International Self-defense law literature?

[Taiji Rebel]

Idaho woman, 85, fatally shot home intruder in 'heroic' act of self-defense

A county prosecutor said the woman acted in self-defense and ruled it was a case of justifiable homicide in a case review.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[hoshin1600]

I didn't read every word in every post, so I apologize if this was previously stated.

The problem I see (which is my non educated legal opinion) in this thread is that people think the written law( procedural law) is black and white and very definitive. I have read a procedural law like five times over and still I said to myself , what the heck did I just read. I belive these written laws are often left so vague it doesn't make sense. Because they are vague it takes "case law" to define it. Case law being previously tried cases that have influence on setting a precedent.
[Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues.]
This is why we pay good money for lawyers. To find previous cases in your jurisdiction similar to your own. What I say to students is , the law is not the law. Your possibility for conviction is determined by the people sitting in the court room during your trial. Guilt or innocence is subjective and has nothing to do with the outcome. Both sides need to PROVE your guilt or innocence. It's not written in a book somewhere.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

I didn't read every word in every post, so I apologize if this was previously stated.

The problem I see (which is my non educated legal opinion) in this thread is that people think the written law( procedural law) is black and white and very definitive. I have read a procedural law like five times over and still I said to myself , what the heck did I just read. I belive these written laws are often left so vague it doesn't make sense. Because they are vague it takes "case law" to define it. Case law being previously tried cases that have influence on setting a precedent.
[Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues.]
This is why we pay good money for lawyers. To find previous cases in your jurisdiction similar to your own. What I say to students is , the law is not the law. Your possibility for conviction is determined by the people sitting in the court room during your trial. Guilt or innocence is subjective and has nothing to do with the outcome. Both sides need to PROVE your guilt or innocence. It's not written in a book somewhere.

The notion of everything coming down to the attorneys is self-evident for anyone that’s been being attention long enough. That isn’t debated.

The premise of this line of questioning isn’t proving one’s innocence. It’s principles of risk mitigation. How far that gets us before the lawyer, is for a different thread.

 

[Hot Lunch]

If a country is:

- ethnically homogeneous
- has a collectivist culture
- is below "great power" status (i.e., has nothing to lose in terms of international image with unfair domestic policies and practices)

don't expect what's written in black and white to mean jack.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

If a country is:

- ethnically homogeneous
- has a collectivist culture
- is below "great power" status (i.e., has nothing to lose in terms of international image with unfair domestic policies and practices)

don't expect what's written in black and white to mean jack.

Brooo😂…please…can we do the NPE conversation in a different thread. Stay focused on places like EU and UK.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Brooo😂…please…can we do the NPE conversation in a different thread. Stay focused on places like EU and UK.

Hungary is in the EU. Remember the news anchor that tripped a refugee on live camera?

 

[HighKick]

The more I’ve learned about martial studies, the more I’ve realized that guns are just one of many means for applying lethal force.

“Disparity of force” is considered a prerequisite for justifiable use of lethal force, which can include mob violence, intentional use of potentially lethal weapon (like a glass bottle), a gun, a knife, man versus woman, etc.

My question revolves around self-defense law generally. As far as I can tell, within my limited knowledge, there doesn’t seem to be much actual legal distinction with the tool used to force.

Of course, there are charges regarding the possession of illegal weapons, but I don’t see how that’s relevant to legal perspectives on the use of force continuum.

Very generally speaking, there is not. But there are Huge grey areas in the intent and the conditions surrounding it.
Honestly, I would not touch the question with a 10' pole. It sounds like you are asking for legal advice. And a lawyer, I am Not.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Very generally speaking, there is not. But there are Huge grey areas in the intent and the conditions surrounding it.
Honestly, I would not touch the question with a 10' pole. It sounds like you are asking for legal advice. And a lawyer, I am Not.

I’m really asking for literature.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Hungary is in the EU. Remember the news anchor that tripped a refugee on live camera?

Nope, missed that one.

 

[Hot Lunch]

Nope, missed that one.

 

[hoshin1600]

The notion of everything coming down to the attorneys is self-evident for anyone that’s been being attention long enough. That isn’t debated.

The premise of this line of questioning isn’t proving one’s innocence. It’s principles of risk mitigation. How far that gets us before the lawyer, is for a different thread.

I just don't understand your concept of equating risk management with reading a law book.
To mitigate risk is easy, stay home and don't do anything.
To me the law is pretty simple, if you cause someone injury or harm you are legally liable and have broken the law. Even if you tossed them a stuffed bunny rabbit with a red ribbon around its neck.
You won't find a law written against that but if they are injured, it could be argued...
that you had full knowledge that the victim had a phobia of rabits and you premeditated the victims demise, Into oncoming traffic. The rabbit soft as it may be was purchased with the explicit intent on causing harm thus the stuffed rabbit should be considered a deadly weapon. This is why we the prosecution are asking for a charge of premeditated 1st degree murder, your honor.

Listen to Johnny cash's words
"Don't take your guns to town son, leave your guns at home Bill, don't take your guns to town".

It can be a fun exercise to investigate criminal law. Nothing wrong with knowledge. But if your trying to use that knowledge to justify your actions, we'll best you just leave those guns at home. I think Mr. Miyagi said, best defense, not be there.

 

[gyoja]

I’m really asking for literature.

Try the US State Department website.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

I just don't understand your concept of equating risk management with reading a law book.
To mitigate risk is easy, stay home and don't do anything.
To me the law is pretty simple, if you cause someone injury or harm you are legally liable and have broken the law. Even if you tossed them a stuffed bunny rabbit with a red ribbon around its neck.
You won't find a law written against that but if they are injured, it could be argued...
that you had full knowledge that the victim had a phobia of rabits and you premeditated the victims demise, Into oncoming traffic. The rabbit soft as it may be was purchased with the explicit intent on causing harm thus the stuffed rabbit should be considered a deadly weapon. This is why we the prosecution are asking for a charge of premeditated 1st degree murder, your honor.

Listen to Johnny cash's words
"Don't take your guns to town son, leave your guns at home Bill, don't take your guns to town".

It can be a fun exercise to investigate criminal law. Nothing wrong with knowledge. But if your trying to use that knowledge to justify your actions, we'll best you just leave those guns at home. I think Mr. Miyagi said, best defense, not be there.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Try the US State Department website.

Ah! Look at that! A response that is both helpful and relevant😁!

 

[O'Malley]

Just so we’re on the same page, that you know what I’m talking about.

Scenario—woman in kitchen is having her throat crushed by 80kg athletic man. She realizes there is a knife by her, grabs it, icepicks it into his neck. She retracts it crudely at an angle, causing the blade to tear tissue on the way out. This is a proper kitchen knife carving a good hole, so he’s not living long after that. He reels, collapses, and she runs for it. (Obviously, we can nit pick the technicalities of how this would occur, but they are irrelevant to the conversation)

Then change the location, and make the weapon less scandalous, like hefty wrench or hammer for example.

What are the principles for how UK and EU law handle this?


Honestly, I’m not too familiar with the etymology of “vulgarization.”

There are no EU standards that I'm aware of but the jurisdictions that I know better use the following cumulative criteria:

The attack must be unjustified, i.e. without valid reason
The defense must be for oneself or for another person
The defense must be immediate
The defense must be necessary for its protection, that is, the only solution is the response
The defense must be proportional, i.e. equal to the severity of the attack

Depending on the country, you can have rebuttable presumptions of self defense on certain circumstances (e.g. home invasions). You'd have better luck looking up the law of the specific country that you plan to visit.

And I base this on my own experiences in Turkey. Particularly, with a common scam where if you hand a taxi driver a 50TL bill, they'll claim it was only a 5 and demand more. I myself almost got arrested for this, until I caved and handed the driver more money in front of the officer. If a Turk wrongs you in Turkey, you'd better let them win unless you yourself are a Turk. Plain and simple.


And I told you what these sources were.

Which means mine are valid 😉

While I have no trouble believing your anecdote (it happens in lots of places, FWIW they tried a worse scam on me at JFK airport), the attitude of one cop in a 50TL quarrel may be different from how the justice system will treat foreigners in battery trials. Don't you think that is a pretty big leap in logic?

I don't know what I did to this guy. He came at me like a shark after blood.

Nothing personal, really. I just called bollocks because these are completely baseless assertions. And TBH, in general, when you're traveling to a country, I would refrain from having the attitude that the authorities and locals are out to get you/foreigners. That's likely to get you in trouble, and you might not seek proper help when **** does hit the fan.

I just googled this one. I think O'Malley needs to go in his comment section and tell him he's lying.

Is your source seriously a YouTube video? This guy is one of the "Passport bros" you mentioned, right? From what I've gathered looking them up, they are a community of Western men who were unhappy with their love life in their home countries (because feminism etc.) and decided to go to developing countries where they have a comparatively strong economic power and date the locals. Do you think it's a good source on how a country works?

 

[GreenieMeanie]

There are no EU standards that I'm aware of but the jurisdictions that I know better use the following cumulative criteria:

The attack must be unjustified, i.e. without valid reason
The defense must be for oneself or for another person
The defense must be immediate
The defense must be necessary for its protection, that is, the only solution is the response
The defense must be proportional, i.e. equal to the severity of the attack

Depending on the country, you can have rebuttable presumptions of self defense on certain circumstances (e.g. home invasions). You'd have better luck looking up the law of the specific country that you plan to visit.

I need a more specific definition than “unjustified.”

In states with subsidiary self-defense (defender may or may not have a legal right to be present, but cannot defend against an attacker unless denied the ability to retreat), that sounds pretty similar (although not necessarily prosecuted fairly):

A reasonable person should be in agreement that the attacker showed capability and opportunity to attack.

A reasonable person should be in agreement that an attack seemed imminent, and that the attacker displayed ”furtive movement” (Physical bodily movement associated with either reaching for a weapon or other activity towards either causing harm or unlawful evasion from authorities).

A reasonable person should be in agreement that escape was impossible.

The defense should be reasonable or proportionate to the “disproportionality“ of the attack.

This sounds pretty similar to the UK, which is where I’m guessing you‘re from, and I’ve heard from respected people in the field that this is a pretty safe approach wherever you are. The main difference is the UK forcing people to carry a tool improvisable as a weapon, that is convincing enough as just being a tool, like they’re serfs in feudal Japan. Or if you’re a hood in the council estates, then you just carry a ditch knife and mind your business.

 

[marvin8]

Anyone know of technical literature, similar to Massad Ayoob’s material, that covers the law generally in western countries? Autonomous self-defense, subsidiary self-defense? Which countries recognize concepts such as “doctrine of necessity“ and “doctrine of competing harms”? Possible differences in how you talk to police?

A couple articles on international self-defense law by Jens Ohlin.

"The Doctrine of Legitimate Defense"

The Six Elements of Legitimate Defense

Abstract. This chapter pays close attention to the general principles governing the structure of self-defense in domestic legal systems and applied into th

academic.oup.com

 

[GreenieMeanie]

A couple articles on international self-defense law by Jens Ohlin.

"The Doctrine of Legitimate Defense"

The Six Elements of Legitimate Defense

Abstract. This chapter pays close attention to the general principles governing the structure of self-defense in domestic legal systems and applied into th

academic.oup.com

Precisely what I’m looking for. Thanks.

 

[Hot Lunch]

While I have no trouble believing your anecdote (it happens in lots of places, FWIW they tried a worse scam on me at JFK airport), the attitude of one cop in a 50TL quarrel may be different from how the justice system will treat foreigners in battery trials. Don't you think that is a pretty big leap in logic?

Considering that the police officer would have arrested me had I not given into the driver's scam, I'd say not. Again, those sailors who were physically assaulted by local Turks. As I said before, if you're wronged by a Turk in Turkey, you'd better let them win unless you're a Turk yourself. Because you will lose. Whether you lose the easy way or the hard way is up to you. I knew that, and that those sailors knew that.

Nothing personal, really. I just called bollocks because these are completely baseless assertions.

Wrong. Basis = my experience and the experience of others.

And TBH, in general, when you're traveling to a country, I would refrain from having the attitude that the authorities and locals are out to get you/foreigners. That's likely to get you in trouble, and you might not seek proper help when **** does hit the fan.

That depends on the country.

Is your source seriously a YouTube video?

Yes. Have you got a source to counter that? Let's see it.

This guy is one of the "Passport bros" you mentioned, right?

I don't believe he identifies as a Passport Bro.

From what I've gathered looking them up, they are a community of Western men who were unhappy with their love life in their home countries (because feminism etc.) and decided to go to developing countries where they have a comparatively strong economic power and date the locals. Do you think it's a good source on how a country works?

Why not? His relationship life in the Philippines has nothing to do with what he has seen and experienced there in terms of the law or how locals interact with foreigners. Again, if you think he's full crap, the comments are not turned off. Go tell him he's full of crap. But beware: there are Filipinos in the comments confirming what he's saying.

 

[GreenieMeanie]

Considering that the police officer would have arrested me had I not given into the driver's scam, I'd say not. Again, those sailors who were physically assaulted by local Turks. As I said before, if you're wronged by a Turk in Turkey, you'd better let them win unless you're a Turk yourself. Because you will lose. Whether you lose the easy way or the hard way is up to you. I knew that, and that those sailors knew that.


Wrong. Basis = my experience and the experience of others.


That depends on the country.


Yes. Have you got a source to counter that? Let's see it.


I don't believe he identifies as a Passport Bro.


Why not? His relationship life in the Philippines has nothing to do with what he has seen and experienced there in terms of the law or how locals interact with foreigners. Again, if you think he's full crap, the comments are not turned off. Go tell him he's full of crap. But beware: there are Filipinos in the comments confirming what he's saying.

Gentleman—both of you are correct. We can unify the theory. These are not mutually exclusive principles.