General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Gray areas in Self Defense
bullit:
My thoughts after taking about 80 hours of legal continuing education on the Use of Deadly Force/Justifiable Homicide over the past few years on my own dime (Please note I am not an attorney, just want the background so these are MY OPINIONS)
--- Quote from: depserv on April 29, 2013, 03:23:26 PM ---1. I see someone about to set fire to my neighbor's house in the middle of the night; I don't know whether my neighbor is home or not. Say the arsonist is pouring a large quantity of liquid fuel around so my neighbor, if he is home, might not be able to get out safely once a fire started, but I couldn't say for sure he couldn't get out.
Arson is a felony....you would be justified in using force (note I did not say "Deadly Force") to prevent the commission of said felony. Please refer to the statute noted in a previous post above. To use "deadly force", you will be adjudicated based upon 1) the "reasonable man theory" i.e. what would the reasonable and prudent approach be by someone else in a similar situation and 2) the "Totality of the Circumstances"
2. Someone is about to throw a Molotov cocktail at my house. If I shoot him to stop him, would I have to prove that I could not have escaped from the house after the fire started?
This question and the next one can be summed up with the acronym AOJ. Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy. 1) Does the perp have the ABILITY to do you harm? Yes based upon your question i.e. he is attempting to throw a Molotov cocktail. 2) Is the OPPORTUNITY present? Yes, based upon your question he is within throwing distance of your home. 3) Does the element of JEOPARDY i.e. are you or others in your home in "immediate and otherwise unavoidable risk of death or grave bodily harm". If you can articulate that ALL THREE of these factors are in place (again the Totality of the Circumstances), the use of "Deadly Force" is justified.
3. Out of town where police are maybe miles away, someone says he's going to go to his car and get his rifle and kill me with it. I have a little pistol. If I wait where I am and do nothing, once he gets his rifle I can't stop him with my little pistol. Would it be considered justifiable for me to follow him to his pickup and shoot him as soon as he gets a hand on his rifle?
--- End quote ---
Again, I would refer to AOJ. 1) Does perp have the ABILITY? Yes, he is going to get his rifle. 2) Does he have the OPPORTUNITY? Not quite yet until he has obtained said rifle and 3) Does the element of JEOPARDY exist at that time? IMO....not yet as you are not in said JEOPARDY. Finally, the last thing you would want to do is "follow him to his pickup" as your likely defense would go out the window. I would think a prosecutor would be able to easily show you helped "escalate" the matter vice using the "NIKE Defense".
Please read my whole post even though it appears discombobulated in the blue box and my final thoughts outside the box
depserv:
Thank you for your well thought out replies Bullit. I would just add that in example 3, as I said, if I do not follow him to his pickup, once he gets his rifle he can kill me and there's nothing I can do to stop him, because by then he is out of range of my weapon, but I can't run fast enough to get out of range of his. So if the law will not allow me to stay within range of my weapon by following him, the law is saying that I can not do what it takes to defend myself.
And that's why I came up with that example. I think self defense laws tend to be slanted too much toward protecting the perpetrator of a crime.
Bucket:
--- Quote from: depserv on May 03, 2013, 10:28:38 AM ---Thank you for your well thought out replies Bullit. I would just add that in example 3, as I said, if I do not follow him to his pickup, once he gets his rifle he can kill me and there's nothing I can do to stop him, because by then he is out of range of my weapon, but I can't run fast enough to get out of range of his. So if the law will not allow me to stay within range of my weapon by following him, the law is saying that I can not do what it takes to defend myself.
And that's why I came up with that example. I think self defense laws tend to be slanted too much toward protecting the perpetrator of a crime.
--- End quote ---
I would argue that self-defense laws are slanted toward putting a high standard on the use of deadly force. That may well protect criminals, but it also protects many others who would otherwise find themselves shot over misunderstanding and misperceptions.
I don't know that laws can cover every instance and you can always think up scenarios where the circumstances result in a given outcome. Most often those situations rarely occur. The law says you have to be in immediate danger.
In the scenario you offer above, the guy going back to his truck has many options. He could decide to get back in his truck and drive away. Are you certain that he's going back to his pickup to get the rifle? Are you certain that he's going to kill you with it? Do you have absolutely no other option once he turns toward the vehicle? Wouldn't there be a set of circumstances that led up to the confrontation that would allow you to avert the need to use deadly force?
The law errs on the side of human life (usually). I have no problem with that.
bullit:
--- Quote from: depserv on May 03, 2013, 10:28:38 AM ---I would just add that in example 3, as I said, if I do not follow him to his pickup, once he gets his rifle he can kill me and there's nothing I can do to stop him, because by then he is out of range of my weapon, but I can't run fast enough to get out of range of his. So if the law will not allow me to stay within range of my weapon by following him, the law is saying that I can not do what it takes to defend myself.
--- End quote ---
If you and your attorney forego the prosecutors efforts to try you beyond a reasonable doubt of committing a crime AND decide to defend yourself under "affirmative defense, just be able to articulate and authenticate your reasons for doing so. Remember you are going to be tried by a jury of your "peers" (hah hah...). In reality is going to be non-gun owning soccer moms and left leaning faculty members from the U (note SFG is a rare breed....).
Finally, I Bucket is spot on in his post. The BG is still a human being in society's eyes....
RedDot:
--- Quote from: bullit on May 03, 2013, 02:03:42 PM --- The BG is still a human being in society's eyes....
--- End quote ---
And he was trying to "turn his life around" right before he tried to rob you at gun point... his mom always says so ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version