Castle Doctrine and Knife defense...

[Cruentus]

I don't think all states have what is called the "Castle Doctrine," but thankfully many states (including mine) do. The Castle Doctrine states that when you are on your own property, you are not required by law to retreat from a threat.

Now, first off, let me explain a few things so there aren't any misconceptions about how this works...

#1. Generally speaking, you are required by law to retreat from a threat or altercation unless doing so would jeopardize the safety of yourself or another innocent person. The Castle doctrine makes an exception to this general rule.

#2. Just because someone is unlawfully on your property or in your home, this does not give you the right to kill them. Lethal force, or the threat of death or great bodily harm must still be imminently present to use the knife on the intruder. So, stalking and knifing an intruder or slashing at a fleeing intruder is legally not an option (unless lethal force is justified).

#3. Although one is not required to retreat by the castle doctrine, one cannot use lethal force (a knife) to defend property.

#4. Practically speaking, the castle doctrine becomes stronger the closer you get to the core of your home. In other words, you'll have a tough time justifying cutting up your neighbor who is standing on your lawn then if he is inside your home.

#5. You still have to uphold the "Reasonable Man Standard" and you still have to respond with the use of reasonable force on an intruder. The reasonable man standard asks , "Would a reasonable person faced with the same circumstances respond in the same way?" Reasonable use of force means that you cannot deploy lethal force unless it is legally justified just like you were on the street, even if you are in your home. This can get very tricky, as what a jury in a safe courtroom might consider "reasonable" might be very different then what someone defending themselves might consider reasonable at the time.

#6. Despite the above facts, the mere presence of an intruder in the home gives the homeowner a broader range of discretion when assessing a threat in the home. The imminent threat of bodily harm or death is more easily justifiable due to the mere fact that there is an intruder in the home.

So, in a nutshell, when comparing a lethal force knife defense circumstance inside the home with a circumstance on the street, the only things that the castle doctrine changes is that technically you're not required to flee your own home when there is an intruder, and technically it is easier to assume lethal force with an intruder then on the street.

So, with this understanding, let's talk about what a knife in the home for defense IS good for, and WHAT IT IS NOT good for, as I feel a lot of misconceptions are being taught on this subject today.

I'll leave you all to discuss...

Paul Janulis

 

[AC_Pilot]

In my state (WA) no one has been prosecuted in recent years if the intruder is breaking into the home, or is in the home facing the homeowner, and the criminal is shot. There is no requirement to retreat in our homes or on the street. The reasonable man doctrine prevails in most cases, but we can shoot or use other deadly means to stop any felony crime against the body of an innocent person. If it's just a fist fight and no imminent bodily harm is forthcoming then the reasonable man cannot shoot. But he can use less lethal means to assist.

In other states like CA, there is an absolute requirement to retreat on the street. And concealed permits are difficult if not impossible to obtain in Cali, depending on locale, knives are verboten. This is why we see so many violent crimes there as opposed to other locales where retreat is not required. It's like the old saying 'An armed society is a polite society." Washington State seems overall to be a much more polite place than CA.. I've lived in both for many years..

My only use for a knife in the home is the one under my mattress, in the way unlikely case I am surprised and tied up. My Rottweiler (I had two until last week when my beloved girl Rottie passed on from old age) is assurance that won't happen. I'm much more likely to actually be looking at a criminal pointing one of my many bladed weapons at me, taken off my arms room wall. but none of this is actually likely to happen where I live.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I keep several long, fixed blades stashed strategically around the house. Nuts, I know, but nevertheless...

I have had the opportunity to chase an intruder out of the house with a katana, and a doberman...he stealthed into the house, and was walking upstairs when he stepped on the dog, who sleeps on the stairs. I heard her yelp, him run down the stairs and through the kitchen, knocking through chairs as he ran. At the yelp, I was up, drawn, and in pursuit. I would get him in line of sight just before he rounded the next corner towards the back yard sliding door. I damn near caught him in the back yard (dog had him by the ankle, slowing him down), but he jumped a wall, and dropped into a yard that provided him great cover with lots of foliage.

I believe that, in the house or in very close quarters pursuit, I had the advantage...so I pressed on. However, going into thick brush against a dude who may now have had the time and space necessary to collect himself and free his firearm from a belt, boot, etc., was not a good idea. I broke off, went inside, and got the side by side. Athena was barking her head off as he went over the next wall, and the next one. I got back outside too late to press the chase without freaking out the neighbors.

In the context of the thread, I was in clear violation of the Castle dealio. He was on the exit, but I swear, for hurting my dog on the way in, I woulda slashed him down the back on the way out if I coulda caught him. I might be able to make the weak argument that he must have meant me harm by going upstairs to the sleeping places, and not looting the silverware and electronics downstairs....but I doubt it would have kept me out of jail.

In my pea little brain, there is no retreat when someone is violating my home. I have force escalation strategies and weapons planned around the house. If my hands aren't enough, I have ebony fighting sticks from the Phillipines, oak staves, and bokken planted around the house. If that's not sufficient, I have blades of varying length stashed within a strides length from major household intersections and butt-plant spots. If the threat is greater than steel could manage, I gots me boom-shooters set in various locations, as well.

Along the lines of the Psychology of Confrontation Theory, I figure that, if a man is in my house presenting a threat, he has already passed, and disregarded, several prominent physical and psychological barriers. To do that, he means me harm, and poses a very real physical threat. The only piece to be determined next is the level of lethality required in responding to this threat responsibly.

Regards,

Dave

PS -- Don't mess with my dogs...I'll kill ya. They are the closest I've ever had to kids, and the instinct to shelter and protect is placed/misplaced/displaced right there.

 

[Rich Parsons]

I don't think all states have what is called the "Castle Doctrine," but thankfully many states (including mine) do. The Castle Doctrine states that when you are on your own property, you are not required by law to retreat from a threat.

Now, first off, let me explain a few things so there aren't any misconceptions about how this works...

#1. Generally speaking, you are required by law to retreat from a threat or altercation unless doing so would jeopardize the safety of yourself or another innocent person. The Castle doctrine makes an exception to this general rule.

#2. Just because someone is unlawfully on your property or in your home, this does not give you the right to kill them. Lethal force, or the threat of death or great bodily harm must still be imminently present to use the knife on the intruder. So, stalking and knifing an intruder or slashing at a fleeing intruder is legally not an option (unless lethal force is justified).

#3. Although one is not required to retreat by the castle doctrine, one cannot use lethal force (a knife) to defend property.

#4. Practically speaking, the castle doctrine becomes stronger the closer you get to the core of your home. In other words, you'll have a tough time justifying cutting up your neighbor who is standing on your lawn then if he is inside your home.

#5. You still have to uphold the "Reasonable Man Standard" and you still have to respond with the use of reasonable force on an intruder. The reasonable man standard asks , "Would a reasonable person faced with the same circumstances respond in the same way?" Reasonable use of force means that you cannot deploy lethal force unless it is legally justified just like you were on the street, even if you are in your home. This can get very tricky, as what a jury in a safe courtroom might consider "reasonable" might be very different then what someone defending themselves might consider reasonable at the time.

#6. Despite the above facts, the mere presence of an intruder in the home gives the homeowner a broader range of discretion when assessing a threat in the home. The imminent threat of bodily harm or death is more easily justifiable due to the mere fact that there is an intruder in the home.

So, in a nutshell, when comparing a lethal force knife defense circumstance inside the home with a circumstance on the street, the only things that the castle doctrine changes is that technically you're not required to flee your own home when there is an intruder, and technically it is easier to assume lethal force with an intruder then on the street.

So, with this understanding, let's talk about what a knife in the home for defense IS good for, and WHAT IT IS NOT good for, as I feel a lot of misconceptions are being taught on this subject today.

I'll leave you all to discuss...

Paul Janulis

Paul,

I am confused, for from my experience, and discussions with police officers and lawyers here in the state of MI, that you are required to atempt to leave your property, even if the person is in your house. If you are trapped you are not to use lethel force unless it is required. i.e. Hide yourself in the closet, and hope the bad guy does not find you. If you or your family is threatened by the intruder and the threat is life threaten, then you are allowed to use force, that is reasonable.

Confused, sorry.

 

[Cruentus]

Rich,

I don't blame you for the confusion. As I always say, what is actually on the books and how it applies in court are two different animals.

According to the Castle doctrine, your not technically required to leave your property if there is a threat. All the other applications of reasonable force apply, however.

Where this gets tricky is the whole idea of the "Reasonable Man Standard."

Lets say the threat is imminent; for example an intruder charges into your bedroom waking you up out of a dead sleep. You have some leeway to assume that because this person is unlawfully intruding and confronting you in an aggressive manner in your home, that the intruder intends to do grave bodily harm or death to you. This means that in that circumstance if you, in startled panic, deploy your knife that rests on your nightstand into the intruder as he charges on you, this is a justifiable action. A jury/judge will most likely determine that a reasonable person in that circumstance would wake up in a startled panic and use the quickest lethal means avaible for defense, and would assume that the charging intruder had the ability opportunity and intent to harm him. Thereby because a reasonable person could likely have reacted in that way, you would have upheld the reasonable man standard.

Lets say that you hear an intruder down the hall and in your kitchen. You decide to take a knife and creep past your front door and into the kitchen, and you sneak up behind him and slit his throat. Good luck convincing a jury that a reasonable person acting in self-defense would have done the same thing. Most likely you will have violated the reasonable man standard, and you may find yourself facing charges for manslaughter.

So, from my experience, most cops or attorneys giving advice will give use the Reasonable Man Standard when giving the advice, even if they don't know the terminology behind it. They will give advice like "hide or try to escape before defending yourself" to keep you out of trouble; to keep you from violating the reasonable man standard in such a situation. Technically, according to the castle doctrine, you aren't required to flee your home. But, if they determine that a reasonable person WOULD have been able to escape and would have gone to the neighbors to call the police instead of stalking and killing the intruder, or intentionally putting themselves in front of an intruder to create the lethal force encounter, then you will find yourself facing charges.

So, the short answer, Rich, is that you are correct. Just because someone is on your property, you don't legally have the right to kill them. You will be under the scrutiny of the reasonable man standard if you deploy lethal force, even in your own home.

There are a lot of myths revolving around the castle doctrine, and the myths worsen when a knife is introduced as the weapon of choice. This why I thought this would make a good topic. The biggest myth is wrongfully assuming that the standards of reasonable force don't apply when one is in their own home; this myth will end you up in jail if you do get caught in the wrong circumstance. The castle doctrine gives you added legal protection when you are on your property, but it does not give you free reign on your property. An example of how the castle doctrine gives you added protection would be if your nieghbor is in the street yelling at you, and you decide to go inside to call the police, and he decides to follow you into your own home to hurt you, forcing you into an altercation, then the question of "why didn't you flee when he came into your house" will not come into play.

So, because the castle doctrine does not legally give someone free reign in their homes when it comes to hurting an intruder, there are some wise tactics and some very unwise tactics to consider, especially if the knife is the weapon of choice. I'll discuss these further in a following post, but I would like to give others the chance to respond and offer their viewpoints first...

Paul

 

[Cruentus]

In my state (WA) no one has been prosecuted in recent years if the intruder is breaking into the home, or is in the home facing the homeowner, and the criminal is shot. There is no requirement to retreat in our homes or on the street. The reasonable man doctrine prevails in most cases, but we can shoot or use other deadly means to stop any felony crime against the body of an innocent person. If it's just a fist fight and no imminent bodily harm is forthcoming then the reasonable man cannot shoot. But he can use less lethal means to assist.

In other states like CA, there is an absolute requirement to retreat on the street. And concealed permits are difficult if not impossible to obtain in Cali, depending on locale, knives are verboten. This is why we see so many violent crimes there as opposed to other locales where retreat is not required. It's like the old saying 'An armed society is a polite society." Washington State seems overall to be a much more polite place than CA.. I've lived in both for many years..

My only use for a knife in the home is the one under my mattress, in the way unlikely case I am surprised and tied up. My Rottweiler (I had two until last week when my beloved girl Rottie passed on from old age) is assurance that won't happen. I'm much more likely to actually be looking at a criminal pointing one of my many bladed weapons at me, taken off my arms room wall. but none of this is actually likely to happen where I live.

AC,

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I am having a real hard time believing all of your post regarding laws regulating Washington State.

First of all, I am pretty sure the same standards of lethal force apply for your state as they do in the others. Generally speaking, if a person is commiting or demonstrates ability, opportunity, and intent to commit grave bodily harm on you or an innocent person, you do have the right to shoot or use lethal means of defense in Washington State; however, this is the same as all the states as far as I know. So this is no different.

You say, though, that you have no duty to retreat law in Washington State. I do not know this to be true (and you'd better check and MAKE SURE its true before you go around assuming that), but even if it is true, I don't think it matters. In application, I would argue that you do have a 'duty to retreat' even if there is no duty to retreat law in your state. Remember, what is written (or not written) in the books and how it applies in court are two different things. In Washington State, you still have to uphold the Reasonable Man Standard. Chances are that if fleeing is an option, it will be determined in court that a reasonable person would have tried to flee if they were really defending themselves and not intentionally escalating the conflict. If you stand your ground when you could flee just because you think that by law it doesn't say you have to retreat, you are effectively pissing on your claim to self-defense when it ends up in court.

My recomendation, and this is for everyone no matter what state your in, is that you use every possible means of defending yourself and the innocents WITHOUT getting into a physical altercation before resorting to physical violence. This includes fleeing or going to a different watering hole or getting to the phone and calling the police if you can. It may not be the "manly" thing to do, but not talking the proper precautions and ending up in jail and getting pounded in the butt by buba the cell-mate doesn't sound too manly to me either...

Paul

 

[Tgace]

In NY there is no "duty to retreat" in ones own home. That being said, Paul is right, you cant just blast some guy because he is in your house as reason alone. It depends on the "totality of the circumstance" however. If somebody is kicking down your door yelling threats and knows you are inside, thats different from some guy feeding your TV out the window. Each person is equally dangerous, but the circumstances are different. Theres also a big difference between a homeowner waking up in the middle of the night to find an intruder and the guy you let into your home, had a few drinks with, got into an argument over money with and got in a fight with.

However, if a confronted intruder isnt running for the door and is refusing to obey your commands any "reasonable" person should be in fear for their safety. After all, some stranger has broken into your house and when confronted dosent leave and refuses to obey commands, what would a "resonable" person think this guys intentions are? The first move he makes towards me at that point may very well be his last.

As to leaving your house. If you live alone and can leave in complete safety, yeah go for it. Nothing in my home, that isnt human, thats worth even the slightest chance of jail time. If there are other people there, that option is less likely.

With that in mind, I dont know if I agree totally with the concept of use of force in the home being the same (entirely) as on the street. When you cant (or dont legally have to) retreat or get away, that "ups the ante" signifigantly in terms of having to use force to secure your safety.

 

[Tgace]

As to using a knife in home defense... You better have your ducks in a row should it come to that because the BG would have to have come within arms distance of you to use it. If you have to chase after a BG to stick him, there better have been a darn good reason for it...

 

[Tgace]

Heres the section of NYS Penal Law pertaining to this issue.

S 35.20 Justification; use of physical force in defense of premises and
in defense of a person in the course of burglary.
1. Any person may use physical force upon another person when he
reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate what he
reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such
other person of a crime involving damage to premises. He may use any
degree of physical force, other than deadly physical force, which he
reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose, and he may use
deadly physical force if he reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson.
2. A person in possession or control of any premises, or a person
licensed or privileged to be thereon or therein, may use physical force
upon another person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to
prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or
attempted commission by such other person of a criminal trespass upon
such premises. He may use any degree of physical force, other than
deadly physical force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary for
such purpose, and he may use deadly physical force in order to prevent
or terminate the commission or attempted commission of arson, as
prescribed in subdivision one, or in the course of a burglary or
attempted burglary, as prescribed in subdivision three.
3. A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to
be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that
another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such
dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other
person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or
terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.
4. As used in this section, the following terms have the following
meanings:
(a) The terms "premises," "building" and "dwelling" have the meanings
prescribed in section 140.00;
(b) Persons "licensed or privileged" to be in buildings or upon other
premises include, but are not limited to, police officers or peace
officers acting in the performance of their duties.

Note the bolded section. A burglary is defined as "Entering and/or remaining unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime therein". A person just standing in your living room could just be considered a criminal trespass, however it can also be considered presumptive evidence that a person standing in your living room intends to commit a crime depending on the circumstance. i.e. he forced a door, broke a window, the hour of the day, if persons were home when he entered, he has your stereo in his hands, etc. And note too the ever present "REASONABLY BELIEVES".

Also note that this is NY State Law...mileage may vary.

By the letter of the law there is a lot of leeway there. This "may" mean that you might not go to prison for using deadly force against a burglar. However, you will most likely still get sued. And what I posted previously about the "totality of the circumstance" still applies.

 

[AC_Pilot]

It surprised me also when I discovered WA State law did not require me to retreat.. pleasantly so, I might add. But it is so, verified by a WA State 2nd amendment activist I trust. Very pleasant surprise since we came here from the Sheeple's republick of California.
Washingtonians can legally use lethal force on the street to defend even a stranger from felony assault.. rape, imminent severe bodily harm, (say a person being beaten badly) or threat of and subsequent presentation of any weapon. An example would be creeps attempting kidnap of a young lady on a public street. If you see that it's obviously a kidnap attempt, and intervene with lethal force, it's justified. Of course you better be sure what's actually going on first. That analysis is harder than ever these days with the way our society has changed. We can defend our property from felony crimes as well, such as a carjacking, even if the carjacker is unarmed. Felony being the key word.

More likely it would be dealing with something like an armed robbery of a business while you are shopping, or a weapon wielding crazy in a parking lot, etc.. we also can carry a rifle or shotgun in our vehicles or on our person as long as the chamber is empty and the (loaded) magazine is not inserted in the weapon. I carry a tricked out, folding stock SS Ruger mini-14 and reload mags wherever I go..I even have a long gun holder on my dirtbike handlebars. We used to be able to carry any firearm concealed until the liberals in Olympia closed that "loophole" in the CCW permit law. You can learn about your State's laws on CCWs on this site:
http://www.packing.org/states.jsp

There's also a forum there on CCW and related issues..

I love WA State, I think we'll stay :ultracool

 

[Jerry]

At the risk of moving onto a tangent, my issue is less with the retreat requirements (and their castle docterine exceptions) than with the "use of deadly force" requirements.

Don't get me wrong, I've no desire to shoot someone to stop them from running off with my lawn furniture, but the requirement to use only recipricol force (not shoot someone punching you) seems very dangerous. A person with the intent to kill you, should he win the conflict, will kill you. It's perfectly possible to stomp someone's head into the asphault after dazing them by punching at their face, and lying unconsious on the ground is not a time when you can go "OK, now it's time to pull a weapon".

But yes, you are quite right in saying and reiterating that castle docterine means only one thing, that you do not need to run away from your home to avoid a fight. It does not otherwise effect what force may be used.

 

[Tgace]

Agreed. Use of force isnt necessarily a "ladder" continuum. If you "reasonably believe" that your life is in jeopardy you can use deadly force. Just try grabbing for my sidearm and see what happens. Try spraying me with OC and then come at me, armed or not. The same has been shown in cases where one guy drastically outsized the other or where one person was severly beating an armed opponent (a "reasonable person" could believe the BG will take your weapon and use it on you when you are unconscious).

 

[Tgace]

It surprised me also when I discovered WA State law did not require me to retreat.. pleasantly so, I might add. But it is so, verified by a WA State 2nd amendment activist I trust. Very pleasant surprise since we came here from the Sheeple's republick of California.
Washingtonians can legally use lethal force on the street to defend even a stranger from felony assault.. rape, imminent severe bodily harm, (say a person being beaten badly) or threat of and subsequent presentation of any weapon. An example would be creeps attempting kidnap of a young lady on a public street. If you see that it's obviously a kidnap attempt, and intervene with lethal force, it's justified. Of course you better be sure what's actually going on first. That analysis is harder than ever these days with the way our society has changed. We can defend our property from felony crimes as well, such as a carjacking, even if the carjacker is unarmed. Felony being the key word.

More likely it would be dealing with something like an armed robbery of a business while you are shopping, or a weapon wielding crazy in a parking lot, etc.. we also can carry a rifle or shotgun in our vehicles or on our person as long as the chamber is empty and the (loaded) magazine is not inserted in the weapon. I carry a tricked out, folding stock SS Ruger mini-14 and reload mags wherever I go..I even have a long gun holder on my dirtbike handlebars. We used to be able to carry any firearm concealed until the liberals in Olympia closed that "loophole" in the CCW permit law. You can learn about your State's laws on CCWs on this site:
http://www.packing.org/states.jsp

There's also a forum there on CCW and related issues..

I love WA State, I think we'll stay :ultracool

From what I can find on Wa. state law, it appears you are right. It looks like Texas is the same. No duty to retreat when unlawfully attacked. Home or otherwise.

 

[Cruentus]

From what I can find on Wa. state law, it appears you are right. It looks like Texas is the same. No duty to retreat when unlawfully attacked. Home or otherwise.

Right...I have found that a few states don't have a duty to retreat law; even though I am most familiar with Michigan, and Michigan does have such a law.

However, like when dealing with the castle doctrine, I believe this can be misunderstood. You still have to maintain the Reasonable Man Standard in all states as far as I know; this means that if it is determined that a reasonable person really wanting to defend themselves in that circumstance would have tried to retreat and you did not, then you will be facing charges.

So, I maintain that retreating still needs to be a part of the total self-defense package regardless of whether it is spelled out by your state law or not.

Paul

 

[AC_Pilot]

My home is pretty safe from intrusion with a 150 lb male Rottweiler sleeping in his nice comfy hooch downstairs. Does not like to be bothered and he thinks it's his castle, he knows nothing about legal doctrines :uhyeah:

Anyone who cased my home would know that and just keep moving...

I have not heard of any homeowner in this state being charged for shooting any actual home intruder as long as it was not in the back. It simply no longer happens here..people have had enough. I am sure stabbing an intruder face to face in a fight would be no problem either, but I don't plan to bring a knife to a gunfight. Perhaps a short woodsmans axe would be an even more innocent looking tool if you're limited as far as a firearm? The Vikings laid waste and raided large areas with such weapons.

 

[Tgace]

Right...I have found that a few states don't have a duty to retreat law; even though I am most familiar with Michigan, and Michigan does have such a law.

However, like when dealing with the castle doctrine, I believe this can be misunderstood. You still have to maintain the Reasonable Man Standard in all states as far as I know; this means that if it is determined that a reasonable person really wanting to defend themselves in that circumstance would have tried to retreat and you did not, then you will be facing charges.

So, I maintain that retreating still needs to be a part of the total self-defense package regardless of whether it is spelled out by your state law or not.

Paul

Oh absolutely. If some guy is waving a knife at you from across an interstate and you just stand there waiting for him to cross, you are not going to fare well with the 5-O....

This also dovetails nicely with the concept of what a "reasonable" person considers to be a threat. The BG should have means, opportunity and intent to pose a threat. A person with a sword in a 3rd story window has the means and maybe the intent to do you harm, but he isnt going to have the opportunity. If you draw down on a burglar in your home and he prones himself out and begs you not to shoot him...well you get my point. No duty to retreat dosent mean to shoot first and ask questions later.

IMHO if you have the capability to retreat in complete safety, you arent really in a self defense situation in the first place....and if you do have that capability its just common sense that you should do so.

 

[Cruentus]

IMHO if you have the capability to retreat in complete safety, you arent really in a self defense situation in the first place....and if you do have that capability its just common sense that you should do so.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunatily, what should be common sense isn't too common in some martial arts circles. Some martial artists are just dying to see "real action" and just looking for the opportunity to take out a BG. So, they'll find every excuse not to retreat, or they create situations where they can't retreat, and they train and teach their students to do the same. And, the sad part is, most don't even know that this is what they are doing.

I feel that if one knows that one is just dying to use those great martial skills, then we have a wonderful military that is looking for a few good men (or women). Otherwise, I feel that reality check is needed for many martial artists, and prudence needs to be taught and practiced so that martial arts students will train to use reasonable force instead of one or the other extreme (unreaslistically too much or unrealistically too little).

Paul

 

[sgtmac_46]

Being a law enforcement office in the state of Missouri, I can at least speak to our states stand on reasonable force by citizens. In Missouri, there is a doctrine of retreat in public, meaning that you can use reasonable force to defend yourself and others, but you must disengage when safe to do so.

In the home, however, you are not required to retreat. In fact, if someone is on your property or threatening your property, you are allowed to use non-lethal force to evict that person from your property or to protect your property.

You are allowed to use lethal force to protect yourself or others and have no obligation to withdraw or retreat. Any state who passes laws otherwise is lead by idiots, and they should be booted from office.

Further there is a type of law that, while you shouldn't count your life on, figures in to this type of discussion. This is what I call "local law" and it is unwritten.

Being from a somewhat rural area, people in my community share values different than you would find in New York City. Home and property are considered sacred. I have seen a number of cases where homeowners went well above and beyond what the law allowed, using lethal force to protect property.

They were prosecuted for murder and consistently, juries came back with NOT GUILTY verdicts. Did they do this because they thought the person had not technically broken the law? No, they did it because they believe in the right of home owners to defend themselves and their property, and there is a deep distrust among many in rural america towards anyone who would put a criminals rights above that.

It's a very good and clear message sent to legislatures and prosecutors, and you are likely not to get reelected if you prosecute someone for that kind of offense.

Again, I wouldn't count on it, but it's why the founders granted you the right to a trial of a jury of your peers. You defend yourself in rural Missouri, you can't be made to stand trial in gun hating St. Louis.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The following is Missouri law on self-defense,


Use of force in defense of persons.


563.031. 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

(1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided

(a) He has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

(b) He is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

(c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force.

2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless he reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or another against death, serious physical injury, rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson.

3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so. 4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

Use of physical force in defense of premises.



563.036. 1. A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon, may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of the crime of trespass by the other person.

2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 of this section only:

(1) When such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by the trespasser to commit arson or burglary upon his dwelling; or

(3) When entry into the premises is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering physical violence to any person or being in the premises and he reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony. 3. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

Use of physical force in defense of property.


563.041. 1. A person may, subject to the limitations of subsection 2, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission by such person of stealing, property damage or tampering in any degree.

2. A person may use deadly force under circumstances described in subsection 1 only when such use of deadly force is authorized under other sections of this chapter.

3. The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of physical restraint as protective force provided that the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the restraint as soon as it is reasonable to do so. 4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

Law enforcement officer's use of force in making an arrest.


563.046. 1. A law enforcement officer need not retreat or desist from efforts to effect the arrest, or from efforts to prevent the escape from custody, of a person he reasonably believes to have committed an offense because of resistance or threatened resistance of the arrestee. In addition to the use of physical force authorized under other sections of this chapter, he is, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3, justified in the use of such physical force as he reasonably believes is immediately necessary to effect the arrest or to prevent the escape from custody.

2. The use of any physical force in making an arrest is not justified under this section unless the arrest is lawful or the law enforcement officer reasonably believes the arrest is lawful.

3. A law enforcement officer in effecting an arrest or in preventing an escape from custody is justified in using deadly force only

(1) When such is authorized under other sections of this chapter; or

(2) When he reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is immediately necessary to effect the arrest and also reasonably believes that the person to be arrested

(a) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony; or

(b) Is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon; or

(c) May otherwise endanger life or inflict serious physical injury unless arrested without delay. 4. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of justification under this section.

Kind of lengthy, but I think it's directly relevent. I think Missouri has one of the most reasonable and clear cut laws on self-defense in the country. It is very important when reading these, however, to notice the difference between the use of the word FORCE (Meaning non-lethal) and DEADLY FORCE in each section.

 

[Tgace]

Washingtonians can legally use lethal force on the street to defend even a stranger from felony assault.. rape, imminent severe bodily harm, (say a person being beaten badly) or threat of and subsequent presentation of any weapon. An example would be creeps attempting kidnap of a young lady on a public street. If you see that it's obviously a kidnap attempt, and intervene with lethal force, it's justified.

Most states allow that. As far as I know, every state outlines when force can be used in defense of others.