'Reasonable' Self Defense

[Andy Moynihan]

Here is KS we teach that you should continue until the BG is no longer a threat. As Deaf stated, that is for the jury to decide.


"I'd rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6." .

But it's a whole lot better if you can survive both( or all three since civil court almost ALWAYS follows on the heels of criminal).

 

[sgtmac_46]

I am not going to hash through the legal discussion only because it has been discussed so much in the past here on this forum that I am of the opinion that you will get almost everything you need to know simply by using the search function. From that point, you need to talk to an attorney that specializes in this area (preferably one that will defend you if you get in this sort of a circumstance) that will help you hash out the true info from the BS.

Ultimatily it will come down to who's attorney can beat up who's in the courtroom; and your behavior will help or hurt your attorney's ability to defend YOU.

But I quoted the above because I am an wholehearted agreement with the statement. This idea that your level of training will allow you to have superhuman control over your opponent(s) is a false one, and one that has gotten people killed. You need to respond appropriate to the circumstance and level of threat from an objective standpoint rather then thinking that because you are really experienced in the martial arts that you can avoid having to use an appropriate level of force (which may be lethal force depending on the circumstance).

One of course can't prove it, because they aren't here to tell us......but i'm convinced there are plenty of dead folks (especially cops) who waited too late and used too little force to deal with the situation out of fear of lawyers and litigation.

I try to tell folks.....one battle at a time. Deal with the one in front of you, because if you don't survive that one, the rest is moot.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Ok, help me out Deaf, this is the new law effective
1 Sep 2007 as far as I read it or have found and it reversed that from the old law.

•It presumes you are reasonable in using deadly force if someone – illegally and with force – enters or is attempting to enter your occupied home, car or workplace. You are not given this presumption if you provoked the person or were engaged in a crime.
•It removes your obligation to retreat if possible before using deadly force if you are anywhere you have a right to be. The previous law obliged you to retreat if a "reasonable person" would have, except in a situation where someone unlawfully entered your home.
•It gives you added protection from lawsuits by injured attackers or their families. The previous law granted this protection if someone illegally entered your home, but not in other situations.

The bill provides that an actor who has a right to be present at the location where the force or deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at that time is not required to retreat before using force or deadly force.
Senate Bill 378 also provides immunity from civil liability for a personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force to a defendant who was justified under the law in using such force or deadly force.

Which is the way it should be.......if the criminal courts see nothing wrong with your actions, the civil trial parasites shouldn't be able to touch you!

 

[tellner]

My point about getting legal advice from attorneys is proven by the Magic of the Intrawebs. Thanks, Intrawebs.

 

[sgtmac_46]

My point about getting legal advice from attorneys is proven by the Magic of the Intrawebs. Thanks, Intrawebs.

I'd be careful which attorneys you go to for advice.....just because someone passed a bar, doesn't mean they aren't a moron.......you always have THAT attorney......you know, the one the clients hired because he was the 'cheapest'.

 

[tellner]

True enough. But if they actually graduated from an accredited law school and passed the State Bar they're far ahead of the pack.

 

[sgtmac_46]

True enough. But if they actually graduated from an accredited law school and passed the State Bar they're far ahead of the pack.

When it comes to use of force, the average attorney is so far behind the pack, they can't even smell it anymore.

If someone wishes to seek out an attorney, try to find one that has worked criminal law and has prosecuted/defended use of force cases.....don't just think that because someone has a juris doctorate their an 'expert' on everything law. Don't ask Joe the Divorce Lawyer, or Mike the Real Estate guy.

The point is if you have a heart problem you go see a cardiac specialist, not a pediatrist.......same goes with attorney's......there are those who specialize in these types of cases.

If someone finds themselves involved in a case of self-defense, seek an attorney that SPECIALIZES in defending police officers......they know the ends and outs of use of force law intimately!

 

[tellner]

We're splitting hairs here, Sarge. Point is, a defense attorney is the person to talk to about things connected with Criminal Law and what it means to you. And your cop-idolizing tendencies notwithstanding there are many, many good ones who aren't feeding from the Municipal trough. Even a half-assed one can dig up the appropriate statutes and case law and explain the basic meaning to you.

 

[Carol]

Heck, looking up statutes and explaining the law can be done by a 1L.

But an attorney experienced with use of force or personal protection issues will likely give stronger advice that can reflect case law and precedent, especially if state law tends to be a bit on the vague side.

Example: Massachusetts does not have any statewide regulations on blade length. There is a defense attorney recommended by a lot of the Mass. gun clubs that recommends a blade length. Why? Not because N inches is legal and N.25 or N.50 is not legal...he makes the recommendation based on his experience as to what will keep you on the good side of the law.

Kinda like engineering. Many times the skill of the engineer depends not only on their background/training but also on what the engineer has seen before

 

[sgtmac_46]

We're splitting hairs here, Sarge. Point is, a defense attorney is the person to talk to about things connected with Criminal Law and what it means to you. And your cop-idolizing tendencies notwithstanding there are many, many good ones who aren't feeding from the Municipal trough. Even a half-assed one can dig up the appropriate statutes and case law and explain the basic meaning to you.

Sure, if you want half-assed advice for $200.00 and hour, be my guest.......but if they have to 'research it' because they don't deal with it on a regular basis, it's going to be more than an hour.

And prison is full of people given advice by 'half-assed' defense attorneys......your idolizing of the high-priesthood of the law and anyone who managed to pass the bar notwithstanding.

But that's why they call it 'practicing' law.....




And that point isn't just 'splitting hairs'.....anyone with a computer can tell you in 10 minutes, WITHOUT a juris doctorate, what their state statute says on use of force and self-defense......but even many attorney's couldn't explain to you what that means in PRACTICAL terms.......don't believe me? Ask them the text book definition of 'Reasonable'.....and they'll give you something along the lines of 'What a reasonable person would believe/do in a given situation'........now ask him what would be considered 'Reasonable' if 4 armed gang members invaded your home in the middle of the night! There we have may have a problem with his experience! Questions of what constitutes 'Reasonable' self-defense CROSS disciplines......just any attorney, alone, using ONLY the legal holy books, CANNOT answer that question satisfactorily.

Those that specialize in these types of cases have done YEARS of specialized research, interviews, classes, talked to Use of Force Experts (who are usually police officers!), and based on THAT have an understanding of what is 'Reasonable' in a given situation.....and have developed the ability to argue that to juries!

 

[seasoned]

At the website, "Of Arms and the Law" there is an article on Self Defense (a PDF download) entitled "SELF-DEFENSE: REASONABLE BELIEFS OR

REASONABLE SELF-CONTROL?" byKenneth W. Simons*​

http://www.bu.edu/lawlibrary/facultypublications/PDFs/Simons/Selfdefense.pdf

According to the article in Germany a person under criminal attack is not required to use only a reasonable amount of force, but rather is allowed to use force unless it is grossly disproportionate to the attack.

I find that very interesting since in many contries they try to limit you to use force preportionate to the attack presented, and they are the ones to judge what is 'preportionate'.

Here in Texas one uses enough force to stop the attack... but just what is 'enough', or to much, is what the jury would decide.

Deaf

There are always exceptions. Considering my age, back ground and life experiences, I never expect to find myself in a push shove situation. I practice what I preach in SD class all the time. Don’t look for it, don/t agitate anyone, never be the aggressor, always apologize, if you feel you have done someone wrong, and above all, mind your own business. With this said, you have successfully eliminated 7/8 of all pointless confrontations. Remember the old adage” sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me”. With all the above said, I have done more then my part. If at this point, I can’t satisfy someone, then it is their problem. As for the other 1/8, this is what I train for, and I hope they don’t cross my path. I am not big and bad, but I do draw the line. Don’t put your hands on me, don’t pray on the weak of our society, if I am around, and above all don’t target one of my love ones. In self defense you want to fall into the category of “what would a reasonable person do, in this situation”. When need be, your training will take over, so my advise to you, is train properly.

 

[Guardian]

It's a safe bet to determine from all the responses here that reasonable is a elusive word used in most laws to be just that way, elusive and vague, giving either you a way in or out of trouble should it come your way depending on the circumstances. Overall the law written though gives us a way out in itself no matter the wording depending on the circumstances. We can debate the word, but overall, it means a general individual to anyone layman (jury).

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's a safe bet to determine from all the responses here that reasonable is a elusive word used in most laws to be just that way, elusive and vague, giving either you a way in or out of trouble should it come your way depending on the circumstances. Overall the law written though gives us a way out in itself no matter the wording depending on the circumstances. We can debate the word, but overall, it means a general individual to anyone layman (jury).

EXACTLY! Here's the rub, though.....that 'layman' will change much depending on where in this country you use force, and against who you are forced to use force.

You can rest assured that in rural Missouri, or Texas, or in many rural areas in this country, if you shoot an intruder....a jury from that area WILL give you EVERY BENEFIT of the doubt and then some! Most will ask why they're even there in the first place.

Urban juries are much trickier.....but at the end of the day, the LETTER of the law will only provide tone for the argument......the main thrust of the argument back and forth will be for the passions of the jury.

 

[Zero]

Yes please contact a local lawyer for legal advise.

As to self defense. I can tell you what every police officer has told me who has responded to a situation I was involved.

"You do not have the right to hit them first. You did not know they might have stopped."

Or

"You do not have the right nor the responsibility to defend someone else. After they hit the person you can get involved if their life is at danger. But before hand I can tell you that YOU cannot make that call."


While Striking first even on someone swinging on you, or blocking or passing or steeping out of the way and striking means you have made first contact. The law could state that you were able to pass or block, why not continue until the other guy decided to stop.

So understand no matter where you are, no matter what you do, the situation will be taken in the worse possible light. At least that is my experience.

Rich, I take your point and experience that first strike may put you in a complicated legal position but the concept of a pre-emptive self defence strike is a defence under criminal law in many western jurisdictions and in some US ones I have looked at.

If you can reasonably determine that you or another person's life or well-being are in danger, then striking first is a recognisable action of defence. The case law on this varies and the subtleties on when the line is crossed - and still too - the degree of force applied is complicated. But a good defence lawyer, if you can afford one, should be able to play with this defence in court for you. I did a post grad paper that touched on this at law school (and although some years ago, the law is still relevant, if not more so) and am not just talking out my ****.

Although, as many have said, and particularly in federal countries such as the US, this can be different on a state-by-state basis.

My comment is that - and this is in no way any form of advice to anyone - if you genuinely feel you or a loved one are under imminent threat, act (reasonably/proportianately!! (that's the crux!)). Waiting to see what happens and waiting to see if you are effective and rapid enough to deal with a launched attack may be in some instances too late.

 

[Brad Dunne]

The main focus of the aftermath of an altercation is that of the first responders, the police. However their report is written up, plays a vital role in how things can/will be dealt with in court, if it should go that far. Carefully choose your words and don't attempt to fabricate anything, for it can come back to bite you, if you should find yourself in cross examination.

 

[Guardian]

EXACTLY! Here's the rub, though.....that 'layman' will change much depending on where in this country you use force, and against who you are forced to use force.

You can rest assured that in rural Missouri, or Texas, or in many rural areas in this country, if you shoot an intruder....a jury from that area WILL give you EVERY BENEFIT of the doubt and then some! Most will ask why they're even there in the first place.

Urban juries are much trickier.....but at the end of the day, the LETTER of the law will only provide tone for the argument......the main thrust of the argument back and forth will be for the passions of the jury.

I year ya Sgtmac, urban juries are far trickier in this aspect. Down here in Texas something like you described usually never even gets that far and if it does, we do wonder why the heck we are here LOL.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I year ya Sgtmac, urban juries are far trickier in this aspect. Down here in Texas something like you described usually never even gets that far and if it does, we do wonder why the heck we are here LOL.

Exactly!

'Your honor...instead of wasting the tax payers money any further.....how about we just find him Not Guilty right now, shake his hand, call it a day and take him out for a beer?'

 

[sgtmac_46]

The main focus of the aftermath of an altercation is that of the first responders, the police. However their report is written up, plays a vital role in how things can/will be dealt with in court, if it should go that far. Carefully choose your words and don't attempt to fabricate anything, for it can come back to bite you, if you should find yourself in cross examination.

And when in doubt.....always remember you STILL have the right to say nothing at all!