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.)
Use of Force Law
- Thread starter Tgace
- Start date
Blotan Hunka
Master Black Belt
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,462
- Reaction score
- 20
Try searching for "defense of justification" or something like that.
chinto
Senior Master
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,026
- Reaction score
- 39
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
White Belt
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.
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
Senior Master
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,026
- Reaction score
- 39
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
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 367
- Reaction score
- 12
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
White Belt
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2008
- Messages
- 19
- Reaction score
- 2
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
Senior Master
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.
Each state will have different laws, and different interpretations. Even then, civil immunity in case like this may be qualified in various ways.
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.
[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.
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.
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!!!!!
No, that is incorrect.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...=958,771289&dq=castle+doctrine+michigan&hl=en
There is nothing in it about the intruder facing you or facing away from you when fired upon.
Hapkidoman
White Belt
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
Chen Style Basics Series -- Zuǒyòu chājiǎo (left and right rub with heel)- Latest: windwalker099
-
Taiji Quan for Self Defense
- Latest: windwalker099
-
-
-