Use of Force Law

[Deleted member 39746]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What? You ran off and left me.

??