The judge and jury here are involved in the actual court not before. The judge sentences after the jury has decided guilt.
Meeting force with force
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
The judge and jury here are involved in the actual court not before. The judge sentences after the jury has decided guilt.
Tez, I think you misunderstood the direction of my post. I was more directing it at the OP, who was trying to formulate general purpose advice, without taking the specific laws of the land, into account. Your advice is good, for your neck of the woods. (and I certainly was not trying to get in on that discussion, I simply don't know enough about your neck of the woods.)
I used to live in California, I currently live in Florida. In Florida, we have the "Stand Your Ground" law. But, I would be doing a disservice to someone in California, by telling them to stand their ground, as in California, you must retreat first, or be able to prove the you could not retreat.
The kind of research you have done for your neck of the woods, is what everyone should be doing. Know not only the law, but how it is enforced, where you are. In California, they can issue you a CCW permit. Out in the rural areas, it should work fine. Go to San Francisco, and regardless of the law, they don't want you carrying... you better have a lawyer on call, or you may see jail time for legally carrying.
Blanket statements do not work in these cases.
D
Deleted member 40306
Guest
For a responsible fighter I agree! The goal is to disengage. However in the world of knuckleheads we live in... a judge will view it as assault with deadly weapon before its viewed as self defense.
CB Jones
Senior Master
I disagree.
In my experience, the courts tend to support self defense if it is reasonable.
Last edited:
dvcochran
Grandmaster
I call that research by proxy. The best kind.
I agree with both of you.
It depends on where you live, what's the law, who the DA and judge are, and who you have had a fight with.
P.S. How good your lawyer is also a factor.
I think that's what he meant by "by proxy" - you got the information from someone who did the research (the trainers).Apart from the fact our training covered it all...ā¦..
The trainers didn't research they were in the job too! Besides in the UK it's not hard to read the information provided by the CPS. You can just pop onto the government websites to read anything you want to know, not exactly research as there's no effort involved.
I was not trying to start a semantic discussion about what constitutes "research." I was trying to point out that location, and the applicable local laws are very different from place to place, even if you "have the right to defend yourself."
Lets look at some situations in the US, as I am more familiar with US law. This is to demonstrate why it is important to know the law. Lets start by saying that everywhere in the US you have the "right to defend yourself."
1. You are in your own house, an unknown person is in your house with a knife in his hand. Can you shoot him? In many states, you must retreat to the bedroom first and can only shoot him if he follows. In some cities you may have to prove that your gun was unloaded, locked up and possibly disassembled. Not to many years ago, in some places in the US, it would be a problem that you even had a gun in the house. In some states, there is a thing called Castle Doctrine, which means you could shoot him, without retreating.
2. In this situation, the guy is on your property, coming to the door, but not inside, with his knife in hand. Can you shoot him? If you live in a state where you must retreat... see above. If your state has Castle Doctrine, does your Castle extend to your property, outside the walls of your house? These are differences, depending on how your version of Castle Doctrine is written.
3. In this situation, the guy is on your property, stealing your car, no knife this time. Can you shoot him? In addition to the above, does your state allow you to use deadly force to protect property? Some do, some do not.
4. In this situation, you are in a public place, legally carrying a CCW. You see an unknown guy, with a knife in his hand. Can you shoot him? Even to protect life, in some places you must retreat first. Even in some states that have Castle Doctrine, that would only apply to your house. Does your state have Stand your Ground, meaning you would not have to retreat first, outside your home? If you were in your car, and you are being car jacked at gun point, does Castle doctrine extend to your car? Or do you need Stand your Ground? Or do you need to let him throw you out of the car first? At that point can you shoot him to protect your property? Different states, different cities, different answers.
Even in one country, the US, you cannot make a blanket statement about when you can use force.
Further, you need to know what "self defense" means legally. In many places, it is legally defined, and has consequences. If you are in a fight and someone wants to charge you with assault, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Under certain legal definitions of "self defense" when you claim that, you are confessing to the assault, but saying there are circumstances that apply, making your illegal action, legal. It would be good to know what those where. Also, it shifts the burden of proof to you, the defendant. You are no longer innocent until proven guilty, you just confessed to being guilty, and now you have the burden of proof to show you met the circumstances. These can and do differ, place to place.
Yes, you can defend yourself. But, you need to know the local laws that will be applied. It can get quite messy and very particular. What is important is that you know them, whether or not you have to "research" to gain that knowledge or not.
Lets look at some situations in the US, as I am more familiar with US law. This is to demonstrate why it is important to know the law. Lets start by saying that everywhere in the US you have the "right to defend yourself."
1. You are in your own house, an unknown person is in your house with a knife in his hand. Can you shoot him? In many states, you must retreat to the bedroom first and can only shoot him if he follows. In some cities you may have to prove that your gun was unloaded, locked up and possibly disassembled. Not to many years ago, in some places in the US, it would be a problem that you even had a gun in the house. In some states, there is a thing called Castle Doctrine, which means you could shoot him, without retreating.
2. In this situation, the guy is on your property, coming to the door, but not inside, with his knife in hand. Can you shoot him? If you live in a state where you must retreat... see above. If your state has Castle Doctrine, does your Castle extend to your property, outside the walls of your house? These are differences, depending on how your version of Castle Doctrine is written.
3. In this situation, the guy is on your property, stealing your car, no knife this time. Can you shoot him? In addition to the above, does your state allow you to use deadly force to protect property? Some do, some do not.
4. In this situation, you are in a public place, legally carrying a CCW. You see an unknown guy, with a knife in his hand. Can you shoot him? Even to protect life, in some places you must retreat first. Even in some states that have Castle Doctrine, that would only apply to your house. Does your state have Stand your Ground, meaning you would not have to retreat first, outside your home? If you were in your car, and you are being car jacked at gun point, does Castle doctrine extend to your car? Or do you need Stand your Ground? Or do you need to let him throw you out of the car first? At that point can you shoot him to protect your property? Different states, different cities, different answers.
Even in one country, the US, you cannot make a blanket statement about when you can use force.
Further, you need to know what "self defense" means legally. In many places, it is legally defined, and has consequences. If you are in a fight and someone wants to charge you with assault, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. Under certain legal definitions of "self defense" when you claim that, you are confessing to the assault, but saying there are circumstances that apply, making your illegal action, legal. It would be good to know what those where. Also, it shifts the burden of proof to you, the defendant. You are no longer innocent until proven guilty, you just confessed to being guilty, and now you have the burden of proof to show you met the circumstances. These can and do differ, place to place.
Yes, you can defend yourself. But, you need to know the local laws that will be applied. It can get quite messy and very particular. What is important is that you know them, whether or not you have to "research" to gain that knowledge or not.
D
Deleted member 40306
Guest
Well, where I live its a business. The more you "VIOLATE" the more likely the city will make its cash from fining you for a misdemeanor. If we talk about lawyers, we're talking about a $500 minimum for a court appearance. If I go out after hours I carry a tactical type belt that can be used as a mid-range against knife attacks. I also remove temptation, by pocketing watches and jewelry and advise friends to do the same as they walk to their car or whatever. Also... I'm not commenting on home or automobile breaches. I'm referring to any situation anyone can easily have you on camera, which is the world I live in.
If someone is in your property, automobile or in your dirty clothes hamper... "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" lol
Even easy research counts as research, Tez. It doesn't have to be hard.
However in the UK the law on self defence is the same everywhere hence you can look it up easily. This is it. Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service
It's hardly research when most people know it anyway and a click will tell you what you don't know, it's not research, it's common sense.
Sure, and in a place that is 1/40th the size of the US, it's not particularly surprising that you have less regional variation.
Exactly. It's that much easier for us. Scotland has some laws of it's own but they aren't the substantive ones like 'self defence'. They have a slightly different court system, in criminal courts the jury has a third verdict it can bring in 'not proven', that means the defendant walks free from court but not free of suspicion for the rest of their lives.
I kinda like that.
It's an odd verdict, there's been many attempts to have it taken out but it hasn't happened yet. It often happens when the jury cannot agree ( the jury consists of 15 people) 8 jurors have to agree on the guilty verdict, doesn't happen too often, sometimes it's brought in as a rebuke to the prosecution who they feel have only made part of a case. It's something that does cause interesting debates.
I can see where it might be seen as a good thing to have, or a weak point in the legal system. I like the idea, if it is used well by juries.
If they are given that "not proven" verdict, can they later be brought back for re-trial?
