Use of Force Law

[stonewall1350]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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’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 “Justification” 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, “laws and judicial decrees” 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, “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]

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, “induced” 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]

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]

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  Self-defense and defense of others.

(1) 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) 

(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) 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) 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) 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) 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) In this section "unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

 

[PhotonGuy]

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]

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]

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]

.

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]

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]

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.