Deadly force vs. Attempt to flee

[Carol]

A news article caught my eye...

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=6288982&nav=0s3d

Gov. Rick Perry signed the Castle Doctrine into law Tuesday, legalizing the use of deadly force in self-defense.
(snip)
Until Tuesday, the law stated you must attempt to flee if someone is breaking into your home, car or workplace. But the Castle Doctrine allows the use of deadly force if you feel your life or safety is endangered at home, in the car or at work -- all considered protected places.

This means if you are in Texas and somewhere that isn't a protected place...say, at the 7-11, and someone makes an attempt on your life, you must attempt to flee the situation before resorting to deadly force?


Not looking for an answer that's necessarily consistant with Texas state law, just trying to understand the terms better.

 

[KenpoTex]

The article you cited is a litte vague as to what the law actually allows. While the places mentioned in the article (home, work, vehicle) are "protected" places (note: this term is not found in the bill, this was a term created by whomever wrote the news article), this does not mean that you have a duty to retreat if you are not in one of those places.

From the bill (emphasis is mine):

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

 

[MJS]

A news article caught my eye...

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=6288982&nav=0s3d



This means if you are in Texas and somewhere that isn't a protected place...say, at the 7-11, and someone makes an attempt on your life, you must attempt to flee the situation before resorting to deadly force?


Not looking for an answer that's necessarily consistant with Texas state law, just trying to understand the terms better.

[/color][/size]

If its applicable, I'd imagine that if you were able to flee that would be a good option. If you're unable, then by all means, do whats necessary.

As for the castle doctrine, it stated:

Gov. Rick Perry signed the Castle Doctrine into law Tuesday, legalizing the use of deadly force in self-defense.
(snip)
Until Tuesday, the law stated you must attempt to flee if someone is breaking into your home, car or workplace. But the Castle Doctrine allows the use of deadly force if you feel your life or safety is endangered at home, in the car or at work -- all considered protected places.

So basically, if you had a gun, and heard someone breaking in using the front door, you don't have to assess the situation at all. As long as you feel endangered, you're able to shoot?

 

[jks9199]

A news article caught my eye...

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=6288982&nav=0s3d



This means if you are in Texas and somewhere that isn't a protected place...say, at the 7-11, and someone makes an attempt on your life, you must attempt to flee the situation before resorting to deadly force?


Not looking for an answer that's necessarily consistant with Texas state law, just trying to understand the terms better.

[/COLOR][/SIZE]

The Castle Doctrine goes back to the Old Common Law. I've not read the article or Texas law, but the general idea of the Castle Doctrine is that your home is your castle, and you are entitled to assume that someone entering it uninvited means to do you serious harm, and may use lethal force to defend yourself. The Texas law apparently expands that idea to some places beyond your home.

However... there's a very fine line between defending yourself and attacking someone. Under the general principle of the Castle Doctrine, you basically cannot go seeking out the person, especially if they leave your home. In the snippet of the Texas code cited by another poster, you'll note that it does not protect you if you have provoked the person, and you can't be otherwise breaking the law (this Castle Doctrine law won't let you defend your meth lab, in other words). You can't go out, pick a fight, and let them chase you into your house in order to blow 'em away...

Without intending any legal guidance, my suggestion, if you hear someone breaking into your house, or business, is to seek the strongest point of safety that time and circumstances allow, call 911 (or other appropriate emergency number), and only use lethal force if someone persists in coming to you.

 

[MJS]

The article you cited is a litte vague as to what the law actually allows. While the places mentioned in the article (home, work, vehicle) are "protected" places (note: this term is not found in the bill, this was a term created by whomever wrote the news article), this does not mean that you have a duty to retreat if you are not in one of those places.

From the bill (emphasis is mine):

(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

E: So if I'm reading this right, the defender does not have to make an attempt to talk his/her way out of a situation, they can go right to using force? What happens if this goes to court? Is the judge going to ask why you opted not to try to walk away?

I'm not asking these questions to disagree, flame or anything else, but instead to better understand the laws.

Mike

 

[KenpoTex]

I guess my take on the whole thing is as follows. We may decide that it is prudent to try to talk our way out of a situation or escape in order to avoid using force. However, the nice thing about the Castle Doctrine or "stand your ground" laws is that we are not required to make an attempt to escape.
I see this as good thing for two reasons:

1) as law-abiding citizens we should NOT be REQUIRED to attempt to escape or de-escalate when we are faced with the threat of violence. We should have the right to deal with the threat. (as I said before, sometimes de-escalation and/or escape might be smarter but they shouldn't be mandated).

2) There are times when you may not have time to de-escalate and/or you may be unable to escape safely. These laws allow people placed in this type of situation to deal with the threat without fear of reprisal.

As far as dealing with the aftermath, if the law does not require you to retreat or de-escalate, you cannot be penalized for not doing so. I really like the portion of the statute that I quoted in my previous post because it specifically states that your failure to retreat cannot be considered.

 

[arnisador]

Lawmakers who co-authored and passed the bill said they were shocked to learn using deadly force in defense had not been legal in Texas since the 1970s.

In Texas? I bet!

Until Tuesday, the law stated you must attempt to flee if someone is breaking into your home, car or workplace.

But the Castle Doctrine allows the use of deadly force if you feel your life or safety is endangered at home, in the car or at work -- all considered protected places.

"Somebody breaks into your house forcefully," said Wentworth, R-San Antonio. "Under the old law you're supposed to figure out, I guess, whether they're armed, whether it's a knife, whether it's a gun, whether the gun's loaded. All of which are obligations I don't think the homeowner should have to undertake."

Well, that makes sense in many ways...I'll be curious to see how the courts rule, taking into account the Law of Unintended Consequences!

The law does not allow the use of deadly force if you provoked your assailant in some way.

Seems a sensible caveat.

 

[jks9199]

"Somebody breaks into your house forcefully," said Wentworth, R-San Antonio. "Under the old law you're supposed to figure out, I guess, whether they're armed, whether it's a knife, whether it's a gun, whether the gun's loaded. All of which are obligations I don't think the homeowner should have to undertake."

It's kind of scary to me that a legislator doesn't know the law better...

Under no rule on use of deadly force that I'm aware of must the defender be able to do more than articulate that a reasonable person would have feared imminent attack/infliction of serious bodily harm or death. Point an empty gun at someone, and they shoot you... Well, I think that's the first corrollary to "never bring a knife to gun fight"; "never bring an empty gun to a gun fight!" It doesn't even matter if it's a toy gun or a piece of plastic... If a reasonable person would have, in the moment, considered themselves to be facing a gun (or other means of inflicting serious bodily harm or death, like a baseball bat) -- they can use appropriate force to defend themselves.

The Castle Doctrine is a settled principle of the common law; many states have codified it, as well.

 

[CuongNhuka]

Reminds me a joke.
heckler: "You know that in the state of Texas, no matter how much of threat someone is to you, your family or any thing else, you cann't legaly shot a man in the back!"
Ron White: "Yah, but you can start on the legs until he turns around! Cause you know they're gonna turn around. [jokingly looks behind shoulder] Who's shotin me?"

Quoted from, the Ron "tater salad" White.

Seriously though, it's a about time. If someones gonna kill me, I'm gonna kill them first. Or take 'em to the inferno with me.

 

[thardey]

I don't know about Texas, but in Oregon, it is first a "duty-to-retreat" state, which means that as long as we are able to safely retreat, we must do so. (If we are defending someone else, then we can't retreat and safely leave them behind, we can't safely run across the street into traffic, etc). If you can't safely reteat, then you are justified in using "appropriate physical force" to protect your health and safety (or others).

Second, it is also a "Castle Doctrine" state, which basically means that you can't retreat any further than your own house, or car. Once you are in your "Castle" there's no where else to retreat to. Then you can use "appropriate physical force" for the situation. (That's another ball of wax!)

I can't see how a "Castle Doctrine" would really mean anything unless you also have a "Duty-to-Retreat" because in Oregon, the "Castle Doctrine" is only an exeption to the "Duty-to-Retreat".

Edited to include: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/161.html 161.205 -Use of Physical Force Generally; 161.225 Defence of Premises

 

[tellner]

Actually, the law in Oregon changed. "Duty to retreat" was a case-law thing, not statute. I don't have the details but can find them if you're interested. It was sort of fuzzy. You didn't have a duty to retreat from home or business IIRC, and you didn't have a duty to retreat if it was unsafe to do so. But if you were in a public place you had to retreat to avoid a fight if you could do so safely. But, like I said, I'll have to look up the new statute to be sure.

 

[thardey]

Actually, the law in Oregon changed. "Duty to retreat" was a case-law thing, not statute. I don't have the details but can find them if you're interested. It was sort of fuzzy. You didn't have a duty to retreat from home or business IIRC, and you didn't have a duty to retreat if it was unsafe to do so. But if you were in a public place you had to retreat to avoid a fight if you could do so safely. But, like I said, I'll have to look up the new statute to be sure.

Yeah, it's not only limited to your home, but a building that you are trying to take refuge in. If you're at your workplace, or your friend's house, you're not expected to leave the building, jump in your car, and drive to your own house before you can defend yourself.

That's the statute I posted above. It doesn't say "duty to retreat" but, then again it doesn't say "Castle Doctrine" either. The way it was explained to me was that the "Castle Doctrine" is a generic name that sums up

161.225 Use of physical force in defense of premises. (1) A person in lawful possession or control of premises is justified in using physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate what the person reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by the other person in or upon the premises. (2) A person may use deadly physical force under the circumstances set forth in subsection (1) of this section only:
(a) In defense of a person as provided in ORS 161.219; or
(b) When the person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of arson or a felony by force and violence by the trespasser.
(3) As used in subsection (1) and subsection (2)(a) of this section, “premises” includes any building as defined in ORS 164.205 and any real property. As used in subsection (2)(b) of this section, “premises” includes any building. [1971 c.743 §25]

And the "Duty to Retreat" sums up:

161.209 Use of physical force in defense of a person. Except as provided in ORS 161.215 and 161.219, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person for self-defense or to defend a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force, and the person may use a degree of force which the person reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. [1971 c.743 §22]

and

161.215 Limitations on use of physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if: (1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that person; or
(2) The person is the initial aggressor, except that the use of physical force upon another person under such circumstances is justifiable if the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person the intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or
(3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law. [1971 c.743 §24]

161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

With the keys being "imminent use of unlawful physical force", and, probably the most sticky:
" a person is not justified in using physical force upon another person if: . . . (3) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law."

The argument being that if you could have avoided the fight by safely retreating, but you chose to stay, now you are in the realm of "Combat by agreement" And you can bet that the police's first impression of a fight is that it was "combat by agreement." You have to prove that you did not agree to fight, but were forced to by the situation.

"Combat by agreement" is a very broad phrase, and can get you into trouble in a hurry. For a good discussion on a national level, check out http://www.useofforce.us/3aojp/ and specifically look at the paragraph on "Preclusion" at the bottom of the page. It doesn't specifically deal with "Combat by Agreement" but it's the same idea.

The "Safety" Issue is more or less covered by the "Lesser of two Evils" bit found here:

161.200 Choice of evils. (1) Unless inconsistent with other provisions of chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, defining justifiable use of physical force, or with some other provision of law, conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when: (a) That conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury; and
(b) The threatened injury is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue.
(2) The necessity and justifiability of conduct under subsection (1) of this section shall not rest upon considerations pertaining only to the morality and advisability of the statute, either in its general application or with respect to its application to a particular class of cases arising thereunder. [1971 c.743 §20]

But you're right, this all was interpreted by Case Law, and given the name of "Duty to Retreat," but the law is still there, it may have just been reworded.

If anybody can tell me how to get a hold of the Oregon Laws 1971, Chapter 743 that was referenced in the Statutes, I would appreciate it.

 

[thardey]

If anybody can tell me how to get a hold of the Oregon Laws 1971, Chapter 743 that was referenced in the Statutes, I would appreciate it.

Nevermind, it appears that "Oregon Laws 1971, Chapter 743" simply defined Which bits of ORS 161 applies to self-defense. Sort of a "Department of Redundancy Department" kind of a thing.

 

[Rich Parsons]

A previous thread discussing changes to the laws in Michigan.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36837&highlight=Michigan+Self-Defense+Reform

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

I think it should go a step further, I feel you have a duty, as a trained fighter, to stand up to a Thug, and if you have to, kill him.

If not you, then the next person he comes atrmight be less able than you to protect themselves.

The sword that purifies, so to speak.

I feel sorry for those in States, where the Lawyers have decided what constitutes appropriate force, it's B.S. appropriate force is what ever needs to be done to end all hostilities, cold, and if putting a bullet in his face is what it takes, thats it. I decide, not some jerk in a suit, who probably grew up in a social class that never had to fight for survival or dignaty, telling me, someone who lived amongst crackheads, and bangers, and has trained in MA most of his life, what's appropriate in a fight.
I say if it is life or death, be sure to kill the other guy. maimed he can sue you for millions,dead, he's worth 1-2 million tops, you just declair Bankruptcy. The legal issues are another thing, but the civil ends up beiong the real problem in these kind of things.

My Sensei was a cop, whoshot a punk in the line of duty, and he spent alot of time in cival court, and it was a clean shooting, in the line of duty.

 

[tellner]

I think it should go a step further, I feel you have a duty, as a trained fighter, to stand up to a Thug, and if you have to, kill him.

If not you, then the next person he comes atrmight be less able than you to protect themselves.

The sword that purifies, so to speak.

Let me know when you put this into practice. I will send you a couple supportive letters care of the penitentiary and a batch of cookies or tube of Astroglide, your choice.

I'm not an attorney or a police officer, and you'd be crazy to come to me for legal advice. But here's how it is.

You have the right to defend yourself or an innocent third party from "the immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily injury." If the only way you can stay safe from deadly force is to use deadly force yourself, the law in most of the world permits it.

What you do not have is the right to beat up, shoot, stab, or even touch someone unless he poses such a threat. You have no duty to kill anyone. You're not in the Army. You're not a police officer. You're just a regular citizen. You also can't hurt someone for what he might do later. If you do that, you're as much of a thug as he is, if not more so. The State can kill someone, certainly. But it has to give him a trial, a lawyer, appeals, the protections of the Law and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he has done something so heinous that nothing else will do.

You don't have any right to kill someone just because you have gone to a dojo and have a cool-looking cotton belt in a dark color and have decided the world would be better off without a particular person. The words for that start with "delusional" and end with "murderer".

I feel sorry for those in States, where the Lawyers have decided what constitutes appropriate force, it's B.S. appropriate force is what ever needs to be done to end all hostilities, cold, and if putting a bullet in his face is what it takes, thats it. I decide, not some jerk in a suit, who probably grew up in a social class that never had to fight for survival or dignaty, telling me, someone who lived amongst crackheads, and bangers, and has trained in MA most of his life, what's appropriate in a fight.

Well kid, for your sake I sincerely how you're more show than go. This is criminally irresponsible. You aren't G-d. You aren't the government. You aren't even a cop. You are a guy who has gone to a gym for a few years and has learned a little bit about how to fight. If you want to change the law, run for office. See if you can get a bunch of people to agree with you.

You already have the right to use force or even kill someone if it's necessary to save your own life. You have no right whatso ****ing ever to cripple or kill someone for your "dignity". You have no right to decide that someone's life is worthless and that he deserves to die just because you think he should. All you have is the right to use legal means to defend yourself, not pee on the boundaries of your territory, not "clean up the 'hood", nothing but do what you have to to stay alive and in one piece.

Another piece of advice. If you ever do get in a situation which requires you to seriously jack someone up I suggest that you keep your mouth shut and let your lawyer talk to the police. The things you're saying here will get you in serious trouble if you say them to the officers.

I say if it is life or death, be sure to kill the other guy. maimed he can sue you for millions,dead, he's worth 1-2 million tops, you just declair Bankruptcy. The legal issues are another thing, but the civil ends up beiong the real problem in these kind of things.

Good Lord Almighty. That has got to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. And I pray that you are full of hot air and don't actually believe this. If you kill someone just because you can or because it would cost you a little time and money to avoid killing him you are a sociopath, a danger to decent people everywhere and seriously messed up. I hope that when you finally do kill someone the prosecutor finds out you post here and uses this as evidence of your out of control violent nature. The case will be one of the easiest he or she has ever had to prosecute. You've just done the State's work for it.

My Sensei was a cop, whoshot a punk in the line of duty, and he spent alot of time in cival court, and it was a clean shooting, in the line of duty.

Your coach is a cop? Then ask him about self defense and the law. Have him explain to you exactly how far your attitude will get you and what will happen to you pull that sort of stuff in the real world. With luck he will get through to you before you do something felony stupid.

Think about it a moment. He did a good shoot in the line of duty. It cost him a lot of time, money and heartbreak. He had to prove that there was no other choice. You are advocating murder. Do you really think you'll get through the legal system any better than he did?

 

[tellner]

I note that you say you are a self defense instructor, Dylan.

Have you ever taken a look at the legal aspects of self defense and the use of force? If you tell your students the kind of crap that you're spouting here you are going to get them in serious legal trouble. I'd strongly recommend that you go to someone like Massad Ayoob who knows these things and get the facts. As it is you're a danger to your students and the public at large.

 

[jks9199]

I think it should go a step further, I feel you have a duty, as a trained fighter, to stand up to a Thug, and if you have to, kill him.

If not you, then the next person he comes atrmight be less able than you to protect themselves.

The sword that purifies, so to speak.

I feel sorry for those in States, where the Lawyers have decided what constitutes appropriate force, it's B.S. appropriate force is what ever needs to be done to end all hostilities, cold, and if putting a bullet in his face is what it takes, thats it. I decide, not some jerk in a suit, who probably grew up in a social class that never had to fight for survival or dignaty, telling me, someone who lived amongst crackheads, and bangers, and has trained in MA most of his life, what's appropriate in a fight.
I say if it is life or death, be sure to kill the other guy. maimed he can sue you for millions,dead, he's worth 1-2 million tops, you just declair Bankruptcy. The legal issues are another thing, but the civil ends up beiong the real problem in these kind of things.

My Sensei was a cop, whoshot a punk in the line of duty, and he spent alot of time in cival court, and it was a clean shooting, in the line of duty.

You've got some serious misunderstandings of the legal system here. In fact, you're so far off that you scare me. Maybe you ought to run this line of thought by your sensei; I'm pretty confident that he'll have some problems with it.

Tellner covered things quite well... Let me reiterate one aspect. Lethal force is ONLY justifiable to defend yourself or another from IMMEDIATE and IMMINENT assault that is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm like crippling injury. You are only ever justified in using REASONABLE force to end a threat; in brief, that means that you can only use enough force to stop the attack and let you get away. Even a cop can't use "whatever force it takes"; a cop has to use ONLY that force which is reasonably necessary to stop a threat or effect an arrest.

If you really teach self defense classes -- I can't urge you strongly enough to get some proper education and training on the legal aspects of the use of force. You owe it to both yourself and your students -- and it just might save you a visit from one of those lawyers you disdain so much... (By the way... bankruptcy laws are getting more restrictive, and efforts to declare bankruptcy to avoid litigation are not appreciated by the courts.)

 

[Carol]

\. (By the way... bankruptcy laws are getting more restrictive, and efforts to declare bankruptcy to avoid litigation are not appreciated by the courts.)

Indeed, and there is precidence. Filing bankruptcy to avoid a litigation crisis is a misuse of the federal bankruptcy system was the decision below:

In Re: SGL Carbon Corporation, U.S. 3rd Circuit Court, 1999

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3rd&navby=case&no=992347P

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

#1 I have looked into the laws here and guess what, they dont always work with in the confines of a fight. There is written law, and there is street law, guess which one goes down more?

All the same , you dont have to retreat here, you have to demonstrate that your life was in peril or you had good reason to. A DA for Fredricksberg,is one of our students, we do go into the legalities in conversations,and you have some good defenses if your not the attacker in Va. He say's you might actually have a good defense if you killed a guy who takes a punch at you (He nor I morally advocate that, but..) you can say, " As a martial artist, I am aware that a single punch to the head can kill or mentally damage me, I was scarred and feared for my life, that is why I hit him in the throat and upended him onto his head." (ANd there are thousands of cases to point to where a punch has killed, it can be considerd deadly force.
Most of the others in his office thought this would be a viable legal defense, on top of that, Most DA's in Va tend not to prosecute those who end up killing in self defense,, especially if you killed someone with a violent record.

I have seen people knifed and brutally stomped, I once brutally stomped a piece of **** who tried to stick a screwdriver in me. Guess what? Not a cop in sight, non to protect my then 15 year old ***, and non to arrest me for stomping on the back of his head and neck, till I could no longer do so.

I never had 1 legal problem with any fight I have been in or attack I survived, no I have yet to knowingly kill someone, but the aforementioned crackhead was not moving, and guess what? I hope he died there, or at least a few days later, a piece of **** who would try to rob a teen, with the threat of deadly force ( Well he said something about ****ing me in the *** with the screwdriver, if I did not comply.)

#2 Disagreement is cool,it leads to learning and understanding.
Call me a kid, do it in person, not sitting behind your computer screen.

#3 Much of what I said is MY OPINION, I do feel violent thugs should be killed if they engage you, no you cant keep stomping on their heads after they are down, someone see's you and you might be going to jail, but if you break his center and you are throwing him to the street, I say do it in a way that has a high probability of killing him, on his head or lower back across the knee.
If he has a weapon, he gets knifed or shot if I can deploy the weapon , I will kill him dead.
#4 Sensei does go over what is legal, but also what is realistic, and what you can do if you so choose to. Jujutsu is an art of war, not a sport, yes our society clashes with many of the tenants of it, but it's a personal choice to obey or not, I choose not to obey stupid laws, that can get me dead and my children fatherless, when I can get away with it.
#5 (On Sensei shooting a perp in the line of duty)
Yes, he say's he did have some remorse over it, but he said he would do it again, the guy was aiming at him as he stuck his head out the fire escape window, The guy could have just run down the alley, with his loot, but for some reason, he chose to point a gun at a cop, so Dave put a round through his Brain.
HIS LAYWER, a real one, not you pontificating and going to Google, told him " Better you killed him, he's only worth 1-2 million if we lose the case, but in a wheelchair, he's worth $25-30million." Yes it went to civil trial, that happens alot to cops,BTW. Families of low lifes trying to get some $$$ from their dead rejects carcassis pretty common, the families of the West LA Shootout Gunmen tried to.
#6 I guess I am wrong about declairing bankruptcy, Good I learned something, I still think it's better to kill him then to maim him, when he was out to do the same to you, I aint talking about killing some guy for starting a shoving match or because of an insult, I am talking about those who stick a gun in your face, who take an unprovoked swing at your head with a pipe or their fist, someone who outweighs you by 50#s, someone who is clearly from a thugish subculture or a gangbanger, or they have to be attacking an inocent or one of mine. I chose to live and keep my body parts and ability to move under my own power.
Some of the people here have great martial arts exp. but make you wonder if they have ever been involved with street violence (and I'm not saying you have to have been, if not your lucky, but underinformed.), there are gangs that will sodomize you after they beat you, just because they can, they might even curb your teeth or knees, they might rape your woman right in front of you. (That was in the news lately) And if you survive this, that is the heartbreak and sleepless nights I would worry about, not the life of some lowlife who made his choice to be a wolf and attack the sheep, screw him if he runs into a sheepdog.
IMO The laws are written by Politicians, who are largely lawyers, not those who have been involved with violence,lawyers are out for lawyers, the more laws and conditions they put into things like this, the more money the bastards make. If most Politicians were builders, there would be concrete and strip malls and no trees or grasslands, it's a scam that we all have to put up with, for now.