Have a question

[BTittel]

So, I went to a friends apartment and some nut job pulled a machete on us. We got him out of the apartment "without incident".
My question is, at what point do I have legal right to take action against the crazed individual? (I live in Kansas, and some wording in the laws is confusing).
Thanks!

 

[BTittel]

This is how the laws of Kansas reads: (Excerpt)

21-5220. Use of force; construction and application. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3220]
The provisions of this act are to be construed and applied retroactively.
History: L. 2010, ch. 124, § 1; April 29.
21-5221. Use of force; definitions. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3221]
(a) As used in article 32 of chapter 21 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated, and amendments
thereto:
(1) "Use of force" means any or all of the following directed at or upon another person or
thing:
(A) Words or actions that reasonably convey the threat of force, including threats to
cause death or great bodily harm to a person;
(B) the presentation or display of the means of force; or
(C) the application of physical force, including by a weapon or through the actions of
another.
(2) "Use of deadly force" means the application of any physical force described in
paragraph (1) which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to a person. Any threat to cause
death or great bodily harm, including, but not limited to, by the display or production of a
weapon, shall not constitute use of deadly force, so long as the actor’s purpose is limited to
creating an apprehension that the actor will, if necessary, use deadly force in defense of such
actor or another or to affect a lawful arrest.
(b) An actor who threatens deadly force as described in subsection (a)(1) shall be subject
to the determination in subsection (a) of K.S.A. 21- 5222, and amendments thereto, and not to
the determination in subsection (b) of K.S.A. 21-5222, and amendments thereto.
History: L. 2010, ch. 124, § 1; April 29.
21-5222. Use of force in defense of a person. [Amends K.S.A. 2010 Supp. § 21-3211]
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it
appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to
defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in
subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to
prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to
protect such person or a third person.
History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3211; L. 2006, ch. 194, § 3; L. 2010, ch. 124, § 4; L. 2010, ch.
136, § 21; L. 2011, ch. 30, § 7, July 1.

 

[hoshin1600]

I'm sure you will get some opinions here but we are only martial artists. You really need to talk to a lawyer in your area.

 

[BTittel]

I'm sure you will get some opinions here but we are only martial artists. You really need to talk to a lawyer in your area.

Thanks, I want sure if there were law enforcement officers here that could give some general guidelines, I'll ask a lawyer when I can, but it just thought I'd check here.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Hoshin is correct. I'm glad no one was injured.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. My opinion is that in general, a person has the right to defend themself against assault. If a person is reasonably in fear of their life, they may use deadly force.

However, local laws and circumstances differ.

What exactly happened?

 

[BTittel]

Hoshin is correct. I'm glad no one was injured.

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. My opinion is that in general, a person has the right to defend themself against assault. If a person is reasonably in fear of their life, they may use deadly force.

However, local laws and circumstances differ.

What exactly happened?

I understand the disclaimer.
We were standing around taking and this guy came over and threatened to "cut [us] up" and "kill [us]" he was mad at my buddy, so I stepped in between them and diffused the situation as best as I could, then he stormed off and disappeared.
From what I understand at this point, I could have used reasonable force to detain him until law enforcement came but everything turned out "ok". Thank goodness.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I understand the disclaimer.
We were standing around taking and this guy came over and threatened to "cut [us] up" and "kill [us]" he was mad at my buddy, so I stepped in between them and diffused the situation as best as I could, then he stormed off and disappeared.
From what I understand at this point, I could have used reasonable force to detain him until law enforcement came but everything turned out "ok". Thank goodness.

You did the right thing. Don't try to detain an armed angry person if they are leaving. That's the job of the police. It might have been legal to detain him, but it would have been foolish. Defend against attacks, if they are leaving, let em go.

 

[BTittel]

You did the right thing. Don't try to detain an armed angry person if they are leaving. That's the job of the police. It might have been legal to detain him, but it would have been foolish. Defend against attacks, if they are leaving, let em go.

Thanks. It took some verbal coaxing to convince him to leave, but my main concern was making sure my buddy want going to get injured. He's 50-something, and not a fighter. I've been training in martial arts and self defense for almost 20 years. So I think I know what I should or shouldn't do, regardless of my legal allowances, it just brought up a question for me....WHAT if things had goon horrible.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Thanks. It took some verbal coaxing to convince him to leave, but my main concern was making sure my buddy want going to get injured. He's 50-something, and not a fighter. I've been training in martial arts and self defense for almost 20 years. So I think I know what I should or shouldn't do, regardless of my legal allowances, it just brought up a question for me....WHAT if things had goon horrible.

When things go sideways you defend yourself. Until then you keep the genie in the bottle.

 

[BTittel]

When things go sideways you defend yourself. Until then you keep the genie in the bottle.

That was my line of thinking too, but I don't like jail too much, lol.
I really do appreciate the replies this far!

 

[jks9199]

First -- the caveat that I'm not a lawyer, I'm not providing legal advice, and you really should discuss legal questions with a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction has to be mentioned.

As a broad, general principle, you are permitted to use the force reasonably necessary to safely resolve a situation. Lots of weasel words in that sentence, huh... Things that matter in the analysis are the routes of escape and how practical escape was, the threat (a machete is a pretty damn serious threat) and how imminent it is (that guy right in front you with a machete versus you in Kansas threatening to cut me in Virginia with a machete... not likely, huh?), instigators/aggressors...

So... could you have inflicted harm on him to stop an attack? Probably. You could probably even justify some degree of preemptive action. But you probably couldn't have justified chasing him down the street to disarm him, unless you can paint the picture in front of a jury that he was still presenting a threat to people at that moment, and you HAD to stop him.

Question, though... why not just retreat into a room, and call 911 or your local police emergency number? It ain't "cool"... but it's a response that keeps you out of harms way, and protects everyone. And you probably avoid the concerns of going to jail... Which is a serious likelihood with any use of force, in any jurisdiction. If you look around, you'll find plenty of threads on it.

 

[BTittel]

First -- the caveat that I'm not a lawyer, I'm not providing legal advice, and you really should discuss legal questions with a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction has to be mentioned.

As a broad, general principle, you are permitted to use the force reasonably necessary to safely resolve a situation. Lots of weasel words in that sentence, huh... Things that matter in the analysis are the routes of escape and how practical escape was, the threat (a machete is a pretty damn serious threat) and how imminent it is (that guy right in front you with a machete versus you in Kansas threatening to cut me in Virginia with a machete... not likely, huh?), instigators/aggressors...

So... could you have inflicted harm on him to stop an attack? Probably. You could probably even justify some degree of preemptive action. But you probably couldn't have justified chasing him down the street to disarm him, unless you can paint the picture in front of a jury that he was still presenting a threat to people at that moment, and you HAD to stop him.

Question, though... why not just retreat into a room, and call 911 or your local police emergency number? It ain't "cool"... but it's a response that keeps you out of harms way, and protects everyone. And you probably avoid the concerns of going to jail... Which is a serious likelihood with any use of force, in any jurisdiction. If you look around, you'll find plenty of threads on it.

VERY sound points. We would have called 911, but neither of us had a phone handy to do so. And he was cutting off escape to any other room or exit.
I never really considered getting into a fight (for MANY reasons) so I used my gift of gab to convince him to leave, then locked the door to keep him out. We heard him leave so we left and filed a police report but nobody could find him.
And really, these responses are "more helpful" than legal advice as these are MORAL advice, that help me understand what the morally correct options are. I really like this forum for that reason, among others.
That said, I am going to chat with law enforcement and Lawyers (provided they don't charge thousands for that one question).
I prefer to abide by both lethal and moral standards.

Don't get me wrong I'm still going with what legal counsel says before "moral advice".

 

[jks9199]

Thanks. It took some verbal coaxing to convince him to leave, but my main concern was making sure my buddy want going to get injured. He's 50-something, and not a fighter. I've been training in martial arts and self defense for almost 20 years. So I think I know what I should or shouldn't do, regardless of my legal allowances, it just brought up a question for me....WHAT if things had goon horrible.

20 years, and you never took the time to look into the legal issues?

That's a brilliant example of one of the holes in most people's "self defense" training. They learn physical skills -- but don't learn what might happen if they use them. You might consider doing some research... books like Facing Violence or Meditations on Violence (Rory Miller), In the Name of Self Defense (Marc MacYound), American Law and the Trained Fighter (Carl Brown), Martial Arts and the Law (Carl Duff-- if you can find a copy)... are starting points.

 

[BTittel]

I've read them but I started when I was 14 so the legal aspect wasn't a big deal then.
I don't read legal jargon proficiently, but do try to understand them, then get articles that spot crap like this:
It didn’t include a "reasonableness requirement" when evaluating the threat to the residents standing their ground. It also didn’t provide guidance on when the use of "deadly force" was justified by people standing their ground.

But the Kansas law as originally written differed from the Florida law in a few key ways, according to an article published in the 2008 KU Law Review.

To add to this, I've had one aikido instructor, as our town has NO martial arts school.
This was just one of the strangest thing that's happened in a town of 5k people, and was wondering how others may have handled the situation
But on that note, I'm open to reading materials to expand my knowledge!!!

 

[Tgace]

Things vary by state somewhat.

Here in NY what you described would probably be charged as Menacing for displaying a weapon while making a verbal threat.

If he actually struck someone that could become an Assault all the way up to a Murder or Attempted Murder depending on the circumstances.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[hoshin1600]

I'm at work at the moment. I'll post more legal "jargon" latter. But you did the exact right thing. Even if the situation meets the legal requirements in a criminal court any physical action on your part opens you up to a civil action suit. Let's say you broke the guys arm trying to take the machete away. It could very well cost you your next year's salary paying for your legal defense in a civil court case.

 

[BTittel]

Things vary by state somewhat.

Here in NY what you described would probably be charged as Menacing for displaying a weapon while making a verbal threat.

If he actually struck someone that could become an Assault all the way up to a Murder or Attempted Murder depending on the circumstances.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

The police never did say (that I heard) what he could be charged with, sadly.

 

[BTittel]

I'm at work at the moment. I'll post more legal "jargon" latter. But you did the exact right thing. Even if the situation meets the legal requirements in a criminal court any physical action on your part opens you up to a civil action suit. Let's say you broke the guys arm trying to take the machete away. It could very well cost you your next year's salary paying for your legal defense in a civil court case.

Well I know here if someone breaks into my home and I were to shoot them, etc. but didn't kill them, I would more than likely be looking at serious charges.

 

[hoshin1600]

Well I know here if someone breaks into my home and I were to shoot them, etc. but didn't kill them, I would more than likely be looking at serious charges.

Actually that's an urban legend......doesn't matter if he dies,, your up $#!+$ creek without a paddle.

 

[BTittel]

Actually that's an urban legend......doesn't matter if he dies,, your up $#!+$ creek without a paddle.

I apologize, can't multi task. Someone was talking and I wrote what they said instead of what I meant to say:

If You Don’t Shoot Your Attacker In Kansas Then Waive Bye-Bye To Claiming Self-Defense
(From 2010 so may be out dated. But at least im doing research, trying to educate myself.)