Use of Force Law

[pgsmith]

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.

Being a misogynist in this world, on the other hand, involves trying to refuse responsibility.
Unless you're only 13, you've got a very poor understanding of how the world works. Being a decent person in this world takes a lot of responsibility. Male or female does NOT enter into the equation. Lots of people don't live up to that responsibility, and that's the criteria you should use!

And stay off my lawn!

 

[Mad_Dog]

Use of force law, huh? You can always do what I do, when some punk or drunk gives me lip I rely on the good ol' fashioned ground and pound.

 

[elder999]

Use of force law, huh? You can always do what I do, when some punk or drunk gives me lip I rely on the good ol' fashioned ground and pound.

You must have a good lawyer, and a whole team of psychiatrists, I'll bet.

 

[The_Awesome_User]

Well Republican states seem to trend to being more self defense frendly

 

[K-man]

Well Republican states seem to trend to being more self defense frendly

Depends on your definition of self defence.

 

[PhotonGuy]

So there has been some talk about self defense and the aftermath of using force in this other thread but as of now the thread has been closed pending staff review so I thought we could continue the discussion here. Moonhill99 comes across as a self proclaimed expert in the law regarding self defense and has claimed that except for in the state of Texas you will go to jail for shooting a criminal. Moonhill99 has also said that yelling could get you thrown in jail. Then again, there were also people on the thread who appeared to be quite knowledgeable on the subject but since the thread is now closed here is where I think it would be good to continue the discussion.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I think it might be smarter not to re-start the fight that got the other thread locked in the first place.

 

[lifelongstudent1]

If I may, it would also be helpful for people to understand the following doctrines of Law. If you ever get a chance take Massad Ayoob class on Armed Citizen MAG20.

Reasonable man Doctrine
Doctrine of Disparity
Doctrine of Necessity

You also want to understand what an Affirmative Defense is, as well as, state definition of an "aggressor".

 

[Tez3]

If I may, it would also be helpful for people to understand the following doctrines of Law. If you ever get a chance take Massad Ayoob class on Armed Citizen MAG20.

Reasonable man Doctrine
Doctrine of Disparity
Doctrine of Necessity

You also want to understand what an Affirmative Defense is, as well as, state definition of an "aggressor".

Not very helpful on an international site like this. It may not be helpful to Americans as I think I'm right in saying that laws depend on the State you are in?

 

[geezer]

I would hope that LEOs will (or should be) well informed on the laws regarding use of force applicable in their jurisdictions.

As far as the rest of us go, my approach to self-defense follows the well established sequence emphasizing -- in this order: Awareness, Avoidence, De-escalation, Escape, and lastly, a physical defensive response (which will almost certainly have legal repercussions).

Significantly, the first four in the list above can be applied anywhere without running afoul of the law!

 

[PhotonGuy]

Not very helpful on an international site like this. It may not be helpful to Americans as I think I'm right in saying that laws depend on the State you are in?

Some do. In the USA there are state laws that only apply to whatever state you're in and there are federal laws which apply everywhere in the country.

 

[Juany118]

Not very helpful on an international site like this. It may not be helpful to Americans as I think I'm right in saying that laws depend on the State you are in?

The reasonable man doctrine (short form reasonableness) is actually founded in English Common Law however and is even referenced, using different terms, on the Crown's Prosecution website where they describe self defense. I think sometimes people don't understand that while we have a Constitution with specific Amendments etc. the foundation of our legal system is the Common Law.

What individual State Laws do is define specifics. Some States require people to retreat vs defend, if retreat is an option where others don't. Some States place self defense as an "affirmative defense" where others require the State to also prove it was not self defense (if a self defense argument is raised). However when arguing self defense, regardless of the side arguing, the Common Law standard of reasonableness under like circumstances is the yard stick. (This mental chaos is what happens when a would be academic becomes a cop lol)

 

[PhotonGuy]

So anyway if you continue to beat on an attacker after you've stopped them than it is no longer self defense and at that point you will face charges. However I would think there must be some exceptions such as in the case of rape or sexual assault. If somebody tries to rape you and you successfully stop them and continue to beat on them the courts must be sympathetic about it and hopefully not charge you. After all, sexual assault and particularly rape is not taken lightly, and it shouldn't be.

 

[Tez3]

So anyway if you continue to beat on an attacker after you've stopped them than it is no longer self defense and at that point you will face charges. However I would think there must be some exceptions such as in the case of rape or sexual assault. If somebody tries to rape you and you successfully stop them and continue to beat on them the courts must be sympathetic about it and hopefully not charge you. After all, sexual assault and particularly rape is not taken lightly, and it shouldn't be.

No, because no one should be above the law.
Courts don't charge people, the courts don't get the case until evidence has been collected and ready to present. before that the facts have to be sifted and found out, at first call the police have no way of knowing whether it's rape or not so a painstaking and careful investigation takes place. The victim may well have carried on hitting the attacker but out of fear or emotional distress then the prosecutors will look at that and the chances are there will be no prosecution, only that of the attacker. The law here takes everything into consideration.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Well sexual crimes aren't taken lightly. Although rape is one of the most if not the most severe of all sexual crimes it is not the only sexual crime. Nevertheless even lesser sexual offenses should be taken seriously. If somebody is committing a sexual offense against you than you should fight back and use whatever level of force you can, up to and including deadly force. And you shouldn't get in trouble for refusing to be a victim.

 

[Juany118]

Well sexual crimes aren't taken lightly. Although rape is one of the most if not the most severe of all sexual crimes it is not the only sexual crime. Nevertheless even lesser sexual offenses should be taken seriously. If somebody is committing a sexual offense against you than you should fight back and use whatever level of force you can, up to and including deadly force. And you shouldn't get in trouble for refusing to be a victim.

The last sentiment is nice to think of but Statutes and Case Law differ. Such as...

The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating, except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be.

So lethal force to stop sexual crimes, other than forcible rape, are not justified in this section. Secondly, based on Case Law, the use of force must also A) stop when the threat stops, and B) be objectively reasonable. The law wants their to be a CLEAR distinction between self-defense and "street justice."

 

[Juany118]

The last sentiment is nice to think of but Statutes and Case Law differ. Such as...



So lethal force to stop sexual crimes, other than forcible rape, are not justified in this section. Secondly, based on Case Law, the use of force must also A) stop when the threat stops, and B) be objectively reasonable. The law wants their to be a CLEAR distinction between self-defense and "street justice."

Oh, for further clarity, in the same jurisdiction "serious bodily injury" is

"Bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."

 

[hoshin1600]

I always read posts about "what's legal" and I don't think many understand statute law VS case law.
It's the case law that get you in trouble when you thought you were in the right.

 

[Juany118]

I always read posts about "what's legal" and I don't think many understand statute law VS case law.
It's the case law that get you in trouble when you thought you were in the right.

Yepper. Just finished my annual updates last night (they now do it online) 6 credit hours of a total of 12 were simply about use of force. 98% of it, case law.

 

[PhotonGuy]

Oh, for further clarity, in the same jurisdiction "serious bodily injury" is

"Bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."

Well there are also some things that are universally at least in the USA considered serious bodily injury whether or not they do cause any disfigurement or the loss of any functions of the bodily organs. For instance rape is classified as serious bodily injury. Also kidnap falls under the category of serious bodily injury even though kidnap might not result in any injury at all.