Self-Defense laws in your state?

[PhotonGuy]

So....with that perspective in mind, my opinion is: if someone is trying to seriously hurt me, I'd use anything in my power -- my legs, feet, arms, anything -- to defend myself. I'd worry about the consequences later. Call me arrogant, but I stand by my choice.

Good for you. You're not arrogant for refusing to be a victim. If your attacker gets hurt they brought it upon themselves by being a bully and an assailant.

 

[Reedone816]

The first post actually said it all, the first thing is to pacify, that is legal.
Now if you put excessive amount of force, that is the difference among countries/states.
In mine, if you kill the person to pacify, it might be legal. But if you already pacify the person then do excessive force, it might've crossed the line.
I say might because there was some trials that defy those i mentioned above, like a junior high kid was thrown to jail for killing his father whom just killed his father (kid's grandfather).

Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk

 

[Psilent Knight]

Good for you. You're not arrogant for refusing to be a victim. If your attacker gets hurt they brought it upon themselves by being a bully and an assailant.

I completely agree. It's very sad that so many people are under the victim spell of obeying the law.

 

[PhotonGuy]

The problem is that you can be charged with using excessive force even if its used in self defense. If you've stopped an attacker and you continue to beat on them at that point it is no longer self defense. The objective of self defense is to stop an attacker so once you've stopped them there is no reason to keep using force against them. However, up until you stop them in my opinion you should not get in trouble for using excessive force.

 

[Psilent Knight]

The problem is that you can be charged with using excessive force even if its used in self defense. If you've stopped an attacker and you continue to beat on them at that point it is no longer self defense. The objective of self defense is to stop an attacker so once you've stopped them there is no reason to keep using force against them. However, up until you stop them in my opinion you should not get in trouble for using excessive force.

I agree with you. I just hate the thought of D.A.s turning reasonable force into excessive force and telling us common citizens what we can and cannot do to keep thugs and sociopaths from harming us and our families.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I agree with you. I just hate the thought of D.A.s turning reasonable force into excessive force and telling us common citizens what we can and cannot do to keep thugs and sociopaths from harming us and our families.

No doubt the D.A.s that do that are all snowflake liberals. Too many of them in the USA.

 

[jks9199]

The problem is that you can be charged with using excessive force even if its used in self defense. If you've stopped an attacker and you continue to beat on them at that point it is no longer self defense. The objective of self defense is to stop an attacker so once you've stopped them there is no reason to keep using force against them. However, up until you stop them in my opinion you should not get in trouble for using excessive force.

You are not charged with "excessive force." You're charged with assault, aggravated assault, manslaughtet, murder, etc. Your DEFENSE against this charge is self defense, and it is a question for the trier of fact as to whether your use of forcevwas reasonable and appropriate. If you don't understand why this matters, back up, and start over until you do. Or plan on finding yourself arrested and quite possibly imprisoned.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Reedone816]

I think what photonguy means is that one window of time when we try to stop the person while the person still a threat.
Like when a buglar is shot to the death the first time, it is self defense.
If we shot the buglar after we tied one up that is murder.

Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk

 

[Psilent Knight]

when a buglar is shot to the death the first time, it is self defense.

This is a great example of what I'm talking about. If I shoot a burglar/home invader in my house I am shooting to protect my family not necessarily to end his life. But if I do end his life I agree with you that it is self defense. BUT........it is all too often up to the police, courts and jury of your peers to determine that and to me this is just plain WRONG! If the creep had never burglarized my house in the first place the situation would have never come about in which I had to shoot him and possibly kill him. PERIOD!!

Now I know there are people here who are caught up in the mere letter of the law and who keep telling themselves that we live in America and the self defense laws here are fair and just and the law abiding citizen who was justified in taking another person's life can never be charged for excessive force blah, blah, blah. But those are the people who stick their heads in the sand and somehow seem to not notice the cases where the law abiding citizen who was (unfortunately) justified in taking another person's life end up in court anyway. I'm not looking at what the law says I'm looking at what the law actually does. And I'm also looking at the fact that these laws are an indirect way of informing us of how valuable our lives are (to them that is). Someone else telling you whether or not you can defend yourself and/or your family under certain circumstances and what you can and cannot do in order to defend yourself and/or your family under such circumstances is nothing less than these people informing you of the value they place on your life.

Being BORN and RAISED under such system (where this idea is constantly drilled into your head from childhood to adulthood) makes it near impossible for most people to seriously ponder on the logic and legitimacy of this.

 

[CB Jones]

BUT........it is all too often up to the police, courts and jury of your peers to determine that and to me this is just plain WRONG!

Who should make the determination if it was justified then?

The Self Defense Fairy?

You think that you should be able to make you own ruling on whether or not you were justified?

 

[jobo]

This is a great example of what I'm talking about. If I shoot a burglar/home invader in my house I am shooting to protect my family not necessarily to end his life. But if I do end his life I agree with you that it is self defense. BUT........it is all too often up to the police, courts and jury of your peers to determine that and to me this is just plain WRONG! If the creep had never burglarized my house in the first place the situation would have never come about in which I had to shoot him and possibly kill him. PERIOD!!

Now I know there are people here who are caught up in the mere letter of the law and who keep telling themselves that we live in America and the self defense laws here are fair and just and the law abiding citizen who was justified in taking another person's life can never be charged for excessive force blah, blah, blah. But those are the people who stick their heads in the sand and somehow seem to not notice the cases where the law abiding citizen who was (unfortunately) justified in taking another person's life end up in court anyway. I'm not looking at what the law says I'm looking at what the law actually does. And I'm also looking at the fact that these laws are an indirect way of informing us of how valuable our lives are (to them that is). Someone else telling you whether or not you can defend yourself and/or your family under certain circumstances and what you can and cannot do in order to defend yourself and/or your family under such circumstances is nothing less than these people informing you of the value they place on your life.

Being BORN and RAISED under such system (where this idea is constantly drilled into your head from childhood to adulthood) makes it near impossible for most people to seriously ponder on the logic and legitimacy of this.

if we take your post,at face value, it would seem to indicate. That breaking into a house carries the,death penalty, in that you are entitled to just shoot them regardless of the,actual risk they pose to you of your ,family. That can't be,seen as a fair view.

 

[CB Jones]

if we take your post,at face value, it would seem to indicate. That breaking into a house carries the,death penalty, in that you are entitled to just shoot them regardless of the,actual risk they pose to you of your ,family. That can't be,seen as a fair view.

In the US in most states, people can use lethal force against intruders if you believe you or your family is in danger.

 

[jobo]

In the US in most states, people can use lethal force against intruders if you believe you or your family is in danger.

well yes, here in the uk as well. But the guys point,seemed to be that he,should be,entitled to shoot them, just for being there, regardless of the threat

 

[Reedone816]

Cory Richard Eric Van Gilder, is a good example of grey area of self defense.
Last year he one punched ko a drunk, the drunk fall and his head hit the concrete, dead.
He just received not guilty verdict from juries.


Sent from my Lenovo A7010a48 using Tapatalk

 

[Psilent Knight]

You think that you should be able to make you own ruling on whether or not you were justified?

You bet I do. It's MY life, isn't it? It's the lives of MY family, isn't it? It's MY home, isn't it? You can keep the self defense fairy for yourself as I have no need for it.

 

[jks9199]

This is a great example of what I'm talking about. If I shoot a burglar/home invader in my house I am shooting to protect my family not necessarily to end his life. But if I do end his life I agree with you that it is self defense. BUT........it is all too often up to the police, courts and jury of your peers to determine that and to me this is just plain WRONG! If the creep had never burglarized my house in the first place the situation would have never come about in which I had to shoot him and possibly kill him. PERIOD!!

Now I know there are people here who are caught up in the mere letter of the law and who keep telling themselves that we live in America and the self defense laws here are fair and just and the law abiding citizen who was justified in taking another person's life can never be charged for excessive force blah, blah, blah. But those are the people who stick their heads in the sand and somehow seem to not notice the cases where the law abiding citizen who was (unfortunately) justified in taking another person's life end up in court anyway. I'm not looking at what the law says I'm looking at what the law actually does. And I'm also looking at the fact that these laws are an indirect way of informing us of how valuable our lives are (to them that is). Someone else telling you whether or not you can defend yourself and/or your family under certain circumstances and what you can and cannot do in order to defend yourself and/or your family under such circumstances is nothing less than these people informing you of the value they place on your life.

Being BORN and RAISED under such system (where this idea is constantly drilled into your head from childhood to adulthood) makes it near impossible for most people to seriously ponder on the logic and legitimacy of this.

Someone else is telling you that it is wrong to hurt other people. The fact that you have chosen to hurt someone who was attacking or otherwise placing you in danger is justification for you to do something that would ordinarily be illegal. It's very possible for even a clean self-defense situation to lead to an arrest and even trial. If your use of force was reasonable and justifiable under the law then you may find your criminal act excused. That's what it means to live under a system of law, rather than chaos and anarchy. You don't get to do whatever you want to somebody who dare to try to hurt you. The moment they ceased to be a threat to you or another person, your justification to harm them went away.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Psilent Knight]

if we take your post,at face value, it would seem to indicate. That breaking into a house carries the,death penalty, in that you are entitled to just shoot them regardless of the,actual risk they pose to you of your ,family. That can't be,seen as a fair view.

You should read my post again and this time focus on what I actually said instead of concocting your own interpretations of what I said. If I said it, I said it. If I didn't say, then I didn't say it. Two key things that I said in my post were:

1). I specifically said that if my house is burglarized by an uninvited stranger(s) I will be shooting to protect my family and myself and not specifically shooting to kill. BUT if I do so happen to kill him/them it's self defense because he/they broke into my house and I have a family to protect.

2). If he/they had NEVER broke into my house to begin with he/they would have NEVER been shot by me. END OF STORY!!!!!

Have you guys already forgotten about the two scum in Wisconsin who had burglarized a house and decided to also RAPE the mother and daughter and then killed them by SETTING THEM ON FIRE?!! If my home is burglarized I will shoot to protect my family and end the threat. If killing them is the way to do that then that's what has to go down. Revisit point #2 above.

 

[jobo]

You should read my post again and this time focus on what I actually said instead of concocting your own interpretations of what I said. If I said it, I said it. If I didn't say, then I didn't say it. Two key things that I said in my post were:

1). I specifically said that if my house is burglarized by an uninvited stranger(s) I will be shooting to protect my family and myself and not specifically shooting to kill. BUT if I do so happen to kill him/them it's self defense because he/they broke into my house and I have a family to protect.

2). If he/they had NEVER broke into my house to begin with he/they would have NEVER been shot by me. END OF STORY!!!!!

Have you guys already forgotten about the two scum in Wisconsin who had burglarized a house and decided to also RAPE the mother and daughter and then killed them by SETTING THEM ON FIRE?!! If my home is burglarized I will shoot to protect my family and end the threat. If killing them is the way to do that then that's what has to go down. Revisit point #2 above.

your just repeating what you said you didn't say in a,different way.
if you shoot someone who breaks into your house when they don't,actually pose a threat that's murder or attempted murder.
you might cover that up by saying you believed a threat was there, but in your heart you will know what you are

 

[Psilent Knight]

Someone else is telling you that it is wrong to hurt other people.

I'm not arguing against that at all. Of course it's wrong to unjustifiably hurt other people for absolutely no reason at all.

The fact that you have chosen to hurt someone who was attacking or otherwise placing you in danger is justification for you to do something that would ordinarily be illegal.

Good. I'm in agreement with this.

It's very possible for even a clean self-defense situation to lead to an arrest and even trial.

TRUE! Unfair, but TRUE!!

If your use of force was reasonable and justifiable under the law then you may find your criminal act excused.

And this is where I have a problem. The two statements in your quote that I placed in bold emphases. The so-called law determines whether or not defending yourself should be considered a criminal act or not. The so-called law WAS NOT THERE when I had to defend myself and/or my family so they have NO IDEA about the pressure of the situation and how fast it all went down. When defending yourself, especially if you're fighting for your life, you would be a complete and utter FOOL to think so-called excessive force. Defend yourself and survive is all you should be thinking about. Nothing more.

When I say that I'd rather be tried by 12 instead of carried by 6 I am not trying to come off as some sort of tough guy who has no fear or no conscious. When I say that I am implying that I do see the value in my life and in who I am and you would at least have a chance in court whereas you have ZERO CHANCE in the grave. At that point it's all over and your family will still have yet more sociopaths to worry about and now they must fend for themselves because you are no longer there to protect them.

That's what it means to live under a system of law, rather than chaos and anarchy.

I hate to break it to you my friend but we DO live under a system of chaos. Just pay attention to the news and you'll understand that. The so-called system of law isn't working. It hasn't worked and it's not designed to work the way you are convinced that it is. And by you lumping the term "Anarchy" with the word "chaos" let's me know that you have no idea what Anarchy really means and what it really is so I'll just leave that alone as that is a whole 'nother subject.

You don't get to do whatever you want to somebody who dare to try to hurt you.

Yes I Do. I want to defend myself so I get to fight back in order to do so. Fighting back and defending myself usually involves doing something to the person who is trying to harm me.

The moment they ceased to be a threat to you or another person, your justification to harm them went away.

I agree. You just need to realize that you cannot always dictate the altercation and at which point your attacker ceases to be a threat. He may cease via knockout or broken bones or loss of life. When $**t hits the fan in a FAST and CHAOTIC scuffle $**t happens and I'll be too busy focusing on surviving than to worry about your self defense laws.

 

[Psilent Knight]

your just repeating what you said you didn't say in a,different way.

EXACTLY! So I'll repeat something else for you:

If I said, then I said it. And If I didn't say it, then I did not say it.

So from now on if you respond to my posts please respond to my posts instead of an incorrect interpretation of my posts.

if you shoot someone who breaks into your house when they don't,actually pose a threat that's murder or attempted murder.

Only in your mind and those who think like you. The second he broke into my house he immediately became a threat. That's the mindset you must have in order to avoid more than simple burglary. Home invaders these days are KILLING the occupants of the house ON SIGHT. Long gone are the days of people sneaking into a window, stealing a few things and move along. Burglary is yesterday, HOME INVASIONS are today and they are two completely different animals. People routinely get badly hurt or DIE during home invasions.

you might cover that up by saying you believed a threat was there, but in your heart you will know what you are

No need to cover up anything. I will just tell the truth. I didn't BELIEVE, I KNEW a threat was there. And I do know what I am, a person who defended his family as I'm supposed to do.