Use of Force Law

[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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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… nor their size… it matters how well you understand the laws (in your area)… 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… whether you were "just defending yourself" or not… 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… 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… 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"… it really makes no difference to, and has no relation to, your perceived ideas of "freedom of speech"… 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]

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]

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.