal defense lawyer, so I do deal with issues of self defense in my practice.  I suspect the situation is a lot closer to a 50/50 proposition than what your friend told you.  And in my experience, in 50/50 situations, authorities tend to charge the winner of the fight and give the loser a pass. I have seen this a couple of times over the years.  So my advise to folks is, walk away from 50/50 type situations as they don't end well.  I once worked on an appeal of a case where a guy who was something of a self taught martial artist stabbed and cut two drunk guys during a confrontation.  He was armed with a knife, the two drunk guys were not. He went to trial and the judge ruled that he was not entitled to claim self defense, and the guy got 10 years in prison.  On the other hand, I once represented a woman who felt threatened by a larger man, and during a confrontation with him, hit him with a blunt object to protect herself.  The jury acquitted her, but she did have to go to trial.

 First of all, you are only hearing one side of the story, which may not be accurate.  Your friend might not have been so innocent as he claims in the behavior that preceded the fight.  If your friend provoked the confrontation, he is likely not entitled to claim self defense.  And his lawyer might have so informed him, which is why your friend took a plea deal.

And even given the facts you relate leaves me with some questions.  Like your friend getting out of his car to confront the driver of the truck.  This strikes me as a foolish move.  Even if you are a skill martial artist, you are confronting an unknown threat.  What if the driver of the truck was armed?  You say your friend chose to stop a few blocks from his house.  Why not drive to the nearest police station?  Or stop in a busy public place and just stay in the car?.  Also, did your friend have access to a cell phone?  Did he call the police to alert them to the situation before he confronted the driver of the truck? These are all actions that had he done them would clearly show he was attempting to defuse the situation and then, if your friend was forced to knock the guy's teeth out, would show that despite his best efforts, he had no choice but to use force.  I suspect that because he didn't do those things, he doesn't have clean hands, which is why he had to take a conviction.


----------



## TheArtofDave

Select Year:   

*The 2017 Florida Statutes




*
*Title XLVI*
CRIMES *Chapter 776 *
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE *View Entire Chapter*
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.
776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
776.051 Use or threatened use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
776.06 Deadly force by a law enforcement or correctional officer.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.
776.08 Forcible felony.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
776.09 Retention of records pertaining to persons found to be acting in lawful self-defense; expunction of criminal history records.
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27; s. 3, ch. 2014-195.
776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:
(a) Nondeadly force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force; or
(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
(2) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using or threatening to use defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used or threatened was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(3) The presumption set forth in subsection (2) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened; or
(c) The person who uses or threatens to use defensive force is engaged in a criminal activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further a criminal activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27; s. 4, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-77.
776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27; s. 5, ch. 2014-195.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27; s. 6, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-72.
776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102; s. 7, ch. 2014-195.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.
776.051 Use or threatened use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—
(1) A person is not justified in the use or threatened use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67; s. 8, ch. 2014-195.
776.06 Deadly force by a law enforcement or correctional officer.—
(1) As applied to a law enforcement officer or correctional officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties, the term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(2)(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272; s. 9, ch. 2014-195.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.—
(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “forcible felony” shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.
(3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.
(4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:
(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:
1. Canteen purchases;
2. Telephone access;
3. Outdoor exercise;
4. Use of the library; and
5. Visitation.
(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.
History.—s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.
776.09 Retention of records pertaining to persons found to be acting in lawful self-defense; expunction of criminal history records.—
(1) Whenever the state attorney or statewide prosecutor dismisses an information, indictment, or other charging document, or decides not to file an information, indictment, or other charging document because of a finding that the person accused acted in lawful self-defense pursuant to the provisions related to the justifiable use of force in this chapter, that finding shall be documented in writing and retained in the files of the state attorney or statewide prosecutor.
(2) Whenever a court dismisses an information, indictment, or other charging document because of a finding that the person accused acted in lawful self-defense pursuant to the provisions related to the justifiable use of force in this chapter, that finding shall be recorded in an order or memorandum, which shall be retained in the court’s records.
(3) Under either condition described in subsection (1) or subsection (2), the person accused may apply for a certificate of eligibility to expunge the associated criminal history record, pursuant to s. 943.0585(5), notwithstanding the eligibility requirements prescribed in s. 943.0585(1)(b) or (2).
History.—s. 10, ch. 2014-195.


----------



## cborde

I don't know if Louisiana has been added here, but:

*LA §14:19. Use of force or violence in defense*
*LA §14:19. Use of force or violence in defense*
State: Louisiana

*Louisiana Revised Statutes (L.R.S.) 2016*

*Title 14. Criminal Law*

*§19.  Use of force or violence in defense*

A.

(1) The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable under either of the following circumstances:

(a) When committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person’s lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense.

(b)

(i) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person using the force or violence reasonably believes that the use of force or violence is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(ii) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person using the force or violence is engaged, at the time of the use of force or violence in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.

(2) The provisions of Paragraph (1) of this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur:

(1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

(2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred.

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.

Acts 2006, No. 141, §1; Acts 2014, No. 163, §1.

Updated: 7/12/2017


----------



## Daniela455

Oh, it's fine. I had no idea about this


----------



## PhotonGuy

Gary Crawford said:


> laws ruin all the fun.The gist of what I understand of laws concerning defending yourself is that you are only allowed to use enough force to stop the attack,beating the dog out of em to make sure they never consider attacking you again is not allowed.


Once you've stopped your attacker there is no reason to continue to beat on them as at that point it is no longer self defense. The purpose of self defense is to stop your attacker so continuing to beat on them after you've stopped them will get you in trouble.


----------



## jobo

PhotonGuy said:


> Once you've stopped your attacker there is no reason to continue to beat on them as at that point it is no longer self defense. The purpose of self defense is to stop your attacker so continuing to beat on them after you've stopped them will get you in trouble.


that rather depends where you are and if there are any witnesses, CCTV  etc clearly continuing to kick them to the point you give them significant internal injuries after they have already passed out from the head punches might raise a few eye brows


----------



## PhotonGuy

jobo said:


> that rather depends where you are and if there are any witnesses, CCTV  etc clearly continuing to kick them to the point you give them significant internal injuries after they have already passed out from the head punches might raise a few eye brows


If there are witnesses and/or if you're identified, continuing to kick them after they've passed out will most likely get you a long stay in the gray bar hotel, the kind run by the government.


----------



## jobo

PhotonGuy said:


> If there are witnesses and/or if you're identified, continuing to kick them after they've passed out will most likely get you a long stay in the gray bar hotel, the kind run by the government.


that's what I just said, on the other hand if there isnt, then it's all a bit fuzzy as to at what point he stopped being a threat to you


----------



## PhotonGuy

jobo said:


> that's what I just said, on the other hand if there isnt, then it's all a bit fuzzy as to at what point he stopped being a threat to you


True enough.


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> that's what I just said, on the other hand if there isnt, then it's all a bit fuzzy as to at what point he stopped being a threat to you



Almost automatically a GBH.

Varying degrees of assault in the UK | Lawtons


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Almost automatically a GBH.
> 
> Varying degrees of assault in the UK | Lawtons


ITS ONLY GBH IF YOUR NOT DEFENDING YOURSELF FROM A BELIEVED THREAT, WHICH AS I SAID IS ALL A BIT FUZZY

 YOUR ALOWED TO USE THE LEVEL AND DURATION OF FORCE YOU BELIEVE IS REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE THREAT YOU BELIVE EXISTS


----------



## drop bear

jobo said:


> ITS ONLY GBH IF YOUR NOT DEFENDING YOURSELF FROM A BELIEVED THREAT, WHICH AS I SAID IS ALL A BIT FUZZY
> 
> YOUR ALOWED TO USE THE LEVEL AND DURATION OF FORCE YOU BELIEVE IS REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE THREAT YOU BELIVE EXISTS



What is the case law for that?


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> What is the case law for that?


Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service


----------



## Deleted member 39746

jobo said:


> ITS ONLY GBH IF YOUR NOT DEFENDING YOURSELF FROM A BELIEVED THREAT, WHICH AS I SAID IS ALL A BIT FUZZY
> 
> YOUR ALOWED TO USE THE LEVEL AND DURATION OF FORCE YOU BELIEVE IS REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE THREAT YOU BELIVE EXISTS



No, its GBH, you are just deemed to have a justifiable reason for breaking the law.  You still broke the law and did XYZ crimes, you are just let off on justifiable grounds.        As much as i hate to be that person, if you killed somone, you killed somone, your just let off the hook legally speaking.  (or not)

This is in this really technical discussion, as far as i know most places work like that.


----------



## jobo

Rat said:


> No, its GBH, you are just deemed to have a justifiable reason for breaking the law.  You still broke the law and did XYZ crimes, you are just let off on justifiable grounds.        As much as i hate to be that person, if you killed somone, you killed somone, your just let off the hook legally speaking.  (or not)
> 
> This is in this really technical discussion, as far as i know most places work like that.


that may be how the law works in America,  it's not how the law works in the uk.

gbh is ILLEGAL wounding,  if what your doing isnt illegal it cant be gbh
you have a set of circumstances, that the court considers, if the court accepts your explination,  then no illegal act took place, so it's not gbh and it's not pleading guilty to an illegal act with mitigation, which is what your sugesting and what seems to happen in america, from conversations on here


----------



## _Simon_

Ah geez... thought the thread title was "Use the force... Luke."

I needa sleep....


----------



## dvcochran

Rat said:


> No, its GBH, you are just deemed to have a justifiable reason for breaking the law.  You still broke the law and did XYZ crimes, you are just let off on justifiable grounds.        As much as i hate to be that person, if you killed somone, you killed somone, your just let off the hook legally speaking.  (or not)
> 
> This is in this really technical discussion, as far as i know most places work like that.


This is not at all legal statute in my area of the US. Self defense is deemed justified and in no way is a person breaking the law. If that were the case the flood gates would be open for civil suits. 
To be clear, a person defending themselves DOES NOT BREAK THE LAW!!!


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

@jobo and @dvcochran , just as a heads up, @Rat lives in the UK, not in the US. I assume that means his advice (accurate or not, I don't know since I don't live in the UK and not a lawyer), is from knowledge of the UK, not the US. Just putting it out there since both of your replies seem to indicate you think he lives in the US.


----------



## BrendanF

Rat's description of the operation of statutory self defense is basically accurate, in terms of British (Canadian, Australian etc etc) law.


----------



## jobo

BrendanF said:


> Rat's description of the operation of statutory self defense is basically accurate, in terms of British (Canadian, Australian etc etc) law.


no its not


----------



## drop bear

Anyway this is the basic idea for legal defence against assault.




 

The issue that you will run in to is that self defence generally says something along the lines of justifiable fear or you feared for your life. Or something like that. And so people interpret that as if I am convinced I was afraid for my life then my actions were justifiable. Eg. Soccer kicking someone in the head.

In practical terms though you have to convince the judge or the jury. And they can be a bit weird on the subject. 

Hence why you would look at case law or precedent rather than statute law.(if I have my terms correct, which I probably don't)

I have never encountered a judge who has looked kindly on kicking people while prone exept in exceptional circumstances. 

And I have never heard but there were no witnesses so therefore my story is the correct one to carry much weight in those sorts of instances.


----------



## drop bear

Judges just don't like that kind of thing.

Man who kicked blood-covered attack victim in the head is jailed


----------



## BrendanF

jobo said:


> no its not



Yep.


----------



## jobo

BrendanF said:


> Yep.


if that the limit of your point il leave it be, if you have some law to support you then post it


----------



## jobo

drop bear said:


> Anyway this is the basic idea for legal defence against assault.
> 
> View attachment 23675
> 
> The issue that you will run in to is that self defence generally says something along the lines of justifiable fear or you feared for your life. Or something like that. And so people interpret that as if I am convinced I was afraid for my life then my actions were justifiable. Eg. Soccer kicking someone in the head.
> 
> In practical terms though you have to convince the judge or the jury. And they can be a bit weird on the subject.
> 
> Hence why you would look at case law or precedent rather than statute law.(if I have my terms correct, which I probably don't)
> 
> I have never encountered a judge who has looked kindly on kicking people while prone exept in exceptional circumstances.
> 
> And I have never heard but there were no witnesses so therefore my story is the correct one to carry much weight in those sorts of instances.


I've posted the relevant case law, have you read it.

it says very much what your disagreeing with as being the case law.??????
as I keep saying the boundary is fuzzy,  undefined and each case will turn on it merits

but yes it's clearly established if you have a honestly held belief that what your doing is required for the threat you honestly belive exists then you have the base for a self defence argument.


----------



## BrendanF

jobo said:


> if that the limit of your point il leave it be, if you have some law to support you then post it



Did you?


----------



## jobo

BrendanF said:


> Did you?


did I what, ? I've listed the cps charging guidelines,  that make no mention st all of anything that supports that point,

as your making a specific claim that rat is correct the onus is on you

under english law your either guilty or not guilty, there is no middle point where you admit guilty and are let off, which is rats claim that you say is correct? with the notable exception of being given an absolute discharge,which is still a conviction, so guilty,  just with no penalty, which doesnt happen in serious criminal trials or much at all really

perhaps if you actually explain how you think he is correct, we can further the discusion


----------



## BrendanF

I see.

He is right in saying that through the operation of the statutory defence "you are just deemed to have a justifiable reason for breaking the law. You still broke the law and did XYZ crimes, you are just let off on justifiable grounds."

Which you claimed was wrong.  It isn't.  Legislation providing for statutory defences use language like "A person is not criminally responsible for an assault committed upon a person who gives him provocation for the assault..." - in the case of provocation.  You'll note the assault is still deemed to have occurred, it's just that the provoked party is legally excused from the consequences.  Similar language exists in other such statutory defence legislation.


----------



## jobo

BrendanF said:


> I see.
> 
> He is right in saying that through the operation of the statutory defence "you are just deemed to have a justifiable reason for breaking the law. You still broke the law and did XYZ crimes, you are just let off on justifiable grounds."
> 
> Which you claimed was wrong.  It isn't.  Legislation providing for statutory defences use language like "A person is not criminally responsible for an assault committed upon a person who gives him provocation for the assault..." - in the case of provocation.  You'll note the assault is still deemed to have occurred, it's just that the provoked party is legally excused from the consequences.  Similar language exists in other such statutory defence legislation.


I've just google that phrase and it appears to be Nigerian law, it might even be American,  but it's not English,  as provocation is never a defence under English law,  well not for assualt anyway

perhaps giving a link may be helpfull


----------



## BrendanF

The one I quoted is Australian.  There's a lot which can be said, but here's a link you can read

https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk...tification_and_Excuse_in_the_Criminal_Law.pdf


----------



## jobo

BrendanF said:


> The one I quoted is Australian.  There's a lot which can be said, but here's a link you can read
> 
> https://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk...tification_and_Excuse_in_the_Criminal_Law.pdf


I'm not spending my Saturday whilst you jump round the world quoting random laws, . why on earth would you think an Australian statute was relivant?or wading through pdf files to find they dpnt agree with you, then you post some more random laws?

if there is a relevant bit in that quote i then tie that to the actual law


----------



## BrendanF

No worries Jobo, I'll explain it to you in the simplest terms I can.  There are two types of defences in criminal law; statutory and common law.  Statutory defences are what you'll note I mentioned in my first, and every, post on this thread.  Statutory defences are those written in law.  There are many (yes, in the UK too).  These are laws written specifically providing a defence to a crime.

Perhaps you can describe to me how it is possible that they don't operate as Rat described?  To clarify; if you were to write a law providing a legal defence to a crime on the grounds of self defence, how would you write it such that it didn't concede that the person defending themselves had committed the crime they are entitled to the statutory defence for?

How can you have a discrete legal defence for a crime without admitting that the person the defence applies to has committed the crime in the first place?  I really don't know what you're arguing here, other than 'no'.

I didn't jump around the world, I just pulled up my first year law school notes.


----------



## jobo

BrendanF said:


> No worries Jobo, I'll explain it to you in the simplest terms I can.  There are two types of defences in criminal law; statutory and common law.  Statutory defences are what you'll note I mentioned in my first, and every, post on this thread.  Statutory defences are those written in law.  There are many (yes, in the UK too).  These are laws written specifically providing a defence to a crime.
> 
> Perhaps you can describe to me how it is possible that they don't operate as Rat described?  To clarify; if you were to write a law providing a legal defence to a crime on the grounds of self defence, how would you write it such that it didn't concede that the person defending themselves had committed the crime they are entitled to the statutory defence for?
> 
> How can you have a discrete legal defence for a crime without admitting that the person the defence applies to has committed the crime in the first place?  I really don't know what you're arguing here, other than 'no'.
> 
> I didn't jump around the world, I just pulled up my first year law school notes.


they have a defence,  so no guilt,  no crime was committed, that's what trials are for???

you agree to a set of circumstances, some of which may be that you hit him and these injuries were sustainedI.

why you hit him and if these injuries were justifiable,  is the nature of the defence, your not admitting to a " crime" by accepting  some or all the circumstances the prosecution  present

this is ussually establish  when you enter a not guilty plea,

now there is a subtle difference between assault, which is what you said and gbh which is what rat said


----------



## BrendanF

"They have a defence, so no guilt, no crime was committed"

If no crime was committed, why do they need a defence?


----------



## jobo

BrendanF said:


> "They have a defence, so no guilt, no crime was committed"
> 
> If no crime was committed, why do they need a defence?


with mens rea offences there is no crime till a court of law says there was, ?

how can there be? the state of mind of the defendant is what decides if a crime was committed or not

in my experience you need a defence when the police or other authorised body, charge you with an offence, at that point you are commonly refered to as " the accused" because it hasnt yet been established if a crime has taken place and or if you were responsible. 

homicides is slightly different,  as it will have been subject to an inquest, which may have declared it " unlawful"


----------



## BrendanF

No, the crime is committed when the crime is committed.  The court determines criminal responsibility.  Mens rea is only one element among several, and is not necessarily the determining factor you seem to think it is.

Again I'll ask - if there is no crime committed - why would there be a need for a statutory defence?  Or a trial?


----------



## jobo

1l


BrendanF said:


> No, the crime is committed when the crime is committed.  The court determines criminal responsibility.  Mens rea is only one element among several, and is not necessarily the determining factor you seem to think it is.
> 
> Again I'll ask - if there is no crime committed - why would there be a need for a statutory defence?  Or a trial?


a statutory defence means, you agree to the circumstances but have committed no crime,  as you have a statutory defence, it's some what circular 

mens rea in mens rea offence is crucial to if a crime was committed or not, that why they are called mens rea " offences, no guilty mind" no offence", no offence, no crime,  that's some what circular as well


----------



## BrendanF

jobo said:


> 1l
> 
> a statutory defence means, you agree to the circumstances but have committed no crime,  as you have a statutory defence, it's some what circular
> 
> mens rea in mens rea offence is crucial to if a crime was committed or not, that why they are called mens rea " offences, no guilty mind" no offence", no offence, no crime,  that's some what circular as well



Not really.  You could probably just do some reading on your own and clear up your misconceptions.  The short pdf I posted above would be a start.


----------



## jobo

BrendanF said:


> Not really.  You could probably just do some reading on your own and clear up your misconceptions.  The short pdf I posted above would be a start.


yes really,

who is authorise to declare an event a crime? not you, not the police, that would be a court,  show me were an english court has said " this is a crime, but we are letting you off coz....


except for an absolute discharge it never ever happens" they say " not guilty" and that's it

some years ago, I got pinged at 72 in a 50, the police though it was a crime, I chose to go to court and require the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, they failed to call witnesses, I left with a not guilty verdict,  no crime was recorded  by the court,  who else is authorised to say it was ? the police and the prosecution got rather cross, but hey ho, justice in action


----------



## BrendanF

No.  Not really.

You're discussing disparate and unrelated ideas, with such imprecise language I really don't even know how to continue trying to communicate with you.

No, a court is not "authorise to declare an event a crime" - that's what the legislature does.


----------



## jobo

BrendanF said:


> No.  Not really.
> 
> You're discussing disparate and unrelated ideas, with such imprecise language I really don't even know how to continue trying to communicate with you.
> 
> No, a court is not "authorise to declare an event a crime" - that's what the legislature does.


no, legislator sets a frame work, for the court to apply, it also says the statutory  defence for the court to apply,
the court applies that frame work and the statutory defences, if applicable  and reaches a conclusion and declares crime or no crime or guilty not guilty

the demarcation between the legislature and the court is a major eliment in democracy, that you believe the legislature declares crime or no crime is just silly, that's the job of the court,

the court can even ignore the law and declare it "not a crime "if they wish, it happens rarely,  but it's possible, last one in this country that I'm aware of is about 20 years ago, where they just decided to ignore the pornography laws


----------



## BrendanF

Ugh. Like I said, your imprecise use of language just makes this discussion a waste of time.

The point I made was that Rat is correct - with regards to statutory defences.  They do not operate as you seem to think they do.  Your insistence doesn't change that.  You can still just do some research and confirm this yourself.


----------



## jobo

BrendanF said:


> Ugh. Like I said, your imprecise use of language just makes this discussion a waste of time.
> 
> The point I made was that Rat is correct - with regards to statutory defences.  They do not operate as you seem to think they do.  Your insistence doesn't change that.  You can still just do some research and confirm this yourself.


the exactly exactly as I said and both you and rat are wrong.

I've asked you to support it by quoting the law,  some thing you have so far failed to do, perhaps you've reach the limit of your first year law notes, which clearly didnt get as far as the separation of the the legislature and the judiciary


----------



## BrendanF

Yes yes, the exactly exactly as you said.

I did in fact quote a statutory defence showing how Rat is correct.  I also explained the theory as to why he was correct; which you completely ignored.  I'll ignore you now and leave you to it.


----------



## jobo

BrendanF said:


> Yes yes, the exactly exactly as you said.
> 
> I did in fact quote a statutory defence showing how Rat is correct.  I also explained the theory as to why he was correct; which you completely ignored.  I'll ignore you now and leave you to it.


the one from Australia,  in a discusion about english law,  that was in you first year notes, yea that was relivant


----------



## BrendanF

Yep it was.  I was just trying to help you understand better mate; once again I forgot you prefer willful ignorance.  Enjoy.


----------



## jobo

BrendanF said:


> Yep it was.  I was just trying to help you understand better mate; once again I forgot you prefer willful ignorance.  Enjoy.


your not doing a very good job of ignoring me.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

dvcochran said:


> This is not at all legal statute in my area of the US. Self defense is deemed justified and in no way is a person breaking the law. If that were the case the flood gates would be open for civil suits.
> To be clear, a person defending themselves DOES NOT BREAK THE LAW!!!



Oh i mean its dropped without charge if its deemed legitimate self defence, but i always thought the jurisprscence for it was as i described.    You have done a crime but its just deemed a justifiable reason to have done it so is dropped.      I dont think most instances are open and shut cases as you see, and as plenty of people point out all the police know is, you have just shot or hit this person who may be in what ever wounded state.

Like if you end up speeding to avoid someone,  if you get flashed on cameras and have evidence it was for self defence any penalty for speeding would be dropped. Arugbly speaking being arrested may be a good thing self defence speaking in some situations.   As it means you are in a secure place, and surrounded by police.   (not so much if you get held overnight, they know where you live and the police dont put a guard on the house to stop them breaking in or burning it down)

Oh easier sumamry, its dropped if its deemed legiitmate self defence but  court determines that if its brought into question, so if there is enough reason to press it, you may end up in court to defend it. Generally speaking the more damage you do, the more incentive there is to properly investgate it, or you may be pressed to defend the action.


----------



## dvcochran

Rat said:


> Oh i mean its dropped without charge if its deemed legitimate self defence, but i always thought the jurisprscence for it was as i described.    You have done a crime but its just deemed a justifiable reason to have done it so is dropped.      I dont think most instances are open and shut cases as you see, and as plenty of people point out all the police know is, you have just shot or hit this person who may be in what ever wounded state.
> 
> Like if you end up speeding to avoid someone,  if you get flashed on cameras and have evidence it was for self defence any penalty for speeding would be dropped. Arugbly speaking being arrested may be a good thing self defence speaking in some situations.   As it means you are in a secure place, and surrounded by police.   (not so much if you get held overnight, they know where you live and the police dont put a guard on the house to stop them breaking in or burning it down)
> 
> Oh easier sumamry, its dropped if its deemed legiitmate self defence but  court determines that if its brought into question, so if there is enough reason to press it, you may end up in court to defend it. Generally speaking the more damage you do, the more incentive there is to properly investgate it, or you may be pressed to defend the action.


I cannot speak to UK law but in the states it is about burden of proof of whether a law is broken, not Why it was. In a murder that was found to be “justifiable” the person will be charged with something, usually a lesser offense like manslaughter. This is also why the burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defense.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

dvcochran said:


> I cannot speak to UK law but in the states it is about burden of proof of whether a law is broken, not Why it was. In a murder that was found to be “justifiable” the person will be charged with something, usually a lesser offense like manslaughter. This is also why the burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defense.


My understanding is that in the US self-defense is an affirmative defense. That means it asserts that the statute in question (say an assault law) was broken, but there was legal justification for it. How we view that in this context becomes a matter of semantics. We could argue they broke the law (the assault is affirmed by the self-defense assertion). We could also argue no crime was commmited (assault is only criminal if there's no legal justification).

I think a lot of the back-and forth here is just these semantics.


----------



## Steve

gpseymour said:


> My understanding is that in the US self-defense is an affirmative defense. That means it asserts that the statute in question (say an assault law) was broken, but there was legal justification for it. How we view that in this context becomes a matter of semantics. We could argue they broke the law (the assault is affirmed by the self-defense assertion). We could also argue no crime was commmited (assault is only criminal if there's no legal justification).
> 
> I think a lot of the back-and forth here is just these semantics.


For the most part, I agree.  Though, seems like there is a difference in mindset regarding self-defense between, "I'm not committing a crime," and, "I'm committing a crime, but believe I am legally justified."  Just this subtle difference in mindset could keep someone from going too far or taking "self defense" for granted when they're in front of a jury of their peers.  And as you say, the latter is actually more accurate.


----------



## dvcochran

gpseymour said:


> My understanding is that in the US self-defense is an affirmative defense. That means it asserts that the statute in question (say an assault law) was broken, but there was legal justification for it. How we view that in this context becomes a matter of semantics. We could argue they broke the law (the assault is affirmed by the self-defense assertion). We could also argue no crime was commmited (assault is only criminal if there's no legal justification).
> 
> I think a lot of the back-and forth here is just these semantics.


And on top of that there are differences state to state.


----------



## jks9199

Broadly speaking, self defense is an affirmative defense and a claim of justification.  The defendant admits that they committed an act that is normally punished as a crime, but they a good reason that should excuse them from that criminal liability.  In some cases, the determination of justification is made before any charges are brought; the easiest example might be a police officer shooting someone that has already shot at them.  It's clear that they were defendthemselves, so no charge is made.  More often, charges are brought, and the claim of self defense is  made.  At court, the defendant then has the burden of proving that their use of force was reasonable and appropriate and necessary -- in other words, justified.   There are some principles,  like the Castle Doctrine that have specific nuances that very state to state, and everything varies nation to nation...

Notice the words I used were all used in careful and specific ways.  It's important,  and understanding of that and of the rules in the courtroom is why, if you're dealing with the law following using force on someone,  you want a lawyer with specific knowledge, skills, and experience in the issues of force.


----------



## Deleted member 39746

gpseymour said:


> My understanding is that in the US self-defense is an affirmative defense. That means it asserts that the statute in question (say an assault law) was broken, but there was legal justification for it. How we view that in this context becomes a matter of semantics. We could argue they broke the law (the assault is affirmed by the self-defense assertion). We could also argue no crime was commmited (assault is only criminal if there's no legal justification).
> 
> I think a lot of the back-and forth here is just these semantics.



I was going to bring that up, how you admit you did X crime on the grounds you had this justifiable reason.     It depends how pedantic you want to be, because if there is no evidence the justifable reason existed you just did what ever violent crime would be applicable.

I mean you cant really deny you took part in it and then claim self defence as well, as how could you do a act of self defence and not do the act at the same time?

A few things sort of have a similar outline, carrying a knife here does, there are a list of recognised reasons and defences for carrying one.  Thats one that comes to mind, i cant recall others.  (there are more, but thats the one that crops up when i think on it)

A lot of laws seem to have some claus for you had a valid reason for breaking it, namely self defence/survival reasons. (at least a common law claus)


----------



## BigMotor

gpseymour said:


> My understanding is that in the US self-defense is an affirmative defense. That means it asserts that the statute in question (say an assault law) was broken, but there was legal justification for it. How we view that in this context becomes a matter of semantics. We could argue they broke the law (the assault is affirmed by the self-defense assertion). We could also argue no crime was commmited (assault is only criminal if there's no legal justification).
> 
> I think a lot of the back-and forth here is just these semantics.



What? You ran off and left me.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

BigMotor said:


> What? You ran off and left me.


??


----------

