Where is the legal line?

[nijima2000]

So, a while ago I began wondering, what legal limitations are there for self defense? I have a rough idea but I need to know specifics. I know that if some guy calls you stupid or something, its not legally acceptable in most societies to go for the kill. I would like to know, what are the justifications for the use of different level of force? Where is the line between self defense, and murder?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It differs by jurisdiction. You need to Google and read the laws for self defense in your own nation and state. Hire a lawyer if you do not understand. Most of us aren't lawyers and can't give legal advice.

My opinion is that a person can generally defend themselves against assault. They can (depending on jurisdiction) use deadly force to defend their lives if their lives are in danger. Very basic, there are many nuances.

You cannot commit violence against a person who merely calls you names.

 

[nijima2000]

Thanks, by any chance do you know what constitutes mortal danger, because it seem to me that for the most parts it would just be both people upping the anti until ones out?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Thanks, by any chance do you know what constitutes mortal danger, because it seem to me that for the most parts it would just be both people upping the anti until ones out?

If two people are doing that they are both wrong.

Typically, the standard is that a reasonable and prudent person would believe they were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm before they would have the right to defend themselves with deadly force.

What is a reasonable and prudent person?

Reasonable / Prudent Man Law & Legal Definition

If you are looking for definite answers, there aren't any. Learn the laws of YOUR STATE. Google is your friend there.

 

[nijima2000]

thanks (especially for the dictionary link), my mental picture of how the scenario would progress is a it weird. Also, google is not my friend, i have no ability to phrasing things so i get the right answers, which is why i prefer to ask people, people just understand.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Expanded self-defense laws

 

[Tgace]

Use of Force Law

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[EddieCyrax]

http://www.amazon.com/Name-Self-Def...6&sr=1-1&keywords=in+the+name+of+self+defense

Good general book on the topic. The author's writing style can be a bit wondering at times, but the information is very useful.

 

[Dirty Dog]

The "legal line" is right over there. No, wait, it's over here. Now it's way out there. Now it... where the hell did it go???

 

[Tez3]

Our laws on self defence are actually clear cut however people's understanding of them and what they think they are is sadly lacking. It's also a bit of a political issue. You get people shouting out about how we can't defend ourselves in our homes, how we can't use weapons etc but they are actually very wrong, it makes good politicking though. We've had a couple of cases where someone has claimed self defence and it's very clearly not been, the tabloids jump on the bandwagon and off it rolls. One example was a man who shot and killed a lad he said had broken into his house, up gets the media and certain political groups in the UK (and the US) saying how terrible it is we can't defend ourselves etc etc etc. At the trial however, other facts came out, the man had illegal weapons, had already been warned about making threats to kill his own brother, then he had lured the lad the lad to his house which was set up with lethal booby traps, when the lad run out and down the path the man shot him in the back killing him. Another case was where a man and his brother had chased someone who had broken in their house up the road for some distance and beaten him to death with an iron bar despite the fact they weren't actually sure it was the man who had broken in.
There is a lot of misunderstandings when it comes to the law ( in any country) a lot of it is hearsay on par with the old chestnut about martial artists needing to register their hands with the police lol.

 

[Buka]

Nijima, are there any lawyers in your dojo, or any police officers? They might have some ideas about where you could get some info in your area, or who you might speak to.

 

[ShortBridge]

Here's another good book from some guys well informed on the subject and very interested in it.

http://www.amazon.com/Scaling-Force...&qid=1456394461&sr=1-1&keywords=scaling+force

Personally, I don't feel it's an especially fruitful subject for me to riddle on and I'm very careful about giving advice along these lines to my students for a few reasons. You should never want to do harm to anyone if you have alternatives. If you have no alternatives, you shouldn't (and won't) be worried about the consequences of defending yourself, because the consequences of not defending yourself are too dire.

The law officially is very different by jurisdiction, but what's much worse than that is that in a jury trial, anything can happen. Likely the factors that sway the jury will be things that you could not have known at the time; the person suffered from mental illness or was a parent or a son. Race can be a factor. Attitudes about "stand your ground" laws can be a factor. How good the prosecutor is vs the defense lawyer you can afford.

You just really don't want your future to be hanging on the decision of 12 strangers. But if you have no alternative, you won't worry about those things in the moment.

As a side note, if you ever do need to defend yourself and do end up causing harm to someone, right or wrong, you'd better hope you never posted on the internet that you wanted to be known as a "human killing machine". It will get discovered and it will influence the prosecution.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Reinforcing what's been said, consider this:

"Your Honor, it was self-defense. A bunch of people I do not know on Martial Talk who are neither lawyers nor police officers told me it was OK."​

Let us know how that works out.

 

[IceStorm]

I always think in any given threatening situation its your role to de escalate things and remove yourself and others from the situation
iv been lucky that iv never ended up being in a fight, been threatened by drunks a few times normally i'm out numbered but iv always been able to talk them down or recognize the issue coming and get to safety, closest iv come to an actual fight was myself and 3 others, my friends were drunk like the 30 odd people surrounding my car with threatening behaviour i was able to talk my way into my car get in and drive it further up the road and call the police
one of my friends got hit with an iron bar, i could not talk him into getting into the car, someone on their side broke his wrist trying to punch through the top of my car (convertible)
the police arrived and since they were out numbered the police left, nobody was arrested we of course reported it etc my friend was ok we got him home, he had a cracked rib which did not seem to bother him

i work on the idea not to give someone reason to what to attack me, i would imagine if someone wanted to attack me its either due to drink/drugs or to rob me, drink and drugs i should be able to spot them and avoid it, robbing me just let them take whatever they want its just stuff

 

[JR 137]

As has been said, every jurisdiction is different. But a common theme generally applies...

Meet force with equal force, and stop once the threat is neutralized.

Seems pretty standard, but it's quite vague when you truly dissect it and apply it to real world situations. What exactly is equal force? How do you truly determine the threat has been neutralized?

I've heard stories where burglars have been shot, and the home owner went to jail due to excessive force, i.e. the jury was convinced that the shooter's life wasn't in danger. There's also reportedly been instances where someone was attacked, the "victim" defended him/herself and didn't stop once the threat was over, leading to serious injuries to the "attacker," landing the "victim" in jail; such as a person attacks me, I counter, knock them down, and keep stomping their head while they're down, causing permanent brain damage.

Where is the line drawn between equal and excessive force, and when an attack is truly neutralized? Ask a lawyer or police officer. Then try to convince a jury.

Edit: I didn't realize this was in the law enforcement section when I posted it. Have any LEOs chimed in yet?

 

[Tez3]

Where is the line drawn between equal and excessive force, .......... ?

Here in the UK the CPS ( the people who do the prosecuting) have this guidance on that from here. Self Defence: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service


A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

• self-defence; or
• defence of another; or
• defence of property; or
• prevention of crime; or
• lawful arrest.

In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

• was the use of force necessary in the circumstances, i.e. Was there a need for any force at all? and
• was the force used reasonable in the circumstances?

The courts have indicated that both questions are to answered on the basis of the facts as the accused honestly believed them to be (R v Williams (G) 78 Cr App R 276), (R. v Oatbridge, 94 Cr App R 367).

 

[IceStorm]

my issue with the UK law is where does premeditation come in, when you talk about having something nearby
if someone breaks in i don't know how they are armed of if they are armed, so is picking up my air pistol or the wooden nun chucks classed as premeditation since i don't shoot currently and i don't practice or train with nun chucks, if i have a knife if forced to use it would it be classed as excessive (chances are shortly i will have a machete or billhook and it would have to be kept in my room as i only have my room for my stuff)
it makes sense if someone breaks in i would pickup the best weapon i have near me yet personally i would not want to use a weapon that can cause serious harm unless i really had no choice
yet when you look around the guides suggest being prepared is the key, mainly thats just get an alarm, have a phone nearby etc

if i was to use my pistol what would i have to show that i did not buy the weapon for self defence?

 

[Buka]

As has been said, every jurisdiction is different. But a common theme generally applies...

Meet force with equal force, and stop once the threat is neutralized.

Seems pretty standard, but it's quite vague when you truly dissect it and apply it to real world situations. What exactly is equal force? How do you truly determine the threat has been neutralized?

I've heard stories where burglars have been shot, and the home owner went to jail due to excessive force, i.e. the jury was convinced that the shooter's life wasn't in danger. There's also reportedly been instances where someone was attacked, the "victim" defended him/herself and didn't stop once the threat was over, leading to serious injuries to the "attacker," landing the "victim" in jail; such as a person attacks me, I counter, knock them down, and keep stomping their head while they're down, causing permanent brain damage.

Where is the line drawn between equal and excessive force, and when an attack is truly neutralized? Ask a lawyer or police officer. Then try to convince a jury.

Edit: I didn't realize this was in the law enforcement section when I posted it. Have any LEOs chimed in yet?

Used to be, retired now.